Overview The Structure
Financial Mechanisms
Development Levy Solidarity Payment Development Fees The Federation Research Get Involved
Tap a tier to explore
New Court Order · 2026

A Framework for
American Basketball
Reform

"Why does the most talent-rich basketball country on earth have a system that rewards accumulation over development?"

New Court Order provides a framework to change that.

Talent flows up. Financial support flows down.
↓ scroll to explore
The context

The revenue gap between levels of competition has widened for two decades.

Since 2002, the difference between what a Power 6 school earns and what a mid-major earns has grown by over 600%. Each legislative and judicial intervention (O'Bannon, Alston, NIL, House) addressed a specific symptom without changing the underlying financial architecture. NCO addresses the architecture.

$70M $50M $30M $10M 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Power 6 avg. revenue/school Mid-major avg. revenue/school $58M gap
From inside the system
"These are not stories of mismanagement. They are symptoms of a structural crisis that no individual institution can fix on its own."
Dr. Gerry Bradley, Josh Heird & Dr. Laurence N. Benz — University of Louisville, June 2026
The consequence

The gap is no longer just a mid-major problem.

When financial resources concentrate at the top without any downward flow, the entire system becomes unstable. More than 415 collegiate programs have been cut, merged, or reclassified since May 2024. Schools from Sonoma State to Syracuse University are facing budget deficits, enrollment declines, and program eliminations. This is not a coincidence. It is the predictable outcome of a financial architecture that rewards accumulation and provides no structural support for the programs below.

415+
collegiate programs cut, merged, or reclassified since May 2024
93
academic programs cut at Syracuse University alone in April 2026
$535M
athletics-related debt at one major program, per the White House, 2026
5,000
student-athletes projected to lose roster spots under House settlement roster caps
"This bill is designed to protect the entire college sports ecosystem, not just the schools at the top of the revenue ladder."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee · June 2026
"We're seeing thousands of men's and women's athletic roster slots and a hundred athletic programs being cut."
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ranking Member, Senate Commerce Committee · June 2026
"He came over to me and said, 'Ron, you're doing a hell of a job getting kids ready for our level.' And I didn't know whether to be mad or to say thank you."
Ron Hunter
Head Coach, Tulane University · ESPN, 2026
"The gap that has been created in college athletics is mind-boggling. We have no opportunity to compete with the higher-level schools."
Brad Korn
Head Coach, Southeast Missouri State · 2026
The structure

Five tiers. Defined relationships. Every program with a financial role, three mechanisms to fund it, and one federation to govern it all.

This is the architecture NCO is designed around. Click any tier to see what it means financially. Scroll down to see how each mechanism works within it.

Tier 1 NBA 30 franchises · $14.3B revenue Tier 2 Power 6 Schools ACC · Big Ten · SEC · Big 12 · Big East ~75 programs · $42–63M conf. dist. Tier 3 Mid-Major Schools A10 · WCC · MWC · MVC · MAC · Sun Belt · AAC ~200 programs · $3–6M conf. dist. Tier 4A NCAA D2 / D3 1,000+ university-affiliated programs dev. fees $75K–$200K per player advanced Tier 4B NJCAA 500+ programs · dev. fees $45K–$150K per player Tier 5 Licensed Academies & Teams ABF-certified grassroots · AAU · club · academies
Click any tier to explore
Select a tier from the diagram on the left to see what the NCO framework means in financial terms for programs at that level.
$58M
Annual revenue gap between a Power 6 school and a mid-major
Senate Commerce Committee, 2025
$0
Development fees paid to mid-majors when their players are signed away
No mechanism exists today
2,320
Players entered the transfer portal in 2025, moving in one direction
NCAA, 2025
$418M
New annual money entering the lower tiers under NCO's three mechanisms and the ABF
NCO financial model, 2026
Mechanism 1 of 3
Development Levy

1% of NBA revenue funds a formal domestic development infrastructure for the first time.

The NBA currently invests in development academies in Africa, India, Australia, and China. The NCO levy extends that commitment domestically, allocating 1% of league revenue paid directly to American programs at every tier of the pyramid that do the development work. Proportionally, this is a more conservative ask than what the Premier League already invests in its own pyramid.

$143M
annual levy at 1% of $14.3B
$4.8M
cost per NBA team / year, 3.3% of one TV deal
Premier League: £69M ($87M)/yr in academy investment, 2% of revenue
$143M
annual levy
Mechanism 2 of 3
Power 6 Solidarity Payment

A 5% solidarity payment from Power 6 revenue creates a guaranteed financial floor for mid-majors.

Every Power 6 conference contributes 5% of its annual revenue to a shared mid-major fund. No tournament performance required. Every Tier 3 program receives approximately $210K per year, a reliable baseline independent of on-court results.

