What NBA's 2026-27 Salary-Cap Surprise Means For Team-Building
Less than 30 minutes before NBA free agency began on June 30, ESPN's Bobby Marks dropped a bombshell on the league. He reported that the 2026-27 salary cap is projected to increase only 7% rather than the full 10% that it's allowed to rise year-over-year.
According to John Hollinger of The Athletic, teams "had budgeted for another 10% rise," which meant they had to "change their projections downward for the luxury tax and aprons by roughly $5 million apiece." That might not sound like a huge adjustment, but every dollar counts in the league's new second-apron environment.
The 2025-26 salary cap landed at roughly $154.6 million. If it increased by the full 10% in 2026-27, it would land at around $170.1 million. If it rises by only 7%, it'll be roughly $165.5 million instead.
Most teams figure to enter next offseason well over the salary cap, so that isn't a big deal in and of itself. However, the luxury-tax line and aprons increase at the same percentage of the salary cap each year. That's where teams could feel the pain of a smaller-than-expected rise.
Smaller Cap Projection Chilling Free-Agent Market
During an episode of the Hoop Collective podcast in early July, ESPN's Brian Windhorst said he thought the updated projection "has chilled the [free-agent]"As a front office, it's typical to think in three-year increments," he added. "As they're negotiating these contracts, they were for a long time thinking that the cap was gonna go up 30% the next three years. 10 this year, 10 next year, and then 10 the year after that. And now they're being told, maybe only 7 next year, and then when you think about that third year from now, what if it's less?
"So I was talking to a team over this weekend that says they have revised all of their projections, and they are only assuming 5% growth the next two years just to protect themselves."
The NBA is beginning its new 11-year, $76 billion national TV contracts this year with Disney (ABC/ESPN), Comcast (NBC and Peacock) and Amazon, which were expected to send the salary cap skyrocketing. However, ongoing disruption with regional sports networks have cut into the NBA's overall TV revenue, which contributed to the smaller-than-expected projection of the 2026-27 cap.
"The media-rights deal is increasing by over two times," Windhorst said. "And so there was this belief that the NBA salary cap was gonna go up by 10 percent for three straight years, just to fit this in. … The reason, from what I have been told, is the regional sports networks. All of those that are struggling."
"It's not uncertainty," ESPN's Tim Bontemps added. "The answer is the league has lost a ton of money because the regional sports networks have cratered across the board."
That may be one of the factors contributing to the slow-moving restricted-free-agent market. Jonathan Kuminga, Josh Giddey, Quentin Grimes and Cam Thomas still have yet to agree to new deals with their incumbent teams or sign offer sheets with other teams, in part because the Brooklyn Nets are the only team that's currently able to sign any of them for more than the $14.1 million non-taxpayer mid-level exception without a sign-and-trade.
When players re-sign with their own teams via full Bird or Early Bird rights, their contracts can increase by up to 8% annually. If the salary cap was projected to rise 10% per year, as originally expected, those contracts would take up a slightly smaller percentage of the cap every season. But if cap growth is instead limited to the 5-7% range, the raises in those contracts might outpace the salary cap.
How Teams Need To Plan For The Future
The national TV deals are locked in, which gives the NBA a solid financial floor moving forward. That's a big piece of the overall basketball-related-income pie, but it's not the only piece. Regional sports networks and ticket sales are far more unpredictable variables.
The NBA doesn't officially set the salary cap for the following season until right before free agency begins. It will issue updated projections for the 2026-27 season throughout the 2025-26 campaign, but the figure likely won't become official until June 30. Teams need to plan for a range of outcomes in the meantime.
It would make sense for teams to chart out multiple courses—one where the cap increases as projected (7%), one where it goes up by the full 10% that it's allowed to increase, and one where it increases by even less than expected (4-5%). Each scenario would give them a sense of what they might be able to accomplish on the free-agent market and whether they're going to run into trouble with the luxury tax or the aprons in future years.
Given that level of uncertainty, teams might be even more inclined to hand out shorter-term contracts and reluctant to ink long-term pacts with anyone short of a star. A one- or two-year deal can only do so much damage, but a three- or four-year agreement could quickly devolve into an albatross if the cap rises less than expected over the coming years.
