Club Pilates Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $403K – $1.0M
- Disclosed sales
- $988K
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 0.0%
- on 251 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Club Pilates is a boutique-fitness franchise offering reformer-based and mat Pilates in group classes for all levels. Franchisees run studios built on recurring memberships and class packages, staffing certified instructors.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Club Pilates franchise requires a total initial investment of $403K – $1.0M, including a $65K franchise fee and an ongoing 8.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2026 FDD, average unit revenue was $988K[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 0.0% charge-off rate across 251 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low - issued within the last 12 months
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored8 of 8 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $403K – $1.0M
- 76th pct Health & Fitn…
- Avg gross sales
- $988K
- 31st pct Health & Fitn…
- Royalty
- 8.0%
- 72nd pct Health & Fitn…
- Units
- 1,179
- 97th pct Health & Fitn…
- SBA charge-off
- 0.0%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Health & Fitness · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Health & Fitness median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $403K – $1.0M including a $65K franchise fee, 8.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $988K/year (median $978K).
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 88/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 0.0% across 251 loans (well below the franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHPositive: net +150 franchised outlets in the latest year (153 opened, 3 closed); 123 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL21 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 1 names the franchisor itself, 11 its parent, affiliates or predecessor, 3 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Club Pilates Franchise SPV, LLC
- Parent company
- XPOF Assetco, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Xponential Fitness, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Predecessor
- Club Pilates Franchise, LLC
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Michael Nuzzo
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 17877 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614
- Auditor
- Not identified in extracted text
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $227.8M
- vs $204.6M prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 8
9 other brands on this site name Xponential Fitness, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Portfolio: Xponential Fitness
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2026 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Michael Nuzzo
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 2012
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 13
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 83% above the typical health & fitness franchise.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $65K | $65K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $7K | $44K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $331K | $921K |
| Total initial investment | $403K | $1.0M |
Source: Club Pilates 2026 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $403K – $1.0M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $7K – $44K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $65K – $65K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Royalty
- 8.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 2.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 10.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 8.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $550 |
| Training fee | $500 |
| Transfer fee | $750 |
| Renewal fee | $10K |
| Inventory (initial) | $16K – $18K |
| Total fee load | 10.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 107% above the health & fitness norm.
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Club Pilates until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$742K
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Club Pilates unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2026 FDD
Financial Performance
- Avg gross sales
- $988K
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $978K
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- quartile average gross revenue
- Sample size
- 1,005 outlets
- vs category median 11 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $146K→$2.3MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 73 of the 2026 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Quartile band
- $686K→$1.3M
- Bottom 25% → top 25%
- Reporting year
- 2025
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2026
- Disclosed in the 2026 filing, covering 2025
- Transparency
- 4 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · typical
Compared against 173 Health & Fitness brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $988K/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 1.4x.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 10.0% (near the Health & Fitness median).
Disclosure
Transparency score 4/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System expanding at 35.8% CAGR over 3 years across 1,179 units — operators are staying and new ones are joining.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Health & Fitness medians
How Club Pilates Compares
Category median of published Health & Fitness brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 1,179
- Opened
- 153
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 3
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 0.3%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +35.8%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +35.8%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 0
- Transferred
- 133
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 123
- 0.10 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 144
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 5 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
72 current owners across 5 states.
