Staying costs whatever Portland demands. The math isn't close.
ESPN reported March 16 that the NBA Board of Governors will vote March 24–25 to formally authorize expansion exclusively targeting Las Vegas and Seattle, with both franchises targeted for the 2028–29 season. Commissioner Silver stated relocation is "off the table."
Sources: ESPN (Shams Charania), AP, FOX LA
Technically yes, but practically impossible. The NBA Constitution treats expansion and relocation as separate mechanisms with different approval thresholds and different economic incentives:
But the approval threshold is not the real barrier. The real barrier is money. Every existing owner has a direct financial interest in expansion fees worth $467–667M per owner. A relocation into an expansion market would destroy that payout for all 30 owners.
Commissioner Silver publicly stated relocation is "off the table." No NBA commissioner has ever approved a relocation while simultaneously pursuing expansion into the same markets.
Bottom line: Technically possible. Economically irrational. Practically foreclosed.
The expansion fee is split equally among all existing owners. It is not Basketball Related Income (BRI) — it goes directly to owners and is not split with players under the CBA.
For historical context: the Charlotte Bobcats expansion in 2004 generated a fee of approximately $300M, yielding roughly $10M per existing owner. The current projected fees represent a ~50x increase.
Every single NBA owner has a half-billion-dollar personal stake in expansion proceeding as planned. No owner will vote to relocate a franchise into an expansion market and destroy their own $467–667M payout. The economic incentive is overwhelming and unanimous.
Yes, completely separate. These are two distinct revenue streams with different structures:
Expansion does create modest media revenue dilution — approximately $15M per team per year when going from 30 to 32 teams. But the one-time expansion fee effectively "prepays" for that dilution over a ~33-year horizon. At any reasonable discount rate, expansion is ~10–15x more valuable to existing owners than preventing dilution.
What would it actually cost Dundon to move the Trail Blazers out of Portland? The answer spans seven categories of direct and indirect costs.
The NBA Board of Governors sets relocation fees at its discretion. There is no fixed formula.
Key point: if council and Dundon fail to agree, no bonds are issued and no liquidated damages apply. The city's leverage is strongest RIGHT NOW — before signing any agreement. Once signed, liquidated damages would be capped at the outstanding bond debt only.
Article 7 of the NBA Constitution requires the Relocation Committee to evaluate whether the current city made good-faith efforts to retain the franchise. This is the standard that decides whether relocation is approved.
By participating in the SB 1501 process, the city functionally forecloses relocation under the NBA's own rules. The more public investment Portland commits, the stronger its "good faith" position becomes — and the harder it becomes for any Relocation Committee to approve a move.
With Seattle and Las Vegas claimed by expansion, the remaining alternative markets are all smaller than Portland (DMA #23, ~1,143,670 TV households):
| Market | DMA Rank | TV Households | Arena Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portland | #23 | ~1,143,670 | Moda Center (renovation eligible) |
| Nashville | #26 | ~1,011,570 | Bridgestone Arena too small; no NBA-ready arena |
| San Diego | #30 | ~1,065,700 | No arena; Pechanga outdated; Clippers territorial overlap |
| Kansas City | #33 | ~919,020 | T-Mobile Center closest to ready, but 20% smaller market |
None of these markets have committed public financing for an NBA arena. Recent arena cost benchmarks:
Dundon purchased the Trail Blazers at $4.1–4.25B. A renovated Moda Center would drive significant franchise appreciation:
Relocation to a smaller market abandons this trajectory entirely. The franchise appreciation alone dwarfs any conceivable private contribution Portland might require.
| Cost Category | Low Estimate | High Estimate | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| NBA relocation fee | $250M | $2B+ | $30M in 2008 scaled; Board discretion |
| Portland exit / litigation | $75M | $500M+ | Seattle precedent; Portland's investment larger |
| Legal fees | $15M | $30M | Complex federal litigation |
| Destination arena | $500M | $2B | OKC = $900M; Intuit Dome = ~$2B |
| Lost local revenue (3–4 yrs) | $100M | $200M | ~$85–130M/yr resetting to zero |
| Smaller-market loss (25-yr NPV) | $250M | $650M | 20%+ smaller market |
| Forfeited renovation value | $600M | $900M | Public subsidy walked away from |
| TOTAL | ~$1.8B | ~$6.3B+ |
Even if Portland's city council demands $150M in private capital from Dundon, staying is 12–40x cheaper than leaving. Add $1–2B in franchise appreciation from a renovated arena. The net advantage of staying: $3–8B.
The relocation threat is not merely unlikely — it is economically irrational by a margin so large that the city council should be negotiating the terms of the public's return on investment, not debating whether the team might leave.
All figures in this analysis are derived from public records and can be independently verified:
Expansion eliminates the relocation threat. The city council should be negotiating the terms of the public's return — not giving away $600M with no strings attached.
Tell your city councilors: no blank checks. Demand a fair deal.
Email City Council now →