OT This move around NBA ownership has vast consequences

[Idog1976]

I cannot tell you how uneasy this makes me. The NBA is already overtly political with standard global corporate politics (eg no criticizing China) but this will make that pale in comparison. I watch sports to escape from politics and this will make politics central to the League and further distract from what happens on the hardwood. Every off-court statement will be examined for further political correctness of the Globocorp style. Not good.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ign-wealth-funds-signal-new-era-nba-ownership

 

[PDXFonz]

I don’t draw as much attention to the aspects you mentioned.

It makes a lot of sense from the business aspect.

Is Jody going to sell 20% of the team?

Which owners pushed for this? Is Mark Cuban going to be the first to sell a % of the Mavs? Sell 20% of the mavericks for 1/4 of what Balmer payed for the Clippers?

Thus explains the NBA’s decade adaptation of overseas games.

The NBA is more suited to have success in this than the NFL, but I’m sure the NFL will see how it goes for the NBA. American football won’t beat Football for popularity overseas and neither will basketball, basketball leagues are world wide.

Will we see the “Abu Dhabi Trailblazers” some day? I would be down to support an overseas team. Could be good for talent as well. If an NBA team has investment from overseas teams. We’ve seen a lot of overseas talent in the last 50 years. Owning rights to draft players playing for your overseas team sounds interesting.

Could end up having serious potential of increasing NBA global attention. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[illmatic99]

i don't think this is a big deal. more $ in the pool to buy franchises will only increase their value in the free market.

 

[wizenheimer]

pretty obvious that many owners would be attracted to this deal

sometime in the future, say you own 100% of an NBA team that has a market value of 3 billion. You can still own a controlling share of 60% of the team, calling all the shots, while selling 40% for well over a billion dollars (yeah, I know the limit is supposed to be 20%, but I'm certain there will be ways around that limit). And the federal tax rate on the sale would only be 15%; and some of that would be sheltered by initial investment cost

so, if your Mark Cuban, you could, for instance, sell 40% of the Mavs for 1.2B and still be left in control of the team while stuffing over a billion dollars in your pocket, after taxes. Tough life

 

[riverman]

I think now that Melo and D Howard are making bank in the Taiwanese hoops market there's proof that the 30 NBA franchises won't accomadate all the talent that's available...expansion is natural. Expanding here is not as impactful because you have a fixed amount of fans buying tickets and merch....overseas those markets are wide open. Politics are and always have been part of sports in one way or another ...Globe Trotters were known as the global ambassadors for good will...Muhammed Ali did the same around the world as did Bruce Lee, etc....sports to me brings people together for the right reason and if it makes money....it's going to happen no matter if you are an anti vax person or pro choice person. Brittany Griner shows how political sports can be.

 

[Idog1976]

Im not worried about expansion. Im worried about Sovereign Wealth funds which are inherently political and often not the nicest governments (eg Saudi) now pushing the NBA to talk about politics and/or to punish players who dissent eg Enes Freedom Kanter. Of course it makes sense $ wise for owners.

 

[illmatic99]

Im not worried about expansion. Im worried about Sovereign Wealth funds which are inherently political and often not the nicest governments (eg Saudi) now pushing the NBA to talk about politics and/or to punish players who dissent eg Enes Freedom Kanter. Of course it makes sense $ wise for owners.

given the platform and reach of the NBA, i think you're barking up the wrong tree if you want the entity to be completely apolitical.

 

[riverman]

Im not worried about expansion. Im worried about Sovereign Wealth funds which are inherently political and often not the nicest governments (eg Saudi) now pushing the NBA to talk about politics and/or to punish players who dissent eg Enes Freedom Kanter. Of course it makes sense $ wise for owners.

Personally I'd rather wealthy royals spent money on sports facilities and job creation than weapons....our sports are funded by all sorts of shady wealthy people as well...don't see the difference really other than world leaders who have sanctions against them like Kim Jong Un don't get to join in. The best solution for people concerned about the sources of investments in entertainment is to not support any sports that they don't trust I guess. That extends to all kinds of entertainment, like movies, music, etc.....otherwise it's just selective bias. Oil money is all around our lives. Enes Kanter Freedom has every right to protest genocide as he sees it and it's cost him a job in the NBA probably but when I think of the Kurds in Turkey, I don't think about the Turkish basketball league or Olympic team..I think about their military leadership. I separate those two elements...the good from the bad if I possibly can. It's why so many cold war composers and musicians and athletes defected to the West.

 

[Idog1976]

given the platform and reach of the NBA, i think you're barking up the wrong tree if you want the entity to be completely apolitical.

People always are lackadaisical about this sort of thing because it aligns with their beliefs and/or they incorrectly believe it will never impact them. Thinking a deepening of relationships with governments and sports is a good thing is a head scratcher. I think striving for being an apolitical body is a good thing but ya know I am old enough to remember when most folks wanted unbiased things in their lives rather than quite literally everything being political. Silly me, I’m sure increased politicization of sports is a wholly beneficial thing.

 

[riverman]

People always are lackadaisical about this sort of thing because it aligns with their beliefs and/or they incorrectly believe it will never impact them. Thinking a deepening of relationships with governments and sports is a good thing is a head scratcher. I think striving for being an apolitical body is a good thing but ya know I am old enough to remember when most folks wanted unbiased things in their lives rather than quite literally everything being political. Silly me, I’m sure increased politicization of sports is a wholly beneficial thing.

