The Pacers will throw game 3. Here is why

The Pacers have no reason to win Game 3 against the Bucks. They are much better off losing and then winning the next two games. Estimating the revenue from an extra home game for the Indiana Pacers against the Milwaukee Bucks in the 2025 NBA playoffs involves analysing ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, and other game-day income sources.

Key Revenue Streams

1. Ticket Sales:

• Average Ticket Price: The average ticket price for Pacers games at Gainbridge Fieldhouse is around $76, though playoff games often command higher prices. For a high-profile playoff game against the Bucks, prices could range from $100 to $150 on average, with premium seats (courtside, lower bowl) pushing the average higher.
• Attendance: Gainbridge Fieldhouse has a capacity of approximately 18,165 for basketball. The Pacers averaged 17,274 fans per game in the 2024-25 regular season, with playoff games often selling out. Assuming a near-capacity crowd of 18,000 for a playoff game:
  • Revenue = 18,000 × $125 (conservative average ticket price) = $2,250,000.
• Playoff games typically see a price premium. If prices average $150, revenue could reach $2,700,000.

1. Concessions:

• Fans spend roughly $15–$25 per person on food and beverages, based on NBA arena averages. For 18,000 attendees spending $20 each:
  • Revenue = 18,000 × $20 = $360,000.
• High-demand playoff games may increase per-capita spending slightly, potentially pushing this to $400,000.

1. Merchandise:

• In-arena merchandise (jerseys, hats, etc.) generates about $5–$10 per fan. Assuming $7 per attendee:
  • Revenue = 18,000 × $7 = $126,000.
• Playoff games boost merchandise sales due to fan excitement, so this could rise to $150,000.

1. Parking and Miscellaneous:

• Parking at Gainbridge Fieldhouse costs $15–$30 per vehicle. Assuming 5,000 vehicles (accounting for carpooling) at $20 each:
  • Revenue = 5,000 × $20 = $100,000.
• Other revenue (e.g., in-arena sponsorships, VIP packages) could add $50,000–$100,000.

Total Estimated Revenue

• Conservative Estimate:
• Tickets: $2,250,000
• Concessions: $360,000
• Merchandise: $126,000
• Parking/Misc.: $150,000
• Total: $2,886,000
• Optimistic Estimate (higher ticket prices, increased spending):
• Tickets: $2,700,000
• Concessions: $400,000
• Merchandise: $150,000
• Parking/Misc.: $200,000
• Total: $3,450,000

Considerations

• Playoff Context: The Pacers and Bucks met in the 2025 Eastern Conference First Round, with the Pacers leading 2-0 after home games on April 19 and 22. An extra home game would likely be a playoff game, increasing demand and prices.
• Costs: Revenue is offset by operational costs (staffing, utilities, player bonuses), which can range from $500,000 to $1,000,000 per game. Net profit would be lower, likely $2,000,000–$2,500,000.
• Revenue Sharing: The NBA’s revenue-sharing model and gate receipt splits (home team keeps ~60–70% of ticket revenue after league taxes) reduce the Pacers’ take slightly.
• Fan Experience: A review on Ticketmaster praised the Pacers’ game experience, noting reasonable concession prices and high fan engagement, which supports strong attendance and spending.

It’s a lot of money!

The Indiana Pacers would likely generate $2.9 million to $3.5 million in gross revenue from an extra home game against the Milwaukee Bucks, with net profit around $2.0 million to $2.5 million after costs and revenue sharing. This estimate assumes a sold-out playoff game with elevated ticket prices and typical fan spending patterns.

The idea that smaller-market NBA teams, like the Indiana Pacers, might consider losing games intentionally to extend a playoff series and play more home games for revenue raises ethical and competitive concerns. Let’s break down the fairness and implications of such a strategy.

