Office Leasing · Flex Space · Legal Structures

Coworking Operator Management Agreements: The Complete 2026 Guide for Landlords and Tenants

📅 March 24, 2026 ⏱ 15 min read 🏷 Office · Coworking · Management Agreement

The WeWork bankruptcy in 2023 was a turning point for the commercial real estate industry. Hundreds of landlords were left holding master leases with above-market rents and no creditworthy tenant in possession. The market's response was swift: by 2025, the dominant model for new coworking partnerships had shifted from the master lease structure to the management agreement (also called a GOM agreement, operating agreement, or Gross Operating Margin agreement).

Under a management agreement, the landlord retains all leasehold risk but also captures a larger share of upside when coworking demand is strong. The operator provides its brand, platform, technology, and management expertise—but no longer signs on the dotted line for a rent guarantee. For landlords, this eliminates the risk of catastrophic lease liability. For coworking members (end-user tenants), the implications are more complex—and largely unappreciated until something goes wrong.

This guide breaks down the management agreement structure from all three perspectives: landlord, operator, and end-user coworking member.

Master Lease vs. Management Agreement: The Core Distinction

DimensionMaster Lease StructureManagement Agreement Structure
Who signs the lease?Operator is the master tenant; landlord is counterpartyLandlord retains direct leasehold; operator is agent/contractor
Rent obligationOperator must pay rent regardless of occupancyNo fixed rent; landlord paid from revenue share or GOM
Downside riskOperator bears full lease obligation riskLandlord bears vacancy risk; operator bears performance risk
Upside captureOperator keeps all profit above rent obligationsLandlord participates in upside through revenue/GOM share
Operator insolvency impact on membersMaster lease terminates; member licenses may be extinguishedLandlord can step in; continuity more protected
SNDA protection for membersMembers need SNDA from building lenderMembers need recognition agreement from landlord AND lender
TransparencyOperator profit/loss not disclosed to landlordRevenue and cost reporting to landlord is contractually required
Operator capital commitmentOperator invests in buildout (often partially landlord-funded via TI)Typically landlord funds buildout; operator provides brand/systems
WeWork's Legacy: Why Landlords Moved to Management Agreements
WeWork's 2023 bankruptcy exposed how the master lease model concentrated catastrophic risk. Landlords in major markets faced: $150M+ in unpaid rent claims, years of litigation, buildings half-occupied with brand assets they couldn't remove, and a 12–24 month path to re-leasing. Management agreements eliminate the rent-guarantee risk but introduce new complexities—especially for members who now occupy space owned by landlords they've never contracted with.

GOM vs. Net Lease Revenue Structures

Gross Operating Margin (GOM) Structure

In a GOM structure, the landlord's payment is calculated as a percentage of the coworking operation's gross operating margin—revenue minus direct operating costs, before debt service and capital allocation.

GOM Structure Example — 30,000 SF Coworking Space
Annual Gross Revenues: $3,000,000 ($100/SF/yr)
Direct Operating Costs:
— Staffing: $360,000
— Cleaning & maintenance: $120,000
— Utilities: $180,000
— Technology & software: $90,000
— Supplies & amenities: $60,000
Total Direct Costs: $810,000

Gross Operating Margin: $3,000,000 – $810,000 = $2,190,000

Landlord share @ 75% of GOM: $1,642,500 ($54.75/SF)
Operator share @ 25% of GOM: $547,500

Comparable NNN Market Rent: $45/SF = $1,350,000
Landlord upside vs. NNN: +$292,500/year

Pure Revenue Share Structure

In a revenue share structure, the landlord receives a direct percentage of gross revenues without deducting operating costs. This is simpler to calculate but exposes the operator to a fixed cost burden even during low-occupancy periods—somewhat similar economically to a master lease.

