Ethics CasesSport

Cases · NBA / FIBA / EuroLeague · 2025–2026

NBA Europe and the EuroLeague: Who Owns European Basketball's Future?

In March 2025 the NBA and FIBA said they were exploring a new professional men's league in Europe. By mid-2026 the plan called for 16 teams, 12 permanent franchises sold for a reported $500 million to $1 billion each and four places open each year to clubs from FIBA-affiliated domestic leagues, with a target launch of October 2027. The EuroLeague, a club-owned competition that has run Europe's top tier since 2001, answered by renewing 10-year licences, moving to franchises and planning expansion. In October 2026 its shareholder clubs rejected an NBA merger offer, and the NBA and FIBA said they would go ahead regardless. The case asks what a powerful newcomer owes the clubs, leagues and fans who built a sport's existing structure, and what those incumbents owe athletes and fans in return.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The NBA and FIBA announce a joint exploration of a new professional men's league in Europe.
  2. EuroLeague, NBA and FIBA leaders meet in Geneva; EuroLeague sets out four 'core principles' for any cooperation.
  3. The NBA and FIBA say they will begin engaging prospective teams and owners in January.
  4. EuroLeague names Chus Bueno, a former NBA Europe executive, as CEO.
  5. Adam Silver says NBA Europe is 'on track' for October 2027, with 12 permanent and four qualifying teams.
  6. Real Madrid, the last holdout, signs a new 10-year EuroLeague licence; NBA franchise bids close at month's end.
  7. The NBA presents a formal merger offer to the EuroLeague, according to ESPN.
  8. EuroLeague shareholder clubs agree to convert their licences into franchises and continue expansion.
  9. After the clubs reject the offer, the NBA and FIBA say they will proceed with a new league.

The ethical issues

  • What a global league owes the clubs and domestic leagues that built a sport's existing structure.
  • Permanent franchises vs. promotion and merit in the European sports model.
  • Club loyalty and contractual commitments vs. a club's duty to pursue the best opportunity.
  • Whether fans in historic basketball cities or new markets should be the priority.
  • Fragmentation: the costs to players and fans of two rival top-tier leagues.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
EuroLeague shareholder clubsKeeping control of the competition they own and capturing its rising value.
NBA and its ownersGrowing revenue and fandom in Europe through a league it would run.
FIBABringing top club competition under its umbrella and aligning schedules with national teams.
Domestic leagues and smaller clubsA fair path to the top tier and a share of new money.
PlayersHigher pay, manageable schedules and the freedom to play for national teams.
FansKeeping historic rivalries and atmospheres while gaining better competition.
Investors and football clubsSecuring permanent franchises in major cities.

The case

For a quarter-century, Europe’s top club basketball competition has belonged to its clubs. Today’s EuroLeague dates from 2001, when it merged with a FIBA-run rival after a season in which the two competed for the continent’s best teams.[10][11] In 2025 the NBA partnered with FIBA, basketball’s world governing body, to plan a European league of its own. What followed was not a simple rivalry but an extended bargaining contest over money, control and the meaning of the “European sports model.”

Background

On March 27, 2025, the NBA and FIBA announced a joint exploration of a new professional men’s league in Europe, saying talks with prospective investors, teams, arena developers and partners had begun more than a year earlier. The league would be integrated into the existing European landscape: teams would also play in their national leagues, and alongside permanent teams there would be a “merit-based pathway to qualification.” The partners promised financial support for academies and development programs.[1] FIBA Secretary General Andreas Zagklis spoke of “untapped potential in European club basketball,” and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said the partners would “build on the rich tradition of European basketball.”[1]

The NBA’s case rested partly on reach. By its own figures, basketball is Europe’s second-most popular sport, with more than 270 million fans, and a record 71 European players were on NBA opening-night rosters in 2025-26.[8] Target cities for permanent teams included Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Istanbul, London, Lyon, Madrid, Manchester, Milan, Munich, Paris and Rome. Several, such as London, Milan and Rome, have no permanent high-level basketball, NBA.com noted.[8]

The rules and governance

The EuroLeague is run by Euroleague Commercial Assets (ECA), owned by 13 shareholder clubs: Anadolu Efes, Baskonia, CSKA Moscow, Olimpia Milan, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Fenerbahçe, ASVEL, Maccabi Tel Aviv, Olympiacos, Panathinaikos, Real Madrid and Zalgiris.[9] The league had 20 teams in 2025-26, with the remaining places filled through domestic leagues or invitations.[11] Clubs hold long-term licences. City AM reported that those contracts allow a club to leave if it pays a penalty believed to be about €10 million.[6]

The NBA-FIBA model, as described in December 2025, would offer “every team in a FIBA-affiliated domestic league in Europe” a path to qualify each year through FIBA’s Basketball Champions League or an end-of-season tournament. It would align its schedule with domestic and national-team calendars so players could represent club and country year-round. Zagklis said the format “respects European sport model principles by offering any ambitious club in the continent a fair pathway to the top.”[3]