- CA 31
- AZ 26
- AL 8
- AR 6
- GA 1
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20; 1 entries carry no state. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 251
- Loan volume
- $68.5M
- Median loan
- $240K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 0.0%
- on 251 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 100.0%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 0.0%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 52
- Defaults
- 0
- Typical loan rate
- 7.3%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 15.8%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 3,016
- 4.4 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 31%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 74% went to startups / new businesses, 26% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in fitness and recreational sports centers, franchised businesses charge off at 15.8% vs 18.2% for independents — franchising is associated with 13% lower SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Club Pilates charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Club Pilates franchisees
Showing 3 of 52 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Club Pilates from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 75%
- Avg interest rate
- 7.35%
- Lender concentration
- 30.7%
- Job velocity
- 4.4 per $100K
- Startup risk premium
- 0.0pp
- NAICS benchmark
- 12.5%
- NAICS 713940
- Jobs supported
- 3,016
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 31% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Simmons Bank | 77 | $18.6M | 0.0% |
| 2 | Stearns Bank National Association | 43 | $7.9M | 0.0% |
| 3 | The Huntington National Bank | 20 | $4.4M | 0.0% |
| 4 | Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company | 10 | $2.2M | 0.0% |
| 5 | Live Oak Banking Company | 10 | $5.8M | 0.0% |
| 6 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 7 | $1.2M | 0.0% |
| 7 | Horizon Bank | 6 | $2.3M | N/A |
| 8 | Lakeview Bank | 4 | $590K | N/A |
| 9 | Paragon Bank | 4 | $1.2M | 0.0% |
| 10 | First Bank of the Lake | 4 | $1.8M | N/A |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CACalifornia | 49 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 31 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 16 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OHOhio | 14 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MIMichigan | 11 | 0 | 0.0% |
| VAVirginia | 10 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MNMinnesota | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NCNorth Carolina | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| AZArizona | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
With a 0.0% charge-off rate across 251 loans, banks have historically viewed this brand favorably for lending.
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 0.0% — 100% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Club Pilates presents a CAUTION-level investment due to active litigation over disclosure practices, absent profitability data, and parent company going concern issues, despite healthy unit growth.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Item 3 discloses roughly 19 pending/concluded matters involving Club Pilates and affiliated Xponential Fitness brands, including franchisee disclosure/fraud claims (AKT, EA/Yoga Six, Nickle Acquisition, Zaltsman arbitrations), a Stretch Lab predecessor suit resolved for $6.5M, a class-action wage suit settled for $2.15M, and multiple pending Xponential Fitness Inc. securities/shareholder-derivative lawsuits.
Largest disclosed settlement: $17,000,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Not identified in extracted text
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: No
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 88 / 100 verdict
- 01HIGHActive litigation involving pre-sale disclosure violations and fraudulent inducement allegations suggests potential FDD misrepresentations
- 02HIGHPending securities and derivative litigation against parent company raises governance and financial reporting credibility concerns
- 03MED8% royalty on $984k average revenue ($78.7k annually) combined with undisclosed operating costs creates uncertainty on actual franchisee profitability
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail21 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (1)
In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (administrative)
“In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al. On November 4, 2024, in order to avoid the expense of a hearing and other possible court proceedings, the Commissioner of California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) and us, Affiliate SPV Franchisors, Affiliate Prior Franchisors, Former Portfolio Brand SPV”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“without admitting nor denying any of the Commissioner’s findings, to desist and refrain from violating Sections 31110, 31200 and 31201 of the California Corporations Code and to pay an administrative penalty of $450,000.”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (10)
Alex Zaltsman, Fitwell License Holdings, LLC, XPO Fitness Operator, LLC, RH Ventures II, LLC, and PB Ventures I, LLC v. Xponential Fitness LLC, Row House Franchise, LLC, and PB Franchising, LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · Xponential Fitness LLC, Row House Franchise, LLC, and PB Franchising, LLC · filed 2025-02-26 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0001-1348
“Alex Zaltsman, Fitwell License Holdings, LLC, XPO Fitness Operator, LLC, RH Ventures II, LLC, and PB Ventures I, LLC v. Xponential Fitness LLC, Row House Franchise, LLC, and PB Franchising, LLC, American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-25-0001-1348. On February 26, 2025, Fitwell License Holdings, LLC, XPO Fitness Operator, LLC, RH Ventures II, LLC, and PB Ventures I, LLC, current and former”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Nickle Acquisition LLC v. Xponential Fitness, Inc. et al.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · XFI, Xponential, CycleBar and BFT franchisors and SPVs, Assetco and others (the Nickle Defendants) · filed 2025-02-03 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2025-01459041-CU-AT-CXC
