Donald Sterling

Unreasonable or not, I'm pretty sure the NBA constitution is an enforceable contract.

one of the options Sterling is considering is to take the position that the NBA is in violation of anti-trust laws.

Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who received a lifetime ban from the NBA by commissioner Adam Silver, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday that he may accept the judgment his fellow owners render with regard to forcing the sale of his team.

“People want me to hire a wall of lawyers and [the NBA] to have to hire a wall of lawyers and go to war,” Sterling said. “I don’t think that’s the answer.

“I think the answer is, the league is a good league, all honest people. And I think that whatever they decide that has to be done, I think I should work with them and do it.”

However, when Cooper asked Sterling if he was willing to give up ownership of the Clippers, Sterling dismissed the idea in saying he did not believe that the league and its owners wanted that outcome.

“I’m a good owner,” Sterling said. “I have a good team. There are people that want to buy my team, but because the media says that the owners want me out doesn’t mean that they want me out.”
http://nba.si.com/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-legal-challenge-nba-los-angeles-clippers/

Three other impressions from the interview and their legal impact

1. It's stunning Sterling's lawyers and public relations advisers would green light this interview

Cooper surprisingly revealed that Sterling was without legal counsel and public relations advisers for the interview. While "Sterling unscripted" may have been the real deal, genuineness was probably the wrong approach for someone with Sterling's cantankerous style and cringeworthy worldview. Indeed, Sterling used the interview as much to apologize as to savagely attack Johnson and offer archaic and ignorant generalizations about race. He also referred to the 31-year-old Stiviano as a "girl" rather than a woman. This was not a man who seemed "coached" by his handlers at all. Unfortunately for Sterling, he likely scored no points with the scorers: the other 29 controlling owners of NBA teams.

Sterling's responses to Cooper can also be used by the NBA as evidence when owners conduct a hearing about him. They can also be used in court should Sterling later file a lawsuit. This is why legal counsel likely would have strongly discouraged Sterling from speaking with Cooper: it created a transcript of admissible answers to a difficult questions asked by a skilled interviewer.

2. Sterling says he has no plans to sue ... yet

Sterling appeared to make a concerted effort to speak to other owners -- "partners" as he called them. He did so by directly apologizing to them and emphasizing that he "loves" every one of them. Sterling added that he doesn't want to fight his partners in court, although he didn't rule it out. Sterling is undoubtedly aware that he would avoid paying hundreds of millions in capital gain taxes if he can hold onto the team (a benefit first raised by Robert Raiola, senior manager in the Sports & Entertainment Group of the accounting firm O'Connor Davies, LLP, for SI.com). Sterling has perhaps reasoned that it is better to first try pleading to the friendship and loyalty of fellow owners than to threaten them. But if he's voted out, his tone may change swiftly and dramatically.

3. Adam Silver's apology to Magic Johnson sends a message to NBA owners

Sterling took sharp aim at Johnson during the interview, at one point saying of Johnson:

"Well, what kind of a guy goes to every city, he has sex with every girl, then he catches HIV and -- is that someone we want to respect and tell our kids about? I think he should be ashamed of himself. I think he should go into the background ... But what does he do for the black people? Doesn't do anything." Silver apologized to Johnson on behalf of the NBA for Sterling's remarks. Silver expressed outrage that Johnson "continues to be dragged into this situation and be degraded by such a malicious and personal attack." Silver's apology was as much a statement to Johnson as it was an advisory to the 29 owners that they need rid the NBA of Sterling.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140513/donald-sterling-anderson-cooper-cnn-la-clippers/#ixzz31cJllsmQ

Thomas wrote:

Unreasonable or not, I'm pretty sure the NBA constitution is an enforceable contract.

Maybe not. As I understand it, one of the options Sterling is considering is to take the position that the NBA is in violation of anti-trust laws. If that's the case, then the NBA constitution may be unenforceable as a restraint of trade. From what little I know of the case, I don't think that's an unreasonable argument.

