NBA Punishment on Sterling

[Bakert]

Banned for life from any contact of any kind with the Clippers. Barred from attending any league activities. Fining him $2.5 million, maximum amount allowed under NBA Constitution. Will be donated to groups who work to reduce discrimination.

Will urge NBA Board of Governors to force a sale of team. Owners have authority based on vote of 3/4 of owners to remove him as an owner.

Said he spoke with several owners and have their full support.

Wow, Entertainment Tonight (!!) reporter asks the tough question - you have known this guy was a racist asshole for some time, why only doing something now?

Another good question - does doing this to a person who made comments in private a "slippery slope?" I think Cuban had that one planted.

Here is a story from ESPN: http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/s...s-life-ban-nba

[UKFlounder]

I like it, but have to wonder how soon Sterling's lawsuit will be filed and how long it might drag out.

[Rock Hard Ten]

During the off season, there will likely be a "run" of players refusing to return to the Clippers…."blue flu"……the value of the team will decrease a a result…..his best business decision will be to sell high while he can

If a sale occurs, it will be bad news for the Lakers as the Clippers are so superior to them now…..and, the Clippers brand will be greatly enhanced

[MickintheHam]

I like it, but have to wonder how soon Sterling's lawsuit will be filed and how long it might drag out.

I doubt if filed it will drag on too long. This guy has early signs of dementia. If he doesn't die beforehand, he's not going to have a brain when he needs to testify. From my standpoint I love to see narcissistic people get cross examined.

[bigsky]

The heartwarming relationship between a demented rich octogenarian and a young social rights activist woman has been ruined. Isn't that the real tragedy?

I know my cynicism knob is turned up to 11

[Darrell KSR]

@finebaum: Adam Silver just showed Mark Emmert the difference between a leader and a carnival barker.

[CitizenBBN]

He'll sell or the owners will IMO unanimously vote to force the sale. there are some issues around the taping of a private conversation but they will have no choice.

[UKFlounder]

But if they vote to force him to sell, that may not be allowed under the NBA Constitution (supposedly they can only force sales when an owner is behind on payments/finances, but their constitution/by-laws are private) so that may just create more litigation

Perhaps I'm overstimating the likelihood of court battles, but many of the descrptions I've seen of Sterling in recent days has included the word "litigious" and I just don't see him going quietly into that good night this time (though if his health is bad, that might change his mind.)

He'll sell or the owners will IMO unanimously vote to force the sale. there are some issues around the taping of a private conversation but they will have no choice.

[backagain]

Agree with the ruling, but this opens a major can of worms. What if Sterling said he was against homosexuals because of his religious beliefs? Could the NBA ban him then? Wouldn't that be religious discrimination? Are the personal views of people fair game for their participation in commerce?

Later...

[backagain]

Sterling doesn't appear to engage in discrimination when it comes to his team. Black coaches and players within Clippers franchise. This is a strange issue.

Later...

[UKHistory]

Elgin Baylor who worked for Sterling said he was fired on the grounds of race. Sterling is a slum lord who basically treated his minority renters horribly and did as little as he could in terms of upkeep of their facilities. That legal issue was settled in 2009.

What if Sterling said that based on his faith he didn't want his mistress to socialize with black people?

Sterling doesn't appear to engage in discrimination when it comes to his team. Black coaches and players within Clippers franchise. This is a strange issue.

Later...

[MTcatfan]

Agree with the ruling, but this opens a major can of worms. What if Sterling said he was against homosexuals because of his religious beliefs? Could the NBA ban him then? Wouldn't that be religious discrimination? Are the personal views of people fair game for their participation in commerce?

Later...

The NBA could definitely vote to ban him because they are a private entity and they make their own rules and if there is a bylaw they can cite, they can do whatever they want.

According to Deadspin who is using a lawyer fully versed in the NBA bylaws says there is a "good of the game" bylaw that Silver and the owners can use to get rid of Sterling and there isn't much he can do about it. I don't think that Silver would go for the 3/4 vote to take the team unless he had legal grounds to do so.

[MTcatfan]

Sterling doesn't appear to engage in discrimination when it comes to his team. Black coaches and players within Clippers franchise. This is a strange issue.

