The new CBAs stifling of ratings

[The Master]

We're still living in MJ's shadow, as the NBA tries to recapture the cultural zeitgeist that was produced by interest in Michael Jordan. Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, and Curry all captured some interest, but being so dependant on single star personalities is pretty hit and miss (mostly miss). The actual games, the quality of the sport, and the storylines produced every year has to be the foundation of the NBA as a growing entertainment product.

To be fair: Magic vs Bird/Celtics vs Lakers rivalry --> MJ/Bulls --> Shaq-Kobe-Lakers era --> LeBron/Kobe & Lakers vs Celtics --> Heatless&LeBron era --> Steph&Warriors vs LeBron/Cavs era - the current situation, both in terms of talent distribution (lack of MVP talent from the US) and parity (1st time ever we've been witnessing 7 teams winning titles in 7 years), is truly something unprecedented. Yeah, we had Pistons vs Spurs finals (and viewership was pretty bad, if I remember correctly, AND people complained how Spurs are boring at that time), but it was the exception rather than the rule.

In a way, it's understandable that the way we've been consuming the NBA as an audience is outdated, as something happening for 40 years isn't valid anymore. I guess the main problem for the NBA is that something that was truly symbiotic (mainstream media running narratives beneficial for the league) in the past is contradictory to the interest of the NBA now (promotion of Euro-stars and parity), and to be honest, it's not like the NBA has full control over media coverage. I'm not a big fan of the NFL as a European, but I guess that's the main reason why the NFL can promote its product in 'objective' way while NBA has no idea what to do with Thunder vs Pacers finals. It's especially weird considering how insane this Pacers run is, and how historically good Thunder are, especially for their age.

[Charlie Sollers]

I'd argue that Youtube and the highlight era is what's killed NBA ratings more than anything.

Definiteley a huge part of it. There are a lot of people that follow the league and have a general idea of what's happening purely through highlights, drama unfolding on Twitter and just checking the box scores. There are many more entertainment options out these days. The NFL is just a different beast altogether that you can't compare to.

[liquidswords]

I could give 2 **** about existing stars and big markets in the finals. Give me great basketball / match ups like we've been treated to almost all playoffs.

[HotelVitale]

On another note, when are we going to stop talking about tv ratings? Who cares? It's a dying medium that will suffer perma-death once a profitable streaming model wins out. I've never owned a tv, so the only time I'm contributing to tv ratings is when I got to a sports bar or visit my hometown (where I watch tv in my parents basement, lol). I'm not an atypical audience member. Most people watch legal and illegal streams. Broadcast tv has died, and sports is the last bastion of it. Why do we think this is a useful metric for the long term growth of the game?

Very few people are concerned about the actual economics or marketing theory here, it's just become another magnet for concern trolling. Pretext for people to say what's wrong with the NBA and why it sucks now, with everything from overhyping Lebron to the in-season tournament to the usual blah about wuss-ifying the game and 3 pt shooting. That's really what at least 80% of the posts and conversations are here when the topic comes up.

I know I just shouldn't engage but it's such a strange phenomenon. And yeah I've also never owned a TV that I was paying for cable on (had some for movies and video games pre-streaming), and I'm in my 40s.

"Concern trolling" is such a good term. I've never heard that one before.

I have stuff I like to complain about. Politics, socioeconomics, humans being cruel, and annoying. NBA basketball is something I follow purely for fun. It seems downright perverted to me that there are fans who take part in the NBA only through complaining and get to the point where they're "concern trolling" for... fun? I'm not sure what inner need is being expressed through this. Are we all so thoroughly dissatisfied with life and the world that griping is the only way people know how think and communicate?

I don't totally know but it seems tied to a general 'everything was better before/we're getting screwed now' thing in the air. Anti-institutional-ism in general, people needing to announce that everything is corrupt and shameless etc. I was just at home and my dad was spouting a lot of stuff about how the NBA had lost its way (and then revealed he didn't think he'd ever watched Jokic or SGA). Some of my loser-y uncles have been talking like that for as long as I can remember, that rhetoric somehow went from something the bitter nasty people do to just the truth that everyone knows.

