I know they make money through the tickets, merchandise, advertisements/sponsorships etc.
but they got to pay player/coach/staff salaries, stadium/arena bills etc.

so do they actually make MORE or LESS?
say if you were a normal team like the Portland Trailblazers?

I don't know...

tickets, merchandise, advertisements,TV deals...the money there making is far greater than the salariesand expenses...plus there already billionairs before they buy the teams.

but if you own a team like the current t'wolves...

lol waht happens there??

Then you're screwed. lol.

Still someone watches those games

They need to spent money to build a nice team and people will come to support more often

Some one watches their games but the owner don't get money like in a better teams owners.

That's why the money of the Jerseys, Stadiums etc are split. So Lakers will not get richer and 76ers poorer.

I think it depends on several factors:

1. How many season ticket holders does the team have? Are they struggling to get people to buy even with low prices (Minny) or have waiting lists for those who want them? (Lakers)

2. How good is the team's overall performance? More wins, more filled seats.

3. Does the team have a very marketable star or stars on a national scale? If so, more butts in seats.

4. Does the team's ownership own the home arena? If so, the team gets dinero from every other event in the building, like concerts, and they also can make more money from concessions. The Wizards are an example of a team that flatout owns their arena. The Thunder and the Lakers I believe, LEASE from their arenas. This can be the difference between profitable and not profitable teams.

If the team has a good combo of owning its arena, having most if not all of its STH seats filled, is playing well, and has nationally recognized stars, that team is more likely to be profitable like the Lakers. Teams without a good combo, like Nawlins, and Sacramento, won't be as profitable, assuming they're not bleeding cash already.