The NBA has spent years trying to eliminate tanking, but former superstar Charles Barkley believes the league still hasn’t addressed the real incentive behind losing: money.
After commissioner Adam Silver expanded the draft lottery odds and added restrictions to traded pick protections, many observers felt teams could still manipulate the system. Barkley, speaking on Inside the NBA, argued the solution isn’t just competitive – it’s financial.
We’ve got to come up with some kind of solution because it’s not fair to the game first and foremost. It’s not fair to your fanbase. I don’t think any NBA teams should be able to increase their ticket prices if they are below .500.
The Hall of Famer’s reasoning targets the business model behind losing seasons. Rebuilding teams often benefit twice – higher lottery odds today and higher ticket demand tomorrow – while still raising prices during poor performances.
“Then you’re getting your cake and eating it too,” Barkley added.
In other words, franchises shouldn’t profit while fielding noncompetitive rosters.
Why fans think Barkley’s anti-tanking idea could work
Tanking has long been controversial in professional sports, but the NBA faces particular scrutiny because draft positioning dramatically alters a franchise’s future. Barkley’s proposal would directly connect performance to revenue, changing incentives overnight.
Many fans immediately backed the concept online. One reaction summarized the sentiment: “This could strip rewards from losing, make every team fight till the end.”
Supporters argue the rule would protect consumers. Fans pay premium prices expecting effort, not intentional losses designed to secure a higher draft pick. Another fan wrote: “Don’t reward owners with more profits who are intentionally putting bad products out.”
The proposal could affect team strategy in several ways:
- Encourage competitive lineups late in the season
- Reduce intentional roster weakening
- Increase accountability to fans
- Tie revenue growth to on-court success
Barkley also acknowledged tanking isn’t new – even during his playing days teams positioned themselves for better draft chances. But he believes the modern version has become more calculated and damaging to league integrity.
The challenge, however, would be balancing fairness for small-market teams that struggle to attract stars. A franchise might lose naturally without intentionally tanking, raising questions about implementation details.
Still, the broader principle resonates: if losing stops being profitable, fewer teams will choose it.
The NBA has experimented with lottery reform, schedule adjustments and draft changes. Barkley’s suggestion moves the conversation beyond competitive rules into economic accountability – potentially the strongest deterrent yet.
Whether the league adopts it remains uncertain. But the overwhelming fan reaction shows a clear appetite for reform. For many viewers, the idea reflects a core belief: effort should matter, and loyalty shouldn’t be monetized during losing seasons.
As Barkley implied, teams should only reap major rewards when they actually win.
Read the full article here
