Raphael Stevens

More stories

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    NBA team sponsorship revenue up 8% to $1.6 billion, boosted by jersey patches

    NBA team sponsorships were up 8% year-over-year to $1.62 billion this season, according to third-party data firm SponsorUnited.
    The rise of jersey patch partnerships contributed to the uptick, and 450 brands entered into sponsorships with the league for the first time.
    Growth in sponsorships comes on the heels of the NBA’s landmark $77 billion media rights deal, which begins next season.

    Shai Gilgeous-Alexander #2 and Jalen Williams #8 of the Oklahoma City Thunder react on the bench against the Minnesota Timberwolves during the fourth quarter in Game Five of the Western Conference Finals of the 2025 NBA Playoffs at Paycom Center on May 28, 2025 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
    Matthew Stockman | Getty Images

    NBA teams notched $1.62 billion in sponsorship revenue this season — an increase of 8% since last year, and 91% from $850 million five years ago, according to third-party data firm SponsorUnited.
    While the volume of deals was up just 2.5% since last year, the partnerships got bigger and more strategic, per the NBA Marketing Partnerships 2024-2025 report from SponsorUnited, which tracks global sports and entertainment sponsorships.

    That haul is still shy, however, of the NFL, which had nearly $2.5 billion in team sponsorship revenue, a 6% increase from the prior season, according to SponsorUnited.
    A key part of the NBA’s revenue rise is the proliferation of sponsor patches on team jerseys, said Bob Lynch, founder and CEO of the data firm.
    The number of jersey patch deals — commonplace in international soccer and increasingly popular in the NBA since their introduction in 2017 — more than doubled year-over-year last season. There were six first-time NBA jersey partners, contributing more than $80 million in new spending this year, according to the report. The deals typically run three years on average, Lynch said.
    “It was sort of this mad dash to bring in these deals, which generate a lot of buzz and a lot of revenue,” said Lynch. “These partnerships can be a quarter of a billion dollars of incremental revenue that was generated just from 11 deals that were sold. So it just shows the continued viability and interest in the NBA just on these jersey patches alone.”
    The 2024 opening of the Los Angeles Clippers’ Intuit Dome has also helped to drive up overall sponsorship revenue.

    “Anytime these leagues have a big stadium that opens or an expansion team, it just adds so much revenue to the league,” said Lynch.
    “Between jersey patches and the Clippers’ stadium, it was like the equivalent of bringing in three new teams to the league that generated revenue,” he said.
    There were 450 brands that entered NBA sponsorships for the first time this season. The most growth came from brands in the construction, alcohol and technology sectors, according to SponsorUnited.
    Rakuten and JPMorgan Chase rank as the top-spending brands in the league, according to the report. Chase is the arena sponsor for the Golden State Warriors, while Rakuten has a patch on the team’s jersey.
    The sponsorship increase comes on the heels of the league’s $77 billion media rights deal, in which games will be offered across Disney’s platforms like ESPN, Comcast’s NBC broadcast and Peacock, and Amazon’s Prime Video beginning next season. The latest media rights deal shows a heavy emphasis on streaming and a broader expansion on broadcast TV.

    Star power

    Andre Iguodala, #9; Stephen Curry, #30; and Klay Thompson, #11, of the Golden State Warriors high-five one another during the game against the Boston Celtics at the Oakland Arena in Oakland, California, on March 8, 2017.
    Noah Graham | National Basketball Association | Getty Images

    Individual star players have beckoned some of the biggest endorsement deals, which didn’t contribute to the team sponsorship total, but often serves as a gateway for brands to eventually strike deals with teams, said Lynch.
    “What we’re seeing is that players are almost becoming teams themselves in the number of sponsorship deals they have,” said Lynch.
    Initially, star players and their massive social media followings were considered a threat to overall league and team sponsorship revenue. Instead, they’ve provided a boost, said Lynch.
    “It’s created a larger ecosystem for brands to enter into the NBA space, sort of dip their toe in the water,” he said.
    Athletes often ink endorsement deals that can last just a few months, as opposed to team sponsorships that are longer-term. The exception is generational players, like Steph Curry and LeBron James, who have the leverage for long-term deals.
    This season the Philadelphia 76ers’ Jared McCain inked 30 endorsement deals, the most by a player in a single season in NBA history, according to SponsorUnited.
    Other top NBA athletes who led in endorsement deals include three New York Knicks players — Karl-Anthony Towns, Josh Hart and Jalen Brunson — who powered the team to the Eastern Conference Finals this season.
    Golden State Warriors’ Curry was also among the top-endorsed NBA players. Curry saw his business career trajectory change when he inked a deal with Under Armour in 2013, which was worth about $4 million per year, CNBC recently reported. In 2023 Curry extended the deal and received 8.8 million Under Armour shares, valued at $75 million at the time.
    As a whole, the Warriors ranked alongside the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys and MLB’s Los Angeles Dodgers as part of a handful of U.S. teams with the most lucrative sponsorships businesses. More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Business