I don't think it's increased at all....in the 60sdo you remember the Olympics with the black glove protests over civil rights or in the 30s and when Hitler attended, or the Israeli Palestinian situation in the Olympics? People don't conflate their sports entertainment with their political currency. For my 68 years they never have...now if you have a need to boycott something and point out a specific situation, I might join in but as a blanket statement I think you're wrong about it being any different than it's been your entire life....it's just that with the internet you are way, way more exposed to it.

 

[illmatic99]

People always are lackadaisical about this sort of thing because it aligns with their beliefs and/or they incorrectly believe it will never impact them. Thinking a deepening of relationships with governments and sports is a good thing is a head scratcher. I think striving for being an apolitical body is a good thing but ya know I am old enough to remember when most folks wanted unbiased things in their lives rather than quite literally everything being political. Silly me, I’m sure increased politicization of sports is a wholly beneficial thing.

That all changed when things like vaccines and masks became political.

Blame the last 4 yrs and a divisive unfit clown as president for that one.

 

[AldoTrapani]

Personally I'd rather wealthy royals spent money on sports facilities and job creation than weapons....our sports are funded by all sorts of shady wealthy people as well...don't see the difference really other than world leaders who have sanctions against them like Kim Jong Un don't get to join in. The best solution for people concerned about the sources of investments in entertainment is to not support any sports that they don't trust I guess. That extends to all kinds of entertainment, like movies, music, etc.....otherwise it's just selective bias. Oil money is all around our lives. Enes Kanter Freedom has every right to protest genocide as he sees it and it's cost him a job in the NBA probably but when I think of the Kurds in Turkey, I don't think about the Turkish basketball league or Olympic team..I think about their military leadership. I separate those two elements...the good from the bad if I possibly can. It's why so many cold war composers and musicians and athletes defected to the West.

Well said Riverman I agree!

 

[RR7]

I wonder if the same complaints by OP have ever been lobbied against the NFL.

 

[PDXFonz]

Can we agree that it would be awesome to see NBA teams have overseas affiliated teams?

 

[Idog1976]

I wonder if the same complaints by OP have ever been lobbied against the NFL.

They were yes. People like to have it both ways to match their partisan beliefs. I’m oldschool and believe in principles which means if its bot ok for one group its not ok when another does the same thing.

Somewhere along the way, politics became sports and about your team winning at any cost and looking the other way when you team did the same thing you castigated the other team for. However, unlike Sports politics increasingly controls every aspect of our lives and therefore principles are key or we simply enter into an economic might makes right paradigm and we are well on our way to that.

Sadly, people by and large lack principles now days and thus they have no problem with their side doing what used to be universally condemned. Partisanship has gotten beyond toxic and I’m sick of it infecting every aspect of life.

The Olympics example underscores my point. The Olympics have always been political precisely because they involve lots of countries. National sports will soon be the same way and likely worse.

 

[blazerkor]

They were yes. People like to have it both ways to match their partisan beliefs. I’m oldschool and believe in principles which means if its bot ok for one group its not ok when another does the same thing.

Somewhere along the way, politics became sports and about your team winning at any cost and looking the other way when you team did the same thing you castigated the other team for. However, unlike Sports politics increasingly controls every aspect of our lives and therefore principles are key or we simply enter into an economic might makes right paradigm and we are well on our way to that.

Sadly, people by and large lack principles now days and thus they have no problem with their side doing what used to be universally condemned. Partisanship has gotten beyond toxic and I’m sick of it infecting every aspect of life.

The Olympics example underscores my point. The Olympics have always been political precisely because they involve lots of countries. National sports will soon be the same way and likely worse.

I think the fact that the NBA specified that these investors have to be "silent", can only buy up to 20% of the franchise and can never be majority owners specifically addresses your concerns. If the NBA announced that they were going to partner with these entities then I think your concerns would be valid but they are putting specific checks in place to make sure that if these entities want to invest in a franchise it will be a purely financial investment in which the franchise or league doesn't have to worry about the politics of the entity itself.

So I wouldn't like it if Iran, Russia or China owned an NBA team or was an investor with a voice that the NBA had to worry about any more than they already do because they do business in and with those countries because they are a global brand but thankfully they are not opening things up to that possibility or anything close to that. They are opening the league up to a vast amount of capital that they had previously not had available to them and putting the correct stipulations in place to make sure any bad actors will not have influence over the league or its teams.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

The reason I am reading this thread is because the Blazers eventually will be sold. You have to wonder if the Blazers will be bought by a group of investors and who that group might be?

 

[Idog1976]

The reason I am reading this thread is because the Blazers eventually will be sold. You have to wonder if the Blazers will be bought by a group of investors and who that group might be?

That’s a horrifying thought. Being bought by foreign capital. Ugh.

 

[Hoopguru]

The reason I am reading this thread is because the Blazers eventually will be sold. You have to wonder if the Blazers will be bought by a group of investors and who that group might be?

Yep, Equity groups are trying ti get their hands on any Pro team.

 

[HailBlazers]

Yep, Equity groups are trying ti get their hands on any Pro team.

Equity groups F everything up.

 

[Idog1976]

Equity groups F everything up.

And Sovereign Wealth Funds are much, MUCH worse.

 

[barfo]

Well, this transfers cash from foreign to domestic entities. And when the NBA inevitably collapses, the foreign entities will be left with a worthless asset.

It's not as good as selling them crypto, but not bad.

barfo