Rigging the Season: Tanking, Rest, and the Cost to NBA Fans
Written by Alexander Del Rosario | March 26, 2026
Overview
1,721 U.S. Dollars. That’s how much it costs for me to sit courtside at tomorrow’s New York Knicks game in Madison Square Garden. When attending a professional sports game, the expectation is an engrossing competitive atmosphere with athletes competing at the pinnacle of their sport. Now, imagine saving up hundreds of dollars and paying that $1,721 to watch your favorite team and player play, just for that player to intentionally sit out as the team gets blown out by 30 points at home. This is the unfortunate reality that many fans of teams in the National Basketball Association (NBA) experience as teams race to lose games for better draft lottery odds at the end of the season.
In light of this, on February 19th of 2026, commissioner Adam Silver of the NBA informed the league’s 30 general managers of his plan to implement anti-tanking rules for next season. Flattening odds for all lottery teams and freezing lottery odds around the trade deadline were discussed as potential ways to curb tanking. This new initiative reflects the league’s broader concern of maintaining competitive integrity and protecting the commercial interests of fans. However, these reforms intersect with other controversial practices such as load management, raising deeper legal questions of how far the NBA can go in regulating team and player behavior without infringing on collectively bargained rights.
Tanking and Load Management
Despite being separate issues, the NBA has addressed tanking and load management as fundamentally connected in the context of the NBA’s current lottery system. The NBA follows a draft system that systematically rewards lower-performing teams with higher draft picks. As a result, teams have resorted to tanking, which occurs when teams intentionally underperform, typically by starting weaker lineups of players, to lose games and subsequently improve draft lottery odds. Teams don’t “tank” to undermine the game’s competitive spirit, but are instead forced to do so amidst a system that rewards poor performance.
In conjunction with the draft, the NBA follows a grueling 82-game schedule which incentivizes teams to prioritize sustained long-term performance over winning individual regular-season games. This often results in load management, the practice of resting star players during regular-season games in order to preserve their health for the playoffs. Similar to tanking, load management is another product of the system, specifically one that stresses consistent long-term performance in order to win a championship. From a strategic standpoint, teams that use these practices are not acting in bad faith, but are instead maximizing their chances of success given the rules at hand. However, from the league’s perspective, these practices undermine the product and competitive spirit of the game, especially with upset fans and high ticket prices on the line.
Player Rights and the CBA
Commissioner Adam Silver has taken a firm stance against tanking and load management, citing both as threats to the league and game as a whole. Even before the lottery changes announced earlier this year, the NBA has increasingly moved toward regulating both tanking and load management by fining teams. Amidst all of these developments, the central tension lies in the relationship between these regulations and the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA). The CBA works to protect players under contract and governs wages, hours, and working conditions. Furthermore, any league policy, especially those that may affect player participation and discipline, must be evaluated through the lens of this agreement.
In line with this ethos, the league's restriction on load management presents a key legal tension with the CBA. Star players’ decision to rest during the regular season is often grounded in medical judgment and the desire to prevent injuries; however, the imposition of fines on the practice unduly limits the amount of rest they can have, virtually forcing them to play. Players often consult team medical staff on when to sit out games, especially when faced with clear injuries. However, the line is blurred when these players are told to rest because of fatigue or injury risk, which are inherently subjective. The NBA could potentially introduce a universal standard for assessing medical decisions, but such changes could have drastic legal implications with the CBA and risks of oversimplifying complex medical decisions. Although they are athletes, the CBA ultimately defines NBA players as employees who are entitled to workplace safety and individual autonomy to perform their duties. According to U.S. labor law, modifications to working conditions cannot be unilaterally imposed without sufficient collective bargaining, which the NBA has failed to do.
Conclusion
The NBA’s crackdown on tanking and load management reflects a growing tension between balancing competitive integrity, commercial interests, and player rights. These strategies, while detrimental to the heart of the sport, are ultimately rational responses to a flawed system in desperate need of change. Moving forward, it is imperative for the league to honor the desires of fans while preserving the players' intangible rights under the CBA. As the league looks toward expansion in Las Vegas and Seattle, it seems like the time is ripe for meaningful structural changes. Until then, the reality remains unchanged. Fans will continue to pay hundreds of dollars, only to be met with star players sitting out and lackluster play. If the NBA hopes to preserve both its product and its legitimacy, it must do more than regulate behavior. The league needs to fix the system that produces, while respecting the rights of players who are bound by it.
