I don't think the NBA gives a shit about that. They are willing to invest in like with the WNBA and BAL.
NBA formalizing deals with Disney, Amazon, NBC that would begin with the 2025-26 season
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I oversimplified the reasons into just "the economy", but investing in the WNBA is, by necessity, a long-term play: the American basketball audience isn't yet primed to afford the women's game the respect it deserves, at least not on the professional level. The universe of ticket-buying, TV-watching fans needs to be grown from scratch, more or less. An additional franchise in the NBA doesn't need anywhere near as much. The Vancouver experiment failed because there wasn't enough fan interest after the lockout, they never got the corporate community on board, and the Canadian dollar was shit. Mexico City is the largest city in North America, with about a million more people than NYC. But the basketball culture would have to be built, and while I think absorbing Mexico City's team from the Mexican League into the G-League starts that process, there likely isn't yet the fan demand or corporate appetite for the suites and sponsorships necessary to make a team viable in a country where their currency is presently worth less than 1/16 of a dollar and the language is different. Contrast that with other large North American cities without teams like Montreal (which is much more bilingual than CDMX), San Diego, Seattle, Nashville, or Vegas, and I think those are the factors preventing an expansion team there.
I hesitate to bring this up, but Mexican soccer-fan culture might also induce some worries about how crowds will be the first time they don't like an NBA ref's call (which I'll agree never ever happens in a game, but still, the possibility is there). Maybe basketball fans will act categorically different, but I wouldn't want to bet on that. The first time Kevin Durant gets a bag of human piss thrown at him while sitting on the bench, every star will thereafter be "injured" for their away games at the Aztecs.
The G League is a good place to start though, I'll grant.
I get what you are saying but Silver seems pretty deadset on making Mexico City a thing in the second round of expansions. I am fairly sure there is some understanding that Mexico will happen with the international rights sold to Amazon and ESPN hence why Silver brings up Mexico City more than any other second expansion possible team (Seattle and Vegas see fait accompli for the next two they will vote on this summer).
FSG looks like the leading bid for Vegas at the moment, in fact I would bet a large sum that FSG gets the Vegas franchise. Where I think the Gary Payton/Griffey lead group will probably land Seattle.
Edit - Silver has been selling the concept of two expansions (30 to 32 and then 36) as he has been selling the TV deal. Publicly he has been very adamant about the possibility of Mexico City in that second round. The G League Team the NBA bought the Capitanes is one of the top teams in the G-League in attendance. They also did over 16000+ for season opener this year for a team that has played for five years. That is really good. The real question is if you can get an active ownership. The taxes in Mexico are going to be lower than anywhere in the US. A max player will save around 10K a game down there.
Last edited:
After @TomRicardo's post yesterday, I did some quick google searching on the topic. I'll admit that Mexico City seemed like a really weird fit when I first saw it on T-Ric's list....
But he's right. Silver has brought up Mexico City and most of the pieces I read (one included some odds), Mexico City is the 3rd location mentioned after Seattle and Vegas.
I am not sure if it's a good move (IMO, I don't think it is) but it does seem to be something that Silver believes strongly in
But he's right. Silver has brought up Mexico City and most of the pieces I read (one included some odds), Mexico City is the 3rd location mentioned after Seattle and Vegas.
I am not sure if it's a good move (IMO, I don't think it is) but it does seem to be something that Silver believes strongly in
CDMX is at 7500'+ altitude and the air quality is horrible. This hasn't stopped the NFL from doing the one-off games, but I would think the NBA would have to consider that carefully. It's a cool city and obviously has a large population to support a team, but there are downsides.
I'll put it out there that I think we see an NBA team in Montreal (#12 media market size for US/CAN, roughly equivalent to Tampa and Seattle) before we see one in Mexico City. I think the reason Silver brings up Mexico City is to publicly emphasize the breadth of strategic thinking that the league has, the breadth of their vision and how open-minded they're being. I don't think they'll actually pull the trigger on that, not while they've got Tampa, Seattle, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Raleigh, San Diego, Kansas City, Columbus, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Austin and Jacksonville all on the board. And Vancouver is roughly the size of those last two.
