The assertion that the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) financial structure lacks logical coherence highlights a recurring critique leveled against the league’s system for managing player compensation. This viewpoint often arises from perceived inequities in team competitiveness, limitations on player mobility, and the complexities involved in navigating collective bargaining agreements. For example, a team constrained by salary limitations might struggle to retain its star players, even when those players are integral to the team’s success and marketability.
The value of a balanced, competitive league and a fair distribution of talent underpin the arguments both for and against the current financial regulations. Historically, the salary cap was implemented to promote parity among teams with varying market sizes and revenue streams. Its intended benefit is to prevent wealthier teams from dominating the league by simply outspending their competitors on player acquisitions. Proponents suggest it creates a more level playing field, fostering greater fan engagement and a more compelling product overall. Critics, however, argue that the system disproportionately punishes teams that develop talent effectively and limits players’ abilities to maximize their earning potential based on their market value.
Subsequent discussions will examine the specific mechanisms of the present salary structure, the various exceptions that allow teams to exceed the stated limit, and the potential ramifications of these rules on team building, player contracts, and the long-term competitive landscape of the NBA.
1. Parity Illusion
The concept of “parity illusion” directly connects to the perception that the NBA’s salary structure lacks coherence. The salary cap’s fundamental aim is to foster competitive balance, preventing financially powerful teams from dominating the league by acquiring all top-tier talent. However, despite the salary cap’s existence, the actual distribution of talent and competitive success often deviates significantly from this ideal. This discrepancy creates the “parity illusion”the false impression that all teams have a reasonably equal opportunity to contend for championships.
Several factors contribute to this illusion. First, the existence of numerous exceptions to the salary cap, such as the Larry Bird exception and the mid-level exception, allows teams to exceed the stated salary limit, often favoring larger market teams willing to pay the luxury tax. Second, player preferences and market appeal play a crucial role. Star players may prefer to play in certain cities or for specific organizations, irrespective of salary considerations, leading to a concentration of talent in desirable locations. For instance, the Miami Heat’s “Big Three” era, featuring LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh, exemplified how player choices can override the intended balancing effect of the salary cap. This concentration undermines the parity sought by the system.
Ultimately, the “parity illusion” highlights a key critique of the NBA’s salary structure. While the cap aims to level the playing field, its inherent loopholes and the external factors influencing player decisions frequently result in a league where true championship contenders remain limited in number. This leads to the assertion that the salary cap fails to achieve its intended purpose, making its existence seem illogical to those who believe it should guarantee greater competitive equity. The persistent perception of inequity, even with the salary cap in place, fuels the ongoing debate about its effectiveness and fairness.
2. Contract complexities
The intricacies inherent in NBA player contracts significantly contribute to the perception that the league’s salary structure lacks logical coherence. These complexities, born from collective bargaining agreements and various exceptions, often result in outcomes seemingly detached from the intended goal of promoting competitive balance.
-
Maximum Salary Slots
The designated maximum salaries a player can receive, tied to years of service in the league, create artificial caps on the earning potential of elite players. While intended to limit exorbitant spending, these maximums can lead to underpayment relative to market value, especially for players generating significant revenue for their teams. This can foster resentment and lead to players seeking opportunities elsewhere, undermining team stability. For instance, a perennial All-Star on a team-friendly contract might feel compelled to test free agency to secure compensation commensurate with their impact, potentially weakening the team’s future prospects.
-
Player Options and Early Termination Options
These contract clauses grant players significant control over their contractual obligations, enabling them to opt out of contracts prematurely if they perceive their market value has increased or if they desire a change of scenery. While empowering players, these options introduce uncertainty for teams attempting long-term planning. A player exercising a player option to leave a team can suddenly create a significant void in the roster and salary cap allocation, hindering team building efforts. This unpredictability reinforces the notion of illogical outcomes within the salary cap framework.
-
The Designated Player Rule (Supermax)
Designed to allow teams to retain franchise players, the designated player rule permits teams to offer contracts exceeding the standard maximum salary, incentivizing top talent to remain with their current teams. While intended to promote team continuity, the rule often exacerbates competitive imbalances. Small-market teams may struggle to afford these “supermax” contracts, potentially losing their star players to larger market teams with greater financial flexibility. This perceived inequity contributes to the argument that the salary cap, despite its intent, fails to achieve its objective of parity.