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Unreasonable or not, I'm pretty sure the NBA constitution is an enforceable contract.

Maybe not. As I understand it, one of the options Sterling is considering is to take the position that the NBA is in violation of anti-trust laws. If that's the case, then the NBA constitution may be unenforceable as a restraint of trade. From what little I know of the case, I don't think that's an unreasonable argument.

In that case, go Sterling! I hope he escalates it all the way to the Supreme Court, makes it overturn Federal Baseball Club v. National League, and gets the whole bunch of these sports rackets shut down.

If the commissioner is grossed out at those opinions
is he entitled to ban the expressive owner from attending ball games ?

How about George Zimmerman, if the commissioner is mad about his acquittal ?

How about ANY pariah, e.g. an outspoken cannibal ?

hawkeye10 wrote:

The NBA seems to be counting on the sentance (paraphrased) " the commissioner shall be the sole arbiter of when this agreement is violated" will keep the courts from claiming jurisdiction. I doubt it works.

I checked, and that's not what the NBA constitution says.

R u interested in sports ??

I waddle for fitness --- I'm too slow to call it "running" --- and occasionally participate when the New York Road Runners Club organizes a run in Central Park. That's about it.

Don (allegedly) knew that his mistress was taping him.
He ASSumed that she wud not hurt him.

U think he still believes that ?

In that case, go Sterling! I hope he escalates it all the way to the Supreme Court, makes it overturn Federal Baseball Club v. National League, and gets the whole bunch of these sports rackets shut down.

Chuck Klosterman
THE ETHICIST

What Exactly Was Donald Sterling’s Offense?
MAY 13, 2014

We can probably agree that the Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling made offensive comments. But was his offense thinking racist thoughts? Or saying them out loud? Had he not been recorded, Sterling would have received a lifetime achievement award from the N.A.A.C.P. The victim of his remarks was himself: Sterling managed to (further) trash his own reputation. No one else was really injured. Is purity of thought the expectation for team owners? MARK ALEXANDER, ST. LOUIS

Many have asked if the N.B.A. is ethically justified in its effort to force Sterling to sell his ownership stake in the Clippers. It is. Sports franchises can’t be viewed as autonomous private businesses, because they don’t operate in that way. The league as a whole is the business, composed of 30 satellite offices in various cities. The teams are interconnected and some revenue is shared; this is why most players can be traded against their will, and rookie salaries can be capped. Purchasing an N.B.A. team is similar to buying a McDonald’s franchise. And if a specific McDonald’s outlet decided to have its counter employees wear Ku Klux Klan robes, few would disagree with corporate if it removed the proprietor of that store.

Your question, however, is harder (and it has scarcely been asked throughout this whole fiasco): Is Sterling losing his franchise because of what he said, or because of what he believes?

Because of Sterling’s history of suspected racism (as a landlord, he has been sued twice for housing discrimination, and though he denied wrongdoing, settled both cases out of court) and the bizarre contradictions on the tape itself (speaking to a female acquaintance, Sterling says he does not want her bringing black people to Clippers games, despite employing a black coach and a predominantly black roster), the decision to oust him feels easy. But what if the details were more obscured? Imagine if, six months ago, someone had raised the hypothetical notion of forcibly stripping a sports franchise from a longtime owner because a private conversation had been surreptitiously recorded. Few would champion such a premise. Yet Sterling’s punishment received almost universal support. Why? It was not simply what he said, nor simply what he believes — it was the intractable collision of those two things.

The expectation of an N.B.A. owner is not “purity of thought.” Sterling was perceived to be racist for years. But perception isn’t enough. You can’t penalize a person based on what you believe exists inside his mind. It must spill into the world. And this audiotape did exactly that. Had it been another owner’s voice on the tape — say, Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks — there still would have been questions over the sentiment’s context. It would have seemed completely out of step with everything we know about Cuban. But with Sterling, there was no such incongruity. His words validated the longstanding perception of his worldview, and that made both problems nonnegotiable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/what-exactly-was-donald-sterlings-offense.html?ref=magazine