“Nickle Acquisition LLC v. Xponential Fitness, Inc. et al., filed February 3, 2025, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2025-01459041-CU-AT-CXC (the “Nickle Acquisition Lawsuit”). This is an action filed by the same attorney who represents the AKT Plaintiffs and the Y6 Plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit and the EA Lawsuit, respectively. The plaintiffs, Nickle”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This matter settled in principle with the Nickle Defendants agreeing to pay $200,000 to the plaintiffs. The settlement agreement is in the process of being finalized.” (page 15)
Rumble Marina Co. and Jason Mighdoll v. Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and Xponential Fitness, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI) · filed 2025-07-18 · Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County · CGC25627419
“Rumble Marina Co. and Jason Mighdoll v. Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and Xponential Fitness, Inc., Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County, Case No. CGC25627419. On July 18, 2025, Rumble Marina Co. and its purported President, Jason Mighdoll (collectively, the “Mighdoll Plaintiffs”), filed a lawsuit against Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and XFI”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
XPOF Assetco, LLC, et al ats Waughland Investment Corp. et al
pendingBrought by a franchisee · XPOF Assetco, LLC, Stretch Lab Franchise, LLC, XPOF Issuer, LLC, Xponential Fitness, Inc. and individuals · filed 2025-09-11 · Notice of Arbitration (Ontario)
“XPOF Assetco, LLC, et al ats Waughland Investment Corp. et al, Notice of Arbitration delivered September 11, 2025. On September 11, 2025, a Stretch Lab franchisee and area developer in Toronto, Ontario, delivered a Notice of Arbitration (as amended April 2, 2026) asserting claims against XPOF Assetco, LLC, Stretch Lab Franchise, LLC, XPOF Issuer, LLC, Xponential Fitness, Inc., Megan Moen, Verdine”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Mark Grabowski, Brenda Morris, Chelsea Grayson, BoFA Securities, Inc., Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Piper Sandler & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorpo
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI) and certain officers, directors and underwriters · filed 2024-02-09 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 8:24-cv-00285
“City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Mark Grabowski, Brenda Morris, Chelsea Grayson, BoFA Securities, Inc., Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Piper Sandler & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and R. Seelaus & Co., LLC,”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Gideon Akande v. Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, Brenda Morris, and Xponential Fitness, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI) (nominal) and certain current and former officers and directors · filed 2024-03-10 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division · 2:24-cv-01928
“Gideon Akande v. Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, Brenda Morris, and Xponential Fitness, Inc., filed March 10, 2024, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Case No. 2:24-cv-01928. In this shareholder derivative lawsuit, the plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf XFI against certain of its current”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Action is stayed pending final resolution of the consolidated Taylor General Lawsuit and WBP Pension Fund Lawsuit.”
JSP Group LLC; Spencer O. Pettit; Jesse T. Pettit v P.B. Franchising SPV LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · P.B. Franchising SPV LLC (Pure Barre) · filed 2024-07-31 · American Arbitration Association · 01-24-0007-0509
“JSP Group LLC; Spencer O. Pettit; Jesse T. Pettit v P.B. Franchising SPV LLC, filed July 31, 2024, American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-24-0007-0509. In September 2024, a demand for arbitration was initiated by a franchisee and its owners, for a monetary claim of $299,999 due to alleged fraud, breach of contract, and violation of state unfair trade practice statutes.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · AKT Franchise, LLC, AKT Franchise SPV, LLC, Assetco, Xponential, XFI and others (the AKT Defendants) · filed 2023-08-30 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2023-01345433-CU-AT-CXC
“Pending Actions Involving Parent, Predecessor or Affiliate Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., filed August 30, 2023 (as amended on March 28, 2025), Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties reached a partial settlement agreement in principle under which the AKT Defendants would pay Laura Hannan and Amanda Davis $242,000 and $100,000. This matter is at the pleadings stage.” (page 14)
Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., et al. v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, et al.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, YS SPV, Assetco, Xponential, XFI and others (the Y6 Defendants) · filed 2023-11-22 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2023-01367265-CU-AT-CXC
“Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., et al. v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, et al., filed November 22, 2023, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01367265-CU-AT-CXC (the “EA Lawsuit”). This is an action filed by the same attorney who represents the AKT Plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit. The plaintiffs are two Yoga Six franchisees (Enlightened Armadillo, Inc. and Snug”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Xponential, Assetco, AKT, CB, PB, Row House, Stride, YS franchisors and SPVs (the Xpo Defendants) · filed 2023-11-22 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · 2:23-cv-03909
“Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al., filed November 22, 2023, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:23-cv-03909. Former employees of Mitch Brown and/or his legal entity, MD Pro Fitness, LLC (the “Brown Defendants”), filed the above captioned putative class action complaint against Xponential;”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties agreed to settle the matter in an agreement under which the Xpo Defendants would pay $2,150,000 to the plaintiffs. The settlement will be finalized upon court approval.”