-
Trade Kickers
These clauses provide players with a bonus if they are traded during the term of their contract. While benefitting players, they can hinder a team’s ability to make trades, limiting their flexibility to improve their roster. A team may forgo a potentially beneficial trade due to the added financial burden of the trade kicker, highlighting the complex and sometimes illogical constraints imposed by contract provisions.
These interwoven complexities surrounding NBA player contracts contribute to the perception that the league’s salary structure often produces counterintuitive and seemingly illogical results. The numerous exceptions, player options, and limitations on earning potential create a system where intended objectives are frequently undermined by unforeseen consequences and strategic maneuvering, fueling the ongoing debate about the fairness and effectiveness of the NBA’s financial architecture.
3. Market inequities
Market inequities within the National Basketball Association significantly contribute to the perception that its salary structure lacks logical coherence. These discrepancies in market size, revenue generation, and overall economic influence among NBA franchises undermine the intended parity of the salary cap system, leading to arguments that it fails to achieve its stated objectives.
-
Revenue Disparities
Large-market teams, such as the Los Angeles Lakers and New York Knicks, generate substantially higher revenues through ticket sales, media deals, and sponsorships compared to small-market teams like the Memphis Grizzlies or the Oklahoma City Thunder. This financial advantage allows large-market teams to absorb the luxury tax penalties associated with exceeding the salary cap more readily, enabling them to retain or acquire top talent that smaller-market teams simply cannot afford. For example, a large-market team might willingly pay tens of millions in luxury tax to keep a championship-contending roster intact, while a small-market team facing similar tax implications might be forced to dismantle its roster to avoid crippling financial burdens. This disparity in financial capacity directly contradicts the intended leveling effect of the salary cap.
-
Free Agent Attractiveness
Large-market teams often possess a significant advantage in attracting free agents, regardless of salary considerations. Factors such as endorsements, lifestyle opportunities, and media exposure make playing in cities like Los Angeles or New York more appealing to many players. This inherent attractiveness allows these teams to secure talent even when other teams offer comparable or even higher salaries. For example, a star player might choose to sign with a Los Angeles-based team for slightly less money due to the perceived increase in endorsement opportunities and overall marketability, thus concentrating talent in certain locations and undermining the salary cap’s goal of competitive balance.
-
Luxury Tax Implications
The luxury tax, designed to penalize teams exceeding the salary cap, disproportionately affects small-market teams. While large-market teams can often absorb the financial burden of the tax, smaller-market teams face a significant competitive disadvantage when exceeding the cap. The prospect of paying substantial luxury tax penalties can deter small-market teams from retaining their own star players or pursuing top free agents, effectively limiting their ability to compete at the highest level. This disparity in financial flexibility reinforces the perception that the salary cap system is inherently unfair and favors teams in larger, more lucrative markets.
-
Local Media Deals
The value of local television and radio deals varies significantly across NBA markets. Teams in larger media markets generate far more revenue from these agreements than their counterparts in smaller markets. This financial disparity provides large-market teams with a distinct advantage in terms of overall revenue, further exacerbating the inequities within the league. These local revenue streams contribute to the overall financial health of the franchise, providing them with greater resources to invest in player development, scouting, and other areas that can enhance their on-court performance. This financial advantage contributes to the perception that the NBAs financial structure lacks fairness and balance.
In conclusion, the market inequities prevalent within the NBA, stemming from revenue disparities, free agent attractiveness, luxury tax implications, and local media deals, demonstrably undermine the effectiveness of the salary cap. These discrepancies contribute to the widespread perception that the NBA’s financial structure is illogical, as it fails to create the level playing field it purports to establish, favoring large-market teams and perpetuating competitive imbalances within the league. The enduring presence of these inequities continues to fuel the debate about the fairness and efficacy of the NBA’s current economic model.
4. Restricted Freedom
The concept of restricted freedom within the National Basketball Association directly correlates to the perception that the salary structure lacks rational basis. Constraints imposed by the salary cap, collective bargaining agreements, and associated rules limit player autonomy in career decisions, contributing to the sentiment that the system is illogical and unfair. These restrictions often hinder players’ abilities to maximize their earnings or choose their preferred playing environments.
