The sporting world, and much of the non-sporting world, eagerly awaited NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s April 29 announcement regarding LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s punishment. Reaction to the announcement typically has been supportive of Silver’s disciplinary measures, and most folks appear pleased with the commissioner’s action in this matter. Concerns have been raised, however, and for a cross-section of responses, please see this article.
For a different take on the matter, and a cynical view of some of the other NBA owners, please see this article. Nobody ever claimed that extremely wealthy individuals necessarily embrace the high road in all aspects of their lives, but then, do those of us who aren’t extremely wealthy have any grounds to claim moral or ethical superiority? In any event, this article notes that there are some other NBA owners, not just Donald Sterling, who might not qualify for sainthood.
I was especially interested in the thoughts of noted African-American columnist Jason Whitlock, as found in this link. I do not share Whitlock’s view that a mob rule turned Sterling from villain to martyr, but I do share his concern that in the future, “pillow talk” made public on TMZ could be the undoing of wealthy professional athletes. I can envision professional athletes starting to pay attention to the differences in the laws of various states relating to the taping and disclosure of private conversations.
My main fear moving forward in the matter of Donald Sterling is that we are not done with him. I think it is likely that the NBA will find itself mired in protracted litigation, in particular a potential antitrust claim by Sterling that the NBA and the other owners have conspired to get rid of him and force him to sell his team at a greatly reduced price. For example, Commissioner Silver did say in his press conference that he was confident the owners would support his call to force Sterling to sell the Clippers. I would not be surprised to see Sterling attempt to use that as evidence supporting his conspiracy claim.
Given Sterling’s litigious history and his extremely deep pockets should we really expect anything other than extensive and expensive litigation on his part? I expect Sterling to warm up by claiming that any language in the NBA Constitution (which is not made public) that speaks to discipline for owner misconduct was intended to apply only in cases where an owner has demonstrated incompetence in regards to financial matters. I wonder if the fact that sponsors sprinted away from the Clippers as fast as possible in reaction to Sterling’s racist rants would undermine Sterling’s claim that the franchise is being managed in a fiscally responsible manner. On the other hand, it has been reported that there is no “morals clause” in the NBA Constitution, and Sterling likely will argue that had previous league officials and owners wanted such a clause, they would have included it.
The tough question for the NBA, of course, is how Sterling lasted so long as an owner. Here is a June 1, 2009 article from ESPN The Magazine that provides historical context for Sterling’s behavior and character. Sterling stared down the NBA when it attempted to fine him $25 million in 1984 related to his relocation of the franchise from San Diego to Los Angeles (in fact, he countersued for $100 million), and my guess is that Sterling will attempt to stare down the NBA once again. I fear he will not go quietly, much to the chagrin of the fans and players who would be happy never to hear his name again. I hope I am wrong, but I think we have not heard the last from Donald Sterling.
Please contact me with any thoughts at mike.gilleran@gmail.com. Thanks.
