Expanding to 30 Teams: Itoudis Opens the Fight for a EuroLeague with Playoffs and the Return of Russian Clubs

In a conference hall still buzzing with talk of broadcast rights and domestic league schedules, Dimitris Itoudis picked up the microphone and pulled the conversation in a different direction: the future format of the EuroLeague. The European champion coach did not speak like someone trying to soothe club owners. He talked about the number 30, about group play, about playoff series and about the need for Russian clubs to return. What caught my attention, as someone who has followed basketball for years, was not the ambition to expand, but the way he described playoffs as the "pinnacle of basketball." For me, a statement like that only truly matters when the cameras are off. Behind closed doors, people rarely talk about dream scenarios because they are afraid of being labelled unrealistic. So when a coach of Itoudis’s stature steps in front of the public and says that the current 20-team league is just a stopping point, it shows that the debate about reforming the EuroLeague has moved far beyond the offices of club executives. I don’t listen to what they say in front of the cameras — I listen to what they say after the lights go off. And the message Itoudis just sent, though wrapped in polite sports language, is essentially a political manifesto. Look at the current puzzle: the EuroLeague operates like a closed club with a limited number of participants, where the biggest clubs have the deciding voice in who gets in and who stays out. That structure creates stability for the ruling group, but it also creates a paradox: the most attractive league in Europe keeps rejecting new markets. Itoudis did not say that directly, but when he spoke of moving to 24, then 26 and eventually 30 teams, he was questioning the model of scarcity that has fed the league for years. In recent weeks, observers noticed a move by FIBA when the organisation allowed players, individual athletes and referees to take part in processes linked to the future of European basketball. To outsiders, that is just administrative procedure. To those who understand the mechanics of power in this sport, it is a door beginning to open. When individuals have been given the green light, the next step will be at club level, and then the 30-team story will be more than empty talk. The first thing to note about Itoudis’s statement is that he does not jump straight to 30. He describes a pathway: first 24 teams, then 26, then finally 30. That wording matters. A man who has experienced the pressure of European playoff basketball understands that format changes cannot happen in a single season. They need testing, adjustment and, more importantly, enough time for smaller clubs to adapt to facing stronger opponents more regularly. That linear path shows strategic thinking, not a sudden impulse. The most interesting part lies in the word playoffs. In the NBA, playoffs are the brand. In Europe, the EuroLeague season is often seen as a long series of games that ends with one big final. Itoudis suggested that the last game of the European season should be a playoff game, not just a lonely final night. Basketball is a sport of series, where a team can lose one game but still be clever enough to adjust and win the series. When Itoudis says that, he is really asking the EuroLeague to learn how to extend emotion, create multi-chapter rivalries and turn the end of the season into a real deciding period. What does a season finishing with playoffs mean? For fans, it means more high-stakes games, more comeback scripts and more reasons to stay in front of the screen. For clubs, it means higher broadcast and ticket revenue at the most crucial stage. For coaches, it means the value of reading the game and making adjustments rises to another level. A single shot takes only 0.4 seconds, but the story of a league format can last for the third generation. Itoudis seems to understand that deeply. But I do not think Itoudis’s ambition is purely sporting. When a veteran coach talks about the number 30, he is talking about markets. More teams means more cities, more potential sponsors, more television deals and more invested infrastructure. The current EuroLeague may be profitable for a group of top clubs, but it has not unlocked the full potential of the continent. For someone who came from America and now works in Australia, the comparison with the major sports leagues of both countries is unavoidable: a closed model may be safe in the short term, but a controlled expansion model creates long-term durability. He said it plainly: more teams means more players, more coaches, more referees and more job opportunities across the basketball ecosystem. That is a rare view among people who hold power. Most discussions about league reform revolve around one question: which club deserves a seat at the table? Itoudis turns the question around: how can we have more tables, more cooks and more people coming to enjoy the meal? I am not sure all club owners want to hear that question, but it is the right one. The hardest part of Itoudis’s message is his mention of Russian teams. Since the geopolitical conflict broke out, Russian clubs have been pushed out of many European competitions. For many, bringing them back is unacceptable in principle. For Itoudis, it is part of the growth picture. He does not avoid it or justify it. He simply says that European basketball is stronger when Russian teams compete because they once helped create the league’s competitive depth. This is when I saw the line between a sports strategist and a diplomat: Itoudis is placing the interest of the game above political calculations, and that will certainly bring him criticism. Through the eyes of a sports sociologist, this debate reflects a larger power shift. The EuroLeague is no longer just the competition of a few wealthy clubs; it is becoming a global brand that must answer to many stakeholders, from FIBA to national federations, from sponsors to fans. When an influential coach like Itoudis speaks, he does not only represent himself. He represents a generation of European basketball people who have waited too long to see their league escape the shadow of the NBA. The question is no longer whether to expand. The question is who will benefit from that expansion, and who will be left behind. The contrarian angle lies in a common fear: expanding to 30 teams will dilute the quality of the league. That argument sounds reasonable, but I believe it confuses quality with scarcity. An 18-team league with three weak teams is still lower quality than a 30-team league with balanced distribution of talent. The problem is not the number of teams, but how the league is designed to guarantee competition. If the EuroLeague organises its groups well and uses competitive merit instead of long-term contracts for wild-card spots, expansion can happen alongside controlled quality. There is a seductive theory that sports media repeats: fewer teams create scarcity, scarcity creates value, and high value makes the league rich. But the history of sports leagues in the United States and Australia suggests the opposite. The most sustainable leagues are those that constantly try to bring the product closer to the public, not those that build fences to protect the privileges of a small group. The EuroLeague can learn that before it is too late. Yet I am experienced enough not to paint a rosy picture. Bringing Russian teams back is not just an administrative decision. It brings sponsorship issues, public relations concerns, arena security risks and even resistance from national federations that do not want to be dragged into political turmoil. It also raises a fairness question: if Russian clubs can return, why do not clubs from smaller markets get the same opportunity? Institutional reform is never just a technical issue. It is always an issue of power, and power is never easily shared. What I have observed from basketball leagues in the United States and Australia is a simple truth: the longer the season, the deeper the story. Fans do not only remember who won the title; they remember the matchups, the comebacks, the controversies and the moments that made them unable to look away. Playoffs are the machine that produces those memories. When Itoudis says he wants the season to end with playoffs, he is asking the EuroLeague to invest in the most precious thing sport can sell: prolonged emotion. At 54, after many years following basketball from America to Australia and witnessing many successful and failed reforms, I no longer look for answers. I look for the right question for each game, and the right question for the EuroLeague right now is not "should we expand or not". The right question is: do the people currently holding power in the league have the courage to accept that the 20-team model has reached its limit? If the answer is no, the EuroLeague may remain stable for the next five years. But if the answer is yes, European basketball could enter a new era, one in which Itoudis, as a strategist, will be remembered long after he leaves the bench.