End Slash-and-Burn NBA Economics, Slash the Schedule

In 2001, Forbes estimated the Los Angeles Lakers’ worth at $403 million, the most valuable franchise in the NBA. By 2017, that number had soared to $3 billion, second only to the New York Knicks, who though they can do nothing right on the court, apparently can do nothing wrong on the bottom line. In that same time, the Golden State Warriors skyrocketed from a $166 million valuation to a whopping $2.6 billion. It’s probably even higher than that.

The cash is flowing in from everywhere. In 2014, the NBA inked a record-shattering, nine-year, $24 billion television deal. A year later, it partnered with the daily fantasy sports company FanDuel, gambling in disguise, and a poor disguise at that. Unsurprisingly, after a taste of this gateway drug, last week the NBA became the first American professional sports league to advocate for legalized gambling, as long as it gets a cut of the action. This follows another first for American sports; in 2016, the league moved to allow ads on jerseys, generating up to an additional $10 million annually per team.

Has even a cent of this money been passed on to fans, without which there would be nothing? Perhaps even in something as simple as cheaper concessions? No, a hot dog and a beer costs about $13, double that for a playoff game. Cheaper tickets? No, and that would be a largely symbolic gesture at this point anyway. Ticket prices to the most popular games are determined by the online secondary ticket market, as ticket scalping is yet another former faux pas now embraced in the pursuit of an extra buck.

No, while NBA owners have watched the value of their franchises climb exponentially and players have signed contracts so massive they could feed entire nations, the fan has received… nothing.

It’s time the league gave a little back, took a small financial hit in the name of long-term viability and fan interest. It’s time to get rid of the antiquated, grueling 82-game regular season schedule.

The NBA has a superb product. It’s not marred by CTE issues and political scandals like the NFL. Its stars have significantly larger followings and broader influence than their MLB counterparts. And far more than both the NFL and MLB, the NBA has massive global appeal. At its peak, when players are rested, healthy, and engaged, nothing beats watching the combination of athleticism, grace, and mental acuity required to rise up and win a fiercely competitive NBA game.

The problem is, those games are few and far between. The league continues to fail to address this issue. The “solution” introduced this season of starting the season two weeks earlier to reduce back-to-back games was woefully inadequate and only added to the growing issue of oversaturation. NBA news seems to be in the public eye 365 days a year, be it the NBA draft, Summer League, preseason, or a regular season that now starts in mid-October. The league need look no further than the NFL, once the crown jewel in American sports that could do no wrong, to see how oversaturation can negatively affect fan engagement and, in turn, television ratings.

The financial hit from fewer games would be smaller than one might think. Television revenue, the biggest cash cow in the NBA juggernaut, would go untouched. Just as many games could be televised by simply spreading out the schedule. And this would eliminate back-to-back sets, the bane of any fan’s existence, in which a team who finished playing less than 24 hours prior often competes at a huge disadvantage when they face a well-rested opponent.

Some ticket revenue would be gone, but it would be almost inconsequential when compared to all the money pouring in. Say the season was shortened 14 games, seven home games per team. The recent infusion of cash from jersey ads alone could likely cover lost revenue from seven home games. Ticket prices and television ratings would increase, as games would hold more weight and thus increase fan interest.

And fan interest should be the NBA’s core mission. It’s what will keep it going in the long run. Sacrificing fan interest for a small boost in profit is as short-sighted as a corporation dumping waste to cut costs. Sustainability, as humans of planet Earth are slowly learning, is not only good for the inhabitants. It’s also good for the wallet.

For the NBA, fewer injuries is sustainable. Higher levels of competition is sustainable. Avoiding oversaturation, keeping demand high, and making games more sought after is sustainable.

This idea isn’t revolutionary. LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, and others have talked about the benefits of a shorter season.

So owners — and players too, because, right or wrong, they’re going to make you take a cut — it’s time to look yourself in the mirror. First, laugh. You are making more money than you ever reasonably could have dreamed. Next, take a deep breath, a step back, a moment to think. And be content to give a little up for the fans, your body, your mind, and for the game.