Since the Olympics first allowed professional basketball players to participate in 1992, the U.S. has lost a total of five 5-on-5 games—four for the men, and one for the women.

But in 2020, the Olympics introduced the new basketball format 3×3, in which the U.S. is nowhere near as good. In Paris, the U.S. men’s and women’s 3×3 basketball teams have already combined for seven losses in eight games.

It’s important to note 3×3 is not the same as 5-on-5 basketball. It is a half-court, 3-on-3 game where the usual two-point shot is worth one point and a three-pointer is worth two. The game flows at a much faster pace than full-court basketball, as it runs for only 10 minutes—or until one team scores 21 points—and the shot clock is 12 seconds. 

What’s the Issue? 

In the brief history of 3×3, the U.S. has actually fared well. The women won gold at the Tokyo Olympics and the FIBA Women’s Basketball World Cup in 2023. The men failed to qualify for Tokyo, but they entered Paris as the second-ranked nation behind Serbia.

But both rosters have nowhere near the talent as their 5-on-5 counterparts.

There are two multiple-time WNBA All-Stars on the women’s team—Dearica Hamby and Rhyne Howard—and the women lack some continuity after an ACL tear to L.A. Sparks forward Cameron Brink forced them to call up Hamby.

But the team’s other two players include college player Hailey Van Lith (above) and Cierra Burdick, a five-year WNBA veteran who hasn’t played in the league since 2021.

The men have just one player with NBA experience, Jimmer Fredette, who is 35 and hasn’t played in the NBA since 2019, while no one else on the roster—Canyon Barry, Kareem Maddox, and Dylan Travis—was close to making an NBA roster.

Recruitment Challenges 

Recruiting for 3×3 isn’t as simple as in 5-on-5. Several requirements make it harder to convince professional players who would risk their health for a payout that isn’t close to what they receive in the pros. But there are a pair of leagues—Unrivaled and Big3—that are embracing 3×3, albeit with modified formats, that could boost USA Basketball.

Unrivaled is a women’s basketball league launching in January founded by Breanna Stewart and Napheesa Collier, two of USA Basketball’s 5-on-5 stars. The league is expected to field many of the WNBA’s best, including Kahleah Copper and Kelsey Plum, who are also on the 5-on-5 roster.

Big3 does not feature current NBA stars, but it rosters former NBA players similar to Fredette. Considering he is still the top-ranked player in the world in 3×3, ex-NBA players should be the target market for the men’s team.

Sources tell Front Office Sports there have been no discussions between USA Basketball and Unrivaled. As for Big3, sources tell FOS that USA Basketball does not consider the league in its recruitment process.

It’s wishful thinking to think the games of the two leagues would be sanctioned by FIBA, but the growth of these leagues, the talent pool, and the focus on a similar 3×3 format should at least be an option that USA Basketball can utilize.

With the way USA’s 3×3 teams have looked so far in Paris, changes certainly need to be made.

A UFC fighter-pay antitrust case that stretches back nearly a decade took another detour Tuesday when U.S. District Court Judge Richard Boulware denied a preliminary $335 million settlement agreement. 

The precise reasons behind Boulware’s rejection of the settlement was not laid out in the notice posted on the court docket, although he expressed concerns over the payout amounts to fighters at a July hearing. Boulware is expected to file an order that will detail his issues with the settlement ahead of an Aug. 19 hearing in a Las Vegas federal courtroom. 

“It is extremely rare to not grant a preliminary settlement approval when both sides came to an agreement after years of litigation with the assistance of an experienced mediator,” said Jeffrey Kessler, who was one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs in the House v. NCAA settlement and has followed the UFC fighter pay litigation. “It’s very unusual.”

Now, there’s a new trial date (Oct. 28), although the two sides will continue talks toward a new settlement—at least once Boulware identifies the defects in the one brokered in March. 

