Looks like this boy is getting hauled over the coals for some fairly repulsive comments as recorded in what I think was a private conversation that were later made public:
I agree that the guy comes off like a jackass and a fairly hateful person that I would want nothing to do with. My question here, though, is if it is just to penalize someone for what is said in a private conversation? Granted, his little plaything recorded it and made it public, but was he treating his players badly?
He pretty much was torpedoed, and I could see his players justly making for the door with all resonable speed, leaving him without any team.
The actions against him seem too much like thought police, however.
Are we now in a time and place where we have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private?
Seems like it. The only owner thusfar to speak to that is Mark Cuban, and he seems to be in the minority.
We've become a culture of instant gratification zealotry led by an irresponsible media dead set on shepherding people to their causes of political correct righteous indignation, seeking proverbial blood in unreasonable time frames.
This shouldn't have been a 3 day decision, and because silver was so quick to try and look like a hard ass, it's going to have long standing ramifications.
No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.
We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.
Mannahnin wrote: No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.
We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.
But does that clause cover private speech? I could understand it if he was saying garbage like that in public and being in violation, but in his own home?
Mannahnin wrote: No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.
We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.
But does that clause cover private speech? I could understand it if he was saying garbage like that in public and being in violation, but in his own home?
http://xkcd.com/1357/ Yes. He said it, they found out, they acted. Fair is Fair. Now if he wants to get aggressive over somebody recording him illegally, let him. That's an entirely different matter.
And his speech was not private, at least not once it was leaked. The moment it became public he suffered public consequences. Part of his contracts stipulate that he cannot do anything that damages the league, and what he did damaged it.
But again, this is just the giant racism cherry on top of the BS Shake that he has been working on. He did not suffer from that alone.
But in the end it's no different than me sending someone a racist hate filled PM, then that person posts it in nuts & bolts saying "won't someone do something about him!" and then I'm banned over a private message.
Don't be an asshat, and never assume that your private bigoted worldview will stay private. Keep your mouth shut or realize that someone somehow can always get a hold of your "private" opinions.
Relapse wrote: Are we now in a time and place where we have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private?
I believe we have been there for a while now. News stories of people being fired for postings they make on social media sites are not uncommon. While an argument can be made that social media postings are public postings, you could also argue that certain blogs (especially if identifying names and other markers are removed) and some "private" conversations with friends and family on social media sites could (should?) be considered private by their authors, and yet, when aired in public those "private" musings get people in trouble.
I think as a society we have largely moved away from expecting privacy in many of our private conversations, and we are continuing to blur the lines between what is public and private as technology advancements allow us to "share" so much of our lives.
I had heard on the radio last night that Sterling asked his girlfriend/assistant to make these recordings because he suffered from memory loss and liked to play back conversations for details he had missed. Has that been confirmed? Or was it just bs?
Relapse wrote: Are we now in a time and place where we have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private?
I believe we have been there for a while now. News stories of people being fired for postings they make on social media sites are not uncommon. While an argument can be made that social media postings are public postings, you could also argue that certain blogs (especially if identifying names and other markers are removed) and some "private" conversations with friends and family on social media sites could (should?) be considered private by their authors, and yet, when aired in public those "private" musings get people in trouble.
I think as a society we have largely moved away from expecting privacy in many of our private conversations, and we are continuing to blur the lines between what is public and private as technology advancements allow us to "share" so much of our lives.
I had heard on the radio last night that Sterling asked his girlfriend/assistant to make these recordings because he suffered from memory loss and liked to play back conversations for details he had missed. Has that been confirmed? Or was it just bs?
I could understand how posting on social media can lead to trouble since it can reflect badly on or defame an employer and the fact that such things, when posted can be accessed. It's being penalized for the private conversations that leave a bad taste for me.
Once it is made public it doesn't really matter, as [the NBA] can't ignore it, bad taste or not. Once you open Pandora's Box you can't pretend it was never opened, for right or wrong.
Ahtman wrote: If you mean prosecuted in that they are charged with a crime then no, people are not prosecuted for private opinions.
If you that there are ramifications for the things we say and do then I suppose he is, but that seems a bit broad. This isn't something new either.
Wrong wording on my part, perhaps. The man is being fined a couple million and having his team stripped from him along with a lifetime ban.
That's what I mean by being prosecuted. I think he had already set his course to losing his team without being penalized officially, but I can see that perhaps he put himself in position of violating a clause when his lil' prostitute recorded him and made it public.
Kind of like violating an HMO agreement.
There are laws that allow him to sue if the recording was made and released illegally, especially if the intent was to harm him, but the NBA doesn't really have much choice but deal with what was done. Now that the racist genie is out of the bottle and in front of the world they have to respond in a way that protects the organization, not Sterling, and won't alienate huge swaths of their fan base and employees.
Ahtman wrote: There are laws that allow him to sue if the recording was made and released illegally, especially if the intent was to harm him, but the NBA doesn't really have much choice but deal with what was done. Now that the racist genie is out of the bottle and in front of the world they have to respond in a way that protects the organization, not Sterling, and won't alienate huge swaths of their fan base and employees.
The NBA is definitely put into a bad situation by this jerks ill chosen words. This pair seem like a fairly repellent couple that desrve each other.
(Man and woman, not man and NBA)
I could understand how posting on social media can lead to trouble since it can reflect badly on or defame an employer and the fact that such things, when posted can be accessed. It's being penalized for the private conversations that leave a bad taste for me.
That is the position blatant racists and bigots take when they still want to talk about their racist and bigoted opinions, but then want to hide those positions under 'other agendas' in public to still push their bigoted agendas but not be held accountable for it. If you feel the need to be a racist bigot 'in private' then you need to accept if your statements happen within earshot of someone who does not agree and has the inclination to do something about it. And guess what? You should be held accountable. There is no 'right' for 'off the record bigotry' which means penalty free hate speech because you claim it is 'private' especially since all of your actions in all aspects of your life then need to be further viewed under the microscope of your hate speech to protect people from discrimination.
