​When Mark Cuban sold his majority stake in the Dallas Mavericks in 2023, he believed he would still have influence over the team’s business operations and ultimate authority over basketball decisions. More than two years later, the Mavericks have undergone sweeping changes in both how the franchise is run and how the on-court product is managed, with the most controversial move being the decision to trade Luka Dončić to the Los Angeles Lakers. Cuban now says those changes were made without his input and that he’s being excluded from the inner workings of the operation. He has decided to escalate the dispute to the courts, targeting the Mavericks’ majority owners, Patrick Dumont and Miriam Adelson.
According to the Dallas Morning News, Cuban filed a petition this week in Dallas County accusing Dumont of engaging in “adversarial business practices.” The core issues include Dumont’s decision to transfer basketball control away from Cuban to former general manager Nico Harrison, and the possibility of relocating the team from the American Airlines Center in downtown Dallas to a site near the old Valley View Mall in the suburbs north of the city. Adelson and Dumont—who is her son-in-law—collectively own 69 percent of the team, while Dumont acts as the team’s governor. Cuban, who held roughly a 27 percent stake in the sales agreement, contends that he should have a say in Mavericks’ business operations, according to the filing.
At the time of the sale, Cuban had asserted that he would retain control over basketball operations, while Adelson and Dumont—both of whom built their fortunes with the Las Vegas Sands resort and development group—would focus on the real estate aspects of the venture. “It’s a partnership, right? They’re not basketball people. I’m not real estate people. That’s why I did it,” Cuban said on December 27, 2023, in an interview with Texas Metro News’ Dorothy Gentry. “I could’ve gotten more money by selling to someone else. Obviously, I’m really excited about everything, but this is a great partnership.” He also acknowledged at the time that there was no contractual language granting him control of basketball operations. “No, because you don’t do that in a sales agreement,” Cuban said. “You just don’t. There’s no contractual language, because that’s not part of a sales agreement, ever.”
Cuban’s court filing, as reported by the Dallas Morning News, contends that Dumont walked away from a handshake deal that included verbal and email assurances that Cuban would retain control over basketball operations. The filing quotes a sentiment that Cuban says betrayed him: “Instead of honoring his handshake deal, Dumont effectively turned control of the team over to former General Manager Nico Harrison, telling Cuban: ‘Why would I give you control of a $4 billion asset?’” Harrison, who has since been fired, was involved in the high-profile 2025 trade of Dončić, a trade Cuban says he did not learn about in time to voice any objections. According to the filing, Cuban also claims he has been shut out of the team’s decision-making, to the extent that he has not had access to information and materials that would typically be available to a shareholder of his level.
The legal action reflects not only a dispute over power and influence within the Mavericks organization but also the broader questions about how ownership structures shape the control and direction of a high-profile sports franchise. Cuban’s filing paints a picture of a leadership group that has shifted decision-making away from him and toward Dumont and Adelson, particularly in matters of basketball operations and strategic repositioning of the franchise, including the decision to trade a franchise centerpiece who had long defined the team’s identity. It remains to be seen how the courts will weigh a claim that the majority owners reneged on a personal agreement aimed at preserving Cuban’s influence and whether this constitutes a breach of trust or a violation of the implied terms of the-sale arrangement.
Cuban’s search for resolution through legal channels underscores the broader friction over ownership dynamics and the balance between real estate ventures and athletic performance. The dispute highlights the tension that can arise when different investment priorities—one party prioritizing the sports and operations side and another prioritizing real estate and development—are combined under one ownership umbrella. As the Mavericks navigate a future shaped by these legal and operational battles, fans and stakeholders will be watching closely to see how power, control, and accountability are managed moving forward.