NBA Expansion a no go?
Over the last five years, one of the NBA’s hottest topics has been the ever-looming question of expansion — specifically, when the league will add teams in cities like Seattle and Las Vegas.
While expansion would, in theory, grow the NBA to new heights and “expand” the league’s audience, the biggest holdup seems to be money distribution. Mark Cuban recently explained that basketball-related income would need to be divided among 32 teams instead of the current 30. That means each team would receive a smaller share, effectively lowering the salary cap available to them. In today’s NBA — where the second apron already makes roster building incredibly difficult — any further reduction in cap space would only make a general manager’s job more challenging.
In addition to players and coaches, owners and other stakeholders would likely see a dip in their income. League-wide revenue streams — from national TV deals to sponsorships and brand partnerships — would no longer be divided 30 ways, but 31 (or eventually 32) ways. That means smaller slices of the pie for each ownership group. For franchises that are already hesitant about stricter cap rules and the financial strain of the second apron, the idea of splitting revenue further only adds to the resistance toward expansion.
However, the league will eventually reap the rewards of expansion. It’s less a question of “if” and more a matter of “when.” Once the process officially begins, the NBA will open the door to untapped markets, new revenue streams, and a wider fan base.
The basketball product would undoubtedly benefit from introducing teams in markets like Seattle and Las Vegas. The business implications are what makes the decision ultimately more complicated.
Expansion fees tell a different story where owners would likely benefit from the decision to expand, even in the short term. When the Charlotte Bobcats entered the league in 2004, their $300 million expansion fee was split evenly among the 29 existing owners. Fast forward to today, and most estimates place an expansion fee for Seattle and Las Vegas at $3–4 billion apiece. That’s potentially $200+ million directly into each owner’s pocket just for saying yes. In addition, new franchises raise the overall valuation of the NBA itself, strengthening future TV rights negotiations, sponsorship packages, and global branding opportunities.
The appeal of untapped market growth never fades. Seattle has been clamoring for basketball since the Sonics left in 2008, and Las Vegas has already proven its viability with the Aces, Raiders, and Golden Knights. Expansion into these markets doesn’t just bring in new fans — it opens the door for fresh corporate partnerships, increased arena revenue, and localized media deals. In the long run, those added revenue streams could more than offset the short-term dilution of shared income.
In other words, expansion is a delicate balance of short-term sacrifice versus long-term gain. Owners may hesitate to accept smaller yearly slices of the pie, but the bigger picture suggests that expansion could create a larger pie for decades to come.