There is no such thing as 'private'. If you say words to another person, there is no obligation or agreement that person won't simply say "hey, so-and-so said this... He is a giant bigot. HR should research to see if these views were possibly reflected on any of his hiring/firing practices within his job capacity." And your defense can't be "hey! that was private!" Because that is code for "I thought you were cool with my racism and therefor I thought I could talk like I assume all us whites do." This happens frequently where people assume all the white people in a room are somehow on the same page and instantly start dropping racist talk and I have to tell them it is not cool and I don't accept their behavior. And just because someone doesn't call you on your gak doesn't mean they support it and won't expose your behavior to others... in your organization, in the neighborhood, your work, wherever... They have every right to share your statements the second they fall out of your face onto other people's ears. Such questions are quite common for security clearances and private conversations of hate speech is something the government does deny security clearances on.
You want your bigoted attitudes to be 'private'? Inside your brain and never leaving your mouth is a good start.
cincydooley wrote: He's been a piece of gak slum lord for a while. Stern should have addressed it back in 2006 when he was used by the federal govt for discrimination.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And there is an expectation of privacy in some states. The recording was obtained illegally.
For recordings... not content... There is nothing preventing someone from going to TMZ and saying 'So-and-so said this.' Not that it would have gained the same traction and the response from Sterling would have been 'I never said that!' but remember... if your only defense is to lie about what you said, that is shaky ground to be on, especially in a situation like this where someone might be willing to 'take the hit' on an illegal recording in order to 'out' a bigot.
Mannahnin wrote: No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.
We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.
But does that clause cover private speech? I could understand it if he was saying garbage like that in public and being in violation, but in his own home?
http://xkcd.com/1357/ Yes. He said it, they found out, they acted. Fair is Fair. Now if he wants to get aggressive over somebody recording him illegally, let him. That's an entirely different matter.
Everything about these answers is gold. They have to protect the players and the NBA not the constitution.
I don't think there should be any legal consequences for what he said. People can say what they like.
I'm not privy to whatever contracts he may have signed with the NBA that may, or may not say, that his private conduct could have issues if it makes the league look bad. If he did sign an agreement with a morals clause, it should be enforced.
I doubt he cares. He's old as gak and rich as hell. He could probably just randomly kill someone if he felt like it and essentially get away with it. I doubt I'd care about public perception too much at that age and in that status either.
California is a two-party notification state, so there was probably a violation of state wiretapping laws.
Byte wrote: Everything about these answers is gold. They have to protect the players and the NBA not the constitution.
The Constitution doesn't protect you fallout from violating private contracts or from public opinion. It just keeps the government from arresting him for what he said.
Byte wrote: Everything about these answers is gold. They have to protect the players and the NBA not the constitution.
The Constitution doesn't protect you fallout from violating private contracts or from public opinion. It just keeps the government from arresting him for what he said.
Thank you for the reiteration? I thought I said that when combined with the context of the quotes.
Relapse wrote: The man is being fined a couple million and having his team stripped from him along with a lifetime ban.
I don't think theyve yet made the decision to force the sale of his team as of yet, so he's not been stripped of the team. Yet.
I personally think that, if he didn't have the history he apparently does with saying/doing these sorts of things, the league would not be trying to pursue the forced sale of his team. However, there is precedent in professional sports for dealing harshly with "out of line" owners (such as Marge Schott, seen above, and not on the racial front, but George Steinbrenner).
You have the freedom of speech, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech and private employers/groups do have the freedom to censure you should you use your freedom of speech to speak something perceived to damage them by association.
This was not about what he said to his girlfriend, this was about what he said to his girlfriend which was then broadcast to the world.
There are consequences of a negative nature as a direct result of saying racist or otherwise denigrating, prejudiced or bigoted towards accepted groups, subcultures or minorities within society. Learn tolerance or learn to keep your mouth shut...
I just wonder how he can be -forced- to sell his franchise. He psid for it all. Its his.
It'd be like the city forcing you to sell your home because you spoke out against the mayor.
I just can't believe that his lawyers would hav allowed him to sign the purchase agreement that apparently grants-zero- appeal or relief from the decisions of the commissioner.
TheMeanDM wrote: I just wonder how he can be -forced- to sell his franchise. He psid for it all. Its his.
It'd be like the city forcing you to sell your home because you spoke out against the mayor.
I just can't believe that his lawyers would hav allowed him to sign the purchase agreement that apparently grants-zero- appeal or relief from the decisions of the commissioner.
It is a franchise... You give up a lot of rights when you own a franchise VS your own company. It is nothing like a government entity forcing you to sell your private residence.
Most franchise, if you fail to meet the rules of the franchise, you forfeit a lot of stuff, to the point where you lose the rights to operate and have to start over or that they will confiscate your franchise from you if you are not doing things in the best interest of the brand.
Don't Like it? Don't run a franchise, do the leg work of running your own business. He won't have much luck running his own NBA...
TheMeanDM wrote: It'd be like the city forcing you to sell your home because you spoke out against the mayor.
Except it's not at all like that, even a little, because the constitution restrains the state from acting against you for lawful speech.
You need to think more "morals clause" that allows a Nickelodeon starlet to be kicked off her show if nudes come out, or so on. Or, more accurately (I wish I thought of this example first) the McDonalds corporation forcing you to sell the McDonalds restaurant you operate because you won't participate in nationally advertised sales.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:This is the same gak as the duck dynasty guy.
Not really, since it later came out that there was some serious misquoting going on with the Duck guy.... Don't think that defense will work this time since its been established exactly what was said.
TheMeanDM wrote:I just wonder how he can be -forced- to sell his franchise. He psid for it all. Its his.
