The NBA Conference Finals started in the best possible way, both in the West and in the East.
First came the spectacular Spurs versus Thunder matchup, with San Antonio beating Oklahoma City 122 to 115 after two overtimes and Victor Wembanyama producing a historic performance with 41 points and 24 rebounds. Then, in the early hours of Wednesday, May 20, the New York Knicks did something that seemed almost impossible: they came back from 22 points down against the Cleveland Cavaliers and won Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals, 115 to 104, in overtime.
In the space of two nights, the NBA gave us two games that served as perfect advertisements for basketball.
In the West, there was a double overtime battle, with Wembanyama once again looking like a player capable of changing the laws of the sport. In the East, inside a boiling Madison Square Garden, the Knicks erased a 22 point deficit with 7:40 remaining and finished the game on a stunning 44 to 11 run. Jalen Brunson ended the night with 38 points, 5 rebounds and 6 assists, while Donovan Mitchell scored 29 for Cleveland but did not score after the 8:19 mark of the fourth quarter.
Still, the real point is not only the spectacle.
The NBA has always had elite athletes, extraordinary shot makers and individual talents that very few leagues in the world can match in terms of depth, pace, physical tools and intensity. That part is obvious. What is more interesting is not simply what happens on the floor, but how the league itself is built.
In Europe, we often hear that European basketball is more thoughtful, more tactical, more disciplined and more influenced by coaching. There is truth in that. Europe has excellent coaches, great detail in the half court, more patience in execution and, in many cases, a stricter tactical framework.
But this argument becomes problematic when it is used to diminish the NBA as if it were only a product of athleticism and individual talent.
What we saw in the opening games of the Conference Finals was not just talent. It was the highest expression of a system designed to create competition.
The Spurs, Thunder, Knicks and Cavaliers are not simply four rich teams that reached this stage because of financial strength. They are four organizations that arrived here through long processes of decision making, scouting, draft choices, trades, contract management, player development and calculated risk.
Some did it with patience. Some moved more aggressively. Some went through difficult rebuilding periods. Some made better decisions than others along the way. But all of them had to operate within a framework that forces organizations to think.
That is where the NBA separates itself.
The capitalist United States, at least in professional sports, has accepted something that European basketball still struggles to apply in a meaningful way: the market alone does not necessarily create the best product. If the richest teams are allowed to buy without real limits, sooner or later uncertainty is reduced. And without uncertainty, sport loses part of its power.
The NBA has a salary cap, luxury tax, draft, collective bargaining agreement and a detailed structure around contracts and roster building. The current CBA runs from July 1, 2023 through the 2029 to 2030 season. It is not a perfect system. No system is. But it is a system that forces even the strongest organizations to work within rules.
In simple terms, the NBA says this to its teams: you may have a huge market, a global brand, a powerful owner and massive commercial influence, but you cannot buy without limits. You must scout properly. You must use the draft wisely. You must develop players. You must decide who to pay, who to sacrifice and when to take risks.
The Spurs are a perfect example.
The draft gave them Wembanyama, but that alone is never enough. A generational prospect still needs an environment. He needs roles around him. He needs rhythm. He needs support. He needs an organization that understands how to build not only a roster, but a basketball ecosystem.
The Knicks offer a different example.
For years, New York had the name, the market, the history and the attention, but not necessarily the basketball direction. Now, we are seeing an organization that functions with much more logic. Brunson is the leader, but the structure around him matters just as much: depth, defensive toughness, defined roles and players who can survive pressure when the game appears to be slipping away.
The comeback against Cleveland was exactly that: proof of depth and structure.
Brunson made the decisions. Landry Shamet hit the three pointer that tied the game with 44 seconds left. Mikal Bridges delivered a huge shot. The defense kept Cleveland without answers at the most important moment of the night. The Knicks came back because they had enough players capable of staying in the fight when the game seemed lost.
In Europe, the environment remains much more uneven.
There are great clubs, historic arenas, elite coaches and fans who live the game with an intensity that is hard to find anywhere else. European basketball has enormous value, and any attempt to dismiss it would be both unfair and simplistic. But financial gaps, different tax systems, unequal television revenue and the instability of several organizations create a framework where competitive balance has a natural ceiling.
The EuroLeague is now trying to move toward a more controlled financial model, with Competitive Balance Standards and remuneration levels gradually coming into effect. For the 2026 to 2027 season, for example, a Base Remuneration Level of 10 million euros has been presented, with the full framework moving through a transitional period.
That is a step in the right direction. But it is still not comparable to the architecture of the NBA.
So the point is not that Europe does not have high level basketball. Of course it does. The point is that the NBA has created a better system for producing competition. And nights like these make that visible.
Game 1 between the Spurs and Thunder, and Game 1 between the Knicks and Cavaliers, were reminders of why the NBA remains the strongest basketball product in the world. Not only because it has the best players. Not only because it has the biggest stage. Not only because it can create unforgettable moments.
It remains the strongest product because it understands that spectacle needs uncertainty, and uncertainty needs rules.
Europe can be proud of its tactical education. It should be. European basketball has shaped the modern game in many ways, and its influence is visible even inside the NBA. But as long as European competitions do not build stronger mechanisms to limit the power of the wealthiest clubs, they will continue to have a product of great basketball quality, but with a narrower range of genuine competition.
The NBA wins because it does not simply allow the best players to shine. It wins because it has created a framework where more teams can realistically believe they have a path to get there.
And when two Game 1s in the Conference Finals are decided in overtime, with historic performances, a 22 point comeback and series that begin without anyone knowing what comes next, we are not talking only about entertainment.
We are talking about the result of a league that has learned how to protect its own product.
