The NBA Cup 2025 has sparked plenty of debate about its future, as the first of two Emirates NBA Cup semifinals tipped off in Las Vegas with the Knicks and the Orlando Magic facing off at T-Mobile Arena. Even with the event drawing fans, the upper bowl looked sparsely filled, highlighting a familiar challenge: creating genuine excitement for the final stretch of the tournament.
Since its inception, the in-season competition—now in its third year—has shined a brighter spotlight on the NBA during a period traditionally dominated by college football and the NFL. Players have bought in, drawn in part by a prize pool that exceeds $500,000 for the title-winning group. Yet the atmosphere around the knockout rounds and the championship decider hasn’t fully grabbed the public imagination, which has led the league to rethink its format.
In September, the NBA announced that 2025 would mark the last Cup featuring neutral-site semifinals, a move aimed at boosting energy and fan engagement that the current setup hasn’t consistently delivered. Reports suggest the league is also weighing moving the title game away from Las Vegas.
As the Knicks prepared to meet the Spurs in Tuesday’s finale, conversations swirled about what motivates players and coaches—ranging from prize money and scheduling headaches to the prominent role the knockout rounds play in showcasing younger talent. Here’s a closer look at what’s been said about the third edition of the NBA Cup.
Appreciation for the semifinal tweak
If this season’s semifinals had shifted to a home-court format, Orlando and Oklahoma City would have hosted the matchups, given that the Magic and Thunder topped their respective Eastern and Western Conference brackets. Both teams fell in Las Vegas on Saturday.
Magic coach Jamahl Mosley and Thunder coach Mark Daigneault welcomed the potential change. Mosley smiled when asked about it, saying, “Who wouldn’t want home-court advantage? It mirrors the playoffs—seeding earns you the right to host, and that distinction matters.” Daigneault echoed the sentiment, viewing the change as an extra incentive to pursue Cup success, beyond the monetary prize and branding benefits. He noted that additional home games could become a realistic reward for strong Cup performance.
The possibility of those same Saturday semifinals reoccurring in the 2026 playoffs is intriguing, especially given the budding Knicks–Magic rivalry and the established history between the Thunder and Spurs, including playoff encounters in 2012, 2014, and 2016. The ongoing matchup between young stars Victor Wembanyama and Chet Holmgren has already become a focal point of interest, a rivalry that has roots dating back to a FIBA U-19 game years ago.
Envision a scenario where Wembanyama returns from a calf strain to a high-stakes Oklahoma City environment, or a Knicks–Magic showdown that could reappear late in the Eastern Conference playoffs. Daigneault framed the shift as a positive step, stressing that the prize money and branding work together to elevate Cup games. The extra incentive to climb the standings could translate into more competitive effort from teams.
Money as a driving force
A persistent topic has been the cash prize—and what players would do with it. Thunder forward Jalen Williams highlighted the fixed amount, noting that even if a player earns substantial salary, half a million dollars is meaningful and motivates competitive effort.
San Antonio’s Keldon Johnson emphasized the transformative potential of $500,000, saying he’d push through demanding schedules to secure it. A related point centers on two-way contracts and younger players who might benefit most from life-changing earnings. D’Angelo Russell and others have underscored how the Cup funds could meaningfully reward those on the fringes of rosters, potentially improving their financial outlook and team morale.
The conversation around the schedule persists, too. Some team officials have criticized the compressed calendar as Cup games squeeze into the season’s early months. Yet data suggests the regular-season workload isn’t expanding; in fact, the total number of games is slightly down from last season, and the knockout rounds create gaps later in the schedule that teams will need to address elsewhere.
Travel and fatigue are real considerations for teams that traveled to Las Vegas for Cup games. Milwaukee coach Doc Rivers recalled the toll of winning the previous year’s Cup on his team, while Knicks coach Mike Budenholter joked about moving the Cup to New York. He admitted that while Vegas has its appeal, a rotating venue could be worth exploring if it boosts competitive interest.
The Cup’s broader promise remains intact
Last season’s Cup run helped teams prepare for the later stages of the playoffs. Oklahoma City’s deep playoff run began to take shape during the Cup, and the tournament has served as a platform for younger teams to test themselves on a bigger stage.
For franchises like Orlando, which hasn’t won a playoff series since 2010, and San Antonio, which hasn’t made the postseason since 2019, the Cup offers a chance to experience high-stakes, one-game pressure in a meaningful environment. Paolo Banchero called the Cup a tremendous opportunity to compete on this platform, while Spurs coach Mitch Johnson framed the journey to the title game as a growth experience for a young group.
As the third edition unfolds, the NBA Cup continues to be a proving ground for emerging talents and a catalyst for broader discussion about how best to structure midseason competition to benefit players, teams, and fans alike. What’s your take: should the Cup keep evolving with home-field advantages and a rotating final site, or should it settle into a more consistent format to maximize energy and turnout? Share your thoughts and let the discussion begin.