It could come down to the other teams in the league refusing to play against his team, the other owners can vote him out and "lose" a team. Or, it may be a contractual thing, like "You are the owner of this team, provided you follow X,Y, and Z rules. If you violate this agreement, this contract becomes null and void, and you may face up to "losing" your team" or something to that effect.
I seem to recall the forced sale of a sports team has happened before, if I can remember who it is, I'll post a link to some articles on it.
Ouze wrote: I don't think there should be any legal consequences for what he said. People can say what they like.
I'm not privy to whatever contracts he may have signed with the NBA that may, or may not say, that his private conduct could have issues if it makes the league look bad. If he did sign an agreement with a morals clause, it should be enforced.
I doubt he cares. He's old as gak and rich as hell. He could probably just randomly kill someone if he felt like it and essentially get away with it. I doubt I'd care about public perception too much at that age and in that status either.
California is a two-party notification state, so there was probably a violation of state wiretapping laws.
Bingo.
Bingo.
Bingo.
Bingo.
Lets face it here, this is basically nothing to someone in his position. He still has his billions and will likely get another billion when he's forced to sell the team. The only person here in any real danger of losing things is the girlfriend, if he wants to raise a stink about that.
My understanding is that they can't make him sell the team, but can essentially disallow them from playing games in the league.
Its Silvers proposal that they could simply nullify the contracts of the players that gives me pause. Can that really be done? If so, that's a bit frightening.
I seem to recall the forced sale of a sports team has happened before, if I can remember who it is, I'll post a link to some articles on it.
Marge Schott was "forced" to sell her team. While she was serving her 2.5 year suspension (2nd suspension) they strong-armed her into selling her team. Since then, I'm betting leagues made stricter rules to get rid of problem owners.
Once MLB had Schott on the ropes, the league didn’t relent. While her suspension ended upon the completion of the 1998 World Series, the league pushed her to sell her controlling share of the Reds by threatening to extend the ban. In April 1999, she agreed to sell 5 1/2 of her 6 1/2 shares for $67 million to a group headed by Carl Lindner; the deal was completed in September of that year. Save for a suit she filed against Lindner over her seat allocation in Great American Ballpark in 2003, baseball was finally rid of her. She died in 2004 at the age of 75.
A basketball team needs fans. People who, for reasons no-one will ever really understand, think of the team as 'our team', despite the fact that it's owned by some rich guy, and the players are brought in from all over the country and probably have as many LA players as any other team in the league. When it comes out that the owner is racist douchebag, well then fairly obviously lots of people are going to be a lot less inclined to continue liking that team and supporting them, so the NBA needs to step in and do something.
And to clarify, I'm not a fan of these little media storms where some high profile person says something awful, and lots of people complain until the person is fired or whatever else. That kind of scalp taking is on the rise and I see it as an ugly trend.
But the big difference here, unlike say the Mozilla thing, is that in order for a basketball team to do well, there needs to be people who like it as an organisation. Our relationship to Mozilla products like Firefox is entirely based on whether or not they work well, but with a basketball team their success is dependent largely on whether or not we like them.
I mean, when you have a business that relies on people liking your business to make money and you reveal yourself as a bigot, how else is going to work? How has it ever worked any differently?
Who here thinks the punishment is too heavy handed. A life ban, for unwelcome words, it goes too far IMHO.
What would be the likely consequences if the accused was caught stealing, fraud, with prostitutes, etc etc.
Ultimately is there any evidence he discriminated against anyone with terms of employment? If yes so be it, if no then really this is about having offensive views rather than 'racism', unless society wants to go down the route of thought police then things should be only actionable if evil is done rather than merely sympathised with.
A suspension would have been more realistic, and as sebster points out in his post that Sterling's position may be naturally untenable now due to fear that his views would effect his work, so it was unnecessary to be so heavy handed.
Ultimately is there any evidence he discriminated against anyone with terms of employment? If yes so be it, if no then really this is about having offensive views rather than 'racism', unless society wants to go down the route of thought police then things should be only actionable if evil is done rather than merely sympathised with.
Not in his NBA dealings, and that's one of the more interesting points. It's been public knowledge that he was at least "a bit" racist since the 2006 lawsuit. But that hasn't prevented free agents from going to play there. It didn't prevent Doc Rivers from becoming their coach this year. And whenever asked about that, Doc dodges the question.
In fact, he was asked tonight whether he or his players had ever been victims of discrimination or racism by Sterling, and Doc said "no." H even went on to say that "they've given him everything he needed" as the coach.
It's interesting to say the least, with a whole lot of hypocrisy being tossed around.
I can't believe we're having this conversation. I thought the punishment was 100% appropriate. If I made comments anywhere near that, I would lose my job too, and rightfully so.
If anything, I think it would have been even better if the players had gone through with what would have happened had the Commissioner not acted so swiftly and decisively. Apparently every NBA playoff game tonight may have been boycotted by the players themselves... that would have been the very definition of a non-violent civil rights protest, and would have been a sight.
As it was, this is historic anyway. There was an investigation, and Sterling admitted he made those statements. He is bound by the rules of the league that he joined, and it seems very likely that the other owners will force him to sell the team. I am all in favor of this and fairly shocked at some of the comments here.
This is hate speech, there is no room for it in our society, and in a private institution like the NBA this is absolutely the consequences that I would expect to see as a result of someone making comments like he did. The evidence is irrefutable, he admitted the statements were his and has not expressed any remorse.
If he had, that may have been something to consider- but he did not apologize, these apparently are his views, and he has no place in the NBA whatsoever.
Good to see the players presenting a united front on this, and the league acting swiftly to address it, I am very satisfied with the actions taken here. Proven, verified evidence of racist hate speech would get anyone fired in this day and age, and an NBA team owner is no exception.
My conclusions from what I've been reading here and what I heard on the news.
First off, he needs to find more loyal prostitutes in the future if he doesn't want to be outed.
