When we think of sport cities, there are likely two that come to mind: New York and Los Angeles. After all, they are the cities that have the most professional sports teams throughout the US and Canada. Both locations have at least two teams in the five major league sports, which makes you wonder how and why a city would have more than one. Doing so splits fan bases, reduces team sales (for tickets, merchandise, etc.), and often creates intense local rivalries. So why would it be a good idea for any franchise to make this move?
In today’s article, we will be focusing on specifically why Los Angeles has two NBA teams.
Simply put, both teams failed to perform well from a financial standpoint in other cities and required support that only a large city could provide. Below, we will go into more detail as to how each team ended up in the City of Angels.
Los Angeles NBA Team Timelines
Just for some context as we dive into the rich history of each team, we have included a timeline as to what each franchise was previously known as up to present day (timeline is not to scale). Both organizations went through two iterations before becoming their present day teams.
Los Angeles Lakers
Reason for moving from Minneapolis to Los Angeles: According to this info page previously found on the NBA’s website (which has since been removed), the Minneapolis Lakers’ final 5 seasons in the city had seen a significant decrease in attendance. The team was not performing like they had previously, and some of their star players (like George Mikan) had retired. The team’s owner, Bob Short, saw how financially successful the Dodgers’ move was from Brooklyn to LA, and wanted to see if he would have the same luck with his team. The Lakers were the first NBA team not only in California, but in the West Coast as a whole.
It is also important to get some context as to to size and growth of Los Angeles during this time. According to the U.S. Census, Los Angeles was the third largest city (behind New York and Chicago), but had seen more growth than either of those cities since 1950.
| 1950 | 1960 | Total Change | Percent Change | |
| New York | 7,891,957 | 7,781,984 | (109,973) | -1.39% |
| Chicago | 3,620,962 | 3,550,404 | (70,558) | -1.95% |
| Los Angeles | 1,970,358 | 2,479,015 | 508,657 | 25.82% |
| Philadelphia | 2,071,605 | 2,002,512 | (69,093) | -3.34% |
| Detroit | 1,849,568 | 1,670,144 | (179,424) | -9.70% |
As we can see from the table above, Los Angeles was the only city to see population growth during this timeframe. Given that there was no basketball representation in Los Angeles and that the city had a lot of prime revenue opportunity (LA being the hub for moving-making and acting), the timing could not have been more right.
Los Angeles Clippers
Reason for moving from San Diego to Los Angeles: Donald Sterling is a lawyer and business magnate who purchased the San Diego Clippers in 1981. His law practice was based out of Los Angeles and he also owned a lot of real estate in the city. The relocation was likely due to LA’s size relative to San Diego at the time, as well as Sterling’s Los Angeles connections (he initially tried to move the Clippers to LA in 1982 and had a tentative agreement with the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena beforehand to be the team’s home). The Clippers were also performing poorly in San Diego (never had a season above .500 under Sterling), so the thought was probably that he could bring in more revenue from LA fans and build a better team.
To provide some of the same context we did with the Lakers, we’ve included a table here below showing the 10 most populous cities in 1980 and have included their 1990 populations as well (since the Clippers moved almost right in the middle of these two years).
| City | 1980 | 1990 | Total Change | Percent Change |
| New York | 7,071,639 | 7,322,564 | 250,925 | 3.55% |
| Chicago | 3,005,072 | 2,783,726 | (221,346) | -7.37% |
| Los Angeles | 2,966,850 | 3,485,398 | 518,548 | 17.48% |
| Philadelphia | 1,688,210 | 1,585,577 | (102,633) | -6.08% |
| Houston | 1,595,138 | 1,630,553 | 35,415 | 2.22% |
| Detroit | 1,203,339 | 1,027,974 | (175,365) | -14.57% |
| Dallas | 904,078 | 1,006,877 | 102,799 | 11.37% |
| San Diego | 875,538 | 1,110,549 | 235,011 | 26.84% |
| Phoenix | 789,704 | 992,551 | 202,847 | 25.69% |
| Baltimore | 786,775 | 736,014 | (50,761) | -6.45% |
As you can see by 1990, Los Angeles was over three times as big as San Diego. When we think about the Lakers’ move to LA, it played much in their favor because there was no one in sight to compete against for a fan base. The Clippers had a different situation since they would have to battle against a franchise that got there more than two decades before they did.
However, given Sterling’s connections in the city and it’s population density vs. the team’s prior home, over time all the team would need to do is draw in about 1/3 of LA’s basketball fans to perform better financially (hypothetically speaking, of course).
Conclusion
As we can see, both teams had different reasons going into the City of Angeles, but with the same goal: to become a financial success. We’ve summarized those reasons below:
Los Angeles Lakers
- No NBA representation on the West Coast at a time when the city was seeing growth that no other city was seeing provided a prime opportunity for a franchise to break in.
Los Angeles Clippers
- Owner Donald Sterling had strong business connections in the city and only needed a fraction of LA’s basketball viewership to outdo the team’s financial performance in San Diego.