A new investigation spotlighted by Pablo Torre Finds Out is forcing an uncomfortable collision between the NBA’s billion-dollar ecosystem and the mechanics of modern warfare. The report published by Hunterbrook Media alleges that networking equipment made by Ubiquiti, the technology company led by Memphis Grizzlies owner Robert Pera, has become a critical piece of Russia’s battlefield communications in Ukraine, including infrastructure used to support drone operations.
At the center of the investigation are Ubiquiti “radio bridge” devices, commercial products typically used to extend wireless connectivity over long distances. Hunterbrook says its months-long reporting found Ubiquiti gear repeatedly appearing in open-source battlefield material and in online posts from Russian groups involved in procuring or fundraising for equipment used at the front. The outlet also cites interviews with Ukrainian personnel who described Ubiquiti equipment as ubiquitous in Russian field communications, which is especially consequential given the scale and intensity of drone warfare in the conflict.
Those allegations land in the shadow of stark language from the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, which has described patterns of Russian drone attacks on civilians, particularly in frontline areas, as constituting crimes against humanity, including murder and forcible transfer of population. The Hunterbrook report does not claim Ubiquiti planned or ordered Russian attacks; rather, it argues that widely available commercial communications hardware can still function as a meaningful enabler in a war where drones and real-time targeting have reshaped daily life for civilians and soldiers alike.
Hunterbrook’s most pointed claims focus on supply and compliance: despite U.S. and EU sanctions and export controls designed to restrict sensitive dual-use technology from reaching Russia, the report says Ubiquiti products appear readily obtainable through a web of resellers and distributors, including via third countries. The report describes an undercover test in which a reporter, posing as a Russian military procurement officer, contacted sellers and distributors and found multiple parties allegedly willing to facilitate sales or provide pathways consistent with known sanctions-evasion tactics.
NEW INVESTIGATION: Memphis Grizzlies owner Robert Pera’s technology is powering Russia’s drone war on Ukraine and is linked to what the UN calls “crimes against humanity,” according to an undercover @hntrbrkmedia report. pic.twitter.com/giiSE4GdRJ
— Pablo Torre Finds Out (@pablofindsout) January 27, 2026
The investigation also leans on trade-data analysis. The value of Ubiquiti shipments crossing into Russia rose substantially after the full-scale invasion began. Some shipments appear to include models released after the post-invasion export restrictions took effect, potentially meaning channels to Ubiquiti’s supply chain remained open in practice even when direct sales were curtailed.
For Ubiquiti, the reputational risk isn’t limited to what may be happening in the gray zones between manufacturers, distributors, and end users. Hunterbrook argues that the company’s broad distribution model, and its stated lack of visibility over where products ultimately land, may be inadequate in a world where off-the-shelf networking hardware can be repurposed for lethal military advantage.
There is also a layer of disclosure that matters for readers trying to weigh incentives. Hunterbrook notes in the article that its reporting is associated with Hunterbrook Capital, which held a short position in Ubiquiti stock at the time of publication, with positions subject to change. That doesn’t invalidate the findings, but it does mean the investigation arrives with an explicit financial conflict that serious observers should factor in when assessing tone, framing, and what gets emphasized.
As of Tuesday, there was no clear, comprehensive public response from Ubiquiti addressing the specifics of the Hunterbrook allegations.
For the NBA, the dilemma is familiar in structure but unusually severe in subject matter. Leagues are comfortable handling reputational turbulence created by athlete behavior, competitive disputes, or ownership drama tied to business dealings. It is far rarer to confront allegations that a team owner’s core business may be entangled, directly or indirectly, in wartime supply chains connected to conduct a UN-mandated body describes in crimes-against-humanity terms.
And yet, the connective tissue here is precisely what makes the story so unsettling: Pera isn’t being scrutinized because of something that happened inside an arena. He is being scrutinized because ownership in modern sports often functions as a public-facing crown atop private empires, empires whose products, partners, and distribution decisions can ripple far beyond anything a commissioner’s office is built to police.
In the short term, the questions are practical. If Ubiquiti equipment is as present on the battlefield as the report claims, what controls, contractual, technical, legal, can a manufacturer realistically impose downstream? What obligations do “official distributors” carry when sanctions and export controls are designed to restrict certain flows but incentives push toward plausible deniability? And how quickly can a company retool compliance, monitoring, and enforcement without breaking the commercial model that made the brand ubiquitous in the first place?
In the long term, the story may test how the NBA defines “owner conduct” when the conduct in question isn’t a viral scandal, but the governance of a technology pipeline, one that, according to Hunterbrook, threads through intermediaries, resellers, and war-zone procurement networks.
For now, what’s clear is that the basketball world has been handed a headline it cannot dunk away: the idea that a franchise’s wealth engine, built on consumer connectivity, may be showing up, repeatedly, in a war where drones have become both weapon and terror tactic. What happens next will depend on evidence, responses, and accountability mechanisms that typically operate far outside the lines of sport.