Second, and more important, whatever bagage he's carrying to make him the gak he is, he might want to consider dealing with.
Third, he defamed the league by saying idiotic crap that did come out. Because it is a business, he loses because of whatever contract he signed that has a clause promising to ream him royally. He didn't want to get reamed? Shouldn't have signed a contract that holds him to a higher standard than other ignorant types.
Thing is, everybody following basketball already knows about his racism. This isn't the first time he's opened his fat mouth like this. Most (non-basketball) people didn't know because his previous antics didn't get any media coverage. The real question is, why now? Why is this time so important to the media? Why is the reaction so hardcore this time? That league guy, Silver, is like a shark with blood in the water. He doesn't want Sterling punished, he wants to assassinate him.
Racism aside, this was a private phone call that was recorded and leaked, so someone has an agenda. Some of the theories I've heard include a forced buyout attempt by Magic Johnson's group or some of the owners don't want Sterling's heirs (whoever they are) getting their hands on the team, or someone with a serious axe to grind that's found a way to make Sterling pay. Either way it goes, this is a backstabbing worthy of Game of Thrones and I want to know who's playing the part of Littlefinger.
RiTides wrote: I can't believe we're having this conversation. I thought the punishment was 100% appropriate. If I made comments anywhere near that, I would lose my job too, and rightfully so.
I don't think anyone is saying the punishment is wrong. I believe Silver was heavy handed in the timing because now, with the way he handled the press conference, Sterling has absolutely no reason to be cooperative.
If you called a co-worker a homophobic slur you'd probably be fired, right? Kobe Bryant wasn't suspended a game.
We need to stop pretending like people in these industries play by the same rules as the rest of us in the "regular" business world. They don't.
If anything, I think it would have been even better if the players had gone through with what would have happened had the Commissioner not acted so swiftly and decisively .
I don't for a minute believe they would have. They all love their money way too much and most want to be as innocuous as possible to "protect their brand."
Breotan wrote: Racism aside, this was a private phone call that was recorded and leaked, so someone has an agenda. Some of the theories I've heard include a forced buyout attempt by Magic Johnson's group or some of the owners don't want Sterling's heirs (whoever they are) getting their hands on the team, or someone with a serious axe to grind that's found a way to make Sterling pay.
Maybe he just pissed off the girlfriend somehow? That seems the simplest explanation.
Breotan wrote: Racism aside, this was a private phone call that was recorded and leaked, so someone has an agenda. Some of the theories I've heard include a forced buyout attempt by Magic Johnson's group or some of the owners don't want Sterling's heirs (whoever they are) getting their hands on the team, or someone with a serious axe to grind that's found a way to make Sterling pay.
Maybe he just pissed off the girlfriend somehow? That seems the simplest explanation.
Maybe he was getting ready to ditch her for a younger woman!
cincydooley wrote: She's getting sued by Sterlings estranged wife for all the money she's been spending. And being a gold digger, she has none of her own money.
Orlanth wrote: A suspension would have been more realistic, and as sebster points out in his post that Sterling's position may be naturally untenable now due to fear that his views would effect his work, so it was unnecessary to be so heavy handed.
Except I doubt the NBA was willing to wait around until that failed relationship became real, as it might have killed a franchise, nor would the NBA be willing to risk their own relationship with the fans by appearing to be accepting of Sterling's bigotry.
So they acted as they did, and yes, while I agree it's a really harsh penalty for saying some words, that's life in the entertainment industry.
Tom Cruise went a bit nuts and jumped on a couch, and the films roles that used to fall all over themselves to pay him tens of millions of dollars dried up. That was pretty excessive, but that's the entertainment business. Whether its sport or movies or whatever, the business relies on us liking them/their organisations (or at least liking the public perception of their organisations we are given), so any time that is threatened, well the 'solution' is likely to be pretty harsh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Thing is, everybody following basketball already knows about his racism. This isn't the first time he's opened his fat mouth like this. Most (non-basketball) people didn't know because his previous antics didn't get any media coverage. The real question is, why now? Why is this time so important to the media? Why is the reaction so hardcore this time?
Because this is recorded, it isn't just a story about what someone said that could just be written off as rumour mongering. Add in the protest by the players and you've got yourself a story with real legs.
Occured to me over dinner when I heard it on TV. Last time I heard someone being prosecuted for private speech involve Hitler Youths. Yes I know I went to far with it but it just popped in my mind. Also I watched again recently "Swing Kids"
Q: Should somebody be able to say whatever they like?
A: Yes, though like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, if their words cause an unwarranted damage to the public there can be criminal and/or civil consequences.
Q: Are racist comments made in private and illegally recorded/used the same as falsely yelling fire?
A: No, Though the league might be able to make a case for damages.
Ironically, from a purely legal perspective, the person who actually released the recordings without consulting the ruling body(the nba) would/could "legally" be "the" primary named party in the suit.
Q: Can the league go after the owner as per the publicly released statement made today?
A: Depends on contract wording. Most likely everything will be settled out of court.
Q: Why would all this be settled out of court?
A: To much attention and the government(not supreme court but congress) gets involved.
Q: How can the government get involved in a case over protected private speech?
A: The 3 major sports leagues have received special waivers/dispensations that allow them to operate as the "sole" controlling entities over their respective professional sports. Basically they are allowed to be monopolies but with the downside of giving congress the right to meddle in league business if there is a perception of un-american/model behavior.
This is why congress can have hearings about steroid use in most professional sports.
Just remember when you are older and have a toy girlfriend/boyfriend on the side don't share important information or 'feelings'. This is even more true if you are going through a divorce or are still married.
Been a couple times someone wanted to press UCMJ actions (spouse) on someone for saying something in private about someone else in the unit. Twice I threw my rank on my Commander desk because I wouldn't write up a negative counseling form to be used as a gateway for a Art 15 Non-Judicial
While many corporations are no longer choosing to sponsor the Los Angeles Clippers, there's also a growing list of Los Angeles-area organizations that refuse to be sponsored by team owner Donald Sterling.
