When the Denver Nuggets and Indiana Pacers tip off at Arena CDMX Saturday (November 7), the NBA will play its 35th game in Mexico since 1992, more than in any country outside the United States and Canada. The timing couldn't be better for the league, which is using Mexico City as perfect leverage to drive up the price for Seattle's expansion bid.
On October 16, ESPN’s Brian Windhorst reported that Commissioner Adam Silver had left owners with the impression, at September's Board of Governors meeting, that Seattle was no longer a lock. They were also briefed on a new group south of the border that has already approached the NBA’s expansion advisors with a massive blueprint for a brand-new team and arena district. Windhorst reduced the motive to four words: “Get the bid up." Behind it sits a disagreement over price.
Seattle's price problem
Heading up the charge for Seattle is Samantha Holloway. As the Kraken co-owner and the force behind One Roof Sports & Entertainment, she has a powerhouse group behind her. Her group, reportedly including philanthropist Melinda French Gates and Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, has offered roughly $6 billion. In March, One Roof agreed to become Climate Pledge Arena’s majority owner. The $1.15 billion redevelopment opened in 2021 with NBA basketball in its design, meaning the group completely avoids the massive headache and cost of building a brand-new venue from the ground up.
In Las Vegas, a high-stakes three-way battle is unfolding. The heavy hitters include Walmart heiress Nancy Walton Laurie and her husband Bill, backed by Silver Lake co-CEO Egon Durban. Then there's Golden Knights owner Bill Foley, teaming up with former Suns owner Jerry Colangelo. Rounding out the mix is Canadian billionaire Steve Apostolopoulos, partnering with former Bucks co-owner Marc Lasry. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Lasry disputed a Sports Business Journal account saying his group had withdrawn. On CNBC, he summed up the auction: "We've always been in. The question is what's the price?”
But there's an important caveat to that massive Vegas price tag. According to an October 31 report from the Review-Journal, the franchise should fetch at least $10 billion, with another $2 billion to $3 billion for an arena. Together, those costs reach $12 billion to $13 billion, but construction money does not become an expansion fee. Look at the entry fees alone, and Seattle’s reported bid falls a staggering $4 billion short of what Vegas is expected to pull in.
The billion-dollar calculus for owners
Ownership sources told Windhorst that each current team expects $500 million to $600 million from expansion, and one has budgeted $533 million. The math is pretty simple: if you combine a $10 billion Vegas fee with Seattle's $6 billion bid and split that $16 billion evenly among the 30 existing teams, each gets roughly $533 million before deal costs and payment terms shape the checks.
Now raise Seattle's price and watch what happens. Every extra $1 billion adds roughly $33.3 million per incumbent team (the 30 existing franchises already in the league) under that same calculation. Moving Seattle from $6 billion to $8 billion adds about $66.7 million each; reaching $9 billion adds $100 million.
If you own an NBA team, $100 million covers a lot of luxury tax. A $3 billion gap gives owners plenty of reason to keep negotiating. While these numbers are just projections rather than guaranteed payouts, they reveal exactly why a bigger bid from just one city directly impacts the bottom line of every single owner in the league.
Players don't get a piece of these massive expansion fees under the NBA's standard Basketball Related Income (BRI) system. The 2023 CBA (collective bargaining agreement) excludes expansion proceeds from BRI, the revenue pool used to calculate player compensation.
David Kelly, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, told The Boston Globe this summer that the union considers the arrangement unfair.
“We don't think it's fair,” he said. “Now, of course, fairness has nothing to do with the negotiation.”
Overhauling that rule would mean dragging both sides back to the bargaining table. As it stands today, a massive expansion check won't automatically bump up the salary cap or create a matching payment to players through the league's usual revenue split.
The dilution dilemma
But that massive upfront cash injection is only half the story. The NBA is sitting on a staggering $77 billion over its 11-year national media rights deal, and adding new franchises means slicing that multi-billion-dollar pie into smaller pieces.
Silver explained the trade in December: “If you own 1/30th of this league, now you own 1/32nd if you add two teams.”