On the other hand, starting a Latin American-wide basketball league and going head to head with FIBA there - given that they now have the money to light anything FIBA does on fire and piss on the ashes - might be something they'd actually try. Africa is easier for the lack of existing competitions / infrastructure, and Europe is FIBA's home turf with a lot more history and political complexity to the league and competition structure. But South America is an option where there's not going to be any sort of deference to FIBA and they could actually compete.
Imagine a separate, NBA-funded and operated Latin American league with teams and local ownership in (metro population):
1. Mexico City, MEX (21.8M)
2. Sao Paulo, BRA (21.1M)
3. Buenos Aires, ARG (13.7M)
4. Rio de Janeiro, BRA (12.3M)
5. Lima, PER (9.9M)
6. Bogota, COL (9.3M)
7. Santiago, CHI (6.7M)
8. Belo Horizonte, BRA (5.8M - or pick any of a half dozen other Brazilian cities)
9. Monterrey, MEX (5.4M)
10. Caracas, VEN (5.3M)
11. Guadajalara, MEX (5.3M)
12. Guayaquil, ECU (3.0M - probably not Quito since that's at 9500' elevation)
13. Guatemala City, GUA (3.0M)
Take your pick for #s 14-16: Panama City (1.9M), San Jose Costa Rica (1.4M), Puebla MEX (3.2M), Toluca MEX (2.4M), Cali COL (2.9M), a fourth Brazilian one (Porto Alegre 4.3M, Brasilia 4.2M, Fortaleza 4.0M, Salvador 4.0M), etc. All would be multiples bigger than Milwaukee (1.9M metro population), OKC (1.4M), New Orleans (1.2M) or Memphis (1.3M), so even if there's a large gulf in disposable income per capita, there's enough upper middle class people to fill the stadium and plenty of fans to watch / buy merch, and you'd be betting on economic development and growth in fandom to eventually make it a worthwhile proposition.
And if the NBA controls the league, then they can schedule competition against the NBA itself, and/or the G League, or other international competition. It can be another place to stash talent for development and/or find new talent (players, or refs, or coaches).
A nonstop flight from Sao Paulo to Mexico City is 9.5 hours, so that might present a problem (keeping it within South America only, Buenos Aires to Caracas is 7 hours flat). And operating businesses in that part of the world has complexities that Americans don't usually contend with, etc etc. But if I'm the NBA I'm thinking roughly this big at this point. What can they invest in, basketball-related, to keep growing using all that extra money coming in the door? How can they grow goodwill and global interest in their league? This was the single greatest aspect of David Stern's vision and tenure - seeing well before anybody else, as early as 1985, what the league could become internationally. If he were still around, I bet this is what he'd be thinking about.
On the other hand, starting a Latin American-wide basketball league and going head to head with FIBA there - given that they now have the money to light anything FIBA does on fire and piss on the ashes - might be something they'd actually try. Africa is easier for the lack of existing competitions / infrastructure, and Europe is FIBA's home turf with a lot more history and political complexity to the league and competition structure. But South America is an option where there's not going to be any sort of deference to FIBA and they could actually compete.
Imagine a separate, NBA-funded and operated Latin American league with teams and local ownership in (metro population):
1. Mexico City, MEX (21.8M)
2. Sao Paulo, BRA (21.1M)
3. Buenos Aires, ARG (13.7M)
4. Rio de Janeiro, BRA (12.3M)
5. Lima, PER (9.9M)
6. Bogota, COL (9.3M)
7. Santiago, CHI (6.7M)
8. Belo Horizonte, BRA (5.8M - or pick any of a half dozen other Brazilian cities)
9. Monterrey, MEX (5.4M)
10. Caracas, VEN (5.3M)
11. Guadajalara, MEX (5.3M)
12. Guayaquil, ECU (3.0M - probably not Quito since that's at 9500' elevation)
13. Guatemala City, GUA (3.0M)
Take your pick for #s 14-16: Panama City (1.9M), San Jose Costa Rica (1.4M), Puebla MEX (3.2M), Toluca MEX (2.4M), Cali COL (2.9M), a fourth Brazilian one (Porto Alegre 4.3M, Brasilia 4.2M, Fortaleza 4.0M, Salvador 4.0M), etc. All would be multiples bigger than Milwaukee (1.9M metro population), OKC (1.4M), New Orleans (1.2M) or Memphis (1.3M), so even if there's a large gulf in disposable income per capita, there's enough upper middle class people to fill the stadium and plenty of fans to watch / buy merch, and you'd be betting on economic development and growth in fandom to eventually make it a worthwhile proposition.