-
Limited Contract Negotiation Power
The salary cap restricts the maximum amount a player can earn based on years of service, diminishing their negotiation leverage. Even highly valuable players may be unable to secure contracts commensurate with their market worth, leading to situations where their earning potential is artificially capped. For example, a veteran player who significantly contributes to team success might be forced to accept a below-market contract due to the team’s salary limitations. This restriction on earning potential directly impacts player autonomy and fuels the perception of injustice within the financial framework.
-
Restricted Free Agency
Restricted free agency grants a player’s current team the right to match any offer sheet they receive from another team, effectively limiting their ability to choose a new team freely. This restriction can prevent players from joining teams that offer better opportunities or align more closely with their career goals. For instance, a promising young player in a small market might be unable to join a contender in a larger market because their current team matches a lucrative offer sheet. This limitation on player movement directly restricts freedom and contributes to the sentiment that the salary structure is illogical.
-
Trade Restrictions
Players with no-trade clauses possess the power to veto any potential trade, giving them considerable control over their destination. However, most players lack such clauses, making them vulnerable to trades they may not desire. Being traded to a team that does not align with their career aspirations can disrupt a player’s personal and professional life, highlighting the limitations imposed by the system. A player traded to a rebuilding team against their will exemplifies how trade restrictions impinge upon their autonomy and fuel discontent with the existing salary framework.
-
Limited Earning Window
The relatively short careers of professional basketball players magnify the impact of salary restrictions. Given the limited time to earn a living through basketball, constraints on maximizing earnings during their prime are acutely felt. Restrictions imposed by the salary cap might prevent a player from capitalizing on their peak performance years, leading to long-term financial consequences. The compressed earning window and limitations imposed on salary potential amplify the sense of restricted freedom and contribute to the perception that the financial rules are illogical and unfair.
The various forms of restricted freedom imposed by the NBA’s salary structure create a system perceived as illogical and unjust. The limitations on contract negotiation power, restricted free agency, trade restrictions, and the constraints imposed by a limited earning window collectively restrict player autonomy and contribute to the pervasive sentiment that the salary structure fails to align with principles of fairness and rational economic principles.
5. Luxury tax burden
The luxury tax burden forms a significant component of the argument that the NBA’s salary structure lacks logical coherence. This tax, levied on teams exceeding the designated salary cap, creates financial disincentives that disproportionately affect teams with varying revenue streams and market sizes. The intended purpose is to curb excessive spending and promote competitive balance; however, its practical application often produces unintended consequences that challenge the notion of fairness and rational economic policy. A team facing the luxury tax must allocate significant financial resources to penalties rather than player development or acquisitions, potentially hindering their ability to compete effectively. This burden often forces teams to make difficult decisions regarding player contracts and roster construction, prioritizing financial considerations over on-court performance.
One illustration of this effect can be found in situations where teams are forced to trade valuable players to avoid triggering or escalating luxury tax payments. For instance, a team with a core group of talented players nearing contract expiration might face the choice of either paying the luxury tax to retain these assets or trading them away for younger, less expensive players. This cycle often undermines team continuity and can prevent a franchise from sustaining long-term competitive success. Further complicating the issue is the progressive nature of the luxury tax; the more a team exceeds the cap, the higher the tax rate becomes. This escalation can create a substantial financial deterrent, particularly for small-market teams with limited revenue streams. This creates a situation where wealthy teams are incentivized to spend more while poor teams are being restricted.
In conclusion, the luxury tax burden highlights a critical point of contention regarding the NBA’s financial system. While designed to promote parity, its practical effects often create competitive imbalances by penalizing teams attempting to retain talent and build sustained success. The complex interplay between the salary cap and the luxury tax contributes to the perception that the financial rules are not only complicated but also inherently unfair, fueling the ongoing debate about the structural integrity and logical foundation of the NBA’s economic model. The restrictions and penalties introduced in this system has been claimed by many who critize the nba system by saying that the nbpa which represents the player and the nba which represents the owners always fight over luxury tax system.
6. Competitive imbalance
The perception of competitive imbalance within the National Basketball Association is frequently cited as evidence supporting the assertion that the league’s financial framework lacks logical coherence. Despite the existence of a salary cap intended to promote parity, a significant disparity in team competitiveness persists, leading to questions about the system’s effectiveness. The concentration of talent on a limited number of teams contributes to a cyclical dominance, undermining the goal of a level playing field.
