Spurs Own European Team?

[Karl Mundt]

I recall a while ago there were some false rumours of Spurs making some sort of deal with an Italian team, the details of which i don't recall anymore. But it got me thinking why the Spurs don't just buy a team in Europe (in one of the competitive leagues) altogether. Maybe anyone knows if the NBA prohibits these sort of ventures? Or maybe FIBA does. Just look at all the possibilities though:

1. The Spurs could buy all the players they have drafted and have them all play on one single team.
2. They could employ their own coaches who would work with the players to learn the Spurs system before they even reach the US.
3. Having such access would also enable to know as much as there is to know about their players without having to offer anyone an NBA contract.
4. They could also use the team as a sort of base for talent scouting, filling up the roster with players they have interest in.
5. Using the junior levels to recruit all sorts of promising young players (below 18 years of age).

Given the popularity of basketball in San Antonio, they could even broadcast the games of that team on some local TV Station, so fans could get a look at the players they might see playing for the Spurs in the future. With teams going bankrupt all the time in Europe i'm sure it's within Holt's possibilities to buy a team there and the anual costs of owning a team wouldn't be too high by NBA standards since European contracts are much smaller. And as with any team there are no guarantees it wouldn't actually make a profit with ticket sales, merchandise, TV rights, etc.. This would probably also expand the popularity of the Spurs in Europe, which means even more revenue. Is such a thing possible?

[MI21]

Something like that would have to be prohibited by either FIBA or the NBA, surely.

Anyone know?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If the Spurs were hesitant to give Tony an extra 2 million dollars last year, what makes you think they're going to pony up for an entire European team?

[mrcoon29]

If the Spurs were hesitant to give Tony an extra 2 million dollars last year, what makes you think they're going to pony up for an entire European team?Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is the advertising dollars. Aren't they allowed to "sell" space on the jersey's?? Just thinking out loud here.
Surely, if the scenario spelled out in the first post was legit some NBA team would have done it by now.

[zeleni]

law

1.Europe doesn't recognize the franchize principle. That means that teams are meant as companies or sport societies.

2.As a company Spurs could buy one and make it a quasi club, but there is a problem with fans (they like and demand to be a voice in the management, or at least not to be just fans of not really a club). Same problem goes to clubs that have B teams, and rarely have fan base that is not more or less a fan base of a A team. B team would not financialy hold itself.
Club would have to choose a country where to play. That would mean that is easier to control scouting for the NBA competition, also there would be a problem of the level on which this quasi club could play. second division just wouldn't do, eventhough the club would start in fifth or even lower.

3.Not really possible to collect finances in small market cities (I don't mean San Antonio, I mean Alicante, Brno, Prague, Brugge). Spurs as franchise could not fill up the rpster of a small club just with their own players. Society would not be supported and would seem in less then a few years simply unnatural.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't think it has to do with NBA rules, it just makes little financial sense for an NBA franchise to invest several million dollars in a club team in Europe that is just as likely to have players drafted for other squads as it is their own.

If you were the Spurs, would you want to develop guys just to have Phoenix, miami, Detroit, etc. draft them? And it would take you six years to acquire the amount of talent to fill out a team through the draft, and by that point if some of the guys you drafted early on hadn't panned out, you've just sunk all that money for nothing.

Teams are better off just letting Europe cultivate the talent and then tab the ones they like for the draft.

I do know the Spurs have developed pretty good relations with the coaching staff of one of the French league teams, that's about as far as you'll see NBA franchises going where Europe is concerned.

[Karl Mundt]

If the Spurs were hesitant to give Tony an extra 2 million dollars last year, what makes you think they're going to pony up for an entire European team?

It could be cheap. It could be profitable (the subsidiary club alone). It could be profitable long term with all the benefits it could pull out of such an arrangement.


Surely, if the scenario spelled out in the first post was legit some NBA team would have done it by now.

I was thinking the same thing.



1.Europe doesn't recognize the franchize principle. That means that teams are meant as companies or sport societies.

I really don't know what you mean. Could you elaborate on that?



2.As a company Spurs could buy one and make it a quasi club, but there is a problem with fans (they like and demand to be a voice in the management, or at least not to be just fans of not really a club). Same problem goes to clubs that have B teams, and rarely have fan base that is not more or less a fan base of a A team. B team would not financialy hold itself.
Club would have to choose a country where to play. That would mean that is easier to control scouting for the NBA competition, also there would be a problem of the level on which this quasi club could play. second division just wouldn't do, eventhough the club would start in fifth or even lower.

