NBA game
Credit: JC Gellidon/Unsplash
In A Nutshell
New research on 330 NBA teams found that pay inequity among a team’s top five players is associated with lower win percentages
The damage doesn’t come from reduced effort: players still hustled for loose balls and rebounds at normal rates
Instead, defensive performance declined, suggesting that coordination suffers when star players face unexplained pay differences
The findings may apply to any workplace where key performers must work closely together
Professional basketball teams pay enormous sums to their superstars, assuming that money motivates winning. Now, a study of 330 NBA teams reveals a hidden cost to enormous contracts. When a team’s best players face pay inequity, defensive performance declines (a sign of weaker on-court coordination) even though effort stays constant.
Researchers analyzed 11 seasons of NBA data and found something counterintuitive. Pay unfairness among a team’s top five players wasn’t linked to reduced effort. Players still dove for loose balls and battled for rebounds at the same rates. What changed was defensive performance, considered a key indicator of how well players coordinate on the court.
When employees feel underpaid, conventional wisdom says they’ll simply work less. But the real damage may run deeper. The study found that teams with higher pay inequity among their stars showed poorer defensive performance, though individual hustle remained steady. The scoreboard reflected these subtle breakdowns in teamwork, but coaches and managers rarely connected them to pay.
How Pay Inequity Among Top Players Affects Team Performance
Think Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen leading the Chicago Bulls to six championships. Or Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green building a Warriors dynasty. These players weren’t just the highest-paid, they also logged the most minutes and shouldered the team’s load.
Researchers focused on the top five players on each team because they’re on the court when games are won or lost. Teams with higher pay inequity among these core players had lower win percentages, though the study measured association rather than proving direct causation.
The researchers isolated pay inequity statistically: pay differences that couldn’t be explained by performance metrics or contract restrictions like rookie deals. After accounting for legitimate factors, what remained was unexplained pay variance. Teams where core players had higher unexplained pay differences showed measurably lower win percentages.
When researchers looked at pay gaps across entire rosters, including bench players, the pattern disappeared. The connection to team performance appeared specifically among the stars who play together and are most likely to compare pay and performance with each other.
Steph Curry is seen during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games
Steph Curry is currently the highest paid player in the NBA. (Photo by A.RICARDO on Shutterstock)
Why Effort Stayed Constant But Defense Declined
Why does pay inequity among stars relate to team outcomes? The assumption has always been that underpaid players will slack off.
Researchers tested this in 210 teams by tracking rebound percentage, and in 120 teams by examining loose ball recovery, as both measures require effort and aggression. Neither showed any connection to pay inequity among core players. Hustle remained steady.
What changed was defensive performance. Teams with inequitable pay among their core allowed more points per 100 possessions. The study found this defensive measure mediated the relationship between pay inequity and win percentage.
Here’s why this matters: players appeared to work just as hard. They dove for balls. They battled for rebounds. But defense declined, and defense is inherently a coordination task. Unlike a solo dunk or three-pointer, successful defense requires what the researchers called “orchestration” among all five players. Every defensive possession demands constant communication, rotations, and split-second adjustments as players move.
Equity theory, a well-known idea in psychology that people compare their pay and effort to others, suggests that perceived unfairness can disrupt cooperation in highly interdependent tasks like team defense.
One or two offensive stars can dominate scoring alone. But a single player failing to rotate or communicate can break down an entire defensive possession. When that coordination weakens, even slightly, defensive effectiveness suffers.
The researchers theorize that when players perceive pay unfairness, they may become less willing to coordinate closely with teammates they view as overpaid. The study didn’t measure these perceptions directly or document specific player behaviors. Instead, it observed the outcome: defensive performance declined in teams with higher core pay inequity.
Potential Implications Beyond Basketball
While the study focused on professional basketball, the authors argue similar patterns may appear in other highly interdependent teams. Surgical units, corporate leadership groups, research labs, and creative agencies all require close coordination among key performers.
The findings, published in Human Performance, suggest managers may track the wrong indicators. They watch effort, output, and individual productivity while potentially missing deteriorating coordination that determines team success. An underpaid executive may still work long hours and hit targets, but coordination with colleagues could suffer in ways that create bottlenecks.
NBA salaries are public information, making inequities highly visible. In organizations where pay is private, the effects might differ. However, workers increasingly discuss and share compensation information through various channels, meaning inequities may be more visible than managers assume.
The finding that coordination appears more affected than effort suggests pay inequity may matter most for interdependent work. Manufacturing lines where workers perform independent tasks might show different patterns than basketball teams running complex schemes requiring constant coordination.
What the Research Suggests for Team Leaders
Professional sports offer a laboratory where performance, compensation, and outcomes are objectively measured and publicly reported. This study suggests a potential hidden cost: pay inequity among key team members may be associated with reduced coordination, even when effort remains constant.
Team leaders may need to evaluate pay decisions differently. Managers naturally focus on effort and productivity. But coordination, measured through defensive performance in this study, appears to be the mechanism through which pay inequity relates to team outcomes.
When deciding compensation for star performers, aligning pay with contributions may help avoid coordination problems. If one key player significantly outperforms another, paying them more reflects reality. But unexplained pay differences among similar performers were associated with coordination problems in this research.
The study found that when core players have similar contributions, pay differences not explained by performance were linked to poorer defensive coordination and lower win percentages. When contributions differ substantially, pay differences appear less problematic. The study controlled for performance variation, meaning the negative effects appeared specifically when pay gaps didn’t match performance gaps.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a single peer-reviewed study examining NBA teams from 2009-2020. While the research provides valuable insights into the relationship between pay equity and team performance, it represents one piece of evidence in a complex field. The study measured associations rather than proving direct causation, and findings from professional basketball may not fully translate to all workplace environments. Readers should consider this research as part of a broader conversation about compensation and teamwork rather than definitive guidance.
Paper Notes
Study Limitations
The research examined professional basketball where individual pay is highly transparent and publicized. In situations where pay is less transparent, inequity among top performers may not be as widely known and effects could differ.
The NBA utilizes a salary cap, which restricts variance in team pay. This restricted variance would have suppressed the observed effects, meaning the findings may be conservative estimates of pay inequity’s impact in contexts without salary caps.
The researchers could not measure team member perceptions of pay inequity. The study observed objective behavioral patterns (defensive rating, effort measures) rather than measuring perceptions or motivations directly. The study shows association and mediation, not proof of causation.
The top five players by minutes played were identified as the “strategic core” based on the rule that only five players can be on court simultaneously. Additional analyses found effects remained significant when examining the top 4-7 players but disappeared outside that range (top 2-3 or 8-10 players). Defensive rating served as a proxy measure for coordination rather than direct observation of coordinated behaviors.
The study measured rebound percentage in 210 teams and loose ball recovery in 120 teams as effort indicators. Neither showed significant relationships with pay inequity.
Funding and Disclosures
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. No external funding sources were disclosed for this research.
Publication Details
Authors: Jeremy M. Beus (Washington State University), Shaun M. Parkinson (Washington State University), Jay T. Bates (Rutgers University) | Journal: Human Performance, Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 23-41 | Publication Date: Published online December 11, 2025 | DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2025.2601951 | Study Period: NBA seasons 2009-10 through 2019-20 (330 teams) | Data Sources: Performance data from NBA.com, player salary and contract data from Basketball-Reference.com