Two people can be excited about the same SportsTech idea and still want very different companies.
One wants to build a profitable business serving independent coaches. The other wants to raise capital, expand internationally and pursue a much larger market. Neither ambition is inherently wrong. Leaving the difference unspoken makes later decisions harder.
Before discussing the percentage each person should own, I would discuss the commitments each person is prepared to make and the kind of business they want to create.
Start with individual answers
Antler’s work on cofounding teams emphasises complementary skills and alignment on goals and values. That is a helpful starting point, rather than a rule that every company needs a particular number of founders.
Have each founder answer independently:
What would make this company successful for you in three years?
How much time can you commit over the next six months?
What income do you need, and from when?
Which responsibilities can you own without supervision?
How do you feel about external investment and dilution?
What would make you leave?
How should we handle a disagreement we cannot resolve?
Compare the answers before trying to negotiate them. Agreement achieved by avoiding the uncomfortable parts will be difficult to rely on later.
Separate ownership from operating authority
Equity is an economic interest. Day-to-day decisions also need a clear process. If every feature, expenditure and customer promise requires everyone to agree, a small team can become surprisingly slow.
Create a decision sheet with three columns: decision, owner and consultation required. Add the boundaries within which the owner can act.
For example, a technical founder might own implementation choices within an agreed budget and security standard. The commercial founder might own customer proposals within an agreed scope and pricing policy. Changes that materially affect ownership, debt or strategic direction need a separately agreed process.
These are operating examples, not a proposed legal structure. Put the questions into a founder discussion and take the resulting agreement to appropriate legal advisers for the company’s jurisdiction.
Test working together
Consider a hypothetical pair building software for sports facilities. Before committing to the long-term relationship, they work on a bounded project: interview operators, define one workflow and deliver a small test.
The useful observations include whether each person delivers, raises concerns early, handles feedback and respects the other’s expertise. A good conversation gives you information. Doing difficult work together gives you another kind of information.
Set expectations for the test, including compensation, access and ownership of anything created. An informal trial should not quietly create ambiguity about the product.
Revisit the agreement when reality changes
Availability, family responsibilities and financial needs can change. A role that made sense at the start may no longer fit. Schedule regular reviews of responsibilities and commitments so that adjustments happen through a conversation rather than accumulated resentment.
Building a company is hard, especially when you cannot yet pay yourself. I’ve been there. People around you may struggle to understand why you keep going when a corporate job could offer a salary, stability and a clearer separation between work and life.
Choosing entrepreneurship can mean accepting uncertainty that also affects the people closest to you. Your co-founder may be willing to make a very different trade-off. That deserves an honest conversation.
In the early days, your co-founders may be the people you spend the most time with. You are building the product, finding customers and making difficult decisions together. As the company grows and you bring more people in, you also become responsible for giving those teams direction and helping them execute.
That relationship needs more than complementary skills.
You do not need the same personality or identical opinions. You do need enough common ground on values, ambition and how you treat people, especially under pressure.
How do you handle disagreement? Can you admit a mistake? Can someone challenge your decision without it becoming personal?
In my experience, ego can damage a founding team from the inside. When protecting your position becomes more important than solving the problem, even ordinary decisions become difficult.
Sometimes, despite everyone’s effort, continuing together no longer makes sense. One founder may need to step away from the company they helped build.
This is another reason to understand the agreements before signing them. Vesting, share repurchase provisions and good-leaver or bad-leaver clauses can materially affect what happens when someone leaves. Get independent legal advice while the relationship is healthy, when there is time to discuss the implications properly.
If a departure becomes necessary, handle it with clarity and generosity. Acknowledge what the person contributed, agree on a practical handover and treat them with respect throughout the process.
Leaving can be the right decision and still be painful.
I see entrepreneurship as a long game. The way we treat people during a difficult ending shapes the relationships and trust we carry into whatever comes next. A partnership that does not work out today does not erase its value or rule out working together again.
Before your next equity conversation
Write down the company each founder wants to build, the time and financial commitment each can realistically make, and the decisions each expects to own.
Compare your answers. Identify the differences that need resolving and the questions that need specialist advice. Agree on when you will revisit the conversation.
Which founder decision have you postponed because the conversation feels uncomfortable?
You can reply privately. I’d like future articles and founder conversations to address the situations you’re actually facing.