I think if you put a couple of local players (either young talents or experienced veterans) the fans would percieve it as their club as much as any other fans do. Must teams now mostly have foreigners compiling the roster anyway. Also you could easily put a local coach in charge aswell, as there are many who do a great job of teaching young players. If you commit to winning (not just developing players) the fans won't care much who actually owns the club. And as for starting in lower divisions, i'm sure that's the case when you actually form a new club, but if you just buy one, i don't think the club automatically drops into 3rd, 4th or 5th division.


3.Not really possible to collect finances in small market cities (I don't mean San Antonio, I mean Alicante, Brno, Prague, Brugge)

The players they would persue wouldn't likely be eligable for big contracts even by European standards, so the spending would be pretty prudent. If the team is successful and has attractive players (that also appeal to the local population) the revenue probably wouldn't lower by much, if at all. In fact, i think a team could easily make more money than before. So if some Italian or Spannish team for example gets by with the funds it gets now, i think it could with new ownership aswell. And with total budgets for one season ranging below 10 million dollars, the most Holt was to lose would be a million or two. He pays that much for the injury list.

[Karl Mundt]

I don't think it has to do with NBA rules, it just makes little financial sense for an NBA franchise to invest several million dollars in a club team in Europe that is just as likely to have players drafted for other squads as it is their own.

If you were the Spurs, would you want to develop guys just to have Phoenix, miami, Detroit, etc. draft them? And it would take you six years to acquire the amount of talent to fill out a team through the draft, and by that point if some of the guys you drafted early on hadn't panned out, you've just sunk all that money for nothing.

Teams are better off just letting Europe cultivate the talent and then tab the ones they like for the draft.

I do know the Spurs have developed pretty good relations with the coaching staff of one of the French league teams, that's about as far as you'll see NBA franchises going where Europe is concerned.

You raise a good point there. I was gonna ask this in the original post: is there a way for an NBA team to get a young player without going through the draft? As in you make the players playing for your European club sign contracts which say the player can't enter the draft unless the team agrees. Then for example, you have a 20 year old player you want to bring over, can you just offer him a contract? Somehow i doubt that's how it works, but it would still be useful just to work with the players you've already drafted. I am pretty sure you could run a European club that way without losing money, but i have no idea for how much you could actually buy a whole club.

[zeleni]

I really don't know what you mean. Could you elaborate on that?


Euroleague is based on contract between clubs like in NBA. Since league is new, sometimes is not so simple, clubs that wants to participate has to fulfill conditions or for now simply present quality that cannot be found otherwise. Possibility that a basketball club of another rival league is an owner threatens the euroleague. NBA clubs are as organisationwise like a company with consistent (franchised) compounds. In Europe basketball club can be a younger brother of a football club (Spain), a society with long historic meaning for its comunity, a company with variety of shareholders, national institution like a soccer club, or simply small town club. And all can patricipate in great competition in the continent. NBA has financial power b/c of numerus of participants in it. Europe is all about variety.




I think if you put a couple of local players (either young talents or experienced veterans) the fans would percieve it as their club as much as any other fans do. Must teams now mostly have foreigners compiling the roster anyway. Also you could easily put a local coach in charge aswell, as there are many who do a great job of teaching young players. If you commit to winning (not just developing players) the fans won't care much who actually owns the club. And as for starting in lower divisions, i'm sure that's the case when you actually form a new club, but if you just buy one, i don't think the club automatically drops into 3rd, 4th or 5th division.


To buy a company-club means to be a political figure in the community. To be owned (be NBA club or American individual) in the sport by an American is quite different then having a player that played in NCAA or NBA in your club.
We have a simple case in Chelsea - Russian in Premier League. He is supported only couse he invests big. Spurs would have a medium team that should just participate in playoff of some division. Who would want to cheer it? You could get that kind of club maybe just in UK. There only NBA name would attract people to watch games. London Spurs Towers? :elephant
More or less that is not a good idea.




The players they would persue wouldn't likely be eligable for big contracts even by European standards, so the spending would be pretty prudent. If the team is successful and has attractive players (that also appeal to the local population) the revenue probably wouldn't lower by much, if at all. In fact, i think a team could easily make more money than before. So if some Italian or Spannish team for example gets by with the funds it gets now, i think it could with new ownership aswell. And with total budgets for one season ranging below 10 million dollars, the most Holt was to lose would be a million or two. He pays that much for the injury list.

With your logic you can buy a Spanish ACB club, dictate the roster and wait.
An American has bought Manchester United. We shall se if that is all he is going to spend. Remember a simple fact. If he screws up, you lose all of the "special relationship" you have. Sport in Europe is not just a business. Not just showbusiness. Tradition and pride is all too bound with sports. OK, maybe you could come through in Italy. And still... No, that would be too much globalization for everyone. Even for you.