Manchester is widely expected to become home to an NBA Europe franchise.  For many, the debate begins and ends with Manchester City and Manchester United.

Manchester City has become one of the world’s most sophisticated sporting organisations, combining elite performance with a global commercial network unlike almost any other. Manchester United, despite years of turbulence on the pitch, remains one of the most recognisable sporting brands in world sport, its history and worldwide fanbase capable of opening doors few organisations can match.

With the NBA reportedly seeking globally recognised brands as it builds NBA Europe, the logic appears straightforward. One of football’s giants would seem the natural choice to lead Manchester into basketball’s next chapter.

Then comes another claim.

One built not on global football, but on basketball itself.

Ben Pierson believes Manchester Basketball represents the strongest foundation for an NBA franchise in the city. It is a proposition that lacks the instant recognition of City’s sky blue or United’s famous red, yet one that raises a compelling question.

If the NBA comes to Manchester, who has the strongest claim?

THE OPERATORS

There are obvious advantages to partnering with an established football institution.

The infrastructure already exists.

Commercial departments are built to operate globally, sponsorship portfolios stretch across international markets, and decades of investment have created training facilities, marketing operations and fanbases that few organisations in world sport can rival. From a purely commercial perspective, attaching an NBA Europe franchise to either Manchester City or Manchester United is an easy argument to understand. Both clubs possess brands capable of generating worldwide attention before a ball has even been tipped.

Of the two, Manchester City appears the more natural fit for the NBA’s ambitions.

The transformation of Manchester City has extended well beyond success on the pitch. Under Chief Executive Ferran Soriano, City Football Group has evolved into one of the defining multi-club ownership models in modern sport, operating a network of clubs across the globe. Rather than treating each club as an isolated asset, the group functions as an integrated sporting organisation, sharing knowledge, commercial strategy, player development and operational expertise across its portfolio.

The foundations of that philosophy pre-date Manchester. During his time at Barcelona, Soriano was among the executives exploring ways to expand the club’s global identity beyond Spain, including plans for a Barcelona-branded club in Major League Soccer. Political disagreements ultimately led to his departure before those ideas could be realised, but the underlying vision would later re-emerge in Manchester. Today, City Football Group is widely regarded as one of the most sophisticated examples of multi-club ownership in world football.

That evolution is significant because it demonstrates more than successful football ownership. It illustrates an organisation capable of building and managing complex sporting structures across multiple markets, balancing local identities with a shared commercial and operational strategy.

Whether City Football Group has ambitions beyond football is almost beside the point. The organisational model it has developed is one that could be applied to other elite sports.

There are clear parallels with European basketball. Institutions such as Barcelona and Real Madrid have long operated football and basketball teams under a single identity. Supporters identify with one badge, commercial partners invest in one institution and operational resources are shared across multiple sports. Viewed through that lens, a move into basketball would feel less like a departure from City Football Group’s existing philosophy than an extension of it.

The organisation has also shown a willingness to embrace crossover opportunities with American sport. Manchester City’s commercial campaigns and promotional events have regularly featured NBA players and personalities, reflecting relationships that already exist between the club and the wider basketball landscape. While those connections should not be overstated, they illustrate an organisation that is already comfortable operating within the ecosystem surrounding American professional sport.

If Manchester City represents operational evolution, Manchester United represents commercial gravity.

Although recent seasons have diminished the club’s competitive standing, its commercial influence remains among the strongest in world football. The Premier League’s global expansion throughout the 1990s coincided with Sir Alex Ferguson’s dominance, creating an era in which Manchester United became arguably the world’s most recognisable football club, and it’s a position it has never lost. Players such as David Beckham and Eric Cantona became global sporting icons, extending the club’s reach far beyond English football and embedding the Manchester United brand across Europe, Asia and North America.

That global profile represents more than prestige. Few sporting institutions possess the ability to launch a new venture with immediate worldwide visibility. For a league seeking to establish itself in Europe, that commercial reach could prove every bit as valuable as operational expertise. If City Football Group represents an organisational model capable of scaling across markets, Manchester United offers something different: a brand capable of accelerating the visibility and commercial appeal of an entirely new competition.

Its ownership introduces another strategic dimension. The Glazer family’s stewardship of the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers provides direct familiarity with the franchise model that underpins American professional sport. While football and basketball operate within different competitive environments, experience of league governance, franchise economics and long-term commercial investment may carry particular relevance should the NBA favour ownership groups already accustomed to that ecosystem.

That perception extends beyond Manchester. Speaking earlier this year, Italian Basketball Federation president Gianni Petrucci pointed to Manchester United’s reported interest in NBA Europe as evidence of the competition’s commercial appeal.

“If Manchester United, the team that has the most supporters in the world, has already said yes to this project, there must be a reason, right?” he told Il Corriere dello Sport.

Whether or not Manchester United ultimately pursues a franchise is almost secondary. The significance of Petrucci’s remarks lies elsewhere. One of European basketball’s most senior administrators instinctively framed NBA Europe’s potential through the lens of one of football’s biggest institutions. It reinforces the idea that the league’s expansion is no longer viewed solely as a basketball project, but as an opportunity capable of attracting some of the world’s most powerful sporting brands.

