My Anti-Tank Proposal: Performance-Based Revenue Share
Hey all — I decided to take a stab at the anti-tank problem, and I think I have a solution that makes the most sense, and one owners may never want to publicly discuss.
Every solution posed keeps trying to fix tanking through the draft… flattening odds, play-in tweaks, etc.
But that’s all probabilistic deterrence. It punishes teams that aren't trying to tank but just have bad GMs or unfortunate circumstances.
If the NBA actually wanted to eliminate tanking, the solution is simpler:
- Make losing financially painful.
- Make winning financially rewarding.
And yes… I have Jerry in mind when I talk about this. I think the best way to prevent tanking is to have ownership be against tanking, and the best way to get competitive teams is to make ownership want to be the best regular season team.
We can achieve this through the NBA revenue share payout.
After Basketball Related Income (BRI) is split, teams share a revenue-sharing pool.
Right now, that pool is distributed relatively evenly.
Instead of the even distribution, I think the NBA should turn that pool into a performance-based payout system:
- Better record means a bigger share of the pie.
- Worse record means a smaller share.
No lottery gimmicks. Just real incentives.
To achieve this, I think something like the below can work.
First, I’d create a general tier or grouping for how the whole revenue share pie is distributed. Let’s use $1.5 billion as an example of the total pool amount.
| Tier | Teams | % of Pool | Total $ Allocation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contenders | 1–6 | 33% | $495,000,000 |
| Playoff | 7–14 | 33% | $495,000,000 |
| Play-in | 15–18 | 16% | $240,000,000 |
| Lottery | 19–26 | 16% | $240,000,000 |
| Bottom 4 | 27–30 | 2% | $30,000,000 |
The grouping here should be obvious. The top 6 teams get rewarded the most, the rest of the playoff teams next, the play-in teams after that, the non-playoff teams get the same amount as the play-in teams as a whole but distributed among more teams, and then the 4 worst teams get very little.
Here’s what the final result looks like:
| Tier | Rank | % Share | $ Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contender | 1st | 5.90% | $88,500,000 |
| Contender | 2nd | 5.75% | $86,250,000 |
| Contender | 3rd | 5.60% | $84,000,000 |
| Contender | 4th | 5.45% | $81,750,000 |
| Contender | 5th | 5.30% | $79,500,000 |
| Contender | 6th | 5.00% | $75,000,000 |
| Contender TOTAL | — | 33.00% | $495,000,000 |
| Playoff | 7th | 4.24% | $63,600,000 |
| Playoff | 8th | 4.20% | $63,000,000 |
| Playoff | 9th | 4.16% | $62,400,000 |
| Playoff | 10th | 4.12% | $61,800,000 |
| Playoff | 11th | 4.10% | $61,500,000 |
| Playoff | 12th | 4.08% | $61,200,000 |
| Playoff | 13th | 4.06% | $60,900,000 |
| Playoff | 14th | 4.04% | $60,600,000 |
| Playoff TOTAL | — | 33.00% | $495,000,000 |
| Play-in | 15th | 4.03% | $60,450,000 |
| Play-in | 16th | 4.01% | $60,150,000 |
| Play-in | 17th | 3.99% | $59,850,000 |
| Play-in | 18th | 3.97% | $59,550,000 |
| Play-in TOTAL | — | 16.00% | $240,000,000 |
| Lottery | 19th | 2.50% | $37,500,000 |
| Lottery | 20th | 2.35% | $35,250,000 |
| Lottery | 21st | 2.20% | $33,000,000 |
| Lottery | 22nd | 2.05% | $30,750,000 |
| Lottery | 23rd | 1.90% | $28,500,000 |
| Lottery | 24th | 1.75% | $26,250,000 |
| Lottery | 25th | 1.65% | $24,750,000 |
| Lottery | 26th | 1.60% | $24,000,000 |
| Lottery TOTAL | — | 16.00% | $240,000,000 |
| Bottom 4 | 27th | 0.80% | $12,000,000 |
| Bottom 4 | 28th | 0.60% | $9,000,000 |
| Bottom 4 | 29th | 0.40% | $6,000,000 |
| Bottom 4 | 30th | 0.20% | $3,000,000 |
| Bottom 4 TOTAL | — | 2.00% | $30,000,000 |
| GRAND TOTAL | — | 100.00% | $1,500,000,000 |
Something like this would encourage teams to stay out of the lottery and really incentivize being a contender in the regular season.
I feel this would have a far better effect on tanking strategies.
Looking forward to what y’all think. Open to suggestions.
