As part of the gathering surrounding the annual Summer League tournament, NBA owners met in Las Vegas today to discuss issues that affect the league and its future. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver held a central spot at the meeting, of course. Afterwards the Commissioner addressed assembled media to answer questions about priorities and changes as the association continues forward.
The foremost topic on everyone’s mind is a long-awaited move towards expansion. The issue has been bubbling for several
seasons, delayed by multi-billion-dollar negotiations surrounding broadcast rights. With those revenue streams determined and intact, the question of adding franchises to the league—notably in Seattle, but possibly in Las Vegas as well—was expected to come to a boil in the Vegas heat.
Silver addressed the expansion issue during his press conference, but the result was more muted than anticipated. Silver said that the league would begin exploring the matter, but that nothing was predetermined and that the process was a series of steps. Silver also cautioned that expanding is the same as selling equity in the league, since revenues would be divided by 32 instead of 30 with extra teams in the mix.
Presumably owners who just got wealthier via incoming television/broadcast revenue are not eager to split the pot with newcomers who had no prior stake in the proceedings. At minimum, the new income will shift the price for establishing nascent franchises, fees paid by the expansion owners. That all has to be worked out before expansion gets considered seriously.
Another matter muddling the picture is the potential sale of the Portland Trail Blazers, announced this spring. The Blazers would become the fourth NBA franchise changing hands in the last few months, following the Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, and Minnesota Timberwolves. With valuations and sale prices rising, the league may not want to add new teams until ownership and final price tags for its existing franchises have been established.
In the midst of this uncertainty, Portland writer Sean Highkin asked Commissioner Silver about the potential sale of the Blazers and pertaining priorities. Here is Silver’s response:
Here is @highkin's question, and Adam Silver's answer.#RipCity https://t.co/BJJP6uXwyI pic.twitter.com/cUkWbORPOr
— Rip City Radio 620 (@RipCityRadio620) July 16, 2025
The text:
It’s the league’s preference that that team remain in Portland. We’ve had great success in Portland over the years. I don’t have a specific update on the process but I know it is underway and I know there are groups that are actively engaged with the estate and have demonstrated interest in that team.
One of the factors there is the city of Portland likely needs a new arena, so that will be part of the challenge for any new ownership group coming in. But it would certainly be our preference that team remain in Portland.
Several readers have already pinged the Blazer’s Edge mailbag with questions, thoughts, and theories about what these statements mean. At this point, the best answer is, “Nothing new.” The language is boilerplate from top to bottom. The best explanation is for the quote is that owners are going to owner and the league is going to league.
When we talked about the implications of a sale right after the potential transfer was announced, we foreshadowed this exact series of events.
The gist of the article was that the Blazers are likely to remain in Portland. The league will certainly lean that way publicly until that option is no longer viable (or convenient) because to do otherwise would create a PR stain, much as the sale and movement of the Seattle Supersonics did over a decade ago. They won’t cross that bridge publicly until the foundation is built and the roadway is laid. That will never happen if they think they can find an ownership group committed to keeping the franchise in place.
The one point that new owners will want to press, and that the league will support vociferously, is an arena update. Here’s exactly what we said three months ago:
The current lease agreement between the Blazers and the city runs through 2030. The Blazers have an option to extend that agreement through 2035. That’s not a terribly long window, but it’s probably enough to prevent an immediate move. The new owners will have five years, more or less, to ruminate on the possibilities.
It’s likely that the Moda Center itself will stand at the eye of the storm. The arena is old. The lease agreement included renovation possibilities. Will that be enough for ownership or will they want a new facility entirely? If renovations are on the table, who will pay for them?
One of the side effects of franchises costing so much—the Blazers’ estimated value is $3.65 billion—is that new owners want to generate return and have things running optimally as soon as possible. A change in ownership is likely to push the Moda Center’s condition and revenue potential to the forefront. The threat of moving often becomes leverage in battles over arena remodels. That’s the only permutation I can foresee that puts a potential move on the front burner.
The threat of a potential move gives the league and new ownership unmatched leverage to demand concessions from city, fans, and public towards an updated, more revenue-friendly building. Even if the Blazers were destined to remain in Portland from the start, none of the parties involved would fail to push this point. It’s no surprise, therefore, that ownership, expansion/movement, and the Moda Center are being linked overtly from the start of these talks. That message will not cease until a new arena agreement is reached.
In short, nothing new or untoward has been said today. If Commissioner Silver and the Paul Allen Foundation had a new set of owners already lined up who were committed to moving the franchise to Topeka, Kansas—and they don’t—Silver still would have said that the preference was to keep the team in place. If the parties had owners lined up who were sixth-generation Portland residents with authentic Bill Walton jerseys wallpapering their bedroom—and they don’t—Silver still would have mentioned a new arena prominently as part of the conditions of ownership transfer.
Two things can be true at once. The NBA and the Allen Foundation can have a strong preference for keeping the Blazers in place while at the same time evidencing a strong bias, or even demand, towards replacing the Moda Center. The arena has been a long-time, contentious sticking point between the Blazers and Portland. This is exactly when, and how, it comes to a head.
How this all plays out remains to be seen, but there’s no reason to assume yet that the two vectors will remain in conflict, nor that the arena would win out over franchise location when push comes to shove. The most likely outcome is that the team remains in Portland but gets concessions towards a new arena as it does so. Everybody walks away with something that costs them (buying the franchise, helping subsidize an arena) but also something that makes them happy: a new or updated building and the team remaining safely in the confines of Rip City.
If that’s not so, we’re certainly not going to know it any time soon. There’s no reason to believe the result has been determined. It’ll take plenty of posturing and wrangling before we come to a final conclusion. Until then, prepare to hear the refrain repeated every time the subject comes up: We want to keep the team here. Having a new arena would be a high priority in making that happen. Next question.
More from blazersedge.com:
- Is Jusuf Nurkic slimming down over the offseason?
- How Terry Stotts Can Tweak the Trail Blazers’ Offense
- Sebastian Telfair Arrested in Brooklyn
- Twitter Roundup: Trail Blazers Work Out Adebayo, Ferguson, and More
- Could Carmelo Anthony End Up in Portland?
- NBA Draft Profile: Jawun Evans
- Portland Trail Blazers Mock Draft Roundup