-
Market Size Advantages
Teams located in larger metropolitan areas possess inherent financial advantages, including greater revenue generation from ticket sales, media deals, and sponsorships. These advantages enable them to more easily absorb the costs associated with exceeding the salary cap and paying the luxury tax. This disparity allows large-market teams to retain star players and attract top free agents, resulting in a concentration of talent and diminished competitiveness for smaller market franchises. The Los Angeles Lakers, for instance, have historically benefited from their market size, attracting high-profile players and maintaining a competitive edge. This imbalance challenges the salary cap’s intended equalization effect.
-
Unequal Application of Exceptions
The numerous exceptions to the salary cap rules, such as the Bird exception and the mid-level exception, are not applied uniformly across all teams. Teams with established stars or those willing to pay the luxury tax can leverage these exceptions to further bolster their rosters, creating a competitive advantage. Small-market teams, often constrained by financial limitations, struggle to utilize these exceptions to the same extent, exacerbating the existing imbalance. The Golden State Warriors, for example, strategically used exceptions to supplement their core of star players, contributing to their sustained success. This uneven application undermines the salary cap’s purpose.
-
Player Empowerment Era
The modern NBA landscape is characterized by increasing player empowerment, where star players exert significant influence over team decisions and often dictate their preferred destinations. This trend frequently results in the formation of “superteams,” where multiple All-Star caliber players join forces on a single franchise, creating a substantial competitive advantage. The creation of the Miami Heat’s “Big Three” in 2010, where LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh combined forces, exemplifies this phenomenon. Such player-driven talent consolidation directly undermines the intended parity of the salary cap system.
-
Draft Lottery Inefficiencies
The NBA draft lottery, designed to provide struggling teams with an opportunity to acquire top talent, often fails to achieve its intended goal of improving competitive balance. High draft picks do not guarantee future success, and some teams consistently mismanage their draft selections, perpetuating a cycle of mediocrity. Conversely, well-managed teams can effectively develop and utilize their draft picks, further solidifying their competitive advantage. The historical performance of various NBA franchises in drafting and developing talent highlights the limitations of the lottery system in promoting long-term competitive balance.
These facets underscore the assertion that the NBA’s salary cap, despite its intention, has not eliminated competitive imbalances. The persistent advantages enjoyed by large-market teams, the unequal application of exceptions, the impact of player empowerment, and the inefficiencies of the draft lottery all contribute to a league where true championship contenders remain limited. This reality fuels the argument that the salary structure, in its current form, falls short of its stated goals, making its continued existence subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny.
7. Exception loopholes
The existence and utilization of exception loopholes within the NBA’s salary structure directly contribute to the perception that the system lacks logical coherence. These loopholes, designed to provide teams with flexibility in roster construction, often undermine the intended purpose of the salary capto promote competitive balance across the league. The proliferation and strategic exploitation of these exceptions lead to scenarios where wealthier or more adept front offices can circumvent the salary cap’s limitations, assembling rosters that deviate significantly from the balanced distribution of talent the system purportedly seeks to achieve. A team willing to navigate the complexities of these rules can leverage exceptions to add key players, despite technically exceeding the salary cap, while another team might lack the expertise or financial resources to do the same.
Examples of these loopholes include the Larry Bird exception (allowing teams to re-sign their own players regardless of cap space), the mid-level exception (providing a team with a designated amount of money to sign free agents), and trade exceptions (created when a team trades a player without taking back equal salary). Teams have strategically used these exceptions to acquire or retain players that would otherwise be financially out of reach. For instance, a team might utilize the mid-level exception to sign a valuable role player or leverage a trade exception to acquire a needed position without exceeding their cap. This strategic maneuvering, while permissible under the rules, often leads to an uneven playing field, challenging the very notion of a structured and fair financial system. These exception cases introduce additional complexities to nba salary structure, which creates loopholes that are often exploited by various parties.