Later...

According to the tapes he views himself as the benevolent master enriching the lives of his black folks and they owe him their status.

[CitizenBBN]

But if they vote to force him to sell, that may not be allowed under the NBA Constitution (supposedly they can only force sales when an owner is behind on payments/finances, but their constitution/by-laws are private) so that may just create more litigation

Perhaps I'm overstimating the likelihood of court battles, but many of the descrptions I've seen of Sterling in recent days has included the word "litigious" and I just don't see him going quietly into that good night this time (though if his health is bad, that might change his mind.)

He could fight it, but if all but one owner are united about it I presume they can call their version of a constitutional convention and change the rules to whatever need be done to allow his ouster. At the end of the day he's 1/32nd member of a closely held corporation, they should be able to vote about any procedure they need to oust a member. They can't steal from him, he could sue saying he was losing value due to a forced sale, but I doubt it would hold up and most important for the NBA they will have gotten PR separation from him regardless of his actions.

Like you said we'd need to see the current agreement, which we can't, but I'd be surprised if it didn't already have the sweeping powers needed to deal with such things already in place. They may not, I could be dead wrong, but they'd have written a pretty narrow document indeed to not have the means to force an ouster for such cause nor to make changes to then force it.

Could be though, I've seen crazier things, and he certainly has the money to fight it if he chooses. But all the NBA needs is to be separated from him and fighting for his ouster in court for them to get past the PR issue, and that's what is really important to them.

Would be interesting to see what kinds of injunctions and such would be put in place during such a fight. Could they get one to stick that the team be turned over to a steward of some form? Could be very interesting.

[CitizenBBN]

According to the tapes he views himself as the benevolent master enriching the lives of his black folks and they owe him their status.

I dated a girl like that once.

[backagain]

This case is more clear cut because it is race, but I can see other issues arising that could be more difficult to handle.

Later...

[Darrell KSR]

This case is more clear cut because it is race, but I can see other issues arising that could be more difficult to handle.

Later...

Pro-choice?

Anti-semitic?

Republican?

NRA-friendly?

Anti-Obama?

You raise interesting points.

[CitizenBBN]

This case is more clear cut because it is race, but I can see other issues arising that could be more difficult to handle.

Later...

As a closely held corporation the NBA should be able to make about any rules they want regarding ownership of the shares. the owners aren't employees, they are shareholders, there are far fewer legal protections for such a relationship.

If they were a public company or the owners were employees they'd have more trouble, but this case is more like the Boy Scouts barring homosexuality than it is an employee discrimination case IMO.

Even though his comments were not meant to be public, his actions have hurt the value held by his fellow shareholders, and they have recourse. If nothing else they can argue the damage done to their value, which may not happen if it were some other comment.

[CitizenBBN]

Pro-choice?

Anti-semitic?

Republican?

NRA-friendly?

Anti-Obama?

You raise interesting points.

IMO they can oust a member for any of those. They are closely held, not employees protected by discrimination law, etc.

What constrains such things isn't the law at all, but the free market. They can oust anyone who is a NRA member etc., but it's not economically wise to do so so they don't. It's very wise to oust a flaming racist right out of the Simon Legree handbook so they will.

but at law even if they don't have that much power I'd think they have a case based on economic damages. If they can prove having NRA members as owners creates harm then they could defend having that policy, but if they can't show it's causing them any economic harm maybe they can't/shouldn't be able to.

I'll be interested in how it plays out. I imagine in the dullest way possible with him agreeing to sell.

[backagain]

The key here is "private entity". The NBA can make its own rules. But it still sets the stage for some major politically correct battles.

Later...

[ukpumacat]

Agree with the ruling, but this opens a major can of worms. What if Sterling said he was against homosexuals because of his religious beliefs? Could the NBA ban him then? Wouldn't that be religious discrimination? Are the personal views of people fair game for their participation in commerce?

Later...

All of those are interesting points. However, we all know the real issue here. The NBA is steeped in African-American and Hip-Hop culture. To say what he said is simply not going to be tolerated in that league. Right. Wrong. PC or Not. It won't be tolerated.

