Earlier this year I proposed a solution to the NBA’s problem regarding the potential relocation of the Sacramento Kings to Seattle. More specifically, I proposed the most equitable solution based on all of the unique factors involved, righting some previous wrongs without creating new wrongs. Here is the article in case you missed it.

Alright, so we’ve had lots of action since the end of January when the above article was written. Kevin Johnson has rallied the Sacramento side by securing a strong ownership group, along with a plan for a new arena in downtown Sacramento. Whether or not the arena plan is a house of cards remains to be seen, but nevertheless one must tip his or her cap to Johnson for putting the ownership group and arena plans together on the fly.  

Not as much has changed on the Seattle side, as the ducks were already lined up for the most part for the Sonics' return. Each side will be dealing with upcoming lawsuits, although as of this very moment, none of the lawsuits look terribly threatening. That could change, but as of now, nothing insurmountable appears on that front.

As both the Seattle and Sacramento ownership groups and local officials made presentations to the NBA on April 3, 2013, the following points became crystal clear:

  • Both Seattle and Sacramento deserve NBA teams, and not just because of great fan support, but because they have obliged with the NBA’s blueprint for having a franchise (strong ownership, plans for a first class arena and pledges for community support).
  • Turning down either city will lead to very bad consequences for the NBA.

To examine the second point in greater detail, let’s take a closer look at Seattle’s situation first. If the NBA owners deny the sale by the Maloofs to Chris Hansen and his Seattle group, they will set a precedent for denying sales of their own teams once they are ready to sell. No owner wants to be restricted with respect to whom they can sell their team. Reject this sale now, and risk having your own sale rejected down the line. 

Also an important, but much less discussed danger in turning down the Maloof-Hansen deal is the potential for an antitrust lawsuit. The NBA, unlike Major League Baseball, does not have an antitrust exemption, and as such, vetoing the Maloof-Hansen deal could lead to a nasty, lengthy lawsuit against the NBA. As for a way-too-simple explanation of antitrust law, actions and laws which restrict the free flow of business may be a violation of antitrust law. The rejection of a sale agreement for an NBA team may be ruled by the courts to violate antitrust laws. The NFL’s Raiders won an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL in the early 1980’s with respect to moving from Oakland to Los Angeles. So the threat of an antitrust violation is very real. Whether the Maloofs (much more likely) or Hansen (less likely) would bring such an antitrust suit is not known, but if such a suit is brought, things could get extremely ugly in a hurry.

One final, and probably most important point to consider in relation to rejecting the sale to the Hansen group is the loss of the Seattle market for the long term, and very possibly for good. Unrealized by folks outside of the Seattle area, Chris Hansen rounding up support for the return of the Sonics and the NBA in Seattle is nothing short of remarkable considering the punch in the gut that Sonics fans took once the team left for Oklahoma City. While a portion of the Seattle area has sworn off NBA basketball for good, a large majority have finally been able to put that chapter behind them and prepare themselves to open up their hearts once again to the NBA. What Seattle fans can’t deal with though is another kick in the groin from the NBA. After all the momentum that has been built over the last sixteen months for the NBA’s return to Seattle, its failure to do so could be the death stroke for Seattle fans ever accepting the NBA back. And the loss of the vibrant Seattle market would be a a major misstep for the NBA.

Now on the flip side, approving the sale to Hansen’s group will bring about undesired consequences as well. In Sacramento, (like Seattle), you have one of the most passionate fan bases in the NBA, which has supported this team through thick and thin. Furthermore, the last few years the fans have dealt with constant talk of the team moving, while also having to watch a subpar product on the floor. But we know that the NBA doesn’t care about the hardcore fans, otherwise the Sonics would have never moved. However, to speak the NBA’s language, what remains at stake here is the NBA’s future to leverage new arenas out of cities. Sacramento has done what has been asked of it – virtually everything, in fact. Approve this sale to Hansen’s group, and future cities will hear the NBA’s threats and wonder why they should respond. Sacramento would have extended itself to put together an arena deal, only to lose its team anyway. This would amount to a very dangerous precedent for the NBA, and would substantially undermine the NBA’s credibility the next time an arena threat was levied against a city.

The NBA realizes all of this, and without expansion on the immediate horizon per David Stern’s comments on April 3, the league does not have a good solution either way.  So what to do now? There actually is best possible solution for the NBA which would work for both cities.  Taking into account the totality of the situation, here is what the NBA should do:

  • Determine which of the two arena plans is further along, and more likely to open earlier based on the pertinent facts (i.e. land acquired, financing arrangements, pending lawsuits, environmental approvals, etc.) and award that city the Kings. If the league determines in its due diligence that both arena plans are on equal footing in terms of timing and logistics, keep the Kings in Sacramento.
  • Guarantee the other city a team by a certain date, pending construction of the arena. If expansion can’t be awarded until after the new TV deal is negotiated (currently set to expire in 2016, but negotiations for the next deal will take place before then), then factor that into the date by which a team is promised. The NBA will go to 31 teams by that date, which despite all of the “sky is falling” arguments against expansion, will be fine. But the essential key here is a guarantee of a team  to this city right now for the future. During this time period, the city can work on getting the arena built in time for the arrival of the team. In the event a current team can be moved to the city, then the NBA can forego expansion. Most likely, however, it will need to be through expansion.

This solution presents the best approach to a very complex problem. While understandable that next season either Seattle or Sacramento will be without a team, as long as the other city is promised a team now for the future, the respective fan bases can accept that. This also allows the NBA the time it needs to be ready for expansion (calculating the proper expansion fee, payouts, etc.), while letting both fan bases know that the NBA appreciates each to be a great market, and that the NBA will take care of them in the long run. And this also addresses David Stern’s concerns of playing additional seasons in a “suboptimal arena”, as he referred to both Key Arena and Sleep Train Arena. The city which will be able to move into the new arena first should get the Kings now, with the other city receiving a future team, but with the date of arrival of the new team specified now.  This solution remains the most equitable and fair in the face of the entire situation. Hopefully someone on the NBA side will come to this conclusion as well.