UCLA announced on Tuesday that it is returning an initial donation of $425,000 from Sterling and rejecting the remainder of a $3 million pledge the Clippers owner had made to help kidney research at the school's division of nephrology. The announcement came hours after NBA commissioner Adam Silver announced that Sterling had been banned from the league for life after his racial remarks had been made public.
In a strange twist to UCLA's rejection, the school said that a "thank you" ad in weekend editions of the Los Angeles Times (above) had been placed by Sterling, not UCLA.
The school also told the paper that the ad's claims that a research lab would be named in Donald and Shelly Sterling's honor were false and were never a condition of the original donation.
Here's the UCLA release:
Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect. For those reasons, UCLA has decided to return Mr. Sterling’s initial payment of $425,000 and reject the remainder of a $3 million pledge he recently made to support basic kidney research by the UCLA Division of Nephrology.
UCLA has received numerous inquiries about an advertisement in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times falsely suggesting that it was UCLA publicly thanking him for the gift. The ad was placed by Mr. Sterling, not the university.
UCLA isn't the only place saying thanks but not thanks to Sterling. The Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP announced on Monday that it would no longer honor Sterling with a pre-planned "lifetime achievement" award. The organization's president said it would also be returning an "insignificant" donation that Sterling had made to the group.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles also told the Jewish Journal that it would no longer accept donations from Sterling, who donated $10,000 to the group in 2012.
I seem to recall the forced sale of a sports team has happened before, if I can remember who it is, I'll post a link to some articles on it.
Marge Schott was "forced" to sell her team. While she was serving her 2.5 year suspension (2nd suspension) they strong-armed her into selling her team. Since then, I'm betting leagues made stricter rules to get rid of problem owners.
Once MLB had Schott on the ropes, the league didn’t relent. While her suspension ended upon the completion of the 1998 World Series, the league pushed her to sell her controlling share of the Reds by threatening to extend the ban. In April 1999, she agreed to sell 5 1/2 of her 6 1/2 shares for $67 million to a group headed by Carl Lindner; the deal was completed in September of that year. Save for a suit she filed against Lindner over her seat allocation in Great American Ballpark in 2003, baseball was finally rid of her. She died in 2004 at the age of 75.
For some reason, I recall this sort of "coerced commerce" happening to Paul Brown, when he was ousted from the Browns (and went on to form the Bengals)
I don't think anyone is saying the punishment is wrong. I believe Silver was heavy handed in the timing because now, with the way he handled the press conference, Sterling has absolutely no reason to be cooperative.
If you called a co-worker a homophobic slur you'd probably be fired, right? Kobe Bryant wasn't suspended a game.
We need to stop pretending like people in these industries play by the same rules as the rest of us in the "regular" business world. They don't.
I don't for a minute believe they would have. They all love their money way too much and most want to be as innocuous as possible to "protect their brand."
And yet, I'd be willing to bet money that most of those same players who were talking about a strike or whatever they were going to do, routinely use offensive and racist language, not only on a daily, but on an hourly or minutely basis. The difference? Well, they grew up in the "hood" or "they dont know any better" or "it's a part of their culture"
This is one of many, many reasons i fething hate basketball, and i wish the sport would just die in a fire already.
Should the guy be suspended and/or fined by the league? sure, why not; It's their rules afterall. Should they even attempt to figure out a way to force him to sell his franchise, not a chance of a cold day in hell. To this point, there is no evidence that his actions have had a direct result on the field of play. George Steinbrenner actively meddled in team affairs, and affected the outcomes of games which earned him a temporary ban from MLB, but the League didn't "force" him to sell (of course, that could also have something to do with him being the owner of the richest and most powerful sports franchise in almost the history of sports)
a "protest" that ultimately does nothing? yeah.... Sorry, they're still getting paid thousands of dollars per game. I was referring to there being no evidence that his racism has affected the employment of people in his organization, contracts with players and admin/support staff, etc.
That's not quite the point, ouze. Sorry I guess I didn't explain my feelings behind my post.
As much as some of these guys pull the Barkley "I'm not a role model" card, they are certainly public figures....well paid public figures...and people do watch their actions (which is why they protested in the first place, they knew eyes were on them).
Unfortunately, if people don't chastise them for it, the behavior will continue until it becomes the norm, rather than the exception.
I thought Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had a good take on it. Full article here.
Moral outrage is exhausting. And dangerous. The whole country has gotten a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging. Not to mention the neck strain from Olympic tryouts for Morally Superior Head Shaking. All over the latest in a long line of rich white celebrities to come out of the racist closet. (Was it only a couple days ago that Cliven Bundy said blacks would be better off picking cotton as slaves? And only last June Paula Deen admitted using the “N” word?)
...
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn’t we have all called for his resignation back then?
Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.
Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he’s just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn’t lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He’s just another jerk with more money than brains.
So, if we’re all going to be outraged, let’s be outraged that we weren’t more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let’s be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let’s be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.
As much as some of these guys pull the Barkley "I'm not a role model" card, they are certainly public figures....well paid public figures...and people do watch their actions (which is why they protested in the first place, they knew eyes were on them).
While the "Barkley Card" is based on the idea that no professional athlete has a responsibility to be a role mode, Barkley's argument was that no professional athlete should be considered a role model; meaning that kids should not look to athletics for their future.
I like how the wife is defending him from charges of racism for statements he made to his girlfriend. A proper Texas wife would have dealt with this with internal sanction (she would have run over his internals with her pickup).
Thanks Obama!
Remember the First Amendment doesn't protect stupid.
Forcing them to follow some random flag protocol is more disrespectful to the country than what they are doing, but that is an old pet peeve of mine.
Its a media event. I could care less. Though I have notice players from MLB, NFL, and NHL have right hands over their heart. Though flag protocol or as we in the military call it Drill and Ceremony is a facet in our career.
