Photo by Markus Spiske via Uplash.

As the National Basketball Association slowly approaches the end of the regular season, a cataclysm has turned the world of American basketball upside down. Like every year, the winter transfer period brought its share of surprises. However, the controversy arose at the very beginning of February when the trade of Luka Doncic for Anthony Davis between the Dallas Mavericks and Los Angeles Lakers was announced. So controversial was this trade that it is already considered by many to be the biggest trade in modern NBA history. 

But why is the fate of two superstars so controversial? Well, the context in which the transaction took place and what it implies for both teams is simply huge. For those who don’t follow the NBA, this trade would be comparable to a transfer in the premier league between Virgil Van Dijk and Cole Palmer, or in  football terms,  like trading Jalen Hurts for Travis Kelce: two legends of their sport but with a significant age gap. As the world of the NBA is slowly recovering from this year’s chaotic trade season, what are some implications of the Doncic-Davis trade for the players, the franchises as well as the NBA as a whole.

The deal of the century for the Lakers? 

First of all, let’s break down the ins and outs of this trade, which appears to be nothing less than the steal of the century for the Lakers. Indeed, the 25-year-old guard was traded along with Maxi Kleber and Markiff Morris in exchange for 31-year-old center Anthony Davis, Max Christie and the Lakers’ 2029 first-round pick. While on the surface this transaction appears to be a fair and equitable swap of two superstars, it is a very profitable deal for the Los Angeles Lakers. Lebron James, one of the most accomplished player in the league, recently announced that he would be retiring within the next few seasons, which means one thing and one thing only for the Lakers: they’ve just acquired the new face of their franchise. 

This trade makes perfect sense for the California franchise, which is in the process of restructuring its team around Luka Doncic. The Dallas Mavericks on the other hand seem to be at a disadvantage by replacing the superstar who had taken them to the NBA Finals just a few months earlier. Sure, Anthony Davis is a terrific player, but he’s turning 32 in less than two weeks and is no longer in his prime. This trade is seen by many Dallas fans as outrageous, not least because no sports manager in his right mind would validate such an exchange. So how did this trade come about?

NBA: a cruel market?

Luka Doncic is a 25-year-old player originally from Slovenia who has been in the league for over 6 years and is rightly regarded by many basketball fans as a generational talent and MVP caliber player. No one had imagined the possibility of such a trade, and his superstar status seemed to give him a kind of immunity. Top players usually control their own destiny and have a voice in potential trade discussions. Unfortunately, this reasoning is not true in today’s NBA. The NBA has become a global brand and, like other major sports leagues, it tends to behave like a big business that seeks profit and publicity above all else. 

The organization’s revenues have increased enormously, as have the salaries of NBA players, which have quadrupled in around 25 years, reaching an average of 8.2 million dollars a year by 2021-2022. Some fans even argue that this exchange highlights the NBA’s effort to fuel a storyline that would make the game entertaining. However, in doing so, the players no longer seem to be what matters most. Although denied by Patrick Dumont, owner of the Mavericks, the rumor that the Dallas basketball franchise will soon be transferred to Las Vegas is still widespread and only adds to fans’ feelings about the true motivations of NBA owners. Something has gone fundamentally wrong  in the way the league is run.

Should the NBA change the rules?

The Luka Doncic-Anthony Davis swap has reignited a lively debate on the NBA’s rules governing player movements, raising some rather alarming questions about the league’s priorities. In a system where stability is rare, franchises can hardly build coherent teams. What makes this exchange even more troubling is that it is said to have taken place behind closed doors, with neither player apparently aware of the negotiations until the deal was finalized. 

Currently, only two NBA players have an official no-trade clause (Lebron James and Bradley Beal), leaving most athletes vulnerable to sudden moves. Some critics have even compared the NBA’s trade system to “modern-day slavery,” as Dennis Schröder once controversially described it. While it’s problematic to compare NBA trades to slavery, perhaps it’s time for the league to reconsider its policies and adopt a model similar to European soccer, where players have more control over their careers. Until then, transactions like these will continue to reshape the league, often at the expense of the players, indispensable to the league’s success. 

Opening speaker, Brian Gordon, SVP and Manager of the International Banking Group at Commerce Bank, advocated for the U.S. to adopt a more trade-centric economic mentality.

“Trade, not aid!” said Gordon. “When you export products, you’re importing money […] and that floats all boats higher.”

In a discussion about emerging economies, Gordon iterated that trade agreements are negotiations and not win-lose situations and told audiences that agriculture will be one of the most interesting and rapidly developing trade sectors throughout the next few years.

Gordon concluded by discussing China’s Belt and Road Initiative, warning audiences to keep a close eye on the global economic landscape and alluding to the reality of economic gaps facilitating an opportunity for the U.S. to implement a new Marshall Plan.

Melissa Miller, senior manager at the World Trade Center KC, spoke next. Outlining the trade and export scene in Kansas City, Miller reported that Kansas City outperformed the U.S. throughout the recession and, in 2016, was the 44th largest exporter in the nation generating about 6.7 billion dollars in value from exports.

“It must have been our midwestern risk-adverseness,” said Miller.

Continuing with a list of benefits to global trade, Miller stated that companies which trade globally pay workers an average of 20 percent more than those which don’t and that one-in-five jobs in the U.S. are trade dependent, implying that increasing trade will boost national the job market. These claims are echoed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Regional manager of the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of International Trade Larry Cresswell was next to speak.

Cresswell, an employee of the federal government, presented the official definition of a small business – fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than 7.5 million dollars in annual receipts for most non-manufacturing businesses – and discussed loan options the government offers small business owners who trade internationally.

Larry Cresswell discusses small business.

The final speaker, Mark Klein, regional director of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM), presented statistics about the U.S. as an international economy in comparison to the economies of other nations.

While the U.S. is one of the world’s largest exporters of goods, second only to China, Klein believes that more funds ought to be directed towards developing this segment of national business. With only 14 percent of the U.S. GDP coming from exports, Klein does not believe that this accurately reflects the amount of resources the country has.

“Hanging out with Rwanda and Haiti is probably not the cocktail party we want to be at,” Klein said when discussing nations that devote a similar percentage of their GDP to exports.

Yet, Klein warned U.S. business owners to exercise caution when exporting products and to seek the assistance of the Federal Government.

“Turkey right now is a political risk issue, Argentina that’s a political risk issue… there’s some strange things going on in those countries that might prevent them from making a payment. Luckily we [the federal government] can protect [U.S. businesses] against that,” said Klein.

Elaborating, Klein outlined three restrictions to protections the government offers businesses – the U.S. Content Policy, Military Policy and Country Limitation Schedule. So long as companies within the U.S. do not violate the clauses of any of these policies the government will assist the owners in ensuring that they are compensated for exported products.

But, as Klein explained, the policies should not be considered restrictive.

“I don’t care if the little rubber buttons come from Vietnam or if the wiring inside comes from China. I just want to know that it was designed in the U.S. and assembled in the U.S.,” said Klein using a remote control as an example of an export good. “So long as at least 50 percent of the product, on a cost basis, can be traced back to the U.S. it fulfills our content policy.”

The event concluded with a panel session during which time the four speakers answered questions from the audience.

The summit was sponsored by the World Trade Center of Kansas City and Commerce Bank. Entities including the Liberty Economic Development Corporation, the Liberty Area Chamber of Commerce and Jewell supported the event.