Euroleague clubs shouldn't hand the NBA the keys, whatever the check says

What is a league worth if it doesn't own its own product? Ask the Euroleague clubs, because they are about to find out. Jordi Bertomeu, the competition's longtime chief, is warning that the NBA's proposal would be a step backward. We think he's right, and the reason is less sentimental than it sounds.

The Euroleague said no once, and the NBA is going ahead anyway

The basics are simple. The Euroleague's shareholders met at Lake Como earlier this month and, per Sports Business Journal, turned down a reported merger offer from the NBA. The NBA says NBA Europe launches in October 2027 with or without the Euroleague. Deputy Commissioner Mark Tatum put it this way: "we continue to be hopeful that we'll reach an agreement, but we're prepared to proceed regardless."

Bertomeu's objection, as Marca reports, is mainly about control of the competition. In our view, that is the principle in danger, and it matters more than any single number in the proposal.

Control is the asset, not the check

The NBA's pitch is generous on paper. Per Sports Business Journal, it plans to invest $3B at launch to cover early deficits, and NBA Europe has reportedly received single bids between $500M and $1B. That is serious money.

But look at the ownership detail in the same report. The NBA and FIBA would initially own 52% of NBA Europe, and participating teams would eventually have a majority stake following expansion in future years. That sentence is the whole debate. We read it this way: in the first and most formative years, the people setting the calendar, the media strategy and the rules would probably not be the clubs.

A club that doesn't control the product is a tenant. Tenants get good facilities and sometimes fair rent, but they don't decide when the landlord renovates, sells or moves the building. Add the NBA's promise to "leverage the NBA's global platform" and its "premium IP," and it's easy to picture where Europe's best clubs end up: a regional division of someone else's brand. That's what we mean by feeder brand. The talent, the arenas and the fans are European. The IP and the decisions might not be.

The Euroleague's weak spot is real, and it isn't an argument for surrender

We should be honest about the other side. Tatum argues that only 40% of the Euroleague's current shareholder clubs are considered financially sustainable, and the Euroleague itself says it wants all of them sustainable by the end of the first phase of its 10-year plan. That is a stated goal, not a result. The plan promises, according to BasketNews, €3.4 billion distributed to clubs over 10 years, and expansion to 24 teams with up to eight long-term licences, Greek City Times notes. Adding clubs to a shaky model isn't automatically a cure.

There is also a hard commercial risk. Industry sources quoted by Sports Business Journal believe that if marquee names like Real Madrid or Fenerbahçe left for NBA Europe, conceivable because of buyout clauses, the Euroleague's projections would suffer. In our view, that is the real leverage the NBA holds. It doesn't need to win the argument. It only needs two or three big brands to take the money.

And yet the weakness argues for better governance, not for handing over the keys. A club with shaky finances that signs away control hasn't solved its problem. It has just sold the solution.

Clubs should negotiate, but only for co-ownership from day one

Our recommendation is this. If the Euroleague talks with the NBA, and it should keep the door open as its own leadership says, the price of entry should be real co-ownership from day one, not a promise that equity arrives after expansion. Clubs should also insist on a say in media rights, calendar and licensing, because that's where we think the value lives.

There's a second point, and Bertomeu's critics should hear it too. Fragmentation is a genuine danger. Euroleague CEO Chus Bueno warned that further fragmentation of the market could lead to "disaster," and two rival top tiers chasing the same clubs, arenas and broadcasters could undervalue both. That fear is legitimate. But it cuts both ways: the NBA says it wants to unify European basketball, and a single ecosystem governed by one side isn't a partnership.

Our verdict: the clubs should negotiate, and negotiate hard, but not sign anything that leaves them as franchisees of a product they can't steer. The money may be bigger in the NBA's version of Europe. The future, though, is worth more in the hands of the people who actually fill the arenas every week.