Seattle vs. Sacramento and professional basketball: why can't the NBA just expand?
Is it necessary to pit Sacramento, a mid tier city that has a professional basketball team, the Sacramento Kings, against Seattle?
The Sacramento Kings went through an iteration related to building a new arena last year, but the owners, the Maloofs (you can see one of the family members on "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills") junked the deal.
Later, hedge fund owner Chris Hansen decided to build a new arena in Seattle--the previous owners of the Seattle SuperSonics used lack of a new one to justify a move of the team to Oklahoma City--and to try to buy the Kings.
In the meantime, a different financing group proposes to keep the Kings in Sacramento. See "Kings saga becomes billionaires' tug of war."
Now I know why the League isn't interested in just adding new teams, rather than forcing the musical chairs of team moves, because otherwise they can't keep pressure on various cities to succumb to team demands for publicly-financed arenas.
But it isn't fair to cities and citizens.
As I have said before, if Congress weren't already in the pocket of team owners, ideally national laws would be passed that forbid this kind of blackmail.
-- Field of Schemes website on stadium and arena deals