Small Market Fallacy

[slightly biased bias fan]

The new luxury tax rules have already demonstrated their restrictiveness.

The second apron taxes had been portrayed as a way to let small markets compete. In reality it is just another form of helping cheap & incompetent owners.

The Thunder would not have a market size issue if they did not move the team from Seattle. The reason mostly had to do with a new practice facility & renovated stadium.

The same can be said about the Grizzlies who left the third-largest metropolitan area in Canada (Vancouver) for a city with a third of the population. Why? Because the Grizzlies were given a brand new stadium.

Now the new relocation threat of Las Vegas has loomed over multiple teams, one of which is the Mavericks. Again a heavily populated city in a wealthy state that could lose their team to a small market, with a transient style population, because of the promise of a shiny new stadium.

The most ironic part of these restrictions is that all these NBA ownership groups are free market capitalists, who made their fortune on crushing and cannibalizing smaller companies.

[Larry for 3]

Yep. Certain owners were mad at other owners for over spending and making them look bad. Now they have an excuse to be reigned in which makes the incompetent ones not look as bad. But they?re still cheap and dumb in my mind. And about to to get a 300 million check that they don?t have to share with the players.

[gift]

it is interesting that, to some degree, market size is both chosen and complained about by those making the decisions.

[wdleehi]

I think the rules have always been about owners having cover from spending more money.   I think the tax line, the apron issues are not needed for fairness.   

[aefgogreen]

The new luxury tax rules have already demonstrated their restrictiveness.

The second apron taxes had been portrayed as a way to let small markets compete. In reality it is just another form of helping cheap & incompetent owners.

The Thunder would not have a market size issue if they did not move the team from Seattle. The reason mostly had to do with a new practice facility & renovated stadium.

The same can be said about the Grizzlies who left the third-largest metropolitan area in Canada (Vancouver) for a city with a third of the population. Why? Because the Grizzlies were given a brand new stadium.

Now the new relocation threat of Las Vegas has loomed over multiple teams, one of which is the Mavericks. Again a heavily populated city in a wealthy state that could lose their team to a small market, with a transient style population, because of the promise of a shiny new stadium.

The most ironic part of these restrictions is that all these NBA ownership groups are free market capitalists, who made their fortune on crushing and cannibalizing smaller companies.

With regard to Vancouver, I was under the impression they just weren't attracting enough fans in Vancouver and hemmoraging money.  Perhaps I had my info wrong, but was it really mainly about a new stadium?

[slightly biased bias fan]

With regard to Vancouver, I was under the impression they just weren't attracting enough fans in Vancouver and hemmoraging money.  Perhaps I had my info wrong, but was it really mainly about a new stadium?

Vancouver averaged around 17,000 people fans (14th highest in the NBA). This is despite their team never winning over 28% of their games.

The simplest reason was their owner cashed out and the new owner (non-Canadian) always wanted to move the team.