$210M
total annual solidarity pool
$1.05M
per mid-major program per year
Premier League solidarity: 4.5% of revenue, operational since 1992
Solidarity rate
5%
NCO proposal: $210M total pool
Total pool
$210M
Per mid-major / yr
$1.05M
$210M
Total annual pool
$1.05M
Per program / year
2.6%
Of avg $40M budget
200
Programs receiving
Mechanism 3 of 3
Development Compensation Fee

Programs that develop players earn compensation when those players advance.

Modeled on FIFA's training compensation system, the global standard since 2001. When a player transfers upward, the receiving program pays the developing program based on years trained, tier difference, and player rating. The framework creates a direct financial link between development quality and institutional revenue.

$130M
estimated annual market across all tiers
$470K
average annual dev. fee income per mid-major program
UEFA training compensation, operational since 2001
Transfer path
Years trained at program
1 yr
2 yrs
3 yrs
4 yrs
Player rating multiplier
$270,000
development compensation fee
2 yrs × $135,000 × 1.0× = $270,000
TODAY: PLAYER LEAVES VIA PORTAL
Program receives: $0
Cost to replace: $50–200K
Net result: −$50K to −$200K

The program that spent 2 years developing a player exits that relationship in the red.
UNDER NCO: SAME PLAYER LEAVES
Dev. fee received: $270–540K
Cost to replace: $50–200K
Net result: +$70K to +$490K

Programs stop fighting to keep players. They start developing players for upward mobility.
The governing structure

Three mechanisms describe what flows where.
One institution makes it enforceable.

Proposed

The American Basketball Federation

A membership-based governing body for American basketball development. Open to every program at every level of the game, from the NBA to grassroots. The institution through which the three NCO mechanisms are administered, enforced, and funded.

"The three mechanisms work on paper. But who enforces the development fee? Who verifies the solidarity payment? Who decides if a program qualifies? Without a governing body, the framework is a proposal. With one, it is a system."

Before and after

What changes under NCO?

A direct comparison of how the system operates today versus under the NCO framework — three mechanisms and the American Basketball Federation.

Scenario Today Under NCO
Mid-major loses a player to a Power 6 school Receives $0. Pays $50–200K to recruit replacement. Receives $270K–$540K development fee. Net positive.
NJCAA program develops a player who signs D1 Receives $0. No recognition of development work. Receives $45K–$90K per year of training. 2 years = $90–180K.
Mid-major annual guaranteed income $0 mandatory downward flow from Power 6. Tournament-dependent. $1.05M solidarity payment per year. Guaranteed regardless of results.
NBA investment in domestic development $0 formal fees to U.S. programs. Funds overseas academies instead. 1% of revenue ($143M) paid directly to programs at every tier.
Program incentive when developing a player Financial risk: good development attracts predatory portaling. Financial reward: better development = larger fee on transfer.
New annual money entering lower tiers $0 from formal mechanisms. Reliant on NCAA tournament performance. $418M+ annually across dev. fees, solidarity, levy share, and ABF membership benefits.
Governing body for domestic development economics None. No entity governs the financial relationship between tiers. No enforcement mechanism exists. The American Basketball Federation administers all three mechanisms, certifies member programs, and operates the clearinghouse.
Grassroots and AAU programs No formal credential, no financial recognition, no pathway when players advance to college programs. ABF membership opens development fee eligibility, formal certification, and national tournament access for the first time.
Enforcement of financial obligations No mechanism. Voluntary agreements between programs have no formal structure or dispute resolution. ABF clearinghouse verifies all transactions. Membership is contingent on compliance. Non-payment = loss of access to levy funds and development fees.
The framework is documented.
The conversation is starting.

If you work in college athletics, coach at any level, cover college sports, or have a perspective on how the financial architecture of American basketball should work, we want to hear from you.

Updates on NCO research, policy developments, and coalition progress.
Get in Touch @NewCourtOrder
New Court Order · Research

The Work Behind the Framework

Every number in the NCO framework is sourced. Every mechanism has a precedent. This page documents the legislative context, academic foundation, financial data, and international models that informed the proposal.

NCO Policy Brief
The American Basketball System: A Framework for Structural Reform
The external coalition brief. Three mechanisms: Development Levy, Power 6 Solidarity Payment, and Development Compensation Fee, fully modeled with sourced financial data and international precedent analysis.
New Court Order · 2026 · First published: newcourtorder.org

This brief is available by request. Click below to send a pre-written email — we'll respond within 48 hours.

Request the Brief
📄
PDF
2026
Current Legislative & Policy Landscape

The reform window NCO is designed for. Each of these developments validates the framework's core argument: patch-based reforms keep failing because they address symptoms, not the underlying financial architecture.