One incident that went world wide and pretty much speak for the Battle of Equality. As a kid growing up in the 70's.....
Is there a actual clause in the contract that he breached?
I will be honest, I have not really been following this story in great detail but my understanding is this;
- Sterling owns an NBA franchise. As such is is likely to have signed a contract with clauses such as not bringing the franchise into disrepute. The NBA has a huge amount of fans and players from the race that Sterling disparaged, and a lot of sponsors that were not happy with his words. Regardless of how his words were made public the fact of the matter is that they were, and the NBA needed to act upon them. Now, can he be forced to sell the team? Perhaps not within the power of the NBA unless the contract states that he may be removed from the league. The NBA may wish to avoid this as it is a likely a long drawn out legal battle. It is more likely that the fans and players will abandon a Sterling owned Clippers team and make it financially nonviable for him to remain the owner.
- Concerning the leaking of a private conversation Sterling has a lot of legal avenues to pursue here, and it is likely that he will. He could take a civil suit against the person responsible for damage to his public image, and for any financial loss arising from the leak - with an NBA franchise at stake this could be a considerable sum. As well as that there exists the possibility of criminal charges being filed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: And to clarify, I'm not a fan of these little media storms where some high profile person says something awful, and lots of people complain until the person is fired or whatever else. That kind of scalp taking is on the rise and I see it as an ugly trend.
From one perspective it gets results, and it gives the media ratings fodder so this trend is not going to abate any time soon. Seriously, I was in the gym and 3 out of 5 TVs were covering this story
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I will be honest, I have not really been following this story in great detail but my understanding is this;
- Sterling owns an NBA franchise. As such is is likely to have signed a contract with clauses such as not bringing the franchise into disrepute. The NBA has a huge amount of fans and players from the race that Sterling disparaged, and a lot of sponsors that were not happy with his words. Regardless of how his words were made public the fact of the matter is that they were, and the NBA needed to act upon them. Now, can he be forced to sell the team? Perhaps not within the power of the NBA unless the contract states that he may be removed from the league. The NBA may wish to avoid this as it is a likely a long drawn out legal battle. It is more likely that the fans and players will abandon a Sterling owned Clippers team and make it financially nonviable for him to remain the owner.
It appears that there is a clause that can force him to sell if 3/4th of the other owners agree (not sure of the exact number required). It's not really surprising since this is a league that doesn't even let you buy a team unless all the other owners agree with the sale to begin with.
- Concerning the leaking of a private conversation Sterling has a lot of legal avenues to pursue here, and it is likely that he will. He could take a civil suit against the person responsible for damage to his public image, and for any financial loss arising from the leak - with an NBA franchise at stake this could be a considerable sum. As well as that there exists the possibility of criminal charges being filed.
I'm sure he has a pretty good case in civil court there, which he should pursue. Him being a jackass (and me agreeing with the punishment for him being a jackass) doesn't mean that she was in the right to record him without consent and releasing it.
d-usa wrote: It appears that there is a clause that can force him to sell if 3/4th of the other owners agree (not sure of the exact number required). It's not really surprising since this is a league that doesn't even let you buy a team unless all the other owners agree with the sale to begin with.
Thank you for the information, I can't say that I'm surprised by that clause. My sporting interest begins and ends with college football (Go Irish!! )
d-usa wrote: I'm sure he has a pretty good case in civil court there, which he should pursue. Him being a jackass (and me agreeing with the punishment for him being a jackass) doesn't mean that she was in the right to record him without consent and releasing it.
Absolutely. Between the pair of them they are well suited for each other, and neither of them are going to come out of this looking well. I have no doubt that he'll take legal action. His public image is already shot so he has little to lose there, she might have more to lose image wise. He also has deep pockets so he and his legal team can drag this out and really hurt her financially
d-usa wrote: It appears that there is a clause that can force him to sell if 3/4th of the other owners agree (not sure of the exact number required). It's not really surprising since this is a league that doesn't even let you buy a team unless all the other owners agree with the sale to begin with.
Thank you for the information, I can't say that I'm surprised by that clause. My sporting interest begins and ends with college football (Go Irish!! )
Realistically we could end up with a situation where all the other owners force him to sell, while also telling him that he can't sell to this guy....or this guy...or this guy.....
d-usa wrote: Realistically we could end up with a situation where all the other owners force him to sell, while also telling him that he can't sell to this guy....or this guy...or this guy.....
Sports
This is why I only ever concern myself with what is taking place on the field
Other than a lifetime ban, $2.5 million fine, and pressure to sell your business, of course.
The Clippers doing that, sure... maybe it'll help them feel better at night that they flipped their warmups inside out.
The Heat though?? Feth that, they're just breaching their contract (assuming their contracts are similar to NFL players' in regards to the wear of team issue and team logo'd gear), and should be fined. I highly, highly doubt that Mr. Silver, sitting up there in his office sees a clip of pregame footage and says, "Oh no!!! Lebron is angry, I better fix whatever it is he's angry about!"
As Jihadin put up, the sprinters protest at the olympics was what I'd call a "legitimate" protest. The Heat are just trying to bring attention back to themselves, as if they dont get enough of it.
Ouze wrote: I don't think there should be any legal consequences for what he said. People can say what they like.
I'm not privy to whatever contracts he may have signed with the NBA that may, or may not say, that his private conduct could have issues if it makes the league look bad. If he did sign an agreement with a morals clause, it should be enforced.
I doubt he cares. He's old as gak and rich as hell. He could probably just randomly kill someone if he felt like it and essentially get away with it. I doubt I'd care about public perception too much at that age and in that status either.
California is a two-party notification state, so there was probably a violation of state wiretapping laws.
Exactly how I feel...
No sympathy for Sterling whatsoever... the NBA is a private company.
