Basketball Economics

carier basketball

Kevin Clark has a fascinating piece in today’s Wall Street Journal comparing pro basketball in this country with pro soccer in England:

Carmelo Anthony’s trade to the New York Knicks Monday night is the latest sign that the NBA is drifting in one distinct direction. It’s becoming a league where a handful of glamour-puss teams are attracting all the marquee players and where, if recent events are any indication, they may vacuum up championships for years to come. In fact, as more stars like Anthony defect to these few teams, the league may quickly come to resemble (gasp!) English soccer.

In England’s Premier League, which is widely considered the world’s deepest pro league, only four teams—Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Manchester United — have managed to finish No. 3 or better in the final league standings over the past seven seasons. Not coincidentally, these teams have also been the prime destinations for mid-career superstars who’ve taken a change of scenery.
My question is whether this development is a new one.

Since 1980, five N.B.A. teams — the Bulls, Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Spurs — have combined to win an incredible 27 of 31 championships. By comparison, the five most successful teams in pro football have won 17 Super Bowls since 1980. The five most successful Major League Baseball teams have won only 13 championships in that span.

Because only five basketball players are on the court at any one time and a team can give one of those players a disproportionate number of shot attempts, stars play an outsize role in basketball. One great player — Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan — can help a team win a handful of championships. It’s a good example of a winner-take-all industry.

Basketball stars do seem more likely today to join the same team deliberately. But it’s not yet clear if this trend will concentrate basketball championships any more than in the recent past.