Teams not only need to account for their own proximity to the luxury-tax line and the aprons when negotiating a new contract. They also must consider how that deal will be viewed leaguewide if they're ever looking to trade that player.
Look no further than Utah Jazz forward Lauri Markkanen, who signed a four-year, $195.9 million extension after renegotiating his contract last August. The Jazz were widely praised for doing so at the time, but that was before Markkanen had a disappointing 2024-25 campaign. After averaging 23.2 points and 8.2 rebounds while shooting 48.0% overall and 39.9% from three-point range in 2023-24, he averaged only 19.0 points and 5.9 rebounds while shooting 42.3% overall and 34.6% from deep last year.
Earlier this year, Eric Pincus of Bleacher Report wrote that one Eastern Conference executive called Markkanen's contract "the worst in the league."
"He's only turning 28 in May, but his contract takes him over the age bridge that frightens teams, Pincus wrote. "If he's slowing down at 28, what will he be at 32? (That may sound crazy, but it's how some teams think.)"
The new salary-cap projection could make some contracts look even worse in retrospect. There could be some major ripple effects down the road if that cap projection holds true.
Unless otherwise noted, all stats via NBA.com, PBPStats, Cleaning the Glass or Basketball Reference. All salary information via Spotrac and salary-cap information via RealGM. All odds via FanDuel Sportsbook.
Follow Bryan on Bluesky.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
C-suite access is the new divide in the hedge fund world
Corporate access has become the latest institutional shift for the largest hedge funds in the industry. The biggest firms have teams of people handling their relationships with companies and get the most access. Citadel, for example, does more than 30,000 meetings with executives a year. You can't buy time, but hedge funds are trying. Some of the most valuable time in the world is that of a CEO of a large public company like Jamie Dimon or Mark Zuckerberg, whose days are planned to the millisecond. They carve out time to speak to their companies' investors about strategy, expectations, and more, and it's those seconds that the biggest hedge funds in the world are increasingly monopolizing. Multistrategy giants like Izzy Englander's Millennium, Ken Griffin's Citadel, Steve Cohen's Point72, and Dmitry Balyasny's eponymous firm operate with dozens — sometimes hundreds — of investment teams under one roof, each running their own strategy. These firms' stock-picking teams compete with each other and rivals for face time with leaders at the world's biggest companies. In conversations with 15 portfolio managers, hedge fund executives, bankers, corporate access professionals, and investor relations heads, Business Insider found that access to C-suites — once a more level playing field — has become another area where the biggest firms dominate. The process is now a source of growing tension as smaller investment firms get edged out, companies are flooded with requests, and even top firms grapple with internal strains over who gets into the boardroom. A decade ago, the connection between these firms and corporations was run solely through brokers working at investment banks, also known as the sell-side. Now, while the sell-side has not been cut out of the equation, the biggest hedge funds employ large teams of corporate access pros themselves, with personnel based in the US, Europe, and Asia helping mega funds get their ever-growing investing team members face time with CEOs. Citadel boasts on its website that it does more than 30,000 meetings with corporate executives each year. Millennium's increasing allocation to externally run funds means more wallets to pay the sell-side, ensuring better access and preferential treatment from brokers. Balyasny has done educational events for corporate investor relations teams in Asia, India, and the US in the last 12 months to explain the firm's structure and introduce its broker relations leaders. Funds mentioned in this story declined to comment. "A big part of the job is keeping everyone happy," said one hedge fund executive who has managed stock-picking teams for more than a decade. 'Kids' table' Twenty-seven-year-olds in T-shirts. Cameras off during pandemic-era Zooms. Typing on laptops or phones while CEOs spoke. Twenty people on a call, all vying to ask a hyperspecific question, often related to next quarter's earnings. Companies, especially the largest ones with the busiest executives, were getting frustrated as the headcounts of the industry's elite swelled, according to two corporate investor relations executives. At bank-held conferences, alongside tenured portfolio managers from long-only funds and asset management giants like Fidelity and Wellington, "we were always the kids' table," one multistrategy executive admitted. It was "pretty common" between 2018 and 2021 for executives to say no to meeting with some of these firms, or sharply curtailing the number of seats allotted to these funds, said Christopher Melito, a former corporate access pro at Cowen, Citi, and