I like how Abdul-Jabbar started with this:
Moral outrage is exhausting. And dangerous. The whole country has gotten a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging. Not to mention the neck strain from Olympic tryouts for Morally Superior Head Shaking.
I concur...
Also... the silence is deafing on this compared to Sterling's statements:
Black people your Focusing on the wrong thing. We should be focusing on having our own, Own team own League! To For Self!!—
Larry Johnson (@TheRealLJ2) April 26, 2014
I've seen the "these were private thoughts" defense floating around, and I guess there's some merit to it. She seems to be almost cross examining him in her questions, which leads me to believe she was trying to get him to articulate his point.
During the commissioner's press conference, somebody asked if during the investigation Sterling argued that the comments were out of context or anything similar, and Adam Silver kind of flatly responded that Sterling did not dispute the statements or the opinions they hold.
I'm sure that the other owners already knew his feelings and I wouldn't be surprised if he said stuff like that before with them around. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a couple other racist old owners around, they are either smart enough to keep their mouths shut or just haven't been caught.
d-usa wrote: I'm sure that the other owners already knew his feelings and I wouldn't be surprised if he said stuff like that before with them around. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a couple other racist old owners around, they are either smart enough to keep their mouths shut or just haven't been caught.
Well...
Of course. His real crime, as always, was being racist on tape. The reasons the past sins weren't penalized as heavily is because there wasn't the proof (the DOJ's suit was settled quietly), and there wasn't the uproar.
But racial scandal is really bad for an entity that relies on minority dollars more than any other major sports league. It's one thing to secretly suspect somebody of being a bigot, but hearing it on tape makes it harder to ignore, you know?
Polonius wrote: I've seen the "these were private thoughts" defense floating around, and I guess there's some merit to it. She seems to be almost cross examining him in her questions, which leads me to believe she was trying to get him to articulate his point.
During the commissioner's press conference, somebody asked if during the investigation Sterling argued that the comments were out of context or anything similar, and Adam Silver kind of flatly responded that Sterling did not dispute the statements or the opinions they hold.
I listened to the recordings that were available and I was left with the overwhelming impression that she absolutely knew what she was doing and was making sure she gave him enough rope to hang himself, as well as trying to build some moral high ground (the whole "I'm-mixed-race-whether-the-world-likes-it-or-not)
People were asking earlier if the NBA can force a franchise sale. The NBA constitution allows, by 3/4 vote of owners, the NBA to force the sale. And not just force it, but actually conduct the sale, choosing the new owner bid, and then simply paying the prior owner.
Polonius wrote: People were asking earlier if the NBA can force a franchise sale. The NBA constitution allows, by 3/4 vote of owners, the NBA to force the sale. And not just force it, but actually conduct the sale, choosing the new owner bid, and then simply paying the prior owner.
Thank you for the information. I think it is a foregone conclusion that Sterling will not be the Clippers' owner for long
Polonius wrote: I've seen the "these were private thoughts" defense floating around, and I guess there's some merit to it. She seems to be almost cross examining him in her questions, which leads me to believe she was trying to get him to articulate his point.
During the commissioner's press conference, somebody asked if during the investigation Sterling argued that the comments were out of context or anything similar, and Adam Silver kind of flatly responded that Sterling did not dispute the statements or the opinions they hold.
I listened to the recordings that were available and I was left with the overwhelming impression that she absolutely knew what she was doing and was making sure she gave him enough rope to hang himself, as well as trying to build some moral high ground (the whole "I'm-mixed-race-whether-the-world-likes-it-or-not)
Yeah, she might have been looking for her own payday. Which hurts her credibility, but alas... the tape doesn't rely on the credibility of anybody. It's a tape.
The first question people seem to reach is: "can we be held accountable for things we say in private." The answer, of course, is yes. Context matters. This isn't a kind hearted but out of touch old man dropping a few racial slurs in an argument, or being goaded into saying something he didn't mean. Sterling has been a POS for decades, he just finally got caught running his mouth about it.
The second question I raise is: "aren't we really punishing him for having an opinion, not just the expression of that?" There's something vaguely Orwellian in saying that certain thoughts are simply bad, and having them makes you a pariah. We do it all the time, of course. Holding the opinion "I think it's ok to kill and eat other people" won't win you friends. It's just interesting how in 50 years we've gone from casual bigotry going from being require to hold public office in most the US to being stripped of an NBA franchise.
Polonius wrote: People were asking earlier if the NBA can force a franchise sale. The NBA constitution allows, by 3/4 vote of owners, the NBA to force the sale. And not just force it, but actually conduct the sale, choosing the new owner bid, and then simply paying the prior owner.
Thank you for the information. I think it is a foregone conclusion that Sterling will not be the Clippers' owner for long
gak, I wish I could get fired from my job for being a raging donkey-cave and make hundreds of millions of dollars off of it.
Portugal Jones wrote: gak, I wish I could get fired from my job for being a raging donkey-cave and make hundreds of millions of dollars off of it.
Just because you are a racist does not mean that you can just be stripped of what you own with no compensation. Save your ire for CEOs who run companies into the ground, cost employees their jobs, the get given generous packages to resign or retire.
The Heat though?? Feth that, they're just breaching their contract (assuming their contracts are similar to NFL players' in regards to the wear of team issue and team logo'd gear), and should be fined. I highly, highly doubt that Mr. Silver, sitting up there in his office sees a clip of pregame footage and says, "Oh no!!! Lebron is angry, I better fix whatever it is he's angry about!"
I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
But, regardless, you might be surprised at the amount of clout that a player like LeBron has given that he is one of the "faces" of the game. He doesn't just sell tickets for Miami and the teams they play, his skill and endorsements promote the NBA as a whole; making everyone money along the way. As such, if he goes against the NBA, the NBA has a problem.