Jun 18, 2026
Legislative
Senate Commerce Committee: Protect College Sports Act Markup
Full committee executive session to consider S. 4668, the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (Cruz, Cantwell, Schmitt, Coons). The bill creates a national standard on transfers, eligibility, tampering, inducements, and revenue sharing, and amends the Sports Broadcasting Act to expand revenue for all schools. Backed by 20+ conferences and 228 colleges across 46 states, including the NABC and NBPA.
Senate Commerce Committee →
Jun 2026
Financial
University of Louisville Leadership: "The Time for Incremental Tinkering Has Passed"
The president, athletic director, and board chairman of the University of Louisville published a direct call for structural reform in college athletics — writing not as commentators, but as executives living the numbers daily. Louisville's reserves fell from $34M to $3.4M. Ohio State lost $37.7M on $255M in revenue. Penn State carries $534M in athletics-related debt. Their conclusion: these are symptoms of a structural crisis no individual institution can fix on its own. They call for Congressional action, a new governing body, and a hard spending cap — framing the current system as one that concentrates resources at the top while eroding support for everyone else. The argument maps directly onto NCO's core diagnosis.
University of Louisville →
Jun 3, 2026
Legislative
Senate Commerce Hearing: Nick Saban, Pete Bevacqua, Teresa Gould Testify
Chairman Cruz: "This bill is designed to protect the entire college sports ecosystem, not just the schools at the top of the revenue ladder." Ranking Member Cantwell: "We're seeing thousands of men's and women's athletic roster slots and a hundred athletic programs being cut." The hearing crystallized bipartisan agreement that the current system is financially unsustainable beyond the Power 6.
Full committee testimony →
2025–26
Financial
House v. NCAA Settlement: Post-Settlement Program Cuts
The $2.8B House settlement established a revenue-sharing cap of ~$20.5M per school per year. In the year following the settlement, dozens of athletic programs announced cuts to non-revenue sports, documenting that redistribution within schools, without new revenue flowing to lower tiers, accelerates the consolidation of resources at the top.
Sportico coverage →
2025
Legislative
SCORE Act: Failed to Advance
The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Empowerment (SCORE) Act failed to advance, leaving the NIL and transfer portal landscape ungoverned at the federal level. Its failure created the legislative vacuum the Protect College Sports Act now attempts to fill, and that NCO's structural framework addresses from the financial architecture side.
2025
Financial
NBA Draft Lottery Reform: 3-2-1 Format Adopted
The NBA's adoption of a 3-2-1 lottery format reduced the incentive for the worst teams to tank, mirroring reform that mirrors NCO's argument about perverse financial incentives. The league demonstrated willingness to restructure financial incentives when the status quo produces bad outcomes. The Development Levy applies the same logic to development infrastructure.
2024-26
Financial
415+ Collegiate Programs Cut Since May 2024
More than 415 collegiate Olympic sports programs have been cut, merged, or reclassified since the House v. NCAA settlement was reached. Cal Poly cut men's and women's swimming. Sonoma State eliminated all 11 varsity teams amid a $23.9M deficit and 38% enrollment decline. St. Andrews University closed permanently in May 2025. The pace has surprised even long-time observers of college athletics, and FY2026 budgets are expected to produce further cuts.
edCircuit analysis →
Jun 2026
Financial
Syracuse University: First Budget Deficit in Years, 93 Programs Cut
Chancellor J. Michael Haynie warned faculty in a June 11 email that Syracuse would not bring in enough revenue to cover spending, projecting its first budget deficit in years. The university had already eliminated 93 academic programs in April 2026. A 3.5% enrollment decline, an over-discounted tuition aid strategy, and the $20.5M athlete pay obligation from the House settlement are converging simultaneously. Student services revenue accounts for 65% of operating income, meaning enrollment declines hit immediately.
University Herald →
Apr 2026
Legislative
White House Executive Order: "Urgent National Action to Save College Sports"
The White House issued an executive order directing federal agencies to evaluate compliance violations in college athletics as a condition of grants and contracts. The order cited one major program with $535M in athletics-related debt and another with $437M, warning that financial instability threatens universities' responsibilities as federal contractors. The order called on Congress to act urgently, framing the college sports financial crisis as a matter of national concern.
White House →
2025
Financial
Bryn Athyn College Eliminates All NCAA Sports
Bryn Athyn College in Pennsylvania eliminated all 11 NCAA sports teams and its club hockey program, citing athletic spending at 21% of the institutional budget. The decision affected a campus where more than half of students were athletes. The college president framed the cuts as "essential changes to protect our core academic offerings." Bryn Athyn is one of dozens of smaller institutions where athletics costs, enrollment declines, and the settlement's revenue-sharing obligations proved impossible to absorb simultaneously.
CBS Philadelphia →
2025
Financial
Saint Francis University Drops from D1 to D3
Saint Francis (PA) announced it would transition all 22 Division I programs to Division III, explicitly citing "transfer portal, pay-for-play, and other shifts that move athletics away from love of the game." The move reduces scholarship obligations and competitive costs, but also reflects a broader pattern: smaller D1 programs that cannot compete financially in the post-House settlement environment are being forced to either cut or drop down entirely.
2aDays tracker →
2025
Financial
Sonoma State Eliminates All 11 Varsity Teams
Sonoma State University announced in January 2025 that all 11 varsity teams would be eliminated after spring, erasing a $23.9M deficit driven by a 38% enrollment decline since 2015. The university's situation illustrates the compounding relationship between enrollment pressure and athletics costs: as student headcount falls, the revenue base shrinks while fixed athletic operating costs remain. The House settlement's revenue-sharing obligations then arrive on top of an already-stressed budget.
2aDays analysis →
2021
Judicial
NCAA v. Alston: Supreme Court Unanimous
In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits for student-athletes violated federal antitrust law. The decision, written by Justice Gorsuch, established that the NCAA is not above antitrust scrutiny. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence went further, suggesting the NCAA's broader compensation restrictions were likely illegal too. Within days, the NCAA dropped its NIL ban entirely. Alston opened the door to athlete compensation without creating any mechanism to return financial value to the programs that developed those athletes. That gap is what NCO addresses.
Supreme Court opinion →
Academic & Journalistic Foundation

