Bold claim: The NBA is flailing in its fight against tanking, and Commissioner Adam Silver admits the current approach isn’t working. But here’s where it gets controversial: is tanking really the problem, or is the system that rewards it the root cause?
In a candid weekend remark from Inglewood, Silver acknowledged that the league is still searching for effective ways to deter teams from losing on purpose for long-term gain. This week, the NBA fined the Utah Jazz $500,000 for what officials call “conduct detrimental to the league” after the team rested star players in the fourth quarters of several games. The move underscores the league’s ongoing tension: draft positioning via the annual lottery is designed to help the worst teams rebuild, and this year’s 2026 draft is widely viewed as among the strongest in years, with top prospects who could reshape franchises’ futures.
Silver warned that tanking appears to be getting worse. “The league is 80 years old. It’s time to take a fresh look at this and to see whether that’s an antiquated way,” he told reporters at the Intuit Dome, home to the Los Angeles Clippers and the stage for the All-Star Game. “We’ve got to consider some fresh thinking here. What we’re doing, what we’re seeing right now, is not working. There’s no question about it.”
The dynamic is simple in theory: if a team isn’t in playoff contention, losing can yield a better draft position. In the past, this was sometimes viewed through a pragmatic, even noble lens. Now, with modern analytics, Silver says the incentives are misaligned, and that may be contributing to worse behavior this season than in recent memory.
Even teams that aren’t tanking themselves sometimes seem to tolerate or even embrace it. Silver noted that some fans may prefer their team perform poorly on the floor in hopes of improving draft odds, a reality that makes reform efforts harder.
To counter tanking, the NBA uses a weighted draft order rather than a hard guarantee that the worst team gets the top pick—unlike the NFL. Yet Silver cautioned that the relationship between a team’s record and its draft needs remains unclear: it’s not obvious that the bottom team is materially in greater need than a mid-lower team, especially when incentives push performance in opposite directions. “It’s not clear to me, for example, that the 30th performing team is that much measurably worse than the 22nd performing team, particularly if you have incentive to perform poorly to get a better draft pick,” he said, describing the situation as a conundrum.
Responses from franchise owners have varied. Jazz owner Ryan Smith responded with a light jab, saying “agree to disagree,” and pointed out a game in which Utah won despite being accused of tanking, quipping, “Also, we won the game in Miami and got fined? That makes sense.”
The culture around tanking runs deep, and even high-profile voices struggle to propose a universally accepted remedy. Some media figures have floated drastic interventions; for example, talk-show host Colin Cowherd suggested an approach reminiscent of former commissioner David Stern’s tougher stance, though Silver’s leadership style may differ from Stern’s era. The broader question remains: should the NBA pursue more aggressive penalties, alter the draft system further, or rethink how teams are rewarded for development?
What do you think? Should the NBA recalibrate its draft incentives, implement stricter penalties for resting players, or explore an entirely new model to align teams’ short-term actions with long-term competitiveness? Share your thoughts in the comments.
