By Aris Barkas/ barkas@eurohoops.net
In an analysis published today, the Spanish “Instituto Coordenadas para la Gobernanza y la Economía Aplicada” presents its doubts about the NBA Europe project on a strictly financial level.
Echoing the concerns expressed in the recent European Parliament resolution on protecting sports from “foreign ownership,” the Spanish institute, a key independent think tank, highlights that the proposed model “implies a clear risk of profit offshoring.”
It has to be noted that the financial details of the project are not yet announced or clearly reported, and the financial benefits of the clubs joining the project are unclear.
However, the Spanish institute also points in another direction.
According to the analysis, there’s a “dilemma facing Europe: preserve a sporting model rooted in community, meritocracy, and value redistribution, or open the door to extraterritorial governance structures driven purely by financial logic.
From an economic perspective, the NBA Europe model poses substantial risks—from the concentration of profits outside the continent and the erosion of fiscal sovereignty to the weakening of the local sporting fabric. In contrast, the EuroLeague model—with all its imperfections—represents a more sustainable, redistributive framework aligned with European economic and social interests”.
It has to be noted, however, that the EuroLeague is also a semi-closed private league not connected to domestic competition, creating also concerns about meritocracy in the whole ecosystem.
However, the institute highlights that the costs in the new project may be prohibitive for small clubs because “the estimated cost of joining as a founding franchise lies between 500 million and 1 billion dollars per team, a financial barrier accessible only to corporations with major leverage capacity. At the same time, the NBA would retain 50% of the new league’s equity, ensuring half of the financial returns through television rights, merchandising, sponsorships, and other intangible assets.
From a fiscal perspective, this implies a clear risk of profit offshoring: a large share of the added value generated by European basketball would be channelled into corporate structures domiciled outside the EU. In other words, Europe would bear the costs— infrastructure, youth development, fan base, tax base—while a substantial portion of the returns would exit its economic system”.
“European basketball must follow a logic of growth with sovereignty”
Specifically about Spain, the institute mentions that “the EuroLeague model—though also partially privatised—generates tangible returns within European territory, particularly in Spain. The participation of clubs such as Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Valencia Basket, or Baskonia not only stimulates direct and indirect employment but also strengthens sports tourism, private investment, and the country’s international standing as a European basketball powerhouse. This plural presence reflects the solidity of the national ecosystem and contributes to a territorial redistribution of the value generated.
Spain has traditionally been the country with the greatest representation in the EuroLeague, projecting an image of competitive balance and institutional diversity. A potential replacement of the current model with a franchise-based NBA Europe could reduce Spain’s relative weight, limiting participation to its two major football-based clubs and sidelining decades of community-built basketball traditions in other regions”.
The fear according to the report is that “applying the ‘Super League’ logic from football to basketball could fragment the competitive landscape, disrupt local value chains, and weaken the regulatory sovereignty of European authorities.
The EuroLeague model, despite its challenges—such as limited democratic participation in decision-making or the economic sustainability of certain clubs—retains value within the continent and distributes it among multiple players. Unlike an NBA Europe, which would concentrate profits in foreign corporate structures, the current model promotes local reinvestment and the consolidation of intangible assets: social base, loyalty, and formative values”.
And ultimately it boils out to the question of a non-European company taking the reins of European basketball: “Any attempt to redefine European basketball must follow a logic of growth with sovereignty. This implies establishing strategic alliances under conditions of symmetry and rejecting frameworks that entail the externalisation of governance and profitability. Europe must be able to decide the future of its sport based on its own economic, fiscal, and social objectives.
Defending European sport does not mean rejecting innovation or investment, but rather establishing a framework for sustainable development that is fiscally fair and culturally aligned with European values. In a globalised environment, protecting the economic interest of sport is not protectionism: it is smart industrial policy applied to entertainment, social cohesion, and European identity”.
The question is how much this analysis can affect the project, which is already in motion, and most of all, the numbers that NBA Europe puts on the table as potential revenues for the clubs that will be part of the project.
Those numbers would be the key to the decision-making process of all clubs.