The body of work the NCO framework builds on, across sport economics, college athletics governance, and the business of basketball development.

Book: Sport Economics
Soccernomics
Simon Kuper & Stefan Szymanski
The foundational text on how European football's economic architecture functions, and why financial solidarity mechanisms produce better developmental outcomes across a pyramid system. Szymanski's work on football economics directly informs NCO's solidarity payment modeling.
View on Amazon →
Book: College Sports Finance
Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA
Joe Nocera & Ben Strauss
Documents the legal and financial history of the NCAA's amateurism model, including the O'Bannon case and the pipeline of litigation that ultimately produced Alston. Essential context for understanding why legislative reform, rather than litigation, is the only durable path.
View on Amazon →
Book: Basketball Development
No Hunger in Paradise: The Players, The Clubs, The Real Story of Football's Youth Academies
Michael Calvin
A ground-level examination of how European football academies actually function financially and developmentally, including the training compensation system that NCO adapts for American basketball. The parallels between English football's lower leagues and American mid-majors are direct.
View on Amazon →
Book: Basketball Business
The Billion Dollar Game: The NBA and the World of Basketball
Harvey Araton
Context on how the NBA's financial structure has evolved and the relationship between the league and the developmental ecosystem below it. Used in modeling the Development Levy's proportionality relative to league revenue.
Search on Amazon →
Book: Club Football Economics
The Club: How the English Premier League Became the Wildest, Richest, Most Disruptive Force in Sports
Joshua Robinson & Jonathan Clegg
The definitive account of how the Premier League's financial architecture, including solidarity payments and parachute payments, was constructed and why it has sustained a functioning pyramid for 30+ years. The primary precedent for NCO's solidarity mechanism.
View on Amazon →
Newsletter: College Sports Finance
Extra Points
Matt Brown
The closest peer publication to NCO's analytical positioning. Brown's annual FOIA-based financial analysis of D1 and D2 programs, filing hundreds of open records requests for MFRS data, produces the most granular public picture of college athletics finances available. A key data source for program-level P&L modeling.
Read Extra Points →
Legal Analysis
Sportico: Legal & Business Coverage
Michael McCann
McCann's legal analysis of House v. NCAA, NIL developments, and antitrust exposure provides the legal architecture context within which any structural reform must operate. Used in assessing the enforceability and antitrust risk profile of the NCO mechanisms.
Read on Sportico →
Reporting
College Sports Coverage
Ross Dellenger, Yahoo Sports
Dellenger's reporting on the NCAA governance crisis, conference realignment, and the financial fallout from the transfer portal has been among the most precise tracking of the structural breakdown NCO addresses. Key sourcing for the timeline of reform failures.
Read on Yahoo Sports →
International Precedent

Each NCO mechanism is adapted from a working international model. These are not theoretical proposals. They are operational systems with documented outcomes.

FIFA Regulation
FIFA RSTP Annexe 4: Training Compensation
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
The regulatory foundation for the Development Compensation Fee. Annexe 4 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players establishes category rates ($10K–$90K per year of training), eligibility windows, and calculation methodology. NCO applies a 1.5× USD premium to reflect higher American program costs.
inside.fifa.com →
UEFA Regulation
UEFA Training Compensation Regulations
Union of European Football Associations
UEFA's implementation of training compensation within European club football, operational since 2001. Provides the category structure (Category 1–4) and calculation precedent NCO adapts for the American five-tier pyramid. Over two decades of operational data validates the mechanism's effect on development incentives.
UEFA website →
Premier League Model
Premier League Solidarity Payments
English Premier League / EFL
The Premier League distributes approximately £100M per year (~4.5% of revenue) in solidarity payments to English Football League clubs. Operational since 1992. NCO's 5% solidarity rate mirrors this precedent and generates $210M annually, proportionally comparable given American conference revenue scale.
Premier League Finance →
Premier League Model
EFL Parachute Payments
English Football League
The Premier League's 55/45/20 parachute payment structure, totaling ~£49M in year one for relegated clubs, demonstrates how promotion/relegation systems can be made financially survivable. Included in the NCO internal framework as the model for the longer-term pyramid architecture.
EFL website →
Financial Data Sources

Every figure in the NCO financial model is sourced. The table below documents the primary data sources behind the three-mechanism framework.