Credit Suisse. Even with how much these firms paid the sell-side, "at the end of the day, a C-suite could say 'don't confirm that request, we aren't meeting with them,'" said Melito, who is now the head of investor access at consulting firm ICR. Though the industry started building corporate access teams as early as 2015, it took years for teams to get to their current efficiency. One early hire industry experts pointed to was when Citadel promoted Johnna Shields to the role of corporate relations manager within its Global Equities stockpicking unit. Now, these staffers play a critical role in smoothing the path for hedge funds, which aren't always trusted by CEOs who worry about potential short-sellers and capital that'll leave at the first sign of trouble. Similar to the growing importance of the business development role, those in corporate access have become a key cog within multistrategy firms, despite the fact that they don't manage capital themselves. Jain Global, for example, brought on Katie Vogt, a former Balyasny and Goldman Sachs staffer, to head its corporate access efforts, deeming the function important enough to hire someone pre-launch. There's now a much healthier two-way street between funds and corporates. For example, "a lot of top four funds stopped putting junior members in these meetings," Melito said, and started training younger investment team members on protocol. One former PM said that at Point72, blazers are required when meeting with an executive. At other large firms, Melito said, young analysts start by meeting with smaller-cap companies before shadowing more senior investors in meetings with large-cap corporations. Corporate access teams have shifted from booking agents to matchmakers, one person close to a big four fund said, pairing different teams and investors with the right executives. "The large four funds have been a lot more strategic about their asks," Melito said. Everything's political Although the relationships between funds and companies may be solid, there is still plenty of bickering internally at the asset managers. One portfolio manager at a large firm said the biggest fights he ever saw were between two teams wanting access to the same executive — and there would only be room for one. Firms often give more tenured teams the right of first refusal for a meeting, but sometimes big-name new hires will jump the line, causing a rift, another PM said. All jobs have an element of internal politics to them, but in the cutthroat hedge-fund world, where a right call could mean a life-changing annual bonus and a wrong call could mean a pink slip, the stakes are magnified. The growing staff at the biggest managers means that a potential meeting with a Fortune 500 CEO will have plenty of interested parties. At Citadel alone, there are roughly 300 stockpickers, Griffin said at a talk at his former high school in Florida earlier this year. While the biggest funds can offer eye-popping sign-on bonuses and larger books of capital to manage, smaller funds that haven't been able to keep up with the big boys on corporate access resources are leveraging the internal tiffs to help their recruiting. "We can say 'You're our tech guy,' and while we can't compete on upfront guarantees, we can give them better long-term incentives," said one individual who runs a smaller multistrategy firm. These incentives include automatic IPO distributions, he said, which can be hard to come by if you're lower down the totem pole in one of the bigger firms. In the ongoing war for talent that has top moneymakers getting offers of tens of millions of dollars in total potential compensation, an important question for candidates is how many other teams trade their specialty or sector, one recruiter said. "It's a make-or-break kind of question," he said. No one wants to be one of 20 investing in technology companies "unless the money's just stupid," he added. Is it 'something AI could do' or a differentiator? The reason these firms have been able to build up these teams and pay out such large commissions to the Street is because of the pass-through fee agreements that put their backers on the hook for business costs. The question limited partners need to ask: Is it worth it? Several PMs at firms with large corporate access teams told Business Insider they could do without. One European equity investor said CEOs have become more scripted than ever, so meetings are basically a rerun of what they've previously said on earnings calls or at conferences. Another, based in the US, said the biggest value from these meetings used to be a sentiment check on how other teams were thinking about the stock — but now questions are often too specific and narrow to give any kind of indication into their thinking. For one founder of a smaller activism fund, the meetings are a prime example of something that firms could eventually save money on by automating away. "All these young analysts are asking questions off a sheet of paper their PM gave them and then typing into their models right there," the activist said. "It's something AI could do." It's hard to quantify how much a 30-minute conversation with