The UFC litigation consists of two class-action lawsuits, both arguing that the UFC used monopolistic practices as the dominant pro mixed martial arts league to suppress fighter wages. Former UFC competitor Jon Fitch said if fighters didn’t act like “a good company boy” and complained about compensation, there would be consequences. 

“They would punish you,” Fitch, one of the plaintiffs, said in a deposition. “They would give you the feeling that if you questioned them or didn’t just say ‘yes,’ that you would get put on the bench and not get to fight. You would get cut after one loss.”

• The lawsuit filed in 2014, with former UFC fighter Cung Le (above, center) as one of the lead plaintiffs, includes about 1,200 athletes who competed in the UFC from December 2010 through June 2017. Under the settlement, those in the class will get at least $8,000 with a median payout of about $73,000. Nearly 500 members of this class would have received $100,000 or more.
• Kajan Johnson, another retired UFC competitor, is among the lead plaintiffs in the other class-action case originally filed in 2021 and covers fighters from July 2017 onward. The settlement included cash payouts and commitment to maintain provisions that had relaxed certain contract terms that limit class members from competing for other organizations.

Had Boulware approved the preliminary settlement, there would have been an opt-out period that typically runs 45 days in federal antitrust cases. 

Perils of a Trial

Only the Le case is scheduled for trial, but that’s the most perilous of the two for the UFC. 

Endeavor purchased the UFC in 2018 and merged the UFC with WWE to create TKO Group Holdings. Unless there’s a settlement in the coming months, Endeavor faces the prospect of a jury verdict that could exceed $1 billion in damages. 

The plaintiffs—along with their lawyers, who get a sizable cut via legal fees—could, conversely, be left with nothing if a jury sides with the UFC at trial.

On the surface, there’s a rather strong case for the cost of Super Bowl advertising spots to rise this year. The NFL last year enjoyed a banner season with ratings increases across the board, culminating in a record audience of 123.4 million for Super Bowl LVIII. 

Amid those viewership boosts, the NFL further established itself as by far the most dominant entity in all of U.S. television, claiming 93 of the top 100 audiences in 2023, regardless of genre. 

But as the selling season intensifies for the upcoming Super Bowl LIX in New Orleans, pricing for the title game is remaining steady at about $7 million per 30-second unit, according to multiple reports. That figure is in line with each of the last two Super Bowls, and only slightly higher than the 2022 game, and marks the longest run of stable ad pricing in the nearly six decades of the Super Bowl. 

Stagnant State

So what explains the apparent disconnect? Several contributing factors are at play.

• A broader industry malaise: Even with the NFL’s might, there’s no question that the traditional linear television business is in a state of decline on a macro level. The recent advertising up-front market reflected that, with a 2.5% overall market decline this year projected to be followed by a 4.5% drop in 2025. Those decreases are happening as additional marketing dollars are going to streaming instead. 
• Social media: The nature of Super Bowl advertising has changed in recent years, with online reveals before the game fundamentally altering when and how those spots are unveiled. In addition to the early distribution, social media has also helped raise consumer expectations surrounding the quality and tenor of Super Bowl ads. As a result, the new paradigm for Super Bowl advertising increasingly requires an extended and multifaceted approach, in turn narrowing the field somewhat for potential buyers. 
• Additional buying requirements: Fox will be airing Super Bowl LIX, and not unlike other recent Super Bowl broadcasters, the network is believed to be requiring buyers for the title game to make a similar, or greater, commitment to other network content such as additional NFL games. 
• Production costs: Total Super Bowl advertising costs can easily extend well into eight figures once production costs are also added to the acquisition of airtime. That expense, however, is still growing, again in part due to rising fan expectations that in some cases mirror what surrounds a Hollywood blockbuster movie. The hefty outlays, in turn, have led to the growing suggestion of a potential ceiling for the Super Bowl ad units. 

“There’s a value ceiling for the most expensive unit cost we’re ever going to pay—there’s only so much higher it could reasonably go,” said an unnamed ad buyer quoted by AdAge. 

Super Bowl LIX is scheduled for Feb. 9 at the Caesars Superdome.