Concluded (1)
FTC v. Xponential Fitness Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Xponential Fitness, Inc. · filed 2026-03-18 · U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of California · 8:26-cv-00610
“FTC v. Xponential Fitness Inc., Case 8:26-cv-00610 (filed March 18, 2026, U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of California). This matter involves certain former and current franchise brands that Xponential Fitness, Inc. owned: AKT, CycleBar, Pure Barre, and Yoga Six. The FTC complaint alleges violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC Franchise Rule, including”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“As part of the stipulated order, the company agreed (among other things) to pay $17 million in redress to certain franchisees, not to violate the FTC Act and the FTC Franchise Rule, and to adopt certain recordkeeping and administrative procedures. The stipulated order was approved by the court on April 2, 2026.”
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Pending (3)
Gipsman v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Robert Julian (director of Shoals Technologies Group, Inc.) · filed 2025 · Delaware Chancery Court · 202501491
“Gipsman v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 202501491 (filed Dec. 2, 2025, Delaware Chancery Court). This is a stockholder derivative complaint (a companion case to the securities claims noted below) that was filed against a company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Mr. Robert Julian is one of the 14 directors serving on the Shoals board who were named”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In re Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Robert Julian (director of Shoals Technologies Group, Inc.) · filed 2025 · U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn. · 3:24-cv-00334
“In re Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00334 (filed Feb. 4, 2025, U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn.). This is a class action complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws against Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. and certain members of its board of directors, including Mr. Robert Julian.”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Corwin v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Robert Julian (director of Shoals Technologies Group, Inc.) · filed 2024-05-16 · U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn. · 3:24-cv-00615
“Corwin v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00615 (filed May 16, 2024, U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn.). This is a shareholder derivative complaint that was filed against a company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Mr. Robert Julian is one of the 10 directors serving on the Shoals board who were named in this lawsuit. The”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
This list shows 15 of the 21 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 10.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory population | 15,000 |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 10 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 27 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 12 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Within 50 miles of franchisor's then-current principal place of business (currently Irvine, California), via JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules, or via videoconference if agreed |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | California |
| Litigation count | 21 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Item 3 discloses roughly 19 pending/concluded matters involving Club Pilates and affiliated Xponential Fitness brands, including franchisee disclosure/fraud claims (AKT, EA/Yoga Six, Nickle Acquisition, Zaltsman arbitrations), a Stretch Lab predecessor suit resolved for $6.5M, a class-action wage suit settled for $2.15M, and multiple pending Xponential Fitness Inc. securities/shareholder-derivative lawsuits.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 29 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Franchisor's headquarters in Irvine, California (or other designated training facility)
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 13 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisor_approval_franchisee_locates
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Club Ready
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Club Ready
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
73 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Club Pilates franchise?
The total investment to open a Club Pilates franchise ranges from $403K – $1.0M, with an initial franchise fee of $65K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Club Pilates franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Club Pilates FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $988K. The median is $978K. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Club Pilates?
Club Pilates is franchised by Club Pilates Franchise SPV, LLC. Its parent company is XPOF Assetco, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Xponential Fitness, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Club Pilates FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Club Pilates FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Club Pilates's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Club Pilates has a charge-off rate of 0.0% across 251 loans, meaning 0.0% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many Club Pilates franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Club Pilates has 1,179 total units in the United States, including 1,179 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 153 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Club Pilates a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Club Pilates as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 88 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Club Pilates, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Health & Fitness franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Health & Fitness category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.