NBA Commissioner Acknowledges Tanking Problem Persists Despite Efforts

The practice of ‘tanking‘—deliberately losing games to secure a higher draft pick—has become a defining challenge for the NBA. ‘The league’s efforts to combat this issue are ‘not working” marks a pivotal moment in the league’s ongoing battle against a practice that undermines competitive integrity, fan engagement, and long-term league health.

This crisis is not new, but its escalation in recent years has forced the NBA to confront a systemic problem that has evolved alongside the sport’s analytics-driven culture.

Understanding Tanking: A Definition and Context

Tanking refers to a team’s strategic decision to underperform intentionally during the regular season to improve its chances of securing a top draft pick. The NBA’s annual draft lottery, which awards the first two picks to the worst-performing teams, creates a financial incentive for franchises to prioritize draft capital over short-term competitiveness. This system, designed to promote parity, has instead incentivized a culture where losing becomes a business strategy.

The Evolution of NBA Strategies to Combat Tanking

Since the 1980s, the NBA has experimented with various measures to deter tanking. Under Commissioner David Stern (1984–2014), the league relied on fines, public shaming, and vague threats to discourage teams from manipulating results. For example, the 1980s Los Angeles Clippers faced scrutiny for their ‘Process’—a deliberate strategy to tank games while building a competitive roster. Stern’s approach, however, lacked structural reforms, allowing tanking to persist.

The turning point came in 2019 with the introduction of the draft lottery reform, which flattened the odds for the top three draft picks. Previously, the worst team had a 25% chance of securing the first pick, but the reform equalized the chances for the three worst teams (14% each) and reduced incentives for extreme tanking. This change aimed to reduce the disparity between teams and discourage outright losing for the sake of draft position. However, as Commissioner Silver noted in 2026, ‘the incentives are misaligned,’ and the practice has worsened despite these measures.

Recent Developments and Commissioner Silver’s Critique

In 2026, Silver’s comments at the Intuit Dome in Inglewood, California, underscored the league’s growing frustration. He acknowledged that the NBA’s current approach—relying on fines and a flawed draft system—has failed to curb tanking. The Utah Jazz’s $500,000 fine for allegedly resting star players during critical games exemplifies the league’s reactive stance. However, Silver’s admission that ‘we’re doing, what we’re seeing right now, is not working’ signals a shift toward more aggressive solutions.

Case Studies: The Jazz and the Broader Trend

The Utah Jazz’s recent controversy highlights the complexities of enforcing rules against tanking. Owner Ryan Smith’s sarcastic response to the fine—pointing out that the Jazz won one of the contested games—reveals the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate rebuilding and intentional losing. This case is emblematic of a broader trend: teams are increasingly leveraging analytics to optimize their draft prospects, even if it means sacrificing short-term competitiveness.

Proposed Solutions and the 2025 Reforms

In response to the worsening crisis, the NBA has explored several structural reforms, many of which were discussed during a 2025 board meeting following a gambling scandal. Key proposals include:

• Limiting draft pick protections: Reducing the value of future draft picks to discourage teams from prioritizing long-term gains over immediate competitiveness.

• Locking lottery positions: Preventing teams from manipulating their draft positions by locking lottery results after March 1, encouraging late-season competition.

• Eliminating mid-lottery incentives: Removing the financial advantage of securing a mid-lottery pick, which currently incentivizes teams to underperform.

These reforms were partly prompted by the 2025 gambling scandal, which exposed vulnerabilities in the league’s governance and prompted a reevaluation of its approach to tanking. The Mavericks’ 2023 case, in which the team rested key players Devin Booker and Luka Dončić to protect a pick owed to the Knicks, exemplifies the league’s ongoing struggle to balance competitive integrity with financial incentives. Such incidents have led to increased scrutiny of teams’ strategies and reinforced calls for systemic change.

The Broader Implications for the NBA

Tanking has far-reaching consequences. It erodes fan trust, as audiences grow frustrated with teams that prioritize draft picks over playing meaningful games. It also undermines the NBA’s competitive balance, creating a feedback loop where teams with poor records are rewarded for losing, further entrenching inequities. The league’s inability to address this issue effectively risks long-term damage to its reputation and financial health.

Conclusion: A Call for Systemic Change

The NBA’s struggle with tanking is a microcosm of the challenges faced by modern sports leagues in balancing profitability with competitive fairness. While the draft lottery reform of 2019 represented a significant step forward, the league’s current measures have proven insufficient. As Silver’s comments suggest, the NBA must embrace more radical solutions—whether through structural reforms, enhanced enforcement, or a reevaluation of the draft system—to restore the integrity of the game. The coming years will determine whether the league can transform its approach or continue to grapple with a crisis that threatens its very foundation.