Negotiation and pressure

EuroLeague’s leaders met NBA and FIBA officials twice in 2025. After the second meeting, in Geneva on October 8, 2025, the EuroLeague said an earlier collaboration proposal it had made had “not received any meaningful response.” It set four “core principles” for any deal: shared benefit, “without marginalizing” those who built the current structure; cultural integrity; competitive excellence; and European governance, meaning “decision-making authority must remain in Europe.” An NBA executive replied that the league remained open to working with the EuroLeague “provided we can align on our assessment of the enormous potential for the game in Europe.” Eurohoops reported, citing sources, that the NBA had told EuroLeague clubs there were no guaranteed spots for all of them.[2]

In January 2026, the NBA began engaging prospective owners.[3] The EuroLeague replaced CEO Paulius Motiejunas, who had said the league would “continue to fight,” with Chus Bueno, who had spent 12 years at the NBA, including as vice president for Europe, the Middle East and Africa.[4] Clubs began renewing their licences, and Real Madrid, the last holdout, signed a new 10-year licence in June 2026, and the ECA board approved it on June 26.[6][7]

The EuroLeague also presented itself as a rival investment. City AM reported that it hoped to raise almost €3 billion from external investors for its 13 franchise-holders, through expansion fees and growth-linked funds.[6] In June, Bueno said offers had “validated a market valuation of €1.4 billion” and set a target of €4 billion within three to four years. He reported that 37% of shareholder clubs had reached financial sustainability the previous season.[7] The board reaffirmed plans to expand to 24 teams from 2027-28 and to convert licences into franchises during 2026-27.[7]

The NBA’s plan takes shape

At the 2026 NBA Finals, Silver said the European league was “on track” to launch in October 2027 with 16 teams: 12 permanent franchises and four qualifiers that must earn their places each year and cannot become permanent. Zagklis said qualifiers would receive “equal starting revenue and equal access to performance-related revenue with the franchises.”[5] City AM reported that the NBA had priced franchises at $500 million to $1 billion and hired the Raine Group and JPMorgan to advise on the sale. It added that Real Madrid, Barcelona and the owners of Paris Saint-Germain were thought to have balked at that price.[6]

After bids closed at the end of June, NBA Deputy Commissioner Mark Tatum called the response “the biggest influx of capital European basketball has ever seen” and said there were “clear frontrunners in each of our 12 target cities.” In July, Silver said the NBA had always planned “to go forward regardless of where the EuroLeague stood,” while hoping for “some sort of consolidation.”[8]

The rejection

In September 2026, ESPN reported, the NBA made a formal merger offer. At a meeting on Lake Como on October 6, EuroLeague owners agreed to convert all 13 shareholders’ licences into franchises and to keep reviewing binding offers for new ones.[9] According to ESPN’s sources, they also voted to reject the NBA offer as undervaluing the league. ESPN reported that Barcelona said it would consider an amended offer.[11] Eurohoops reported a split: clubs in NBA target cities, including Real Madrid, Fenerbahçe, Panathinaikos, ASVEL and Bayern, wanted to keep talking, while Barcelona and Milan were more reserved. The deeper issue, it wrote, was that the NBA “wants full control.”[10]

On October 8, the NBA and FIBA said they “remain committed to moving forward with a new professional men’s league in Europe … alongside partners who share our vision.”[11] Silver told CNBC the next day, “We’re going to get something worked out.” He called a franchise in London, Paris or Madrid “a sort of once and forever opportunity.”[12]

Aftermath

As of early October 2026, both sides were preparing for 2027: the NBA with 16 teams, the EuroLeague with 24.[5][10] Eurohoops noted that the last split, in 2000-01, ended in a merger the following summer, and argued that NBA interest had already drawn new money into the European game.[10]

The core dilemma

The NBA promises capital, global distribution and a merit-based route for every club. The EuroLeague’s owners have spent decades building the competition, and many lost money doing it. Should a sport’s future be decided by whoever brings the most investment, or do those who built the existing structure have a special claim to control it? Clubs are torn between loyalty to a league they own and the chance at a larger one.

Competing values

  • Investment and growth vs. stewardship: new money could raise salaries and standards, but it may shift control to a North American league.
  • Permanence vs. merit: permanent franchises attract investors, while open access through sporting results is central to European sporting culture.
  • Loyalty vs. opportunity: clubs signed long-term licences while keeping talks open with a rival.
  • Tradition vs. new markets: historic basketball cities and new markets such as London compete for priority.
  • Unity vs. competition: a single top league concentrates talent, while competing leagues can force reform but split fans and players.