My best guess is that the constant internet life forces people to know and care about a lot of stuff, and it gets overwhelming. People get fatigued and then there's convenient backlash people constantly pointing out flaws or criticisms of things other people know/care about etc. The totally dismissive attitude becomes appealing--don't have to dive in and struggle for subtle opinions and just get to walk away, allows you to think this was all CRAP and contaminated and not worth their time. Easier to do that than struggle through the mess.

There are some things that don't always feel great about bball. Definitely times where I get tired of 3pt shoot-outs when both teams are clanging away, and I do worry about what's lost with young kids shooting 25 footers all day before knowing how to hit 8 footers (this is going on for 100% of the kids in my neighborhood). And the commercialization is pretty laughable and comically extreme if you step back, and sports have definitely become very expensive to watch. But I still like good competition and talking about it, and I realize that's what's on offer here.

[cupcakesnake]

We're still living in MJ's shadow, as the NBA tries to recapture the cultural zeitgeist that was produced by interest in Michael Jordan. Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, and Curry all captured some interest, but being so dependant on single star personalities is pretty hit and miss (mostly miss). The actual games, the quality of the sport, and the storylines produced every year has to be the foundation of the NBA as a growing entertainment product.

To be fair: Magic vs Bird/Celtics vs Lakers rivalry --> MJ/Bulls --> Shaq-Kobe-Lakers era --> LeBron/Kobe & Lakers vs Celtics --> Heatless&LeBron era --> Steph&Warriors vs LeBron/Cavs era - the current situation, both in terms of talent distribution (lack of MVP talent from the US) and parity (1st time ever we've been witnessing 7 teams winning titles in 7 years), is truly something unprecedented. Yeah, we had Pistons vs Spurs finals (and viewership was pretty bad, if I remember correctly, AND people complained how Spurs are boring at that time), but it was the exception rather than the rule.

In a way, it's understandable that the way we've been consuming the NBA as an audience is outdated, as something happening for 40 years isn't valid anymore. I guess the main problem for the NBA is that something that was truly symbiotic (mainstream media running narratives beneficial for the league) in the past is contradictory to the interest of the NBA now (promotion of Euro-stars and parity), and to be honest, it's not like the NBA has full control over media coverage. I'm not a big fan of the NFL as a European, but I guess that's the main reason why the NFL can promote its product in 'objective' way while NBA has no idea what to do with Thunder vs Pacers finals. It's especially weird considering how insane this Pacers run is, and how historically good Thunder are, especially for their age.

Yes I like these takes.

It's true that the NBA doesn't have control over NBA-based media. ESPN is a partner, but it's unclear what the level of coordination there is on coverage and narrative. I rarely venture over to NBA.com (mostly because in Canada they automatically push you to a crappy Canadian version of the site), but listening to Adam Silver, he often pines for higher quality coverage. NBA.com partners with Ben Taylor of thinkingbasketball, which is the anti-ESPN, to produce more basketball strategy focused content.

It was crazy but typical to watch NBA media talk non-stop about the Lakers and Warriors title hopes non-stop leading up to the playoffs. 2 old teams without starting centers or useable depth. Both those teams were knocked out unceremoniously early, and all of a sudden the media had to learn who the 68-win Thunder were. The Pacers they were even less prepared for, and we still have talking heads giving us "analysis" on teams and players they barely watched all season. They have no story to pitch to the broader public.

I feel like fans of American football, hockey, and soccer are more encouraged to enjoy the strategy of the game. Basketball still getting discussed as a platform for a hero's journey isn't sustainable. The fans need to actually understand the sport to enjoy it. A lot of NBA fans don't understand how officiating or strategy works, so they're more prone to frustration and confusion when watching.

[jkvonny]

We're still living in MJ's shadow, as the NBA tries to recapture the cultural zeitgeist that was produced by interest in Michael Jordan. Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, and Curry all captured some interest, but being so dependant on single star personalities is pretty hit and miss (mostly miss). The actual games, the quality of the sport, and the storylines produced every year has to be the foundation of the NBA as a growing entertainment product.