Ultimately, the presence and utilization of these exception loopholes contribute significantly to the narrative that the NBA’s salary structure lacks logical consistency. These exceptions, while intended to provide flexibility, often serve to exacerbate existing inequalities and create opportunities for strategic circumvention of the rules. This leads to a system that many argue undermines the goal of parity and fosters a sense of unfairness among teams with varying financial resources and administrative capabilities. The ongoing debate about the validity and fairness of these exceptions underscores the inherent challenges in designing a financial structure that effectively balances competitive balance with team autonomy and player compensation.
8. Player value disconnect
The concept of a “player value disconnect” forms a crucial element in the perspective that the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) salary cap lacks rational basis. This disconnect refers to situations where a player’s on-court contributions, statistical performance, and overall impact on team success are not accurately reflected in their compensation. The salary cap, designed to regulate team spending and promote parity, often imposes artificial limitations on player earnings, leading to instances where highly valuable players are significantly underpaid relative to their market worth. This imbalance can arise due to various factors, including maximum salary restrictions, contract timing, and the inherent complexities of negotiating within the confines of the collective bargaining agreement. For example, a player drafted before a significant increase in the salary cap may be locked into a contract that significantly undervalues their current level of performance and contribution.
The effects of this value disconnect extend beyond individual player compensation. When a player is perceived as being underpaid, it can lead to decreased morale, strained relationships with team management, and ultimately, a desire to seek opportunities elsewhere. This can destabilize teams, particularly those in smaller markets with limited financial flexibility, and contribute to a concentration of talent in larger market franchises. Furthermore, the disconnect can distort player incentives, potentially disincentivizing certain players from maximizing their performance if they feel their financial rewards are not commensurate with their efforts. Consider a scenario where a player, despite performing at an All-Star level, is unable to secure a maximum contract due to team salary constraints. This player might become disillusioned, potentially impacting their on-court performance and the team’s overall competitive trajectory.
In conclusion, the “player value disconnect” serves as a compelling argument in the criticism of the NBA’s salary cap system. The artificial limitations imposed by the cap often fail to accurately reflect a player’s true market value, leading to inequities in compensation, potential team instability, and distorted player incentives. Addressing this disconnect requires a nuanced approach that considers both the need for competitive balance and the importance of fairly compensating players for their contributions. The continued debate surrounding this issue underscores the inherent challenges in designing a financial structure that effectively aligns player value with compensation within the complex ecosystem of the NBA.
9. Team building limits
The assertion that “team building limits” contribute to the perception that the NBA’s salary cap lacks logical coherence arises from the constraints the cap places on assembling a competitive roster. The salary cap, intended to promote parity, inherently restricts teams’ ability to acquire and retain talent, particularly high-caliber players. This limitation is not merely a theoretical concern; it directly influences team strategy, player movement, and the overall competitive landscape of the league. For example, a team may be forced to trade a valuable player to avoid exceeding the cap, even if that player is integral to their championship aspirations. This forced restructuring, driven by financial constraints, contradicts the basic principle of building a team around talent and chemistry.
Specific regulations, such as maximum salary restrictions and the luxury tax, further exacerbate these team building limits. Maximum salaries can prevent teams from adequately compensating star players, potentially leading to their departure in free agency. The luxury tax imposes significant financial penalties on teams exceeding the cap, discouraging them from investing in additional talent or retaining key role players. These rules create a climate where financial considerations often outweigh basketball decisions, forcing teams to prioritize cost-effectiveness over assembling the most competitive roster possible. A team with a strong core may be unable to supplement its roster with the necessary depth due to these financial constraints, hindering its ability to contend for a championship. Small Market teams will also have difficulty in retaining stars which might cause the owners to sell the team or move to a more favorable location.
In summary, the “team building limits” imposed by the NBA’s salary cap directly contribute to the perception of its illogical nature. The constraints on talent acquisition, the financial disincentives created by the luxury tax, and the artificial ceilings imposed by maximum salaries all create a system where building a competitive team becomes a complex and often frustrating endeavor. These limitations fuel the ongoing debate about whether the salary cap achieves its intended purpose of promoting parity or simply creates a system where financial considerations outweigh basketball imperatives. The challenge lies in striking a balance between financial regulation and the ability for teams to strategically build and maintain competitive rosters.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions and answers address common inquiries and misconceptions regarding the NBA salary cap and its perceived logical inconsistencies.
Question 1: What is the primary purpose of the NBA salary cap, and does it achieve this purpose?