a CFO is worth to a fund's bottom line. One industry consultant believes the push for funds to adopt cash hurdles — which would require their net returns to be over that of a Treasury bond to earn performance fees — might lead to some firms cutting costs in different places, including payments to the sell-side. Still, longtime stockpickers appreciate time with executives, and the old guard believes there's value in it. Tiger Global's billionaire founder, Chase Coleman, sees merit in these meetings and still attends them, a person close to the firm said, and funds have brought in former CIA interrogators to help investors dissect body language and read between the lines of a prepared statement. Even beyond the informational advantages mega funds can glean from these meetings, corporate access is also a zero-sum game. The more meeting slots and conference registrations the industry's largest firms take up, the fewer everyone else can get. "It's a finite resource," said one sell-side broker. "They don't want to share." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Jersey says 3 chemical makers agree to 'forever chemical' settlement worth up to $2 billion
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — DuPont and two other companies will pay New Jersey up to $2 billion to settle environmental claims stemming from PFAS, commonly referred to as 'forever chemicals," the companies announced Monday. State Environmental Commissioner Shawn LaTourette said the deal with DuPont, Chemours and Corteva is the largest such settlement in the state's history. It calls for the companies to pay $875 million over 25 years and create a remediation fund of up $1.2 billion. The companies will split the costs under the deal, which must still be approved by the courts. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They are commonly referred to as 'forever chemicals.' DuPont said the settlement will resolve 'all pending environmental and other claims' for 'legacy" contamination claims at four sites where the companies operated in the state. It comes just months after the state said chemical manufacturer 3M has agreed to pay up $450 million to resolve lawsuits over natural resource contamination stemming from PFAS. "Polluters who place profit above public well-being by releasing poisonous PFAS and other contamination in our State can expect to be held responsible to clean up their mess and fully compensate the State and its citizens for the precious natural resources they've damaged or destroyed," LaTourette said. PFAS were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across non-stick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, though, meaning they linger in the environment. Environmental activists say PFAS makers knew about the health harms of PFAS long before they were made public. The same attributes that make the chemicals so valuable – resistance to breakdown – make them hazardous to people. PFAS accumulate in the body, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency set their limits for drinking water at 4 parts per trillion for two common types — PFOA and PFOS — that are phased out of manufacturing but still are present in the environment. Bruce Shipkowski, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NCAA Coaches Poll: Texas claims No. 1 spot over Ohio State in preseason top 25
The start of 2025 college football season is less than three weeks away and on Monday the USA Today Coaches Poll was released featuring Arch Manning and Texas at No. 1 and Ohio State, the reigning national champions, at No. 2. The Longhorns received 28 out of a possible 67 first-place votes, compared to the 20 given to the Buckeyes and 14 for Penn State. This is the first time that Texas has landed the No. 1 ranking in the preseason Coaches Poll. The Longhorns and Buckeyes will meet in an Aug. 30 matchup at Ohio Stadium. Texas has not won a national title since 2005. 1. Texas (13-3) - 28 1st place votes2. Ohio State (14-2) - 20 1st place votes3. Penn State (13-3) - 14 1st place votes4. Georgia (11-3) - 3 1st place votes5. Notre Dame (14-2)6. Clemson (10-4) - 2 1st place votes7. Oregon (13-1)8. Alabama (9-4)9. LSU (9-4)10. Miami (Fla.) (10-3)11. Arizona State (11-3)12. Illinois (10-3)13. South Carolina (9-4)14. Michigan (8-5)15. Mississippi (10-3)16. SMU (11-3)17. Florida (8-5)18. Tennessee (10-3)19. Indiana (11-2)20. Kansas State (9-4)21. Iowa State (11-3)22. Texas A&M (8-5)23. BYU (11-2024. Texas Tech (8-5)25. Boise State (12-2) Dropped out: None. Others receiving votes: Oklahoma (221); Missouri (142); Louisville (126); USC (116); Utah (86); Baylor (76); Auburn (50); Iowa (49); Memphis (34); Army (33); Tulane (31); Georgia Tech (27); TCU (24); Nebraska (19); Syracuse (16); Washington (15); Navy (14); Arkansas (14); Duke (12); Colorado (12); Minnesota (11); UNLV (8); Florida State (8); Kansas (6); Vanderbilt (3); Buffalo (1) Over the past 10 seasons, only Alabama in 2017 has gone on to win a national title after being ranked on top in the preseason poll. Two previous preseason No. 1 ranked teams — 2022 Alabama and 2023 Georgia — ended up failing to qualify for the College Football Playoff.