And if the NBA controls the league, then they can schedule competition against the NBA itself, and/or the G League, or other international competition. It can be another place to stash talent for development and/or find new talent (players, or refs, or coaches).
A nonstop flight from Sao Paulo to Mexico City is 9.5 hours, so that might present a problem (keeping it within South America only, Buenos Aires to Caracas is 7 hours flat). And operating businesses in that part of the world has complexities that Americans don't usually contend with, etc etc. But if I'm the NBA I'm thinking roughly this big at this point. What can they invest in, basketball-related, to keep growing using all that extra money coming in the door? How can they grow goodwill and global interest in their league? This was the single greatest aspect of David Stern's vision and tenure - seeing well before anybody else, as early as 1985, what the league could become internationally. If he were still around, I bet this is what he'd be thinking about.
As he should be--we're talking about an untapped market with a population larger than any current or rumored NBA city. But as you allude to, the team there is just five years old. The Liga Nacional itself, while a successor to the less successful CIMEBA, is only 24 years old. Lower taxes for home games might entice players, but team revenues outside of whatever comes from the new broadcast deal and revenue sharing will be in pesos. The median wage in CDMX is less than $2,400/month. Depending on when the second round happens, it could include CDMX, but I don't think Silver talking about it now (again, as he should) necessarily foretells a franchise expansion there in the foreseeable future. Obviously if he can overcome these hurdles and any players' reluctance to live in Mexico, then he'd be an idiot not to expand there.
It’s gonna chap my ass if I have to buy a Peacock subscription in addition to the NBA package to watch the Celts next season.
I was kinda hoping there would be an ESPN+/NHL-style package as part of these streaming deals. If YTTV can offer a standalone NFL package, presumably any number of streamers could offer the same and relieve us of the dreadful NBA app.
Barkley is pretty pissed and I'm sure he's speaking for the rest of the TNT crew.
View: https://twitter.com/dpshow/status/1793662220397658124
Charles Barkley says morale sucks amid the uncertainty of "Inside the NBA" moving forward. And discusses the possibility of hiring the crew to his production company, continuing to do the show, and selling it.
View: https://twitter.com/dpshow/status/1793662220397658124
Charles Barkley says morale sucks amid the uncertainty of "Inside the NBA" moving forward. And discusses the possibility of hiring the crew to his production company, continuing to do the show, and selling it.
First off I don't think they would compete with FIBA as much as do a joint operation like BAL (Basketball Africa League). In general the NBA prefers to work with FIBA as it sees FIBA as an ally on spreading the game. The Europe Competition is actually doing FIBA a favor as it lost control of the Euroleague tournament. The only chance that FIBA has a chance to get control back in Europe is having the NBA come and challenge the ECA/ULEB [ECA made this bed by continuously antagonizing FIBA and lately the NBA].
