NBA Governors Consider Major Rule Changes to Protect Integrity

By Jacob Soro

The NBA is heading towards its most aggressive anti-tanking agenda in history.

This week, Commissioner Adam Silver informed the league that the NBA is actively exploring significant rule changes aimed at stopping tanking beginning next season. According to reports, discussions have intensified among the Board of Governors, competition committee, and team executives, with multiple proposals already rumoured.

This comes in light of the recent tanking issue in the NBA, where several teams have been tanking to improve their draft position. The Sacramento Kings are currently on a 16-game losing streak, and this comes after multiple efforts to purposely pull All-Stars DeMar DeRozan, Zach Lavine, Russell Westbrook, and Domantas Sabonis when leading in the fourth quarter. To ensure they stay out, both Sabonis and Lavine have undergone “season-ending” injuries and have been shut down for this season. The Utah Jazz have engaged in similar circus acts, most notably blowing a 17-point fourth-quarter lead after pulling starters Jaren Jackson Jr. and Lauri Markkanen. Since, Jaren Jackson has been reported as “out indefinitely” to remove a growth in his knee. These actions have brought the situation under the NBA microscope.

With one of the best draft classes coming up in recent memory, teams are making it blatantly obvious they want a piece of the pie. A few names to watch are Duke Forward Cameron Boozer, Kansas Guard Darryn Peterson, BYU Forward AJ Dybantasa, and many more. No team wants to miss out on this lottery, but the measures they have taken are compromising integrity.

The NBA has already tried to take action against teams tanking for better draft capital. Just last week, the NBA fined the Utah Jazz $500,000 and the Indiana Pacers $100,000 for sitting healthy players, signaling that the league views roster manipulation as an integrity issue rather than simple strategic discretion. Suns owner Mat Ishbia added fuel to the debate by publicly calling tanking “much worse than any prop bet scandal,” framing it as a competitive ethics issue rather than just a rebuilding strategy. 

However, these measures have not been enough, leading to the recent meeting across the NBA. Silver has reportedly taken an affectionate tone in those meetings, emphasizing the league’s desire to “safeguard the integrity of the sport.” During All-Star Weekend, he acknowledged that tanking has been worse this season than in recent memory and stated that the league is considering every possible remedy.

The proposals under discussion are as follows:

1. Limiting first-round draft pick protections to only top-four or top-14-plus selections

2. Freezing lottery odds at the trade deadline

3. Preventing teams from picking in the top four in consecutive years

4. Blocking top-four picks after consecutive bottom-three finishes

5. Preventing conference finalists from selecting in the top four the following season

6. Allocating lottery odds based on two-year cumulative records

7. Extending lottery eligibility to include all play-in teams

8. Fully flattening lottery odds across lottery teams

These ideas represent more than simple adjustments. They reflect an attempt to remove incentives for teams to intentionally lose to improve draft position.

From a legal perspective, tanking presents a unique challenge. Unlike gambling scandals or insider-information cases, tanking rarely involves criminal conduct. Instead, it tests the boundaries of league governance authority. The NBA operates under a collectively bargained framework, meaning any substantial rule changes affecting draft structure or competitive incentives may require negotiation with the players’ union. Flattening odds, restricting consecutive lottery eligibility, or modifying draft protections could actually affect player contracts and team asset value, raising collective bargaining implications.

There is also a governance issue: the NBA must balance competitive integrity with team autonomy. Teams argue that roster construction, player rest, and rebuilding strategies fall within legitimate management discretion. The league, however, has broad authority under its constitution to protect competitive integrity. The recent fines signal that Silver is willing to exercise that authority more aggressively and take away some of the team’s power to manage their competitive strategy.

The broader issue is perception. As legalized sports betting expands, the league cannot afford widespread belief that games are being manipulated, even indirectly. While tanking differs from gambling misconduct, both undermine public trust in outcomes. If fans believe certain teams are intentionally losing, it weakens the league’s product and its credibility. With the recent prop bet scandals in both college and professional basketball, this only harms the core integrity of sports. If fans are aware that teams are not putting their best foot forward, it may erode the NBA's credibility, which has already been in decline over the last decade. 

Ultimately, this moment could reshape the NBA draft. If reforms are adopted, they may reduce the incentive for multi-year rebuilds built on intentional losing and instead reward sustained competitiveness. For sports law observers, the next phase will likely involve collective bargaining discussions, ownership votes, and potential pushback from teams that rely heavily on draft-driven rebuilding models.

The message from the league office is clear. The NBA sees tanking as an integrity issue, and meaningful reform may be coming sooner rather than later.