Is parity the death of NBA Free Agency?

by Steven Rasco

Damian Lillard of the Portland Trail Blazers handles the ball against the Boston Celtics at TD Garden on March 8, 2023, in Boston. (Maddie Meyer/Getty Images/TNS)

Once upon a time, NBA free agency was a fan favorite in a league home to the world's finest in basketball. To some, it was the best part of the NBA, bringing forth much drama and change to the landscape of many teams, making free agency feel like a major factor in why the NBA is the best league in the world for its sport. In a long summer of no games, it’s supposed to bring the action that many fans are missing from their teams. It’s supposed to bring a new feel, because in a forever-evolving game, the league must evolve too.

Parity, the state of being equal, is something that has been a point of emphasis with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. This brings a new NBA champion every year. Since 2019, not a single team has gone back-to-back, six seasons, six different teams lifting the Larry O’Brien every year. The nature of free agency has changed — once known as a frantic period, now a shell of its past self.

The CBA

A major factor in the parity we see today in the NBA is the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Under the new CBA, every team can afford one true superstar — this is never in doubt. The issue lies in paying the second or third star of the team, due to the fear of front offices and owners of entering the second apron, where many penalties lie.

Let’s take an example of this in the Boston Celtics. They were around $20 million deep into the second apron prior to the beginning of this offseason. After dominating in 2024 to win the championship, it didn’t seem like much of an issue to have so many players on the payroll, as they seemed to be ready to repeat with how strong their team was. However, with the injury of Jayson Tatum, their 1A superstar, their highest-paid player, everything came tumbling down. Since his injury, the Celtics have sent out Jrue Holiday and Kristaps Porzingis, two important pieces to their 2024 championship. They also let both Luke Kornet, a valuable backup center, and Al Horford, a franchise legend, walk in free agency. The best player they got in return? Anfernee Simons, a young player but not considered valuable for winning and not proven yet.

The new CBA puts any team great enough to win it all in a box, trapped into making tough decisions like cutting or shipping key players just to shed some money.

How does this play into the Free Agency?

A superstar that stays with their team will get a much bigger contract than one that leaves in free agency. This is because those teams have the ability to give the supermax contract — a long-term contract for more than enough money for the player. With more teams feeling they have a chance every year, it means teams are more willing to buy into their players, restricting the action of free agency.

With teams that won one year and then fail the next, they likely already bought into their players after winning it all, so the only way to change up the roster — whether to save money or simply to shake it up — is to trade. This will rarely happen during the offseason, however, as most front offices would rather do it at the deadline if they don’t see that championship potential. If done during the offseason, it’ll rarely be those big-name players, as under the new CBA teams know how hard and valuable it is to have a superstar.

This new version of the NBA with parity and no dynasties is to help the little guy — the small-market teams, the Washington Wizards, the Portland Trail Blazers of the league. With organizations like these seemingly tired of being pushed around by the large-market teams like Los Angeles or Miami in trade and free agency discussions, it’s clear the new CBA was a way to respond to this issue. It helps these smaller teams have the same power to retain stars as large markets.

Is parity a recipe for success?

To look into what parity generates for the league, one must look at the NBA Finals ratings and viewership. Looking at the last six years, the Finals has generated an average of about 10 million viewers. Now compare that to 2012-19, a time much different than today’s parity, with dynasties and large-market teams dominating. The average viewership was around 18 million, with a peak of 30 million viewers in the widely admired 2016 Game 7 between the Cavaliers and Warriors.

This past Finals — the Pacers vs. the Thunder, two small-market teams, both young and lacking that global superstar recognition — even with it being a great Finals matchup that went seven games, ended up being yet another part of the trend of decline in viewership, with the third-lowest in the last six years. This just goes to show that fans don’t care for seeing teams do it “the right way.” They want to see drama, rumors and competitiveness in free agency. They want to see change. They want to see new faces on new teams, not new teams in a new light every year.

The era of dynasties may be at a stop for now, with the new NBA steering toward trying to make every team equal, in a reality where they are not. The parity may very well change not only free agency but also the landscape of the league as we know it.