How to Stop Tanking: The NBA’s Forever War

Our annual reminder that the NBA thinks it has a problem

The NBA is at it again. Per Shams Charania, the NBA board of governors is exploring rule changes to curtail tanking, their eternal archnemesis. While the impetus for this fresh round of anti-tanking rhetoric appears to stem from gambling-related controversies, the NBA media eagerly skipped over the real threat to the league’s credibility (the proliferation of gambling) and instead decided to lament the stain on the tapestry of basketball that is tanking. I personally take issue with many of the staunch anti-tanking stances, which appear to be far more prevalent among those with microphones and within the league than among the average fan. It, like the All-Star game, is only a problem that needs fixing if you decide it’s a problem that needs fixing.

First and foremost, tanking is a product of the draft, and the NBA is well aware of where the incentives lie. Three purported proposals to curb brazen tanking were limiting pick protections to the top four and lottery, preventing teams from drafting in the top four in consecutive seasons, and locking lottery positions after March 1. While all of these solutions have their problems, it also misses the point. The draft is the single most important feature to competitive balance.

At its core, the draft is a mechanism to redistribute talent based on need. Need is based on team record, which means the worst teams benefit the most from the draft. This is meant to cycle talent around the league and give every franchise, theoretically, a somewhat even playing field in the quest for glory. We all know this, but it bears repeating because I think it’s often overlooked. The draft isn’t about rewarding bad teams, it’s about fostering competitive balance. It’s just as important that the best team gets the 30th pick as it is that the worst team gets the first, or, in last year’s case, the fifth pick.

Now, if the NBA wanted to eradicate tanking once and for all, all they have to do is end the draft. However, since that’s a non-starter among the league governors and presumably fans, tanking is simply a feature of the league’s structure. In fact, tanking is so well understood as an effective strategy to rebuild that fanbases actively root for their franchise to engage in it. This is why the league’s fixation on tanking is so perplexing. If your team is bad or mediocre, tanking is good for you. If your team is fighting for playoff seeding, then facing a tanking team means a victory. At the end of the day, everyone kind of gets what they want. Tanking is a problem that is only a problem if you think it’s a problem. Which is why every single idea on how to stop it comes across as either crackpot or unnecessarily cruel.

The current NBA draft lottery system was meant to be a deterrent for tanking, but it has instead become a stick with which to beat the less fortunate. Through flattening the lottery odds, the NBA has decided to redistribute talent intentionally away from those in most need. While the idea was that flatter lottery odds would make teams less likely to tank, it missed the most obvious reason why teams are in that position in the first place– they aren’t good.

This, to me, is why I cannot stand the vehement anti-tanking sentiment that persists throughout basketball media. Only bad teams tank. Teams are bad because they don’t have enough talent. Good draft picks, generally, lead to better talent. There is nothing morally reprehensible about being a bad NBA team. In fact, every year, someone has to be the worst team. The more we distance draft pick compensation from actual team quality, the more we punish teams for simply being bad, with fewer avenues out of the gutter.

The solution to curb tanking isn’t to punish the have-nots even more. In my opinion, the current lottery system only leads to more aggressive and prolonged tanking. What the NBA needs to do is actually reward winning. Teams that engage in blatant tanking are doing so for one simple reason: one more win does nothing for them. The play-in was meant to expand the number of teams with something to play for, and while I’m dubious of that, the best avenue to make winning matter at the mid-bottom of the league is to start to reward it.

The dirty secret of the NBA is that winning doesn’t lead to profitability, and in some cases, it prevents it. Per Joon Lee’s reporting, former Dallas Mavericks governor and current minority owner Mark Cuban claims, “teams make more money when they have a low payroll and lose.” While this seems shocking, it’s baked into the structure of the league. Luxury tax payments are redistributed to non-luxury tax payers, and because the salary cap is based on a percentage of league revenue, it’s quite easy for teams that only spend up to the salary cap to net a tidy profit.

Outside of winning a championship or making a deep playoff run, it’s incredibly difficult for franchises to justify running large payrolls to simply finish around .500. The draft is certainly the primary reason teams tank, but the allure of also cutting costs and raking in profits makes it a much easier sell to ownership. The NBA shouldn’t make it financially untenable to be a bad team, but they should make it financially rewarding to win as many games as possible, regardless of where you finish in the standings.

The most popular and competitive league in the world is the English Premier League, and the NBA ought to take a page out of its book. In 2024-25, each team in the Premier League received £89 million, but the champions, Liverpool, netted £174.9 million in prize money, compared to £109.2 million for the last-place finishers, Southampton. The difference in prize money came down principally to league placement, which is the Premier League’s way of rewarding winning as many games as possible.

The NBA doesn’t need to have a $70 million gap between the best and worst teams in the division of national television money, but paying teams based on league placement would incentivize teams to try to win out. While it’s unlikely to put an end to tanking, that’s never actually been the problem.

The whole problem people have with tanking is when teams intentionally sit players towards the end of the season to improve their lottery odds. No one is going to be upset when the Wizards go 2-23 over their final 25 games because they went 4-21 over their first 25. However, if the Dallas Mavericks enter March at 24-36 and then go 5-17 to close out the season, as they sit Anthony Davis and PJ Washington with dubious injuries, then people will rightly cry foul. Now, if the Mavericks’ decision to slide down the standings were to cost them $6 million in prize money, they might think twice, considering they have a $32 million tax bill coming this season.

At the end of the day, any solution to address tanking that incorporates the draft hurts the teams in most need. And, in my opinion, the teams at the very bottom of the league aren’t the teams that engage in the most blatant anti-competitive behavior. They’re just bad teams, and no matter what you do, there will always be bad teams.

Unfortunately, the NBA has only failed to address this supposed issue. They’ve been tweaking the draft lottery for decades and have yet to find a solution. Perhaps the draft lottery isn’t the silver bullet. At the end of the day, I don’t think tanking is this huge existential issue. The fans get it. It benefits all parties, and if you’re worried about how tanking affects gambling, maybe address the moral black hole that is gambling instead.

For any inquiries about work, discussion, and the like, you can email me at nevin.l.brown@gmail.com.