Data point Source Used in
Power 6 conference revenue per school ($42–63M) Conference public filings; Senate Commerce Committee testimony, 2025
commerce.senate.gov →
Solidarity payment pool; gap chart
Mid-major conference revenue per school ($3–6M) EADA filings, Dept. of Education, 2022–23
ope.ed.gov →
Solidarity payment impact; gap chart
NBA league revenue ($14.3B) NBA/Forbes annual valuations, 2025–26 Development Levy calculation
NCAA tournament unit pool (~$36.7M/yr) ESPN/NCAA unit values, 2026
ncaa.org →
Context for Cinderella Payout (internal framework)
CBS/Turner media rights deal ($1.1B/yr) Sports Business Journal / NCAA, 2024 Tournament revenue context
UEFA training compensation category rates (€10K–€90K) FIFA RSTP Annexe 4; UEFA training compensation regulations
inside.fifa.com →
Development Compensation Fee base rates
Premier League solidarity payments (~£100M/yr) The Ball Business / EFL Analysis, May 2026 5% solidarity rate precedent
House v. NCAA settlement revenue-sharing cap ($20.5M) Court filings; Sportico legal coverage, 2025 Power 6 financial capacity context
Transfer portal volume (2,320 players, 2025) NCAA transfer portal data, 2025 Stat strip; development fee market sizing
Gonzaga athletic budget ($43M); VCU ($40M) EADA filings, Dept. of Education, 2022–23 Program P&L projections

Questions about the research or the framework?

Get in Touch
Proposed · 2026

The American
Basketball Federation

The governing body for American basketball development. Membership-based. Open to every level of the game. The institution that makes the NCO framework enforceable.

Talent flows up. Financial support flows down.

The development gap

American basketball produces more raw talent than any system on earth, yet we are not converting that talent at the rate we should be.

This is not about the growth of the global game. Global growth is good for basketball. This is about the fact that countries with a fraction of America's talent base are outperforming us at the highest level — because they invest in development infrastructure and we do not. The ABF is the answer to that gap.

Stats don't lie...

8
consecutive NBA MVPs won by players developed outside the American system
75
international players with professional experience entered D1 in 2025-26 — up from a handful the prior season. American players have no equivalent pathway.
15%
of NCAA Division I men's basketball rosters are international players — a figure that has grown every year for a decade
2
consecutive FIBA World Cups without a medal — 7th place in 2019, 4th in 2023. The most talent-rich basketball country on earth is falling behind where it counts most

"These kids are being developed earlier. They're more versatile. International players grow up in professional club systems where fundamentals, spacing, and team concepts are emphasized from a young age. That infrastructure is what gives them the edge — not the athletes themselves."

NBA coach — Andscape, April 2026
How it works

Three principles. One governing body.

🏛
Membership Creates the Mandate
Access to development fee payments, solidarity distributions, and levy funds requires ABF membership. Programs opt in to participate. Participation requires meeting standards. Membership brings financial access, competitive legitimacy, and formal recognition as part of the American basketball pipeline.
⚖️
Standards Protect the Pyramid
Member programs meet baseline criteria: coaching certifications, player eligibility standards, financial transparency, and transfer window compliance. Standards are designed for each level of the game — recognizing that development looks different at a grassroots program than at a Power 6 institution.
🔗
A Credible Negotiating Partner
Change at this scale requires an institution. The ABF gives the American basketball community a formal structure to advocate for, build, and sustain the development system the sport deserves.
ABF Initiatives

Six programs to close the development gap.

The ABF is not just a financial clearinghouse. It is an active development organization. Scroll through the initiatives and click any card to read more.

TIER 5 PRIMARY INITIATIVE
ABF Certified Youth Training
A national certification standard for youth coaches and programs.
Read more →
TIER 5 / TIER 4B BRIDGE
ABF Academies
Formal academies through certified charter schools and prep schools.
Read more →
ALL TIERS
ABF National Leagues
Sanctioned competition leagues — a regulated alternative to the AAU circuit.
Read more →
ALL TIERS — MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT
Coaching Regulations & Standards
Tiered certification requirements raising the floor of coaching quality.
Read more →
ALL TIERS — MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT
Transfer Windows
Structured transfer periods modeled on the FIFA/UEFA system.
Read more →
CORE ABF INFRASTRUCTURE
Clearinghouse & Development Tracking
The operational core — processing fees, tracking players, administering levy.
Read more →
Membership structure

Open to every level of the game.

ABF membership is the gateway to the financial ecosystem. Dues are nominal by design — the goal is maximum participation. The credential, the financial access, and the development fee eligibility are the value.