Strongest arguments

For the NBA-FIBA league: It offers every FIBA-affiliated club a route to the top tier, with equal starting revenue for qualifiers, and promises to align calendars with national teams.[3][5] Its backers say it would bring unprecedented capital to a sport that has been under-commercialized in Europe.[6][8] The EuroLeague itself guarantees places to its shareholders, so it is not a fully open competition either.[9][11]

For the EuroLeague: Its clubs built the current product, own their markets and fan bases, and want decisions made in Europe.[2][10] They argue they can raise capital without giving up control, and the league has reported rising valuations and revenue.[6][7] Twelve permanent franchises selected and priced by the NBA would hand lasting control of Europe’s top tier to an outside league.[5][6]

For caution on both sides: Two rival leagues could divide talent and fans. The last split lasted only one season before the competitions merged.[10]

Applying the frameworks

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be a EuroLeague shareholder, a club in a small domestic league, or a fan in a city without top-level basketball, which structure would you choose? A closed group of permanent members, whether EuroLeague shareholders or NBA franchises, benefits those already inside. The NBA’s four open places with equal starting revenue offer outsiders more than many closed models do, but 12 permanent seats still lock in an advantage.[5] A fair settlement would test each proposal by how it treats the clubs with the least power.

Utilitarian

Maximizing overall welfare means weighing the gains from investment, which could improve competition, salaries and facilities, against the costs of fragmentation, lost traditions and possible harm to domestic leagues. Supporters on both sides claim huge growth.[6][7][8] Projections of franchise values and future revenue are not neutral data, however; they are bargaining positions.[6][7] A careful utilitarian would want independent evidence on how a new league would affect domestic leagues and fans.

Care ethics

Care ethics focuses on relationships and dependence. Clubs, cities and fans have built long relationships with particular teams and rivalries, and players depend on calendars that allow them to play for both club and country.[3][5] Care would ask both leagues to protect those relationships, to avoid using players and fans as leverage, and to give real weight to the smaller clubs and domestic leagues that depend on the decisions of a few powerful organizations.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue: A global league with FIBA’s backing seeks to build a European competition that would compete with, or absorb, the club-owned EuroLeague.
  2. Gather facts: Ownership and licence terms, proposed formats and revenue sharing, financial health of clubs and domestic leagues, and players’ calendars.
  3. Test options: Merger under shared governance; two rival leagues; a EuroLeague with outside investment; an NBA-run league with stronger guarantees for existing clubs.
  4. Check codes and law: Licence and exit terms, FIBA rules on competitions and national teams, and European principles on open access to competition.
  5. Decide and document: Agree on a structure that sets out clear governance, revenue sharing and access rules, with public explanation of trade-offs.
  6. Communicate and follow up: Tell fans and players what will change, review the effects on domestic leagues and adjust access rules if gaps emerge.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: The NBA and FIBA plan a 16-team league targeting October 2027; all 13 EuroLeague shareholders, including Real Madrid, hold renewed licences being converted to franchises; the EuroLeague rejected the NBA’s offer in October 2026.[5][7][9][11]
  • Contested: the value of the NBA’s offer and of franchises; whether any club will leave the EuroLeague; whether 12 permanent seats are compatible with the European sports model; whether a merger is inevitable.

Why this case matters

European basketball is deciding who will control its top tier and on what terms. The outcome will affect clubs, players and fans across the continent. It also shows how global commercial power, a federation’s partnership choices and incumbents’ self-interest interact when a sport is reshaped. The same pattern has appeared in football’s Super League dispute and in other leagues facing well-funded newcomers.

Key terms

Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Veil of ignorance
Rawls’s test for fair rules: design the policy as if you did not know which position you would end up in.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. The NBA plans 12 permanent franchises and four qualifying spots. Does that respect the European tradition of merit-based access, or undermine it?
  2. Was it fair for EuroLeague clubs to sign 10-year licences while continuing talks with the NBA? What did they owe the league and their fans?
  3. Should a new league prioritize historic basketball cities or large new markets such as London and Rome? Who wins and who loses under each approach?
  4. FIBA governs the sport worldwide and is also a commercial partner in NBA Europe. Does that create a conflict of interest?
  5. If two rival leagues compete in 2027, who bears the costs, and who should?

Sources

  1. NBA and FIBA to move forward on exploration of new professional men's basketball league in Europe — NBA Communications
  2. EuroLeague presents four "core principles" for a possible collaboration with the NBA — Eurohoops
  3. NBA to engage prospective teams and ownership groups for new basketball league in Europe in partnership with FIBA — NBA Communications
  4. Euroleague Basketball appoints former NBA Europe VP Chus Bueno as new CEO — SportsPro
  5. NBA Europe set to announce teams in fall, launch in 2027 — BNN Bloomberg
  6. Real Madrid commit to EuroLeague basketball amid NBA interest after €3bn proposal — City AM
  7. EuroLeague confirms 20-team field, expansion plans and franchise roadmap — Eurohoops
  8. Progress continues on proposed NBA Europe league — NBA.com
  9. Euroleague Basketball owners agree to convert licenses into franchises and expand — Eurohoops
  10. The Como EuroLeague politics and how the NBA is already helping the sport in Europe — Eurohoops
  11. NBA, FIBA say Europe push to continue without EuroLeague — ESPN
  12. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver says he still intends to get a deal done with EuroLeague — CNBC