As for your Latin league, there is already an BCLA (South America Champions League). When the NBA grabbed the Captianes they were engaged with FIBA on seeing how they could help the game in South America.
wow i did not know the pelicans are that profiable and the griz make more that that that great info
So, big disclaimer up front that I'm not an expert on Mexico. And the league has obviously done way more research and thinking on this than some random guy on a message board. (Spoiler: I am not Adam Silver)
In a world where I was, the Mexican city I'd be thinking of expanding to before MC is 9th on your list: Monterrey (pop 5.4M, about the size of metro Boston). It's a short flight from San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. It's a very comfortable, desirable place to live or visit. And it already gets a lot of Anglo and English-speaking visitors. Wherever in Mexico the NBA launchs a new franchise first is going to get the attention of basketball fans all over the country, and in Monterrey you have a bigger chance of being the biggest game in town. In Mexico City it's going to be harder to stand out, especially since the city is home to three of "big four"
That said, I'm also with you that I think the league is going to talk up Mexico for a while before they pull the trigger. And I don't think it'll be soon.
One big issue that Silver is going to be very hesitant to talk about in public is the NBA's relationship to the cartels. My understanding from my friends (Mexican, European, and America) who work for international businesses operating in Mexico is that the cartels take a pretty active interest in any business that moves money or physical product across international boundaries. The NBA going to Mexico will do the first if not the second. So, that makes them a business different cartels are going to want benefits from. And it's risky to go looking to the Mexican government for help, since the cartels have more or less infiltrated every part of the Mexican government (especially including the police, the army, and the national guard). Which is part of the reason the government's 'war on the cartels' has gone on for almost 20 years without being successful.
And depending on where you go, geographically, you'll likely end up on contested turf. So you'll need an understanding with the different cartels operating locally about how you are or are not benefiting their business, and they may then fight with each other over who gets that benefit. So, in my Monterrey example, you would have to navigate the fighting between Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel. And, I mean, on a particular night last fall dozens of people were dismembered and different parts of their bodies scatted all over Monterrey by one or the other (I can't remember which) over something-or-other. Also, in the last year several cartels have shown they have no fear of kidnapping Americans, which used to be something they shied away from.
So, anyway, long story short: the NBA might be leary about making a really big, long-term investment that leaves them (and players, coaching staff, refs, etc.) vulnerable to cartel violence and pressure.
Edit: if we think gambling and people potentially throwing games is a problem now, wait until Sinaloa is telling an NBA player they'll execute his whole family unless they lose the game, and Jalisco is telling him they execute them unless they win...
While we're talking expansion, here's the other expansion-related pipe dream that would be freakin' glorious but which will likely never happen: relegation
So, the way I dream it up, the NBA does a few things at once:
In my mind it would make the regular season higher stakes and more competitive, especially for all the non-playoff teams. It takes away some (but not all) of the incentive structure that currently makes teams tank. And it creates a natural feedback loop so that poorly-managed and/or poorly-owned teams (like Charlotte) face consequences for this. And the top professional basketball league in the United States is increasingly overwhelmingly made up of really well-run teams.
It's fun to pipe dream about, anyway
So, the way I dream it up, the NBA does a few things at once:
- Announces that the league is going to expand the number of franchises by a significant amount, over an extended period of time (illustrative example: to 48 teams over the next 12 years)
- Simultaneously, the team announces that there will now be an 'upper' league and a 'lower' league (names TBD by someone who is better at marketing/branding than I am), each with 50% of the teams, or something like 24 each
- Every year the bottom two teams in the upper league get relegated to the lower league (this year it would have been Detroit and Washington) and the top two teams in the lower league get promoted to the upper league
- A material portion of the TV rights revenue gets awarded in the form of annual bonuses, so that each player gets (another illustrative example: ) $1M for ending the season in the upper league, after promotions/relegations. So, if you're in the lower league, you have a $1M incentive to get promoted at the end of the season. And if you're in the upper league you have a $1M incentive to stay out of the bottom two. These bonuses are extended to all coaches and assistant coaches, with pro rated amounts for other team personnel
- Expansion franchises are all added to the lower league, with all the entrance fees from all those billionaires being used to (legally) bribe the existing owners into accepting this scheme
- I haven't figured out how the draft would work yet, beyond the fact that I would prohibit teams buying and selling players to each other the way they do in English Football Leagues, so that lower tier teams don't become farm systems for the riches clubs in the upper league who buy all the best players.
