The NBA is Better Off Because LeBronism is Fading Out

A positive development is happening and the league won't market it

LeBron James, in the post game ABC interview after he powered the Lakers over the Warriors in another Christmas thriller:

I love the NFL, but Christmas is our day.

I like that he said it, even if the statement is easy to argue against. The NBA had more exciting games this Christmas, and decent ratings, but in America, any day the NFL chooses will be its day. The next December 25th will be on a Thursday, allowing football to load up the slate, which it almost certainly will.

I just appreciate LeBron taking up the mantle for his sport, right as he’s fading out of it. He’s typically been a far better player than ambassador. With the NBA getting pilloried of late, I figured he’d want to evade responsibility for how the product is doing overall.

It does make me wonder, given that I recently wrote about how LeBron James entered the league in its mid aughts nadir: Is LeBron leaving the sport better than he found it?

This is a different question than whether the NBA is better off with him around. Some have posited that it might be, given that his overdetermined public image has grown so tiresome. But I just don’t buy that. This is a superstar, one of the few household names left in pro sports who came of age during the pre social media monoculture. You don’t get a big LeBron vs. Steph duel without LeBron. He might be divisive, plenty of people might be sick of him, but he’s one of the greatest players ever, still massively famous and the sport is less so without him.

His influence is another matter, though. Steph Curry is arguably his generation’s most influential player on the court. LeBron is the most influential off the court. James has been a pioneer, sizing up and seizing every morsel of leverage his greatness afforded. Others could have done so, but declined. LeBron pioneered a whole new path by ruthlessly optimizing his career without much regard to team loyalty.

His 2010 Decision to leave Cleveland and team up with superfriends in Miami was widely scorned by media, but it made an impression on other NBA stars. His early career departure, and championships won because of it, kicked off an era of stars “teaming up” rather than exhibit a traditional loyalty to franchise.

James returned to Cleveland and won a championship, which was a nice story that fans appreciated. He also took advantage of one year contracts as a way to maximize power, putting the pressure on the 2014-2018 Cleveland Cavaliers to annually make him happy. Then he left for the Lakers because Hollywood or who knows what.

That sounds like I’m making a value judgment, but I’m just trying to be descriptive about reality. It should also be noted that the owners created this dynamic by negotiating shorter contracts into the Collective Bargaining Agreement. They wanted protection from being on the hook for bad deals, and left themselves vulnerable to underpaid superstars having unprecedented power over franchises.

Players are under no moral obligation to stay with a team, and teams often discard players after they’re no longer useful. It just so happens that the attitude conveyed here by Anthony Davis, in conversation with LeBron, is pretty anti-charismatic. It’s a mentality I’m calling “LeBronism.” Davis elucidates the ethos of LeBronism when explaining why he forced his way out of New Orleans for James’ Lakers (while under contract):

All the media coverage around me, and now I’m getting a chance to take over my career, say what I want to say, do what I want to do. Now everybody saying, “Alright, I see AD changing.” Everybody telling me, “You know, you growing up. Bout’ time you take care of your business, take care of your career.” So now, like, as a player, as CEO of my own business, I’ve got the power. I’m doing what I want to do and not what somebody tells me to do.

Hey I can relate. While E.S. typically refrains from referencing his initials in the third person, I did quit my job because I wanted to do what I wanted to do, and not what somebody else tells me to do. I get it.

There is a cost to everything, though. A superstar can pursue a basketball career with the mindset of being CEO of his own personal brand, and fans can feel colder in kind when they notice that dynamic. You want to root for a guy who loves the team you love. You’re less happy about rooting for a guy whose attachment to your team is purely about momentary alignment with his “brand.”

This is what’s happened, along with the hundred other theories about why NBA viewership declined over the last decade. Players, inspired by the greatest superstar of the era, noticed that they could operate as spiritual free agents, sometimes even when under contract. The Los Angeles Clippers are like the ex-pat bar for such stars: James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Paul George.

None of those players now matter quite the way they did, or would have, at past stops that defined their careers. The mercenary approach can work for LeBron James because he’s LeBron James. It can even work in 2010, when he became this galvanizing villain that the sport’s narrative revolved around. It’s less workable for the NBA when twenty other guys see themselves in the way that Anthony Davis described. I don’t think mercenary mode has been great for Kevin Durant’s legacy, though I’m sure he’d argue against fans caring about his legacy.

But I’m mostly describing the millennial stars, and how they fell under the thrall of LeBronism. As LeBron is set to fade out, the next generation appears more loyal to situation. People learn from the mistakes of others. We might interpret Giannis Antetokounmpo, Luka Dončić and Nikola Jokić staying with their drafted teams as a story about how European stars aren’t inclined to leave because they lack AAU friends to join. Maybe, but they’re also just a bit younger than the guys who fled and more or less flopped in new spots. The grass might be greener on the other side, but it’s become obvious that the glory is rarely greater.

With that in mind, I’d say that LeBron James is set to leave the game better than he found it in 2003. That’s almost inarguable from a financial perspective, not that this is my main focus. The new TV deal ensures that players will be making sums that were unthinkable a generation ago. Even if the NBA has lost significant cultural traction after 2016, and even if it’s now beset with a host of structural problems related to how valued a regular season game is, the sport has resources to correct course.

A main factor, though, in why I might be more bullish about the 2025 NBA as its biggest American stars reach middle age: The younger guys are sticking around long enough for fans to get used to them. Yes, many of these players hail from different countries, and it’s harder for American audiences to quickly connect with them, but the good news is that their tenure with teams is much longer than “quickly.”

This trend should be mentioned more, and perhaps promoted by broadcast partners. Yes, it’s true that superstars are less reliable about playing in a back to back in December. They’re also more likely to be on your team’s roster three Decembers from now. Ultimately, which one matters more to the fan?

This welcome trend reversal isn’t getting discussed a lot because there’s a general media squeamishness about promoting the value of loyalty. I’m even guilty of this. You could see that earlier in this post when I said I wasn’t making a moral judgment about leaving your team. But there’s a difference between “good” and “good for the game.” Superstars staying is good for the game. It’s easier for fans to get familiar. It means that the connection between star and team will matter increasingly over time and the sport can build on those bonds.

The NBA has more going for it in 2025 than in 2003 for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is that LeBron James’ rise helped pull the sport out of those mid aughts doldrums. Another reason is that LeBronism, this era of player as wandering CEO, is out of fashion.