The NBA is investigating whether the Milwaukee Bucks and Gary Trent Jr. arranged his earlier, lower-paying contracts with an understanding that a larger payday would follow. His four-year, $64 million deal raises two separate questions: how Milwaukee was allowed to pay him that much, and whether the parties had promised that payment in advance.
As of September 24, the investigation remains unresolved. The Athletic’s Joe Vardon reported September 23 that a league spokesperson confirmed it was continuing, with the Bucks and Trent’s agency, Klutch Sports Group, cooperating. Brew Hoop’s account of Vardon’s reporting says the NBA retained law firm Hecker Fink to investigate.
How Milwaukee could legally give Trent the raise
Trent earned approximately $2.6 million in 2024-25 and $3.7 million in 2025-26. He declined the second season of his previous deal before signing the new contract, which starts at a reported $15.2 million. Front Office Sports reported that Milwaukee used his Early Bird rights for the signing. Front Office Sports
Early Bird rights provide an exception to the salary cap for retaining a player after two qualifying seasons. Under the NBA’s explanation, the first-year salary can reach the greater of 175% of the player’s previous salary or 105% of the previous season’s league-average salary. An Early Bird contract can last up to four years. NBA CBA 101
The league-average calculation explains how someone coming off a relatively small contract can receive a much larger one. Using Trent’s rounded reported 2025-26 salary, $3.7 million multiplied by 1.75 equals about $6.48 million. That is an illustration, not his exact contractual ceiling: the input is rounded, and the league-average calculation can authorize a higher starting salary. Comparing his new salary only with his old salary therefore cannot establish a violation.
What would make the arrangement prohibited?
Article XIII, Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement prohibits unauthorized promises or understandings concerning a future contract. The restriction covers oral and implied arrangements as well as written ones. A promise to compensate Trent later for accepting less earlier would fall within that prohibition. NBA-NBPA collective bargaining agreement, Article XIII
Trent’s raise drew attention because he averaged 8.1 points in 21.2 minutes during 2025-26 before receiving the fully guaranteed deal. Front Office Sports also reported in July that league sources had expected a substantial raise for months despite his disappointing season. Those expectations help explain the scrutiny; they do not establish what Milwaukee and Trent actually agreed. Front Office Sports
What evidence matters—and what remains unknown
Investigators do not necessarily need a written side agreement. Article XIII expressly permits direct or circumstantial evidence, including a contract that cannot rationally be explained without prohibited conduct. Investigators can therefore consider the explanation for the deal, but they still need evidence of a violation. Collective bargaining agreement, Section 2(d)
Vardon reported that rival executives said Milwaukee maintained it valued Trent at roughly $15 million annually and had free-agent contract projections supporting that assessment. That is the Bucks’ reported explanation, not a finding that resolves the case. No prohibited agreement has been publicly established, and no completion timetable has been reported. Brew Hoop, Hoops Wire
Following the required arbitration and appeal process, Section 2 violations can bring draft-pick forfeitures and fines; a contract can also be voided when both sides are found responsible. Those are authorized penalties, not announced outcomes for Milwaukee or Trent. Collective bargaining agreement, Section 3(b)