    Here’s how tariffs could affect the price of goods like shoes and sweaters

    The true “cost” of tariffs is difficult to determine, but models from consultancy group AlixPartners show common imported items could cost a lot more under President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Estimates from the firm show sweaters and footwear from China and Vietnam would cost significantly more under both current tariff policy and suspended “reciprocal” duties, if retailers pass the full cost onto consumers.
    Many companies have said they plan to take other steps to offset the cost of tariffs before they hike prices.

    What is the true cost of tariffs? 
    It’s debatable — not only because of political biases, but also because it’s far from straightforward to calculate just how much of the levies consumers end up paying.

    Even so, it’s possible to estimate how much the price of common items could increase under President Donald Trump’s various tariff proposals. For products like clothing imported from China and Vietnam, U.S. shoppers could have to pay a lot more.
    To illustrate, retail consultancy group AlixPartners created pricing models exclusively for CNBC, looking at the price of a men’s sweater and men’s shoes made in both China and Vietnam before and after Trump’s April 2 “reciprocal” tariff announcement. The estimate assumes the retailer is maintaining its previous profitability levels, and using no cost mitigation strategies but rather passing along the tariffs to shoppers in the form of higher prices.
    Under a current 30% tariff, the price of a men’s cotton sweater and a pair of men’s shoes made in China would both rise about 19%, according to AlixPartners. If Trump implemented the currently suspended 145% tariff on imports from China, the price of those same sweaters or shoes would spike roughly 90%.
    Using a current 10% tariff on goods from Vietnam, the price of a sweater and shoes would both rise about 8%. But under the now paused 46% levy Trump previously proposed, the price of those items would rise roughly 35% each.

    The models won’t capture exactly how tariffs will affect consumers. Still, they underscore that the levies, even at their current levels, could take a major toll on U.S. households.

    Shoppers may not see price hikes that large for multiple reasons. Most large retailers are using various strategies to offset as much of the cost of the tariffs as possible: Target CEO Brian Cornell, for instance, told reporters raising prices would be the company’s last option. 
    Final tariff rates could also end up lower than those used in the models.
    Retailers usually don’t want to raise prices, because it dampens demand. But they also have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to remain profitable. At the tariff levels Trump announced on April 2 on about 60 U.S. trading partners, there’s not much room for the nation’s retailers to “eat” the levies — as Trump suggested — when operating profit is around 5%.

    Men’s sweater made in China

    Customers shop at a GAP Outlet store on May 29, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.
    Scott Olson | Getty Images

    AlixPartners calculated the estimated costs by adding up costs like production, duties, tariffs and logistics. Here’s how that breaks down.
    Before April 2, a 100% cotton men’s sweater made in China could start at a cost of $6.80 to make. A 41.5% total tariff and duty rate was already in place for that sweater shipped to the U.S., adding $2.82. Then, there’s the cost of logistics and sourcing, which is another 95 cents.
    Put together, the total “cost” of making that sweater was $10.57. At a typical gross margin target of 65%, the retail price before April 2 would have been $30. 
    The graphic below illustrates how both the current tariffs and highest possible duties would affect those costs.

    Using the same 65% margin, a consumer would pay a new price of $35.79 under current policy, a 19% increase. With the full 145% tariff in place, the price would balloon to $57.97, or a 93% spike from before April 2 for the same men’s sweater.