Tier 1
NBA — League Partner
Funds the Development Levy. Formal recognition as the apex of the domestic pyramid and first right of access to ABF-certified player pipelines.
Tier 2
Power 6 Schools
Solidarity obligation compliance, development fee administration, national tournament seeding. Levy share: $800K/yr. Net payer in the system, with structured offset.
Tier 3
Mid-Major Programs
Access to solidarity payments ($1.05M/yr guaranteed), development fee receipts, and levy share ($200K/yr). Total new income: $710K–$2.4M annually.
Tier 4A
NCAA D2 / D3
Development fee eligibility and levy share ($22.9K/yr). First formal financial recognition for programs that develop players who advance to Division I.
Tier 4B
NJCAA Programs
Development fee eligibility, levy share ($20K/yr), and national tournament pathway. First governing body to formally recognize NJCAA programs as part of the professional pipeline.
Tier 5
Grassroots / Licensed Programs
AAU programs, academies, club teams. ABF certification opens development fee eligibility ($15K–$30K/player) and levy share ($1,140/yr). First formal recognition for grassroots basketball in American history.
Organizational context

How the ABF relates to existing organizations.

ABF vs. NCAA
The NCAA governs academic eligibility and athletic competition. The ABF governs development economics and financial flows. A program can be both NCAA-affiliated and ABF-certified. These are not competing jurisdictions — they govern different things.
ABF vs. USA Basketball
USA Basketball governs Olympic and international competition. The ABF governs domestic development and financial architecture. The two organizations address different jurisdictions and are natural partners, not rivals.
ABF vs. NCO
New Court Order is the research and advocacy organization that proposed this framework. The ABF is the operational entity that implements it. NCO authors the policy. ABF runs the system.

Questions about the ABF or the framework?

Get in Touch
ABF Initiative 1 of 6
TIER 5 PRIMARY INITIATIVE

ABF Certified Youth Training

A national certification standard for youth basketball coaches and programs — establishing for the first time what ABF-recognized development looks like at the grassroots level.

What it is

ABF Certified Youth Training is a national certification program for youth basketball coaches and training programs operating at the grassroots level. It establishes minimum standards for coaching qualifications, player development methodology, and program transparency across every ABF-affiliated Tier 5 program in America.

Currently there is no national standard for youth basketball coaching in the United States. Any person can run a youth basketball program with zero credentials, zero accountability, and zero reporting requirements. European professional club systems certify coaches at every level. The ABF certification program begins to close that gap — creating a floor beneath which ABF-recognized development cannot fall.

What certification requires

Coaching qualifications: Coaches must complete ABF-approved training methodology coursework, demonstrating baseline knowledge of player development principles across age groups (12–14, 15–17, 18+). Coursework covers skill development sequencing, age-appropriate physical training, player welfare standards, and ethical recruiting practices.

Program standards: Programs must maintain basic financial transparency, comply with ABF eligibility rules, and submit annual player development reports to the ABF clearinghouse. Reports track players by name, years trained, and advancement through the pyramid — creating the development records on which future fee calculations depend.

Renewal: Certification renews annually. Programs that fail to meet standards lose membership status and with it, access to all ABF financial benefits.

What certification provides

Financial access: ABF membership and all associated financial benefits — levy share ($1,140/yr), development fee eligibility when players advance to college programs, and access to the ABF national tournament pathway.

Visibility: Certified programs appear in the ABF program registry, increasing recruiting visibility with college programs at every tier. A coach at a mid-major or Power 6 program looking for developmental pipelines will search the ABF registry first.

"Currently there is no formal way to know which grassroots programs are doing real development work. ABF certification creates that signal — for players, for families, and for college programs looking to identify talent pipelines."

Why this matters

The single most consistent explanation for why internationally developed players arrive in the NBA better prepared than American players is coaching quality at the developmental level. European club academies employ professionally trained, certified coaches whose career is player development. American grassroots basketball has no equivalent standard.

ABF Certified Youth Training does not solve this problem overnight. It begins the process of building a national coaching standard that can improve over time — creating the foundation on which every other ABF initiative depends.

ABF Initiative 2 of 6
TIER 5 / TIER 4B BRIDGE PROGRAM

ABF Academies

Formal basketball academies established through existing certified charter schools and prep schools — the first systematic American answer to how European professional club academies develop players from age 12 onward.

What it is

ABF Academies are formal basketball development programs established through partnerships with existing certified charter schools and preparatory schools. They are not new schools — they are existing academic institutions that add an ABF-certified basketball development program operating under professional-level development standards.

The model is drawn directly from how European professional clubs operate academy systems. Real Madrid, Barcelona, and the top clubs across Europe embed development academies within structured academic environments where players receive elite basketball coaching alongside traditional education. Luka Doncic was an EuroLeague MVP at 19 because he spent his formative years in a Real Madrid academy — not in an unregulated AAU circuit.

How ABF Academies work

Partnership model: The ABF certifies existing charter schools and prep schools that meet academic and facility standards to host ABF Academy programs. The school provides the academic environment and facilities. The ABF provides the development curriculum, coaching certification requirements, and clearinghouse integration.