To be fair: Magic vs Bird/Celtics vs Lakers rivalry --> MJ/Bulls --> Shaq-Kobe-Lakers era --> LeBron/Kobe & Lakers vs Celtics --> Heatless&LeBron era --> Steph&Warriors vs LeBron/Cavs era - the current situation, both in terms of talent distribution (lack of MVP talent from the US) and parity (1st time ever we've been witnessing 7 teams winning titles in 7 years), is truly something unprecedented. Yeah, we had Pistons vs Spurs finals (and viewership was pretty bad, if I remember correctly, AND people complained how Spurs are boring at that time), but it was the exception rather than the rule.

In a way, it's understandable that the way we've been consuming the NBA as an audience is outdated, as something happening for 40 years isn't valid anymore. I guess the main problem for the NBA is that something that was truly symbiotic (mainstream media running narratives beneficial for the league) in the past is contradictory to the interest of the NBA now (promotion of Euro-stars and parity), and to be honest, it's not like the NBA has full control over media coverage. I'm not a big fan of the NFL as a European, but I guess that's the main reason why the NFL can promote its product in 'objective' way while NBA has no idea what to do with Thunder vs Pacers finals. It's especially weird considering how insane this Pacers run is, and how historically good Thunder are, especially for their age.

Yes I like these takes.

It's true that the NBA doesn't have control over NBA-based media. ESPN in a partner, but it's unclear what the level of coordination there is on coverage and narrative. I rarely venture over to NBA.com (mostly because in Canada they automatically push you to a crappy Canadian version of the site), but listening to Adam Silver, he often pines for higher quality coverage. NBA.com partners with Ben Taylor of thinkingbasketball, which is the anti-ESPN, to produce more basketball strategy focused content.

It was crazy but typical to watch NBA media talk non-stop about the Lakers and Warriors title hopes non-stop leading up to the playoffs. 2 old teams without starting centers or useable depth. Both those teams were knocked out unceremoniously early, and all of a sudden the media had to learn who the 68-win Thunder were. The Pacers they were even less prepared for, and we still have talking heads giving us "analysis" on teams and players they barely watched all season. They have no story to pitch to the broader public.

I feel like fans of American football, hockey, and soccer are more encouraged to enjoy the strategy of the game. Basketball still getting discussed as a platform for a hero's journey isn't sustainable. The fans need to actually understand the sport to enjoy it. A lot of NBA fans don't understand how officiating or strategy works, so they're more prone to frustration and confusion when watching.

Great post and true!

[mastermixer]

The truth behind all these threads

“If my team isn’t in the finals, the system is broken!”

Lol

[Lalouie]

It's the NBA's fault for failing to market its new generation of stars and teams. ESPN and the NBA still only know how to talk about Durant/Harden/LeBron/Curry/Lakers. Screw them.

tv is worried about ratings. but they don't dictate what the audience sees. all they do is embelish what the audience wants.
when you pay BILLIONS for a product, you're not going to sit there and let adam silver explain his grand plan for the future of the nba. that might be HIS job,,,but it's not yours. your job(television) is to make the billion dollar invest ment worth it.

no amount of tv time for the smaller markets will change what has been cultivated for the past 15yrs.
ive seen more smaller market games this year than ever before.

tv decides what to show next year. sometimes it works out sometime it doesn't.
they cannot cold turkey it - that's just stupid

here's the way it should probably work,,,from a PRACTICAL point of view.
you run with the old stars because that is what the general public knows and is familiar with. you(television) run with it until it runs out of gas - that means retirement. the public don't care if curry or lebron now suck. they only want to watch them play and that is all. when lebron/curry/kd retires. the public will say "hey wait a minute where's lebron/curry/kd". when someone tells them those guys retired, the public will think "oh sh** i didn't know that. okay who's up next"

at that point the public will obliterate the old stars from their mind and look for what's new. and then everything will sync back to normal, and you get your wish. if in the meantime some player takes over like a ball'a fire, say wemby, then the public will forget lebron/curry/kd even quicker

here's the way it's been so far....magic/bird > mj > kobe/shaq > lebron/curry/kd > ???

[robbie84]

I'd argue that Youtube and the highlight era is what's killed NBA ratings more than anything.

Definiteley a huge part of it. There are a lot of people that follow the league and have a general idea of what's happening purely through highlights, drama unfolding on Twitter and just checking the box scores. There are many more entertainment options out these days. The NFL is just a different beast altogether that you can't compare to.

Younger NBA fans also don't have the attention span for a full game or sitting down and turning on the TV for one game.

