The NBA’s War on Tanking: League Prepares for Major Rule Shift as ‘Anti-Competitiveness’ Peaks

The NBA is reaching a breaking point with a practice that has haunted the league for decades. As the 2025-26 season unfolds, the strategy of “tanking”—intentionally fielding non-competitive rosters to secure higher draft picks—has evolved from a quiet boardroom strategy into an audacious, public display of losing.

The situation has become so severe that Commissioner Adam Silver has signaled the require for more stringent consequences. Now, the league is moving toward a concrete solution. The NBA Board of Governors is expected to vote on May 28 to implement anti-tanking rule changes intended to curb the epidemic of intentional losing.

Defining the Strategy: Tanking vs. Rebuilding

To the casual observer, a team in a “rebuild” and a team that is “tanking” might appear the same: they lose a lot of basketball games. However, there is a critical distinction in intent and execution. While rebuilding often involves a long-term plan to develop young talent and restructure a franchise, tanking is a more targeted manipulation of league rules.

In a star-driven league like the NBA, the highest draft picks are the most valuable currency. Because league rules generally award the best picks to the teams with the worst records, some franchises intentionally avoid winning. This can involve trading away established star players to reduce payroll and clear the way for prospects, or simply refusing to field the most competitive lineup possible.

This practice is largely a byproduct of the “closed league” system used in American sports. In international sports leagues that utilize promotion and relegation, tanking is virtually non-existent. In those systems, the worst-performing teams are sent to a lower-tiered league, resulting in massive revenue losses and an inability to attract top talent. In the NBA, however, losing can be a path to future power.

It is important to distinguish tanking from match-fixing. While tanking involves roster-building strategies to ensure a poor overall season record, match-fixing refers to manipulating the outcome of a specific contest, often for betting purposes, which violates both league rules and the law.

The New Era of the ‘G League Cycle’

Historically, tanking was achieved by sitting veterans or trading stars. But in recent years, a more aggressive tactic has emerged: the strategic overuse of mid-tier G League players. This approach doesn’t just involve losing; it involves actively filling the roster with players who are statistically unlikely to win games, ensuring a bottom-tier finish.

NBA sources suggest this “copycat” strategy originated with the Oklahoma City Thunder. During the final week of their rapid two-year rebuild in the 2021-22 season, the Thunder signed Zavier Simpson, Melvin Frazier, and Georgios Kalaitzakis to close out the year.

Quick forward to the 2025-26 season, and other franchises have adopted and amplified this model. The Utah Jazz provided a stark example in early March. The team signed Andersson Garcia, an undrafted prospect and defensive role player from the Mexico City Capitanes, to a 10-day contract. The Jazz then played Garcia for massive stretches—including one night where he was not subbed out for the entire game—resulting in him playing 48 minutes. During Garcia’s 169 minutes of play across five games, the Jazz were outscored by 69 points.

The Jazz’s motivation was clear: protecting a top-eight protected pick they owe to the Oklahoma City Thunder. The team continued this trend by signing Bez Mbeng on March 13; with Mbeng on the floor this month, Utah has been minus-146.

The Memphis Grizzlies have taken the volatility even further. Having lost 15 of 17 games recently, the Grizzlies have set an NBA record by starting 25 different players this season. Their recent roster moves include the signings of Adama Bal, Lucas Williamson, and Lawson Lovering, mirroring the tactic of deploying short-term G League talent to maintain a non-competitive edge.

A History of Intentional Losing

While the current tactics sense extreme, the NBA has a long history of teams attempting to manipulate the draft. One of the earliest documented instances occurred during the 1983–84 season. The Houston Rockets, after starting the season 20–26, decided the year was a lost cause. To ensure they finished with the worst record in the Western Conference—and thus advance to a coin toss for the first overall pick in the 1984 draft—the Rockets gave significantly more playing time to their lesser-talented players. They went 9–27 over the remainder of the season, finishing 29–53 to secure the desired spot.

Why the League is Stepping In

For the NBA, tanking isn’t just a competitive issue; it’s a product issue. When teams intentionally lose, the integrity of the regular season is compromised, and the value of the broadcast product drops. Fans in cities like Memphis or Salt Lake City are less likely to engage when they realize their team is actively avoiding victory.

Commissioner Adam Silver has noted that the level of anti-competitiveness in the 2025-26 season has reached a point where the league must implement “more severe anti-tanking consequences.” The goal is to make the cost of intentionally losing higher than the potential reward of a top draft pick.

As the league moves toward the May 28 vote, the basketball world will be watching to see how the NBA intends to balance the need for parity with the demand for genuine competition. Whether through draft lottery adjustments or penalties for roster manipulation, the era of the “sham” roster may be coming to an end.

Next Checkpoint: The NBA Board of Governors vote on anti-tanking reforms is scheduled for May 28, 2026.

Do you think the NBA can actually stop teams from tanking, or is it an inevitable part of a draft-based system? Let us realize in the comments.