Development curriculum: ABF Academies follow a structured development framework covering skill development sequencing by age group, physical development standards, film study and basketball IQ development, and academic performance monitoring. The curriculum is designed to produce players who arrive at the NJCAA or Division I level having received consistent, structured development from age 12.

Player tracking: Every player in an ABF Academy has a development passport in the ABF clearinghouse from day one. Years of academy training count toward future development fee calculations when players advance to college programs.

"The gap between grassroots basketball and college basketball in America is not a talent gap. It is a development gap. ABF Academies are the bridge — creating the structured environment between youth programs and college programs that currently does not exist at scale."

Why this matters

The NJCAA exists in part because many players are not academically or developmentally ready for Division I basketball straight out of high school. ABF Academies address the development side of that equation — producing players who have received structured, certified coaching during their formative years rather than inconsistent AAU exposure.

This is not a new concept globally. It is specifically new in America — and the absence of this infrastructure is a primary reason internationally developed players arrive better prepared than American players at the same age.

ABF Initiative 3 of 6
ALL TIERS

ABF National Leagues

Structured, sanctioned competition leagues for ABF member programs at every tier — a regulated alternative to the current AAU circuit with real eligibility standards, transfer window compliance, and development tracking.

What it is

ABF National Leagues are structured competition leagues for ABF member programs operating at each tier of the pyramid. They provide a sanctioned, regulated alternative to the current AAU circuit — which operates with no eligibility standards, no transfer windows, no development tracking, and no financial accountability.

The model mirrors how European football leagues operate at every level. Every tier has its own sanctioned competition structure with a defined relationship to the tiers above and below it. Programs compete under uniform rules. Player movement follows defined transfer windows. Development records travel with players through the league system.

How ABF National Leagues operate

Tiered structure: Separate leagues operate at Tier 5 (grassroots/academy), Tier 4B (NJCAA), Tier 4A (NCAA D2/D3), and Tier 3 (mid-major) levels. Each league has its own competition calendar, eligibility standards, and championship pathway.

Transfer window compliance: All player movement within ABF National Leagues must comply with ABF transfer window rules. Players may only change programs during designated transfer windows. Mid-season movement requires ABF clearance and exceptional circumstances review.

Development tracking: Every ABF National League game generates player data that flows into the ABF clearinghouse. Performance, attendance, and eligibility records are maintained in real time — creating the verified development history on which fee calculations and future recruiting decisions are based.

National tournament access: ABF National League competition is the pathway to ABF national tournaments. Non-member programs cannot participate. This is the single most powerful incentive for grassroots and NJCAA programs to pursue ABF membership.

"The AAU circuit is currently the primary development competition environment for American basketball players aged 12–18. It has no eligibility rules, no transfer standards, no development tracking, and no accountability. ABF National Leagues replace chaos with structure — without removing competitive access for any program willing to meet baseline standards."

Why this matters

Competition structure shapes development. Players who compete in environments with consistent rules, tracked performance, and structured progression develop differently than players in unregulated circuits. The absence of structured competition at the grassroots and NJCAA levels is a direct contributor to the development gap between American and internationally developed players.

ABF Initiative 4 of 6
ALL TIERS — MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT

Coaching Regulations & Standards

Tiered coaching certification requirements for every ABF member program — raising the floor of coaching quality at every level of American basketball.

What it is

ABF Coaching Regulations establish tiered certification requirements for coaches at every level of ABF member programs. Standards are proportional to the level — a Tier 5 grassroots coach and a Tier 2 Power 6 coach are not held to identical requirements — but every ABF member program operates under a coaching standard that must be met and maintained.

This is the single most consistently cited reason international players arrive in the NBA better developed than American players of the same age. The coaches developing international players from age 12 onward are professionally trained, certified by their national federation, and accountable to a governing body. American grassroots coaches are accountable to no one.

The tiered certification structure

Tier 5 — Baseline ABF Certification: Covers age-appropriate development methodology, player welfare standards, ethical recruiting practices, and ABF eligibility compliance. Accessible and achievable for any committed youth coach. Required for ABF membership at the grassroots level.

Tier 4A/4B — Intermediate Certification: Builds on baseline certification with advanced skill development sequencing, physical periodization principles, film study methodology, and player pathway planning. Required for NJCAA and NCAA D2/D3 ABF member programs.

Tier 3 — Advanced Certification: Covers advanced tactical concepts, recruiting compliance under ABF rules, transfer window management, and development fee documentation requirements. Required for mid-major ABF member programs.

Tier 2 — Professional Standard: The highest certification level, aligning with professional development standards. Power 6 programs operating under ABF membership meet the most rigorous coaching standards in American amateur basketball.

"Coach after coach, scout after scout, executive after executive has said the same thing: international players arrive with better fundamentals because they were coached better at a younger age, in more structured environments, by coaches who were professionally trained and accountable to a governing body. ABF coaching standards begin to build that accountability in America."