- In general, the rules should be set up so that rich owners don't give a team a meaningful advantage.
In my mind it would make the regular season higher stakes and more competitive, especially for all the non-playoff teams. It takes away some (but not all) of the incentive structure that currently makes teams tank. And it creates a natural feedback loop so that poorly-managed and/or poorly-owned teams (like Charlotte) face consequences for this. And the top professional basketball league in the United States is increasingly overwhelmingly made up of really well-run teams.
It's fun to pipe dream about, anyway
I don't think this is revolutionary, but I agree; I think the 'let's start a serious Latin American league, run as a separate entity but where the NBA negotiates / gets a cut of media rights' is a real option... an NBA team in Mexico just isn't right now. There's going to be too much of a spotlight on them to allow the type of palm-greasing that would enable it to operate safely and successfully, not to mention the possibility of really bad optics of having a top draft pick forced to move to Mexico and then have issues.
NBA Nears $76 Billion TV Deal, a Defining Moment for Media and Sports
WWL gets fewer games for more money. Inflation sucks!
WWL gets fewer games for more money. Inflation sucks!
Warner's is trying to salvage a smaller deal to stay in the game.
View: https://twitter.com/RealGM/status/1798786930051875199
View: https://twitter.com/RealGM/status/1798786930051875199
That would be really amazing. Even just like a 10-team second league would open the door for this concept. You could easily come up with 10 viable tier-two cities without a current NBA franchise.
But let's stay focused on the important things here, like making sure we get to hear from the charisma-free duo of Bob Myers and Malika Andrews every night on ESPN.
I would really love to understand Warner's thinking with regards to the NBA. Its clearly a stickier form of content and it has a shelf life too. Add in how difficult it is to achieve the cultural cache of Inside The NBA these days - I don't think it can ever be recreated given how fractured media is - and it feels like they are letting go of valuable real estate.
Maybe that's the best decision for shareholders but it feels like one of those pennywise pound foolish trades people do when they are smelling their own supply.
Agreed. I think they're now just realizing they botched the job by underbidding. The ace up their sleeve is the Inside show which is such a beloved property. They may yet pull it out with a pity offer.
Did Warner underestimate how important the NBA is to TNT? Otherwise, it's just reruns of movies that people can watch on the myriad of streaming services that they already subscribe to. They don't have the NFL and I can't imagine that the NHL draws what the NBA does.
It seems like they said we don't have the cash flow for the initial deal and then said, oh sh*t, if we don't have the NBA we won't have the future cash flow.
You have to give Silver credit. He has Zaslav begging him like a pathetic figure to hand over gobbles of money for this. All because he poorly predicted the market initially.
Zaslav ultimately doesn’t wanna take on significant debt if he can at all avoid it, as their business plan post-merger has been geared towards debt reduction at virtually all other tangible and intangible costs and without any semblance of tact. He isn’t exactly the guy you want shaping content or related rights strategies outside of the Discovery properties where he made his bones, so it’s unsurprising he’s fucking this up for WD. He also could be planning to parachute out of there after some future M and A development anyways, and a half-assed deal for some limited NBA package could salvage some value for anyone looking to buy all of, or parts of, WD in the future.
Sports rights to the NFL and NBA are pure gold, from a corporate/shareholders interest perspective it’s indefensible how they’ve handled this.
Sports rights to the NFL and NBA are pure gold, from a corporate/shareholders interest perspective it’s indefensible how they’ve handled this.
In case you missed it, last night Barkley says he's retiring after next year no matter what.
View: https://twitter.com/awfulannouncing/status/1801832214063419473
Charles Barkley: "I ain't going nowhere other than TNT. But, I have made the decision the myself- no matter what happens, next year is going to be my last year on television... I'm not going to another network... Next year, I'm going to just retire after 25 years."
View: https://twitter.com/awfulannouncing/status/1801832214063419473
Charles Barkley: "I ain't going nowhere other than TNT. But, I have made the decision the myself- no matter what happens, next year is going to be my last year on television... I'm not going to another network... Next year, I'm going to just retire after 25 years."