The NBA salary cap is designed to promote competitive balance among teams by limiting the amount of money they can spend on player salaries. Whether it achieves this goal is debatable. While it prevents teams from spending unlimited amounts, loopholes and market disparities often undermine its effectiveness.
Question 2: How do luxury tax penalties impact team-building strategies?
Luxury tax penalties impose significant financial burdens on teams exceeding the salary cap. This can restrict their ability to retain key players, acquire new talent, and maintain a competitive roster, particularly for teams in smaller markets.
Question 3: What are some common exceptions to the NBA salary cap, and how do they affect competitive balance?
Exceptions such as the Larry Bird exception, mid-level exception, and trade exception allow teams to exceed the salary cap under certain circumstances. While intended to provide flexibility, these exceptions can be exploited to circumvent the cap’s limitations, potentially exacerbating competitive imbalances.
Question 4: How do market size and revenue disparities contribute to the perception of an illogical salary structure?
Large-market teams generate more revenue, enabling them to absorb luxury tax penalties and attract free agents more easily. This financial advantage creates an uneven playing field, undermining the salary cap’s intent to promote parity between large and small market teams.
Question 5: Does the salary cap restrict player freedom, and if so, how?
The salary cap limits player earning potential and restricts their ability to freely choose their playing destination. Rules like restricted free agency and maximum salary restrictions can prevent players from maximizing their compensation or joining preferred teams.
Question 6: What are some proposed alternatives to the current NBA salary cap system?
Proposed alternatives include a “hard cap” with fewer exceptions, a revenue-sharing model that reduces market disparities, and a more flexible system that allows for greater player mobility and compensation based on market value.
These responses highlight the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding the NBA salary cap. The effectiveness and fairness of the system remain subjects of considerable discussion within the league and among fans.
The following section will explore potential reforms that could address the perceived deficiencies within the current salary structure.
Understanding the Inconsistencies
This section provides insights into understanding the often-criticized aspects of the NBA’s financial architecture. These observations are designed to offer clarity rather than propose solutions.
Tip 1: Acknowledge Market Influence: Recognize that the impact of the salary cap varies drastically depending on market size. Teams in larger markets often possess advantages in revenue generation and free-agent appeal, irrespective of salary constraints.
Tip 2: Scrutinize Exception Use: Analyze how teams strategically employ salary cap exceptions. Some teams are adept at utilizing these exceptions to circumvent cap limitations, while others struggle to do so effectively.
Tip 3: Assess Player Empowerment: Evaluate the role of player empowerment in shaping team dynamics. Star players can significantly influence team decisions, sometimes undermining the cap’s intended purpose.
Tip 4: Evaluate Luxury Tax Implications: Understand the financial disincentives imposed by the luxury tax. Small-market teams may be disproportionately affected by these penalties, limiting their ability to compete with wealthier franchises.
Tip 5: Identify Player Value Disconnects: Be aware of instances where a player’s on-court performance and contribution are not accurately reflected in their compensation. This disconnect can lead to dissatisfaction and team instability.
Tip 6: Analyze Trade Dynamics: Recognize that trade decisions are often driven by financial considerations as much as by basketball strategy. Teams may trade valuable players to avoid exceeding the salary cap, even if it weakens their roster.
These insights are crucial for comprehending the debates surrounding the league’s structure. They will enable a more informed assessment of future reform proposals.
The following concluding section offers a final perspective on the discussion points raised within this article.
The Lingering Question of the NBA’s Financial Structure
This examination of the sentiment that the NBA salary cap lacks logical coherence has illuminated several points of contention. Market inequities, contract complexities, restricted player freedom, and the strategic exploitation of exception loopholes all contribute to the perception that the system falls short of its intended goals of promoting competitive balance and fairly compensating players. The inherent limitations on team building and the potential disconnect between player value and compensation further fuel the debate surrounding the efficacy and fairness of the current financial architecture.
The ongoing scrutiny of the NBA salary cap highlights the need for continued dialogue and potential reforms. Whether the league can achieve a system that effectively balances competitive parity, player autonomy, and financial sustainability remains an open question. Addressing these challenges will require a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted issues at play and a willingness to consider innovative solutions that promote a more equitable and logically sound financial framework for the future of the league. The discussions about salary cap must evolve into actual implementions, or the NBA is at risk of losing relevance.
