Euroleague expansion is imminent but that also means major changes are coming. A conference split and a season overhaul is only the beginning. Emmet Ryan on how, as ever, it’s about growing revenue and not making a mess of it.
Christos Stavropoulos seems to have confirmed what everyone is thinking. The Olimpia Milano GM told the Greek Basketball Federation’s own radio show that Euroleague expansion to 24 teams is likely just one season away.
This will mean a conference split, with a decrease in games per team but a slight increase in the total in the season available to broadcasters. With revenues up 12 per cent last season, Euroleague is after more money.
Expansion means entry fees, wider audience reach, and potentially more revenue streams. It also comes with an awful lot of work and no small amount of risk involved. It has been a full decade since the Euroleague last had 24 teams. The plan this time promises to be radically different to that format.
The practical split issue
Geography is an issue. How do you split it? East/West and the East is deeper, substantially, in strength and fiscal might. Go with North/South and it’s the same issue. While commercially and logistically attractive, there are obvious competitive balance issues.
Pots based on some sort of competitive balance, possibly coefficient base, could work but carry the downside of splitting up rivals and reducing the number of high profile meetings. A hybrid seems the most sensible solution.
Everyone has a partner club so key rivalries are maintained while there is still some form of competitive balance worked in. Given that non geographic conference names are always awful, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the conferences received sponsor titles. Yes, that is also awful but very plausible.
A neatly managed format
While geography is an issue, administration of the regular season isn’t. With 24 teams that’s 12 clubs in each conference. Simply have all conference opponents meet each other home and away while playing non-conference opponents once.
This would however mean giving up, on average, 2.5 home games per season so that is a revenue loss. Still, there is some value in scarcity as opponents that visit only once every two years will naturally hold special interest.
The travel reduction isn’t enormous, assuming it’s not a purely geographic split, but there is capacity to have fewer double round weeks as a result. This will depend in part on the post-season format. Let’s get to that.
BallinEurope is ramping up its YouTube game this season. Subscribe to our channel now for player exclusives, analysis videos, and much more.
Expanding the post-season?
At present 40 per cent of Euroleague clubs take part in the playoffs proper while that goes up to 50 per cent when the play-ins are included. Keeping the current playoff structure would drop those numbers to 33 per cent and 42 per cent.
Any format should have cross-conference pairings come the full playoff stage. That’s just to avoid excess repeat pairings lowering viewer interest. Staying as-is with 10, the logical format would be to have the top three in each conference go to the playoffs, with fourth in each going to the play-in along with the next best two teams irrespective of conference so there’s some cross-conference drama.
Alternatively have 4th through 7th in each conference play for the last playoff spots. This expands the field to 14. To stay at 50 per cent there could be byes to the quarters for just the top two in each conference, with reduced first round series (best of three) for teams from 3rd to 6th in each conference. The worst would be a full 16 team playoff. Let’s not do that.
Expansion risks dilution
We finally get to the biggest problem. The league would be growing by 20 per cent in member numbers with an additional four teams. Given the challenges some of the sides towards the bottom of the current field have competing financially, that’s a big ask.
The move towards permanent franchises will ease some of the burden. Still there are minimum thresholds that will need to be met in order to feel comfortable with expansion not meaning bloating.
Revenue growth for the overall product is vital here. Fenerbahce and Panathinaikos, for example, have each done well as individual clubs in growing direct revenue but league wide revenue and distribution must outpace that to prevent the fiscal gulf between top and bottom widening.
BallinEurope has a book, a real life actual book called I Like it Loud, and you can buy it on Amazon now. It’s here as a book and here in Kindle form.
Who gets in?
We’re going to assume that the 20 teams on the board to start the coming season all stay involved. Given Asvel’s issues, that’s generous, but it’s just neater. That leaves four open spots and no shortage of suitors.
Hapoel Jerusalem really wants in but Euroleague hasn’t rushed to embrace it prior to now. The more obvious cities right now are London and Rome. The former would pose ownership questions due to the links to Zalgiris while the latter has a serious thirst from a few entities. There’s always a desire to go back to Berlin but Alba are prudent for a reason and a new club can’t just draw a fanbase by clicking its fingers.
Then there’s the likes of PAOK, who are spending big, and getting a Greek market outside of Athens with a strong support base isn’t a bad idea in terms of reach. A second club in the Gulf states actually appearing out of nowhere can’t be ruled out. This is a money play after all. All this and I haven’t even mentioned NBA Europe yet. That’s one for another day.
Leave a Reply