The Specialists

Manchester Basketball offers a fundamentally different proposition.

Unlike Manchester City or Manchester United, its bid is not built upon one of the world’s largest sporting brands. Instead, it begins with something else entirely: an organisation that already exists within Manchester’s basketball ecosystem.

Backed by the Sherwood Family Investment Office, Manchester Basketball has spent recent years investing in the infrastructure required to grow the sport locally, from its professional teams and community programmes to governance, commercial partnerships and player pathways.

On the surface, that may seem difficult to compare with two Premier League giants.

But Manchester Basketball believes it possesses something neither football club can immediately replicate.

Operating experience.

Pierson has consistently argued that Manchester Basketball possesses both the operational expertise and, if required, the financial capability to lead a bid. Speaking to City A.M., he insisted the organisation already has the resources to compete independently.

“We have the financial resources to put a bid together ourselves if it looks like it makes sense.”

Yet he also acknowledged that an NBA Europe franchise may ultimately be built through collaboration rather than competition.

“We’ve also been approached by a number of groups that understand that we’re the operating business in the city.”

That distinction may be more significant than it first appears.

Speaking to Sports Business Journal, Pierson revealed that Manchester Basketball has held discussions not only with the NBA and its financial adviser, J.P. Morgan, but also with private equity firms and sovereign wealth investors interested in supporting a Manchester franchise. His argument is not simply that Manchester Basketball should own the franchise. It is that an NBA Europe franchise could emerge through collaboration, combining financial backing with an organisation that already understands how basketball in Manchester operates.

That philosophy lies at the heart of Manchester Basketball’s claim.

Being the operating business means far more than simply owning a professional team. It means staging matchdays, managing professional programmes, developing academy pathways, building commercial partnerships, engaging schools and local communities, working alongside governing bodies and overseeing the countless operational demands required to sustain a professional basketball organisation. These are not ambitions for the future. They are responsibilities Manchester Basketball already performs.

Manchester City has the global brand. Manchester United has the commercial reach. Manchester Basketball’s argument is that neither possesses what it already does: the experience of building basketball in Manchester.

Whether that proves decisive remains to be seen, but it is a difficult argument to dismiss.

There is also evidence that this approach is already emerging elsewhere in Europe.

In Italy, Luka Dončić and Devin Nelson have invested in an existing professional basketball organisation rather than attempting to build one from scratch, with widespread reports linking the project to a future NBA Europe franchise in Rome. Whether or not that ambition is ultimately realised, the strategy is revealing. Rather than creating an entirely new organisation, the investment builds upon an existing basketball infrastructure before attempting to scale it.

The implication is clear. Capital can be assembled. Operating expertise takes years to build.

Pierson believes that principle could shape NBA Europe’s wider expansion.

“I think you’ll see this with a lot of other cities,” he told Sports Business Journal. “A collaboration by multiple bidders, because you mesh your financial resources but you also mesh various pieces of operating experience.”

If that model proves successful, Manchester may offer a glimpse into how NBA Europe develops across the continent. Rather than one organisation defeating another, future franchises could emerge through partnerships that combine capital, commercial reach and operational expertise.

Pierson also believes Manchester’s football culture strengthens the case for an independent basketball identity.

“If you are a light-blue-branded basketball team, do you lose half the city because the Man United fans aren’t going to go to your games?” Pierson asked. “So there is a logic for a third party to come in.”

It is an argument that extends beyond branding. An independent basketball organisation has the opportunity to represent Manchester itself rather than one side of its football divide. Instead of asking supporters to choose between red and blue, a neutral basketball identity could unite the city’s sporting audience while allowing investment, expertise and operational leadership to come from multiple partners.

THE DECISION

Manchester City offers one of the world’s most sophisticated sporting organisations. Manchester United possesses one of the strongest commercial brands in global sport. Manchester Basketball offers something fundamentally different: an organisation already embedded within the city’s basketball ecosystem, arguing that operational expertise should carry as much weight as financial strength.

Each presents a credible case. Yet together they expose a broader question that extends beyond Manchester itself.

Much of the discussion surrounding NBA Europe has focused on geography and commercial scale. Which cities should receive franchises? Which markets offer the greatest opportunity? Which organisations possess the reach to accelerate the league’s arrival in Europe?

Manchester suggests the more significant question may be different.

It is not simply where the NBA chooses to expand, but what qualities it chooses to reward.

If the league prioritises global recognition, established football institutions offer a compelling proposition. If it values organisations with existing basketball infrastructure, operational expertise and established community foundations, Manchester Basketball presents an equally compelling, albeit very different, alternative.

The eventual decision will determine more than the future of basketball in one city. It may establish an important precedent for expansion across Europe, influencing how future franchises are structured, financed and operated.

Manchester, therefore, is not merely competing for a place in NBA Europe.

It may be defining the criteria by which every future market is judged.

Disclaimer: All logos, trademarks, and imagery featured in this post are the property of their respective owners. I do not claim ownership of, or endorsement by, any of the brands or organisations shown.