This deal is officially done but Warner might still sue.
View: https://twitter.com/THR/status/1811146804559548456
NBA Finalizes TV Deals With Disney, NBC and Amazon ... But TNT's Future Unclear
NEWS: The NBA has finalized contracts with NBC and Amazon Prime Video, while maintaining ESPN as the home of The Finals, under agreements that will extend for 11 seasons and be worth $76 billion. TNT Sports continues to threaten to match.
View: https://twitter.com/THR/status/1811146804559548456
NBA Finalizes TV Deals With Disney, NBC and Amazon ... But TNT's Future Unclear
View: https://twitter.com/TheAthletic/status/1811107560260522015
NEWS: The NBA has finalized contracts with NBC and Amazon Prime Video, while maintaining ESPN as the home of The Finals, under agreements that will extend for 11 seasons and be worth $76 billion. TNT Sports continues to threaten to match.
I am surprised that either side thinks an 11-year deal is a good idea.
You'd think the NBA would believe its product will always be growing in value while these streamers have no idea what the "TV" landscape will look like in 5 years, never mind 10, never mind 11.
Agreed, they have no idea what's coming in 11 years. The Finals on ESPN but not ABC also seems like a huge break with tradition.
Hasn't it been "ESPN on ABC" branded for a while? I assume it will be a continuation of that?
Feels like this is the kind of deal the NBA makes if they think they've hit Peak TV Rights, and want to lock in that mania for as long as possible in what they expect might be a flat or declining market from that point forward.
Good luck to Wyc on selling the team for top dollar if the NBA is implying they don't think their TV rights package will ever be more valuable than it is now.
Earlier in the thread someone noted this triples the prior tv deal. I don’t think anyone was expecting the deal to be this big. If anything it increases the value of the Celtics.
NBC wasnt able to negotiate for the Finals? And it’s not like they’re afraid of expensive prime time sports programming. Sad.
It feels like there has to be some sort of specific reason why the deal is 11 years and maybe it has nothing to do with what we think.
Also, regarding Wyc or anyone else who may be selling, this allows buyers to model cash flows over a significant period of time with confidence. That said, the NBA appears to be opening up governorship stakes for a wider range of potential buyers including sovereign wealth etc. What we may not be accounting for is how that might help expand team brands and the league globally.
On a final note, the NBA on TNT will probably get its best ratings in years next season.
This means the lower revenue teams will have free tickets and merch at cost, right?
You can probably get 'Zards tickets and merch pretty cheap these days.
I hear those Avdija jerseys can be had pretty reasonably.
If the Silna brothers didn’t agree to a lump sum to end their deal where they get 1/7th of the broadcast revenue of each of the four former NBA teams, the surviving brother and the deceased brother’s heirs would be looking at a windfall of around $1,5 billion with the new broadcast deal.
They settled in 2014 for a half billion, and would have made an additional half billion off the expiring national tv deal. So the $125 million that the Pacers Nets, Nuggets, and Spurs paid to get out of the deal will now pay off big time.(and this doesn’t even take into account the savings from local tv deals)
They settled in 2014 for a half billion, and would have made an additional half billion off the expiring national tv deal. So the $125 million that the Pacers Nets, Nuggets, and Spurs paid to get out of the deal will now pay off big time.(and this doesn’t even take into account the savings from local tv deals)
Long term media deals are the norm. The current NBA media deal was for 9 years. The NFL did a 10 year deal running from 2023-2033.
Ha, it had been a while since we heard from Dolan.
View: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1813042612145635804
Full ESPN story on Knicks owner James Dolan’s sharp criticisms surrounding new $74.6 billion media rights deal outlined in his letter to the league’s Board of Governors:
View: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1813042612145635804
Full ESPN story on Knicks owner James Dolan’s sharp criticisms surrounding new $74.6 billion media rights deal outlined in his letter to the league’s Board of Governors:
Sounds like a lot of whining about a competitive advantage being whittled away in favor of a more level playing field.