As the NBA Cup Finals take place, Charles Barkley watches the tournament from the outside. He does not participate in this year’s official coverage, but his voice still carries weight in public debate. The Hall of Famer used his show with Tom Tolbert to express a critical stance on the format and, above all, the financial incentives tied to the tournament.
Barkley experienced the competition firsthand in earlier editions. In the inaugural tournament, he showed curiosity about its development. In the second edition, while working with TNT, he was in Las Vegas when the Milwaukee Bucks won the $500,000 prize. In the third edition, his tone changed. The elimination-style format excites fans, but it does not convince the former star.
A direct critique of professional commitment
According to a report from Firstsportz, Barkley delivered a blunt assessment:
“I think the Cup thing is embarrassing. I’m disappointed that we have to run a tournament during the season so these guys can make more money and avoid load management. We should not have to pay them extra money to play. They should play basketball because they already get paid very well to play,” Barkley said.
His comments directly addressed the debate over staging the tournament during the regular season. For Barkley, the core issue is the message it sends. He views it as embarrassing that the league must create an excuse to guarantee competitive basketball. In his opinion, players earning massive salaries should show up and compete every night without additional incentives. Load management remains a major point of tension, and the NBA Cup appears as a temporary fix to a problem that does not convince everyone.
Charles Barkley says the NBA Cup is ‘embarrassing’:
“I’m disappointed that we have to make an in-season tournament to make these guys more money.”(via TomTolbertShow / YT, h/t @awfulannouncing) pic.twitter.com/MEgSeE9o4l
— Legion Hoops (@LegionHoops) December 16, 2025
The former player, widely known as “The Round Mound of Rebound,” has consistently defended professional ethics. Although he acknowledges that the tournament generates interest and conversation, he questions an economic stimulus as the primary motivator. His stance contrasts with the league’s narrative, which presents the Cup as a tool to increase competitiveness and enhance the calendar’s appeal.
Barkley does not seek consensus. He aims to provoke reflection. As the NBA explores new ways to maintain fan engagement, his criticism highlights the delicate balance between spectacle, business, and sporting commitment. The NBA Cup moves forward, but the debate over its true purpose remains open.