Why this matters

Development fees reward programs financially when their players advance. But financial incentives only produce better development if coaches have the knowledge to develop players better. Coaching standards ensure that the financial incentive structure created by the three NCO mechanisms produces real development outcomes rather than just creating a market for player movement.

ABF Initiative 5 of 6
ALL TIERS — MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT

Transfer Windows

Structured transfer periods that restore the conditions under which genuine multi-year player development is possible — and create the mechanism through which development fees are triggered and enforced.

What it is

ABF Transfer Windows establish designated periods during which players may move between ABF member programs. Modeled directly on the FIFA/UEFA transfer window system that has governed European football since 2002, transfer windows reduce mid-season disruption, give programs roster certainty, and create the defined moments at which development fee transactions are triggered.

The current transfer portal in American college basketball allows players to enter and leave at almost any point during the year. Mid-season transfers are routine. Programs cannot plan development with certainty because a player can leave without notice. This destroys the conditions under which genuine multi-year development happens — you cannot build a player over two or three years if they may leave at any moment.

How ABF Transfer Windows work

Primary window: Opens the day after the ABF National League championship and closes six weeks later. This is the main movement period — programs sign new players, development fees are calculated and processed through the clearinghouse, and rosters are set for the coming season.

Secondary window: A shorter mid-season window for exceptional circumstances — player welfare concerns, program closures, or hardship situations. Movement in the secondary window requires ABF clearance review and documentation.

Movement outside windows: Players may not transfer between ABF member programs outside designated windows without ABF approval. Programs that facilitate unauthorized transfers risk membership status and financial access.

"FIFA's transfer window system has been operational since 2002. Every major professional football league in the world operates under it. It did not destroy player mobility — it structured player mobility in a way that serves both player and program interests, while creating the legal and administrative framework through which development compensation flows."

Why this matters for development fees

Development fees are triggered when players transfer between tiers. Transfer windows create the defined moments at which these transactions occur, making them verifiable, enforceable, and processable through the ABF clearinghouse. Without transfer windows, the fee system lacks a clean triggering mechanism — every transfer becomes a potential dispute about timing, eligibility, and obligation.

Why this matters for development

The most important thing a program can do for a player's development is work with them consistently over multiple years. Transfer windows restore the conditions under which that is possible — giving coaches and players alike the certainty to commit to a multi-year development relationship without fear of unilateral mid-season departure.

ABF Initiative 6 of 6
CORE ABF INFRASTRUCTURE

Clearinghouse & Development Tracking

The operational core of the ABF — processing all development fee transactions, tracking player movement through the pyramid, and maintaining verified development records that make every other mechanism enforceable.

What it is

The ABF Clearinghouse is the transaction and tracking infrastructure that makes the entire NCO framework operational rather than aspirational. Without a clearinghouse, development fees cannot be calculated or enforced, levy distributions cannot be administered, transfer window compliance cannot be verified, and development records cannot be maintained. The clearinghouse is not a supporting initiative — it is the foundation everything else is built on.

The model is drawn directly from FIFA's Clearing House, which launched in 2022 to process training compensation payments between clubs globally. In its first two years, it processed thousands of transactions across more than 100 countries, establishing the operational precedent for exactly this type of cross-organization development fee administration.

What the clearinghouse does

Development fee processing: When a player transfers from one tier to a higher tier, the clearinghouse calculates the applicable development fee based on years trained, tier difference, and player rating. It notifies both programs of the fee amount, processes the payment, and maintains the transaction record. All of this happens through a standardized, auditable system.

Player development passports: Every ABF-certified player has a development passport — a verified record of their training history across all programs, including years trained at each program, coaching certifications of programs attended, and advancement milestones. This record follows the player through the entire pyramid and is the basis on which all fee calculations are made.

Levy administration: The clearinghouse receives the Development Levy from the NBA annually and administers its distribution to member programs at each tier according to the established percentages. Every program's levy share is calculated, verified, and disbursed through the same system.

Transfer window enforcement: The clearinghouse maintains the ABF member registry and verifies that all player movement between programs occurs within designated transfer windows. Unauthorized transfers are flagged and referred to ABF dispute resolution.

Membership registry: The clearinghouse maintains the complete registry of ABF member programs, their certification status, dues payment status, and compliance history. This registry is the authoritative source for which programs are eligible to receive levy distributions and development fees at any given time.

"FIFA launched its formal clearing house in 2022 to process training compensation payments between clubs globally. In its first year it processed thousands of transactions across 100+ countries. The ABF Clearinghouse applies the same infrastructure to the American domestic pyramid — making what is currently an informal, unenforceable system into a transparent, documented, and legally defensible one."

Why this is the most important initiative

Every other mechanism in the NCO framework depends on the clearinghouse to function. The Development Levy requires a system to receive and distribute funds. The Solidarity Payment requires a system to verify eligibility and process transfers. The Development Compensation Fee requires a system to calculate amounts, verify transactions, and enforce payment. The transfer windows require a system to record and verify player movement.

Without the clearinghouse, NCO is a framework. With it, NCO is a system.