Absolutely bizarre, borderline delusional news:

Maverick Carter—LeBron’s right-hand dealmaker—is "advising" a group of investors hell-bent on launching an international basketball league to go toe-to-toe with the NBA.

I’ll take “lol wtf why would you do that” for 600, Alex (RIP).

But the more we sat with this, the less unhinged it sounded. In fact, it’s kind of genius. Would we watch? Absolutely not. But hear us out.

Why throw money at an NBA rival? Glad you asked.

1. This league’s whole pitch is fixing the bugs in the NBA’s ownership model—fewer billionaires playing monopoly, more balance of power.
   

2. Basketball is a global phenomenon, and this league wants to lean into that with a simpler, international-first approach.
   

3. It’ll be in a roadshow format - think sprints instead of season-long slogs

Still sounds ridiculous. Let’s talk about it.

Flipping Convention on its Head

Let’s talk about what this rogue basketball league is cooking up in terms of ownership structure:

• Players get equity

• Private equity groups can invest freely 

• Sovereign wealth funds get a seat at the table 

For comparison, here’s how each of these groups are currently locked out of NBA ownership:

So, let’s speculate for a second.

Doesn’t it kind of make sense to take a shot at this?

If you’re a sovereign wealth fund or a PE firm eager to sink money into sports, you’re usually stuck shopping for European soccer teams. The NBA and NFL? Off-limits due to current ownership rules.*

But if a serious group comes along and says, Hey, want to invest in a league built around international superstars playing in the world’s biggest markets?— that’s at least worth a meeting.

*The NFL just started letting select PE groups invest, but only under strict limits and without governing rights.

**Yes, Qatar’s Investment Authority put money into the parent company of the Capitals and Wizards, but that’s not the same as owning the teams outright.

Basketball: The Global Heavyweight

Unlike American football, basketball isn’t just a domestic powerhouse—it’s a truly global sport, with deep followings in the U.S., Middle East, East Asia (China especially), and Australia.

The NBA understands this and has leaned into its international appeal—every MVP since 2019 has been a foreign-born player. But despite its global ambitions, the league still doesn’t stage regular-season games overseas. No marquee Giannis vs. Jokic matchup in Dubai, no Steph Curry heat check in Shanghai.

This is where the proposed rival league sees an opportunity. What it lacks in institutional prestige, it aims to make up for with adaptability.

A traveling, international-first format provides:

1. Scarcity-driven engagement – Fewer games mean higher stakes, driving social media buzz and premium broadcast deals.

2. A model that discourages complacency – Every game has playoff-level intensity, much like T20 cricket’s condensed but highly lucrative structure.

3. Efficient market penetration – Many of these regions don’t have an oversaturation of live sports, making a streamlined, high-impact schedule more effective than a drawn-out season.

For the NBA, replicating this approach would be a logistical and economic headache. Regular-season international games would require owners to renegotiate revenue splits (ticket sales, concessions, local TV deals), absorb additional costs (travel, operations, player accommodations), and navigate resistance from franchises unwilling to disrupt their schedules.

So while an upstart league challenging the NBA is an uphill battle, this concept isn’t without merit. It directly targets two of the NBA’s structural limitations:

1. Expanding access to untapped investment capital.

2. Fully leveraging basketball’s international growth potential.

Execution is everything, but the core strategy aligns with where the sport is already headed.

Have a great week!

Ahmed and Peter