The Leap of Faith in European Basketball

The proposed model outlines a restructuring of revenue streams, an influx of new capital, governance changes, and ultimately, control over the entire ecosystem. The ambition is to unify the system, expand into Western Europe, and significantly boost its financial ceiling. TV rights are set to be reshaped and distributed more globally, sponsorships will be scaled up, and ticketing is based on the premise that each game can generate more than double its current revenue – not through more games, but through higher value per game.

However, the core tension lies elsewhere. While financial projections are significantly increasing, the athletic product itself remains largely unchanged. Simultaneously, traditional basketball markets are expected to see reduced participation.

Fewer teams, a smaller local presence, yet higher revenue expectations. The assumption is that a stronger global brand and a more centralized distribution approach can offset a diminished local base.

Whether this can work in Europe remains uncertain. Europe is not the United States. It is fragmented, culturally deeply rooted, and built upon strong local ecosystems.

Capital is presented as an opportunity, but much of it funds franchise fees. Clubs are raising capital not to strengthen their projects, but to gain access to the system. A franchise logic reminiscent of what we see in many industries.

Think of it this way: to open a McDonald's, one pays to gain access to a model. In this case, however, the starting point could be different. European basketball is more akin to a network of restaurants. In this logic, the buyer should be paying to access the network – not the other way around.

Profitability is often used as an argument to question value. European basketball isn't consistently profitable, so why invest? This may be true. But profitability and value are not the same. The ecosystem possesses value built over decades, independently appraised at over 3.2 billion euros. In most industries, capital flows towards value. Here, those who created it are asked to pay to access it. This is where the symmetry breaks.

At the same time, the most crucial level is largely absent from the discussion. Long-term value lies in infrastructure: arenas, development areas, data, and commercial platforms that operate year-round. Once the model is accepted, the next step becomes clear: more capital, larger projects, and control over these infrastructures. And then, decision-making moves even further away from the markets where the value was originally created.

There's no doubt the NBA can create value. Its execution capability is unparalleled. But that's not the main question. The question is how to balance the asymmetry being introduced. Because it's not just about creating something new. It's about how much of what already exists will be relinquished – and who will ultimately reap the value.