[bigsky]

He embarrassed the other owners. Can't do that. Must be punished for that.

[Darryl]

How long was Chris Paul's suspension for demanding the Clippers hire an African American coach?

I can't recall.

Darryl

[blueboss]

How much is the Clippers franchise worth?...today?

[UKFlounder]

Here us a discussion of some possible legal aspects or ramifications. It says the Clippers may be worth between $600 million and $1 billion.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...-lifetime-ban/

[Padukacat]

I think he has to sell if hes smart, but im not real keen on a guy being forced to sell because of a private convo he had where he said racist things. I think the guy is hideous, and what he said was totally crazy, and he is past the point of return unless he wants to run the franchise value to crums. But still, are we blind enough to not realize these things are said by ppl in similar positions? Im guessing his players have said similar things about him. I wouldnt want to work for the guy either but im really not surprised and in shock like most. Doesnt sound like the people close to him were either, im sure they suspected he said such things in private. I do see why nba owners and the nba must do what they can to rid themselves of this, but its odd to think they just tell the owner hes out.

[MTcatfan]

How long was Chris Paul's suspension for demanding the Clippers hire an African American coach?

I can't recall.

Darryl

That is way different than saying not to bring blacks to the games...and on a scale of 1 to 100 in the spoken racism spectrum Paul's comment was about a 2.5 and Sterling's tirade is about a 100.

[Darryl]

That is way different than saying not to bring blacks to the games...and on a scale of 1 to 100 in the spoken racism spectrum Paul's comment was about a 2.5 and Sterling's tirade is about a 100.

I think Sterling is an idiot. If a Caucasian player had made the same statement about wanting to hire only a white coach, what
would it rank in the spoken racism spectrum? I think Chris Paul showed his racism every bit as much as Sterling did. Only he did
it in a public forum.

Darryl

[Padukacat]

I guess I missed the whole Chris Paul thing? Maybe he did it to spite sterling because he knew how he was. Got a YouTube link? I'm lazy

[CitizenBBN]

I think he has to sell if hes smart, but im not real keen on a guy being forced to sell because of a private convo he had where he said racist things. I think the guy is hideous, and what he said was totally crazy, and he is past the point of return unless he wants to run the franchise value to crums. But still, are we blind enough to not realize these things are said by ppl in similar positions? Im guessing his players have said similar things about him. I wouldnt want to work for the guy either but im really not surprised and in shock like most. Doesnt sound like the people close to him were either, im sure they suspected he said such things in private. I do see why nba owners and the nba must do what they can to rid themselves of this, but its odd to think they just tell the owner hes out.

He shouldn't be forced to sell by the government or some law, I agree, but a group of partners can and should be able to force out a partner they think is bad for the business, whether that has become public knowledge or not.

At law firms and CPA firms and every other kind of such partnership or family business etc. people are forced out all the time for things that never become public including just being an ass no one wants around. They can't be robbed of their ownership value, they have to be compensated for it per pre set rules or negotiation, but that kind of thing is a necessary mechanism. Partners/owners become lazy, do poor work, terrorize employees or make things a bad work environment, they can't be locked in to a deal where the other owners/partners have no recourse.

IMO the owners could force him out for as little as him making these kinds of comments had they never come to light at all if they so chose. If you were a partner at a law firm and one of the partners was a raving racist who had not yet been exposed but who talked like this in owner's meetings and elsewhere, wouldn't you want some recourse? On both moral grounds as a person not wanting to have that kind of person as a partner as well as business grounds that he could easily be exposed?

There should be no legal requirement to force him out dictated by the government, but the other owners need a mechanism to approve who buys teams and have a recourse when an owner has become a problem for the league.

Those other owners have value they should be able to protect. A business partnership (or similar legal structure like shareholders in a closely held corporation) isn't a suicide pact. If 31/32nds of the voting shares think the other 32nd needs to go for the betterment of the entity that seems pretty fair to me. he has to be compensated fairly (in this case by getting paid for his team) but other than that he's out.

I agree with you strongly though that there shouldn't be some outside force to make that happen. It's up to the owners, but I think they'll move to force him out if they have any brains at all or care about the NBA's overall value, which they do.