Much easier on phone/tablet on youtube to get the main action in a 5>10 min run down.

[YogurtProducer]

Nothing cringier than fans complaint about markets.

If the two teams were the exact same but the thunder were from LA and pacers from NY why does that change and neutrals fans enjoyment of the basketball?

[wco81]

Silver has said more than once that parity will lead to better ratings.

He thinks that's why the NFL is so popular, because parity, though over a 5-year period, you had the Chiefs win several Superbowls.

He got the owners and the players the biggest TV deal ever, which starts next season.

However, apparently the first two games of these Finals had low ratings, the lowest in almost 2 decades.

The concerns about the small-market NBA Finals didn't prevent the Indiana Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder from delivering a classic in Game 1. They do, however, seem to have impacted ratings as expected.

Game 1 of the 2025 NBA Finals averaged a 4.7 rating and 8.91 million viewers on ABC, making it the least-watched Game 1 of the Nielsen meter era (since 1988) outside of the league's COVID-19-fueled ratings nadir in 2020 and 2021, according to Sports Media Watch.

Those numbers are an 18% ratings decline and 19% viewership decline from last year's NBA Finals opener in which the Boston Celtics faced the Dallas Mavericks. The decline would have been worse had Tyrese Haliburton and the Pacers not launched a furious comeback in the final minutes to stun the Thunder.

Game 2 wasn't any better, either. The Thunder's blowout win on Sunday drew near-identical numbers to the opening game of the series. It averaged 8.76 million viewers on ABC, which made it the least-watched Game 2 since 2007, excluding the COVID-19 bubble in 2020.

Those numbers seemingly vindicate what many have said about a clash between teams from the 25th and 47th largest markets in the Nielsen rankings, with Oklahoma City's mayor bristling at those concerns ahead of the game.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/breaking-news/article/nba-finals-ratings-pacers-thunder-thriller-posts-worst-game-1-numbers-since-leagues-covid-19-downturn-010658732.html


NBA doesn't have to worry about national TV deals for about 10 years. However some parts of the ecosystem are in trouble, especially the regional sports broadcasts in some NBA markets.

As for these teams, Haliburton probably isn't that well known to casual fans. SGA should be better known, since he's been All-NBA for several seasons. But he's Canadian with a strange name so maybe a lot of American casual fans don't know much about him.

Thing is, neither of them have had a lot of drama involving them yet in their careers. Well Haliburton pulled the choke sign at MSG but somehow, maybe Knicks fans aren't watching these Finals.

Best thing for raising the profiles of these teams and players would be to have a competitive Finals, with more games like Game 1 which was won on the last possession than blowouts like Game 2. Regardless of which team wins, if it ends up a closely-contested 6 or 7 games, then maybe they could have a rivalry and make these teams play on Christmas next season.

If OKC blows them out, that probably hurts ratings for the remaining games and probably makes it difficult to showcase these teams next season in national games.

[hauntedcomputer]

I still don't understand what the problem is or what needs to be solved.
I already know why I shouldn't care. The NBA isn't going away and attrition would make it even better.

[Lunartic]

Ratings is the only topic that we seemingly "shouldn't care about"

Same users will argue about goofy advanced YtR% rates and Time per left arm swinged on court with Dwight Howard (TPLASOC%) but you mention discussing the future viability and longevity of a product and "nooooo please y do u even care bro nooooo"

Ask any sports fan about their sport and ask if ratings are important and they'll agree. Ask a fan of a sport with rapidly declining viewership and it suddenly doesn't matter.

They might even claim ratings are actually up we just can't measure them because reasons but don't worry! The NBA signed a new deal with tv broadcasters!

Remember a while back when tv ratings were high for the opening rounds of the playoffs and users celebrated it? I guess they mattered then.

[reddyplayerone]

This is a great example of creating a conclusion in your head (familiarity drives ratings and parody is bad for it) and working backwards

Niether of which is true and quite frankly the NFL has proved it.

The problem is how the NBA has chosen to market itself

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Maybe one day sports fans will realize that comparing the NFL's success to other sports leagues is silly and that the NFL's success has little to nothing to do with the concept of parity anyway

But I guess today isn't that day

Anyway the OP is doing the basketball equivalent of "Well I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!"