The expansion fee is the upfront payment owners weigh against permanently giving up part of their future share. New markets could grow revenue, too, but owners must judge whether that growth offsets dilution. The higher the fee, the easier that trade becomes to justify.
To put that dilution into perspective, if the league adds two teams without growing its current revenue pool, every existing owner immediately takes a 6.25% hit on their annual payout. To break even and make existing owners whole again, that entire revenue pie has to grow by roughly 6.7%. Actual arrangements can differ, but the example explains why owners look beyond the first check.
Seattle’s turnkey advantage
Seattle's argument begins with something Vegas still has to build. The SuperSonics left for Oklahoma City in 2008 after an arena dispute, but today's venue changes the conversation. Following September's owners' meetings, Silver said Climate Pledge might need modifications, then added: “If we were opening in five weeks, we could be ready in Seattle.” Having a turnkey arena already up and running takes out all the guesswork (prospective owners can look directly at the hard data for seating, hospitality, and daily operating costs).
The building also strengthens Holloway's hand. Any rival bidder looking to use that same building would have to strike a deal with Holloway’s group, or better still find a new home entirely.
BlackSun Private Equity is opting for that tougher, second path on land offered by the Tulalip Tribes near Marysville. However, KOMO reported that the NBA had not indicated whether it had vetted BlackSun or whether the group had submitted a bid. Seattle has competing interest, but nothing resembling the Vegas auction.
Both sides have a reasonable case. Holloway can argue that her group reduces construction risk, while the league can answer that arena ownership and franchise rights are separate assets. The money saved by avoiding a new building strengthens the buyer's finances, but that doesn't dictate what the league will demand as a buy-in price to join the club. A ready building gives Seattle negotiating strength. But total certainty would give them absolute control over the expansion narrative, and that's exactly why Mexico City is being brought to the table.
Mexico City's place at the table
Mexico City is an absolute titan, boasting a massive metro population of roughly 22 million people and a world-class venue ready to go in the 22,300-seat Arena CDMX. The G League's Capitanes are scheduled to play 24 home games there this season, giving the NBA a continuing presence beyond Saturday's showcase.
However, the group approaching PJT (the investment bank advising the NBA) reportedly wants a new arena district, so the existing venue is no guaranteed permanent solution. Playing at an altitude of 7,350 feet would give a Mexican team a brutal home-court advantage, but the league would first have to untangle a logistical nightmare of international tax laws, shifting currency values, and complex employment rules. But these are just logistical hurdles to clear, not deal-breakers that completely take Mexico out of the running.
Public posturing vs. private reality
Adam Silver drew a clear line during an appearance on The Pat McAfee Show on October 20, making it obvious that while Las Vegas and Seattle dominate current expansion talks, Mexico City is a back-burner project: “Down the road I think there’s real potential there,” he said.
In an interview published Thursday, Raúl Zárraga, the NBA's head of operations for Latin America and Canada, reinforced that position. Speaking in Spanish to Sports Illustrated México, he said, in translation: “Right now, expansion to Mexico isn't in the plans." He also said there was no dedicated expansion study for Mexico.
Behind closed doors, it's a completely different game. Even with the league playing it safe publicly, Brian Windhorst points out that Mexico City is acting as a perfect stalking horse (an alternative that helps push another buyer's price higher).
Its presence gives the league an argument against Seattle treating a franchise as guaranteed, although public statements limit how convincing an immediate Mexican alternative can be.
What comes before a decision
Owners authorized exploration of Seattle and Las Vegas on March 25, with PJT advising on buyers, arenas and economics. The Review-Journal says a Vegas winner could emerge this month. Silver wants a decision before year-end, even though the absolute earliest we would see new teams actually taking the court is the 2028-29 season. Prices, ownership and arena arrangements still need to satisfy the league before final approval; the teams need not arrive together.
Mexico City may remain a long-term NBA project. As for Seattle, the true test comes this winter, and it boils down to just one key question: can they be pushed to bid well past that current $6 billion floor?