Why Smaller Teams Might Be Tempted

• Financial Incentive: As estimated, a single home playoff game can generate $2.9M–$3.5M in revenue for the Pacers. Smaller-market teams, with less lucrative local TV deals and sponsorships compared to big-market teams (e.g., Lakers, Knicks), rely heavily on game-day revenue. Extending a series by even one home game can significantly boost their budget.
• Revenue Disparity: In the 2023-24 season, the Pacers’ franchise value was $3.48B (24th in the NBA), far below the Knicks ($7.43B) or Lakers ($7.34B). Big-market teams benefit from larger fan bases and media markets, while smaller teams like Indiana, Memphis, or Oklahoma City face tighter financial constraints.
• Playoff Structure: The NBA playoff format (best-of-seven series) means a team can lose games and still advance, potentially incentivizing strategic losses to secure extra home games (e.g., losing a road game to force a Game 5 or 7 at home).

Is It Unfair?

1. To Fans:

• Fans pay high prices for tickets (e.g., $100–$150 for Pacers playoff games) expecting maximum effort. Intentionally losing undermines trust and devalues the fan experience, especially for loyal smaller-market supporters who may have fewer opportunities to attend games.
• Social media posts often highlight fan frustration with perceived tanking or lack of effort, suggesting a backlash if such a strategy became evident.

1. To the Sport’s Integrity:

• Deliberately losing violates the NBA’s competitive ethos and could lead to sanctions. The league has cracked down on tanking (e.g., fining teams for resting stars in key games) and would likely view intentional playoff losses as a serious breach.
• It disadvantages opponents who play to win, skewing the competitive balance. For example, a team like the Bucks, fighting for a championship, could be unfairly extended in a series, draining their energy for later rounds.

1. To Smaller Teams Themselves:

• Losing on purpose risks long-term consequences, like damaging team morale, coaching credibility, or player development. Young stars like Tyrese Haliburton thrive on winning, and a culture of strategic losing could alienate talent. But one game won’t make a difference, will it?
• The financial gain from one extra game ($2M–$2.5M net) is significant but pales compared to the potential revenue from advancing further in the playoffs or building a winning brand that attracts sponsors and fans. Truth is though that it won’t make a massive difference to rest days and who knows about the next playoff round anyway? Things are tough!

1. Systemic Fairness:

• The NBA’s structure already disadvantages smaller-market teams due to revenue disparities. Forcing them to consider unethical strategies like losing on purpose highlights a deeper inequity. However, this doesn’t justify undermining competition; it points to a need for structural fixes (e.g., enhanced revenue sharing).
• The league’s salary cap and luxury tax aim to level the playing field, but big-market teams still dominate financially. Smaller teams shouldn’t have to resort to gaming the system to survive.

Alternatives to Strategic Losing

• Maximizing Home Game Revenue: Teams can boost per-game revenue through dynamic ticket pricing, premium seating, or enhanced fan experiences (e.g., concerts, giveaways). The Pacers’ strong fan engagement, as noted in Ticketmaster reviews, suggests they could capitalize on this without compromising integrity.
• Advancing in Playoffs: Winning series generates more home games (e.g., a deep playoff run could yield 4–6 home games) and builds long-term fan loyalty and sponsorships, far outweighing the short-term gain of an extra game.
• League Reforms: The NBA could address inequities by increasing revenue sharing, subsidizing smaller markets, or adjusting playoff gate receipt splits to give home teams a larger share (currently ~60–70% after league taxes).

Is it fair? Hell no!

It’s unfair for smaller-market NBA teams like the Pacers to feel pressured to lose on purpose for extra home game revenue, as it undermines fans, competition, and the sport’s integrity. The temptation stems from real financial disparities, but the short-term gain ($2.9M–$3.5M per game) doesn’t justify the ethical and long-term costs. Instead, teams should focus on maximising revenue through fan engagement and winning, while the NBA could address inequities through structural reforms. Strategic losing is a losing proposition in every sense. So the Pacers can’t look like they lost the game on purpose but… they will give it away. After all it is very likely they don’t go much further in the playoffs anyway. So grab the money while you can.