    Men’s shoes made in Vietnam

    A man shops for shoes at a Nike outlet store in Los Angeles, California on April 10, 2025. 
    Frederic J. Brown | Afp | Getty Images

    While current and proposed tariff levels on Vietnam are not as high as those on China, the duties could still be a major blow to retailers that source a lot of footwear from the country. Nike makes many of its products there and has already said it will raise prices — though it did not blame tariffs for the move.
    AlixPartners’ model shows how tariffs could change the price of Vietnam-made shoes if a retailer passed along the full cost.
    Before April 2, a pair of men’s shoes made in Vietnam could start at a cost of $29.50 to make. A 20% total duty was already in place for those shoes shipped to the U.S., adding $5.90 to the cost. Then, there’s the cost of logistics and sourcing, which is another $2.36.
    Put together, the total “cost” of making that sweater $37.76 At a typical targeted gross margin of 60%, the retail price before liberation day would have been $95. 
    Now, look what happens when current and proposed tariffs are factored in:

    Using the same 60% margin, a shopper would pay $102.42 for the shoes under current policy, an 8% jump. With the highest proposed tariff in place, the new price would be $129.14, or an increase of 36% for the same pair of men’s shoes from before April 2.

    How retailers are preventing a worst-case scenario

    Regardless of where tariff rates end up, the largest companies aim to deploy some mitigation strategies to cushion the impact on consumer prices. 
    Retailers may change manufacturing locations to countries with a lower tariff — though that could take years. It’s possible foreign manufacturers can pay some of the tariff cost. Companies may also change the type of products they carry or tweak features to lower the cost. In some cases, retailers may explore other tax efficiencies. 
    Still, even Walmart — the world’s largest retailer by revenue — warned it may be impossible to absorb the entire tariff cost, even at current levels.
    Retail lobby groups warn that even if the full dollar value of tariffs is not passed along in the prices consumers pay for goods, like any economic model, there is still a “cost.”
    The Penn Wharton Budget Model illustrates how even when businesses and consumers share the tariff costs, job losses will likely occur as retailers try to cut costs and GDP declines.
    Another complicating factor when it comes to deciphering the true cost of tariffs is that large retailers like Walmart, Lowe’s, Target and others have said they may use the “portfolio approach” to pricing. That means they could shift the cost of the tariff to an item where consumers are less likely to notice an increase. More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Finance

    It’s not just AI — China’s quickly gaining an edge over the U.S. in biotech

    Out of five critical tech sectors, “China has the most immediate opportunity to overtake the United States in biotechnology,” the Harvard Belfer Center said in a new report.
    Just as China is developing its biotech sector, reports from the U.S. biotech hub of Cambridge and Boston reveal layoffs and empty labs.

    Two graduate students research chemical products in a laboratory in Xiwangzhuang Town, Zaozhuang City, Shandong province of China, on Dec. 26, 2023.
    Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    BEIJING — For all the attention on U.S.-China competition in artificial intelligence, new studies point to China’s rapid rise in biotechnology, especially for drug and agricultural development.
    Out of five critical tech sectors, “China has the most immediate opportunity to overtake the United States in biotechnology,” the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs said Thursday in its release of a “Critical and Emerging Technologies Index,” covering AI, biotech, semiconductors, space and quantum.

    While the U.S. is still the leader in all five, “the narrow U.S.-China gap [in biotech] suggests that future developments could quickly shift the global balance of power,” the report said.
    The assessment echoes growing concerns in Washington. In fact, the U.S. National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology struck a more urgent tone in an April report, citing two years of research.
    “There will be a ChatGPT moment for biotechnology, and if China gets there first, no matter how fast we run, we will never catch up,” the bipartisan Congressional commission said in the report, referring to the transformative chatbot released by U.S.-based OpenAI.
    “Our window to act is closing. We need a two-track strategy: make America innovate faster, and slow China down,” the commission said. It recommends that the U.S. government spend at least $15 billion over the next five years to support the domestic biotech sector.
    China’s biotech industry has evolved to the point that U.S. and European pharmaceutical giants in the last several months have spent billions to acquire China-developed drugs that could treat cancer if commercialized with regulatory approval. In March, British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announced it will invest $2.5 billion in a research and development center in Beijing.

    The Harvard Belfer Center pointed out that China’s biotech strengths stem from its “dominance in pharmaceutical production and manufacturing,” in addition to having more human talent than the U.S.
    China also has a “more flexible regulatory regime and the ability to push things out faster,” Cynthia Y. Tong, one of the Harvard report’s authors, told CNBC in an interview Thursday. She noted that the U.S. tends to have a longer approval process, as well as more drawn out research and development period.
    And just as China is developing its biotech sector, reports from the U.S. biotech hub of Cambridge and Boston are revealing layoffs and empty labs.

