On a global note NBA revenues are growing while viewership is declining for the last 10 years... not sure how this is sustainable. NBA is at a cornerstone with old stars (Lebron, Curry, KD...) on the verge of retirement, the new stars have quite a diffent profile, for one most of them are not american (SGA, Luka, Jokic, Victor...) and then they seem quite far from the usual start system at the exception of Ant. This change is awesome for the global visibility but a challenge for US viewership and game attendance. All of that in the context of a potential US expansion, an increase of injuries, too many games and even a Europe expansion.
I agree that whether with Victor or not NBA will promote stars but in this overall context, Victor is a great product due to his potential and his freakish nature and crazy stuff he is capable to do. At the end what matters is how attractive is Victor for the league, so far I would say so good... his highlights are everywhere, he is selling jersey. I'm not sure NBA will "help" Vicor narrative and accolades but it does not seem in NBA interest to spoil it by letting defense targeting his knees or not giving whistle love eventhough recently one can wonder
I agree. But that doesn't necessarily contradict what I'm saying. The league needs Victor to be a star. Not automatically to win or be favored. To return to my analogy with the movie star system, it doesn't matter who ends up winning in a film that brings together two or three stars. The important thing is to bring them together and build a narrative around them during promotion/advertising.
It makes sense that stars get favorable calls, and fans can accept that to a certain extent; it's part of star status. It's a form of inequality that validates the star system. But to go so far as to try to win individual or team titles for this or that star would be completely idiotic. Lebron took a long time to win his first title, but that didn't tarnish his star status. On the contrary, it contributed to the narrative.
As for the nationality of stars, I don't believe in it at all. Here again, the American collective imagination has been shaped, in part, by stars from elsewhere. Greta Garbo, Chaplin, Rudolph Valentino, Vilma Banky, Marlene Dietrich, Mary Pickford, etc. This still contributes to the narrative: it gets people talking and tells a story. Is SGA Canadian? Yes, like the wave of actors and directors who were the first to settle in Hollywood. The heads of the major studios were all immigrants.
Whatever MAGA supporters may say, a large part of American culture has been shaped by the assimilation of various cultures from around the world. And it's not a consequence; it's a cause.
The NBA is a business. Domestic audiences may be declining, but that's not so important as long as they're growing worldwide. The revenues are there to prove it. And yet, it's the Chaplins, Rudolph Valentinos, and Mary Pickfords of basketball who attract the crowds. Audiences have always been eager to see personalities from other countries on their screens. In my opinion, it's even an asset to see so much diversity in the league: a center who is a genius at passing, a guard who specializes in feints and mid-range shots, another magician, a center who plays like a guard... It's a zoo, a circus. The public wants monsters, not a colony of girls next door with the same fringe in front of the eyes.