Revenue Share vs. GOM Comparison
Scenario A (Low Occupancy — 60%): Gross Revenue = $1,800,000
Revenue Share @ 60%: Landlord gets $1,080,000 | Operator gets $720,000
Operator's actual costs: $810,000 (fixed)
Operator loss at 60% occupancy: -$90,000

GOM @ 75%: GOM = $1,800,000 – $810,000 = $990,000; Landlord gets $742,500
Operator profit at 60% occupancy: +$247,500

Scenario B (High Occupancy — 95%): Gross Revenue = $2,850,000
Revenue Share @ 60%: Landlord gets $1,710,000 | Operator gets $1,140,000
GOM @ 75%: GOM = $2,040,000; Landlord gets $1,530,000; Operator gets $510,000

Revenue share: Landlord gets more at high occupancy ($1,710K vs. $1,530K).
GOM: Operator bears less risk at low occupancy but captures less upside.

Hybrid Structure: Base Plus Revenue Share

The most common 2025–2026 structure is a hybrid: a modest base payment (typically $15–25/SF/year, below market rate) plus a revenue or GOM share after the operator reaches a "breakeven" threshold. This gives the landlord a floor and upside participation while giving the operator a lower hurdle at below-market occupancy levels.

Key Management Agreement Terms

Operator Performance Standards

The management agreement must specify measurable performance standards that the operator must meet. Without these, the landlord has limited ability to terminate for poor performance. Standard metrics include:

Operator Exclusivity and Non-Compete

Management agreements typically restrict the operator from operating competing coworking spaces within a defined radius (typically 0.5–2.0 miles) during the agreement term. Conversely, landlords often agree not to engage a competing operator in the same building during the operator's term.

Buildout and Capital Expenditure Obligations

Under management agreements, the capital investment dynamic reverses compared to master leases: the landlord typically funds the buildout (since the landlord retains ownership). The operator contributes its platform, branding, technology, and operational expertise. Key buildout provisions to negotiate:

Operator Insolvency Risks Under Management Agreements

The management agreement structure significantly reduces (but does not eliminate) the insolvency risk to landlords. However, coworking members face distinct risks in an operator insolvency scenario.

What Happens to the Operator's Platform

Modern coworking operations are heavily technology-dependent. When WeWork filed, members lost access to the app-based building access system, the community platform, and the venue booking system within weeks. Under a management agreement, the operator's technology platform is typically the operator's proprietary system—not owned by the landlord—meaning a technology disruption can make the space effectively unusable even if the landlord retains physical possession.

Management agreements must address:

Automatic Stay Risk in Bankruptcy

When an operator files for bankruptcy protection, the automatic stay prevents the landlord from terminating the management agreement without bankruptcy court approval. This can leave the landlord effectively locked into a non-performing management agreement for months while the bankruptcy process unfolds. Unlike a master lease rejection (which terminates the operator's obligations), a management agreement bankruptcy is more complex—the agreement may be an "executory contract" that the bankruptcy trustee must either assume or reject, with the landlord having limited ability to compel a decision.

Bankruptcy Automatic Stay Trap
A landlord with a poorly drafted management agreement faced an 8-month bankruptcy process before being able to terminate the operator's management rights. During that period, the coworking space ran at 40% occupancy with no operator investment or maintenance, deteriorating the space's condition and member base. Negotiate specific automatic stay relief provisions or "financial covenant termination" rights that trigger before a bankruptcy filing.

Tenant and Member Protection Provisions

Recognition Agreements for Long-Term Members

Members signing 12+ month membership agreements in management agreement coworking spaces should request a recognition agreement from the landlord directly. A recognition agreement provides:

The Membership Agreement vs. License vs. Sublease Question

Coworking memberships are typically structured as licenses (not leases). A license grants the member the right to use non-exclusively designated space, without creating a landlord-tenant relationship. This has several legal implications:

Step-In Rights: The Critical Continuity Protection

Step-in rights are the most important provision in a well-drafted management agreement from both a landlord and tenant protection perspective. A robust step-in rights provision should:

  1. Define triggering events: Operator bankruptcy, insolvency, failure to meet performance minimums for 3+ consecutive months, failure to pay amounts owed to landlord, loss of regulatory approvals, key personnel abandonment
  2. Specify the step-in process: Landlord designates a replacement operator or assumes direct management; operator must cooperate with transition; technology and data transfer obligations become immediately effective
  3. Protect existing members: Replacement operator (or landlord directly) must honor existing membership agreements for their remaining term
  4. Address staffing: Whether existing operator staff are offered transition employment
  5. Define financial settlement: How unbilled operator compensation, security deposits, and pre-paid memberships are handled
Cost of Inadequate Step-In Rights
Scenario: 30,000 SF coworking space, 85% occupancy, $3.0M annual revenue
Operator insolvency event; no step-in rights drafted; 6-month disruption

Revenue lost during disruption: $3.0M × (6/12) × 50% reduction = $750,000
Occupancy recovery cost: 12 months to rebuild from 40% to 85% = $600,000 in lost revenue
Capital cost to rebuild technology systems: $150,000
Legal fees for management agreement termination: $75,000

Total cost of inadequate step-in rights: ~$1,575,000

SNDA in Management Agreement Structures

The SNDA (Subordination, Non-Disturbance, and Attornment) agreement serves a different but equally important function in management agreement coworking structures compared to traditional leases.

The Core Problem

In a traditional lease structure, the SNDA protects the tenant: if the landlord's lender forecloses, the tenant's lease survives. In a management agreement structure, the operator has no lease to survive foreclosure—it has only a management contract. And the members have only membership licenses with the operator—which reference no lease that might survive.

The result: in a foreclosure scenario under a management agreement structure with no SNDA-equivalent protections, members could find that:

What to Negotiate

For significant long-term memberships (12+ months, dedicated offices or suites), coworking members should request:

Negotiation Checklist: 12 Management Agreement Protections

Navigating Complex Coworking Agreements

LeaseAI can help you analyze your coworking membership agreement, license, or sublease to identify missing protections and flag risk provisions.

Analyze My Agreement Free →

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a coworking management agreement and how is it different from a lease?
A management agreement has the coworking operator acting as the landlord's agent/contractor—managing the space for a fee or revenue share—rather than as a tenant with a rent obligation. The landlord retains leasehold risk but captures more upside in strong markets. The operator provides platform and management without signing a rent guarantee.
What is a GOM (Gross Operating Margin) structure?
GOM structures pay the landlord a percentage (typically 50–85%) of the gross operating margin—revenues minus direct costs. This aligns incentives (both parties benefit from high occupancy) and reduces operator risk compared to pure revenue share structures that don't credit operating costs.
What happens to my coworking membership if the operator goes bankrupt?
Under a management agreement, the landlord retains the space and can step in. However, the operator's technology platform, member data, and staff obligations become uncertain. Without step-in rights, recognition agreements, and technology transition provisions, practical disruptions can make the space unusable even if the landlord maintains physical possession.
Do I need SNDA protection as a coworking member?
Yes, particularly for 12+ month commitments or dedicated private offices. In a foreclosure scenario, the management agreement may be extinguished, and without a non-disturbance agreement from the building lender, your membership license could also be extinguished. Request a recognition agreement from the landlord and non-disturbance from the lender for significant commitments.
What are step-in rights in a coworking management agreement?
Step-in rights allow the landlord (or its designated replacement operator) to take over direct management if the original operator defaults or becomes insolvent. From the member's perspective, robust step-in rights ensure continuity—the space keeps running and your membership is honored through the transition.
How is revenue sharing typically structured in a coworking management agreement?
The most common structures are: (1) GOM-based share (landlord 50–85% of margin, operator retains 15–50%); (2) pure revenue share (landlord 60–80%, operator 20–40%); and (3) hybrid base plus upside (modest base below market, plus revenue/GOM share above threshold). GOM structures are preferred by operators in 2025–2026; landlords push for higher GOM percentages in strong markets.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified commercial real estate attorney for advice specific to your situation.