Enjoy your one championship and the ensuing parity you've been clamoring for

[levon]

Sunday’s Pacers-Thunder NBA Finals Game 2 averaged 8.76 million viewers on ABC, down 29% from Mavericks-Celtics (12.31M) and the least-watched Game 2 of the Finals since the Heat-Lakers in the fall 2020 “bubble” on the night the president was hospitalized due to COVID (6.78M). Outside of that anomalous circumstance, it was the least-watched since Cavaliers-Spurs opposite the series finale of “The Sopranos” in 2007 (8.55M).

The only other Game 2 with a smaller audience in the Nielsen people meter era (1988-present) was Nets-Spurs on a Friday night in 2003 (8.06M).

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2025/06/nba-finals-viewership-low-game-two-pacers-thunder/

Not good. Might help to not have 3 months between games this series too.

[levon]

This is a great example of creating a conclusion in your head (familiarity drives ratings and parody is bad for it) and working backwards

Niether of which is true and quite frankly the NFL has proved it.

The problem is how the NBA has chosen to market itself

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Maybe one day sports fans will realize that comparing the NFL's success to other sports leagues is silly and that the NFL's success has little to nothing to do with the concept of parity anyway

But I guess today isn't that day

Anyway the OP is doing the basketball equivalent of "Well I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!"

Enjoy your one championship and the ensuing parity you've been clamoring for

I'm convinced the parity argument is an NBA marketing campaign to justify Silver pretending to learn all the wrong lessons from why the NFL is successful, and not the real reasons (intelligent broadcasts, cultural entrenchment as THE American sport similar to soccer in other countries, 16 games a season or whatever).

No guys it's the parity and if you don't like that you're a coastal elite.

[Lockdown504090]

I'd argue that Youtube and the highlight era is what's killed NBA ratings more than anything.

Definiteley a huge part of it. There are a lot of people that follow the league and have a general idea of what's happening purely through highlights, drama unfolding on Twitter and just checking the box scores. There are many more entertainment options out these days. The NFL is just a different beast altogether that you can't compare to.

so why do they still watch steph then?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Setting aside the ratings issue, I don't see a problem with the CBA. The thing is, the bulk of the 2010s was a bad time for the league for a lot of people(around here anyway) because of the Heatles and later Durant-to-GSW. There was no shortage of people complaining that these superstar team-ups were ruining the league. I remember in the summer of 2018, after one of the most boring Finals ever in which the Warriors barely had to try against a LeBron who was in the Finals for the eighth year in a row, people getting up-in-arms when that same Warriors team then signed DeMarcus Cousins with the taxpayer mle. They were under the mistaken impression that post-achilles Cousins would be remotely like pre-achilles Cousins, but nonetheless, they were raging. People were burned out on those superteams.

I can understand how it would feel unfair if a championship-level team can't keep their team together, and it's not ideal, but if that is the price to pay to stop the team-up nonsense, or at least dramatically reduce it, then it might be a price that needs to be paid.

This era of parity has been a huge breath of fresh air after that. The 2019 Raptors run. The Celtics coming out of nowhere to reach the Finals in 2022, and Steph adding to his legacy by winning another chip without KD. The Nuggets run and the Butler Heat's cinderella run to the Finals. Last year's Celtics, and Luka leading the Mavs on an improbable run. This year, the Cavs surprising everyone in the regular season, and the Pacers and Knicks' playoff performance. And the Thunder, obviously. And all of these teams were built the old-fashioned way, through the draft and trades.

[ReasonablySober]

I listened to Bomani and Dragonfly Jones discuss a related topic today on Bo's podcast, and had to do with a popular subject lately: the dearth of cool NBA players.

For whatever reason, and I think there are a few good ones, the NBA has a serious lack of cool. There's no Iverson, Shaq, Kobe, Barkley, or Jordan. I think you can blame the internet for a lot of that. Cool is often the unknown. People are cooler when you don't really know anything about them. The guys that came up before the internet all had their personas shaped by shoe companies and PR firms. Now days we all know these kids because they can't stop letting us into their lives via podcasts and the internet. What's Nike going to do when we know most of these guys are huge dorks?

It's obvious but the game is more popular when we have cooler, more interesting players.