Then why don't pro sports have 200 teams? Obviously there's a balance to these things. There's arguments for expansion. But there's very real disadvantages your glossing over.
Which is bigger: 1/30th of 76 billion (current TV contract) OR 1/32nd of 86 billion. (current TV contract + expansion fees) I'll take my answer off the air.
If it's was "free money" as some posters are claiming th NBA would've done it already. Theres both advantages and disadvantages.
What about the TV contract in 40 years that's worth 500 billion? Your ignoring the loss of ownership. It's like comparing the cash of stocks when one person got divided and one sold. The person who still own shares has something else your ignoring.
If we're talking about owners who are worried about this little of a revenue share, then they are cheap ass owners. The amount of money the league makes from expanding to Vegas and back to Seattle is a lot more money than their losses based going from 1/30th to 1/32nd. If the cost of an expansion fee is 5 billion, guess what? that means every teams evaluation goes up too.
No - the worth of every team would go down after expansion. Its a one time cash grab. When the league is at 32 teams they can't ever add a 31st or 32nd team again. Maybe if the NBA waits a decade they will be able to charge $15 billion each for expansion so $30 billion total? Each team gets an even 1 billion. I'm not even saying that expansion is bad or won't happen. I'm just saying there are very real financial downsides to it and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it doesn't happen. In particular owners that paid a lot recently for their franchise or are in big markets gain the least from expansion. It totally makes sense James Dolan and other owners are fighting to block it.
I wouldn't use James Dolan as a good example. Also. Show me where any league has had team values drop after an expansion.
