The 2026 NBA season has seen controversy regarding eligibility requirements for major awards. Collective bargaining between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) led to an agreement stating that all award recipients are mandated to have played at least 65 games during the season. However, this agreement included a clause explicitly stating that the game requirement could be bypassed under “extraordinary circumstances.” The ambiguity of this language has led to controversy, as certain players remained eligible for award while others were put out of contention.
The procedural changes are designed to prevent players from regularly sitting out games and incentivizing them to play. For award recognition, something every player strives for, athletes must compete in a minimum of 65 games, but the reality of staying healthy through that much of the season is more difficult than it might seem. This rule change harms many players who struggle with very real injuries.
Players like Luka Dončić and Cade Cunningham exemplify the complications that have arisen from the new rules. Dončić played 64 games, one less than the requirement, but missed two games in December when he traveled for the birth of his child. Cunningham played 63 games, but missed 12 games after a collapsed lung back in March. Neither Dončić nor Cunningham deliberately skipped games. Both missed games for what could reasonably be considered “extraordinary circumstances.”
The NBA and the Players Union agreed that this qualified as such and released a statement, saying “The NBA and NBPA agreed that, taking into account the totality of the circumstances for Cunningham and Dončić, each player qualified for awards.”
However, other players notably remained ineligible. Anthony Edwards of the Minnesota Timberwolves played in 60 games during the season and appealed for eligibility. Even though he missed time for an infection, his request was denied. Other notable players, such as LeBron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Stephen Curry and Devin Booker, are ineligible as well. The omission of star players in awards voting raises legitimate concerns about the validity of the awards. If the best players are ineligible, it means the awards will naturally go to players of a lower caliber. The rule change risks prioritizing game time over performance.
NBA commissioner Adam Silver has gone to great lengths to empirically defend the made rule changes.
“I think if you look at the numbers, the pre-implementation of this rule, numbers were going in the wrong direction,” Silver said. “I may have this a little bit off, I think the three years before we adopted this rule, almost a third of the All-NBA players had not played 80% of the games. That was a huge issue for the league.”
Others, such as Nuggets coach David Adleman, have been increasingly critical. Adleman stated that he hopes the rule can change over the summer. He also noted the potential absurdity of someone like Nikola Jokic playing 64 games and remaining ineligible for awards.
While the logic behind the game requirement is sound, in practice, it often appears arbitrary and unnecessary. In the last ten years, fewer than 20 players have played under 65 games and still been named all-NBA. When the exceptions are applied, (i.e., to Dončić and Cunningham but not to Edwards), the league risks losing the legitimacy of the awards.
It is a truism, both in life and sports, that awards should go to the most deserving person. If a player who only competed in 64 games outperformed someone who played in 66 games, who should the award go to? With the rule change, it would go to the player who played 66, even if they are less deserving. Here, the arbitrary nature of the award is abundantly clear. It is certainly in the best interest of the league to, at the very least, revisit this rule.
