NBANBAThe NBA has 20 billion reasons to expand, but “not everyone is on board”Getty Images/Ringer illustrationBy Howard BeckMarch 26, 1:38 pm UTC • 6 min
The NBA is almost certainly going to add two new teams, almost certainly within the next two to three years, almost certainly in Las Vegas and Seattle. And it will almost certainly do so for the most obvious of reasons. About 20 billion of them.
As in dollars. As in potentially $10 billion per franchise, which is what NBA owners hope to extract from the two new investment groups for the honor of joining their exclusive club. That massive payout, which will be divided equally among the 30 current teams, will presumably make it worth any risk of talent or revenue dilution.
But it was abundantly clear Wednesday, as the NBA announced its intent to (probably) expand, that this is a process driven almost entirely by business, not basketball. It was evident in much of what commissioner Adam Silver said—and what he didn’t—in the course of a 39-minute press conference. There was ample discussion of the finances and logistics of it all, and relatively little attention paid to how the game itself might be affected.
Is there enough talent, especially high-end talent, to support two more teams? How will the talent dilution affect the quality of play? Especially now, at a time when a third of the league’s teams are barely competitive (some, but not all, by design)? Will adding two more franchises exacerbate the tanking crisis? Will struggling small-market squads have an even harder time attracting players when there are two glimmering new teams in two glamour markets? Has the league studied any of this? And if so, what did those findings indicate?
If the league has answers to any of these questions, it has yet to provide them.
To wit: What is the basketball case for expansion? Is there one? Silver broadly responded to that question on Wednesday, but he didn’t exactly answer it. He didn’t say to what extent, if any, the league has studied dilution. He simply said that it wasn’t a “strong concern” among the owners at this week’s NBA board of governors meeting.
“I’m not really worried about the ability to have [32] competitive teams,” Silver said, while asserting that there’s enough talent waiting in the wings based on the global growth of the game.
Silver noted that when the NBA last added two teams—Toronto and Vancouver, in 1995—just 6 percent of the league’s players were born outside the United States. Today, about 30 percent of the league is international, an indication that there’s generally more talent available now. Indeed, the past seven MVPs have been international players.
“Basketball is played everywhere,” Silver said. “There’s talent everywhere.”
He also cited college basketball, where even teams without elite talent can put on a good show.
“I watch a lot of college games where there may be only one or two players on the floor that could legitimately play at the NBA level,” Silver said. “It doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of the game or even, to me, the quality of the competition on the floor. Ultimately, what we’re selling is great competition.”
But the NBA isn’t the NCAA. It always has been a star-driven league. It’s the stars who fuel winning, ticket sales, TV ratings, and fan excitement. But even after decades of global growth, true superstars remain a finite resource. As we wrote last year (“Are We Sure NBA Expansion Is a Good Idea?”), the number of first- and second-tier stars—the guys you can build around—has remained relatively flat over the past 25 years. If there’s a boom in NBA-level talent, it’s come mostly in the third tier, or what we dubbed “significant contributors”—guys who are valuable contributors but not capable of leading a team.
If you want to see what a team constructed solely of role players looks like, check out the Sacramento Kings, or the Chicago Bulls, or the Memphis Grizzlies. Or check out Wednesday night’s Wizards-Jazz box score, and see how many names you recognize. Yes, the scourge of widespread tanking plays a role here but the truth is that, even in a 30-team league, there will always be rosters lacking star talent and some number of bad teams.
Even the most optimistic league officials admit this much: Adding two more teams means adding two more bad teams. And, based on the history of expansion, those teams will probably be bad for many years.
But there’s no shortage of pro-expansion voices across the league. More teams mean more jobs for players, coaches, scouts, trainers, even media members. But there’s also no shortage of skeptics, both within the league office and at the team level.
“Is [expansion] good? I would say no,” said an NBA front office executive for a high-level playoff team. “I look at some of these rosters and can say some teams have at least one, if not two, players that shouldn’t be in the NBA.” The same exec added: “There should be a concern about dilution of talent. The two new teams are going to be really bad for a while. Add to it that good players are staying in college for the paydays they are getting [via NIL], and there is even less talent available.”
Also worth noting: When the NBA added teams in the 1990s, rosters were limited to 12 players. Today, most teams carry 15, plus three “two-way” players. That means just about every player with NBA talent is already on a roster. The pool has been picked clean. No one is clamoring for the top players in the G League.
Still, some team personnel believe that dilution concerns are misguided. One longtime team exec called expansion “neutral for the league.” Another said that it was a net “good” because of the interest it would create. The same person noted that Seattle and Vegas will be “better markets than some we already have.”
Yet the question remains: Is there a basketball case for expansion? Or is this, as it appears, strictly about the billions?
“It’s that simple, yes,” said one NBA ownership source. “For the vast majority [of owners], it’s a financial decision. There’s no basketball case to do it. It’s all dilutive, and we already have great parity.”
But about all those “almost certainlys” at the top of this story … the truth is, expansion isn’t a given. The league’s announcement Wednesday was intentionally muddy, stating that owners had approved “exploration of expansion to Las Vegas and Seattle”—not, you know, actual expansion.
League sources say that was done for two reasons: as a hedge in case the NBA ultimately decides against expanding and to placate the handful of owners who remain opposed to it (although all 30 voted Wednesday in favor of the “exploration”).
“There’s absolutely a chance expansion may not happen,” Silver said. “It’s also possible that we could expand to one market and not two … or zero markets. That’s sort of what’s on the table right now.”
There are two or three owners holding out among the 30 teams, sources said, mostly because of financial concerns Adding two teams means splitting league revenues 32 ways instead of 30. “Not everyone is thrilled,” one source said. “Not everyone is on board. Silver admitted as much, saying, “There are some owners who felt that we just frankly don’t need to expand. … They felt we were in a very solid place with the 30-team league we have now.”
According to sources, the league is seeking a franchise fee of $8 billion to $10 billion for each of the new teams That would mean a payout of more than $500 million to every current NBA owner—and ample incentive to vote yes, even after accounting for a 32-way split of annual revenues. But if the bidding were to top out at, say, $5 billion per expansion team, that might turn more owners against the initiative entirely, one source suggested.
One more twist, per sources, albeit a speculative one: If another city with NBA aspirations were to emerge with a lucrative offer—say, $10 billion or more—it’s conceivable that the league could turn away from Seattle or Vegas. Because, again, this is ultimately all driven by money.
The only other specific Silver offered Wednesday was a possible timeline. The league intends to decide by the end of this calendar year whether to expand. And if the answer is yes, the goal is for the new teams to be up and operational for the 2028-29 season.
“If we move forward,” Silver said, “I don’t think there’s going to be any problem with the quality of the competition.”
Is that assurance supported by the data? By internal studies? Are league officials truly confident that the game won’t be watered down? That existing teams won’t be diminished when the talent is dispersed across 32 rosters? Or are they just hoping for the best?
At the risk of repeating ourselves: Are we sure expansion is a good idea? Or is this all just a big leap of faith, wrapped in a massive windfall? Is it about the billions or the basketball?
Howard Beck
Howard Beck got his basketball education covering the Shaq-and-Kobe Lakers for the L.A. Daily News starting in 1997, and has been writing and reporting about the NBA ever since. He’s also covered the league for The New York Times, Bleacher Report, and Sports Illustrated. He’s a co-host of ‘The Real Ones.’