    A big strategy

    China has long used multi-year plans and preferential state policies to encourage the development of key technologies. Biotech is no different, gaining high-level support back in 2007.
    “Currently, the U.S. government has no cohesive, intentional biotechnology strategy, while China is gaining ground thanks to its aggressive and carefully coordinated state-led initiatives,” the U.S. security commission said.
    The worry is that just as Chinese restrictions on rare earths start to hit car manufacturers, Chinese dominance in biotech could become yet another form of leverage for Beijing over the U.S. and other countries.
    “The likelihood there’s going to be cooperation [between the] U.S. and China on anything is very low, in some ways least likely on biotech and AI” because of the congressional report, said Eric Rosenbach, director of the defense, emerging technology, and strategy program at Harvard’s Belfer Center. He was chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Defense from 2015 to 2017.
    He expects more U.S. pressure on China.

    Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inboxSubscribe now

    It remains to be seen what that would mean in practice for businesses — though some say the future of biotech development is inherently global.
    Insilico Medicine, a startup using AI to cut drug discovery costs, relies on a global team spread across China, North America and the Middle East, according to its founder and CEO Alex Zhavoronkov. On Tuesday, the company announced with a paper in Nature Medicine that it was the first to see successful clinical testing with an AI-discovered drug.
    While Insilico’s AI work typically happens in Canada and Abu Dhabi, the chemical testing and experiments are done in China, Zhavoronkov said, adding that the head of clinical development is in Boston. He declined to comment on a commercialization timeline in light of conversations with regulators.
    Other data shows that China has surpassed the U.S. in the number of clinical trials conducted, seen significant patent growth and boasts the most life sciences construction activity in the world.
    China-based Capital O venture partner Yang Fan, who previously worked in the pharmaceutical industry, said he expects the best biotech companies of the future will navigate different countries’ regulations and use resources across the globe, if not benefit from arbitrage opportunities given different requirements and cost of entry in various markets.
    “The Chinese market is like a big supermarket for anything that can be commoditized, AI or biotechnology,” he said, adding that new startups in China have to be “really good” to stand out. As AI drives innovation costs down, Fan predicts that in biotech, “the real DeepSeek moment is probably going to happen in five years.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Finance

    Trump’s tariffs have so far caused little inflation

    Rarely have economists spoken in such unison. Even before Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2nd, the median estimate among the 48 who were surveyed by the University of Chicago’s business school was that Mr Trump’s levies would raise inflation in 2025 by 0.8 percentage points. Meanwhile, the president’s position is that, in his press secretary’s words, “tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries [which]…have been ripping us off”. The implication is that foreigners will “eat the tariffs” and leave America’s consumer prices unaffected. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Finance

    Stanley Fischer mixed rigour and realism, compassion and calm

    He looked ridiculous, his wife assured him. Stan Fischer, the number-two official at the IMF, was supposed to be enjoying a holiday on Martha’s Vineyard in July 1998. Instead, he was perched on a sand dune, mobile-phone at his ear, trying to negotiate a bail-out of Russia, a country deemed “too nuclear to fail”. More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Finance

    Trump thinks Americans consume too much. He has a point

    Rebalancing the global economy is Donald Trump’s defining cause. China should produce less and consume more, the president thinks; meanwhile, America should produce more by reindustrialising. There is a final logical step to this equation: America should also consume less. More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Finance

    Who would pay America’s “revenge tax” on foreigners?

    The trouble started, as it often does, with France. Congressmen in the 1930s complained about “nations throughout this world who are not particularly friendly to Uncle Sam in a business way”. Mainly that meant the European power, which had slow-walked ratification of a tax treaty and was double-taxing Americans in the meantime. In 1934, to persuade French policymakers to pick up the pace, Congress passed a provision that is now known as Section 891. It granted the president the power to double levies on citizens and companies from countries that he judged to be overtaxing Americans. More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Finance

    Why investors lack a theory of everything

    If there was to be some cataclysm, and he could preserve just one sentence for future scientists, Richard Feynman would have made it about atoms. Tell them everything was made of tiny particles in constant motion, thought the great 20th-century physicist, attracting and repelling each other along the way. With a little imagination they could then uncover the rest. That was because the universe had a marvellous feature: though vast, it could be described by surprisingly few laws. Armed with the knowledge of atoms, Feynman reckoned his successors could work some of these out and then deduce far more. More