I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
Actually, the NFL is quite fascist in it's uniform policy. one of the Colts wide receivers was fined for wearing orange gloves during a game, during the month in which something like leukemia awareness month or something was going on (it's some major and fatal disease who's representative color is orange). And clearly, if it's not breast cancer awareness month, no one can commemorate it. I believe Brandon Marshall, and Devin Hester have both been fined for wearing orange shoes, which were part of their team colors, on weeks in which the team wasn't wearing orange shoes.
Chad Johnson, to my knowledge has been fined for antics similar to Terrell Owens, ie. bringing sharpies onto the field to autograph a ball after scoring a TD, as well as the whole Ochocinco debacle.
Actually, the NFL is quite fascist in it's uniform policy. one of the Colts wide receivers was fined for wearing orange gloves during a game, during the month in which something like leukemia awareness month or something was going on (it's some major and fatal disease who's representative color is orange). And clearly, if it's not breast cancer awareness month, no one can commemorate it. I believe Brandon Marshall, and Devin Hester have both been fined for wearing orange shoes, which were part of their team colors, on weeks in which the team wasn't wearing orange shoes.
Those fines were based on the type and color of gear, but not the manner in which it is worn prior to play.
Chad Johnson, to my knowledge has been fined for antics similar to Terrell Owens, ie. bringing sharpies onto the field to autograph a ball after scoring a TD, as well as the whole Ochocinco debacle.
None of those things have anything to do with uniform issues.
cincydooley wrote: I thought the NFL uniform policy was pretty stringent. I know chad Johnson got fined for uniform stuff all the time.
During play.
Imagine if a running back were permitted to wear brown gloves, and how easy it would be to sell play action as a result.
With receivers brightly colored shoes and/or gloves help them to bypass coverage because the human eye is naturally drawn to bright colors, and playing DB often involves watching your opponent's feet and hands.
I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
Actually, the NFL is quite fascist in it's uniform policy. one of the Colts wide receivers was fined for wearing orange gloves during a game, during the month in which something like leukemia awareness month or something was going on (it's some major and fatal disease who's representative color is orange). And clearly, if it's not breast cancer awareness month, no one can commemorate it. I believe Brandon Marshall, and Devin Hester have both been fined for wearing orange shoes, which were part of their team colors, on weeks in which the team wasn't wearing orange shoes.
Chad Johnson, to my knowledge has been fined for antics similar to Terrell Owens, ie. bringing sharpies onto the field to autograph a ball after scoring a TD, as well as the whole Ochocinco debacle.
I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
Actually, the NFL is quite fascist in it's uniform policy. one of the Colts wide receivers was fined for wearing orange gloves during a game, during the month in which something like leukemia awareness month or something was going on (it's some major and fatal disease who's representative color is orange). And clearly, if it's not breast cancer awareness month, no one can commemorate it. I believe Brandon Marshall, and Devin Hester have both been fined for wearing orange shoes, which were part of their team colors, on weeks in which the team wasn't wearing orange shoes.
Chad Johnson, to my knowledge has been fined for antics similar to Terrell Owens, ie. bringing sharpies onto the field to autograph a ball after scoring a TD, as well as the whole Ochocinco debacle.
Ferrae Godwins the thread!
Fascist =/= Hitler. Mussolini and Franco were fascists (Musosolini invented it, actually) but they weren't Hitler. And they weren't Nazis. Godwin is still in play, folks.
I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
Actually, the NFL is quite fascist in it's uniform policy. one of the Colts wide receivers was fined for wearing orange gloves during a game, during the month in which something like leukemia awareness month or something was going on (it's some major and fatal disease who's representative color is orange). And clearly, if it's not breast cancer awareness month, no one can commemorate it. I believe Brandon Marshall, and Devin Hester have both been fined for wearing orange shoes, which were part of their team colors, on weeks in which the team wasn't wearing orange shoes.
Chad Johnson, to my knowledge has been fined for antics similar to Terrell Owens, ie. bringing sharpies onto the field to autograph a ball after scoring a TD, as well as the whole Ochocinco debacle.
Ferrae Godwins the thread!
Just by using the word fascist incorrectly? I thought you actually had to reference a specific German political party by name it invoke Godwin's Law.
I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
Actually, the NFL is quite fascist in it's uniform policy. one of the Colts wide receivers was fined for wearing orange gloves during a game, during the month in which something like leukemia awareness month or something was going on (it's some major and fatal disease who's representative color is orange). And clearly, if it's not breast cancer awareness month, no one can commemorate it. I believe Brandon Marshall, and Devin Hester have both been fined for wearing orange shoes, which were part of their team colors, on weeks in which the team wasn't wearing orange shoes.
Chad Johnson, to my knowledge has been fined for antics similar to Terrell Owens, ie. bringing sharpies onto the field to autograph a ball after scoring a TD, as well as the whole Ochocinco debacle.
Brandon Marshall also got fined this year for wearing Green boots this year during Mental Health Awareness week to help promote it iirc it was aagainst Green Bay at Lambeau
The NFL also recently banned custom facecages unless the player had a "medical reason" for meaning we lost really cool ones like Karlos Dansby's
dogma wrote: I don't think NFL players are contractually forced to wear most pieces of gear in a particular way, at least absent what is necessary on the field.
In addition to what they wearing during games, the NFL is pretty insistent on what players wear before and after games as well.
It's interesting that the "plantation" nonsense gets thrown around far less in baseball and football, and I've never heard it thrown about in hockey. They're all set up the same, are they not?
The NFL also recently banned custom facecages unless the player had a "medical reason" for meaning we lost really cool ones like Karlos Dansby's
I know theyve had that policy for a long time in regards to the plastic visors worn by various players. Basically, it had to be clear, unless there was a medical reason for it. Terrell Davis of the Broncos was probably the most notable of these guys, because he got migraines so bad even his darkened visor wasn't enough.
As to the NBA, I'd be willing to be some money that NBAPA contracts will reflect that anytime a player is on court, whether it's pregame warmups or the actual game has certain standards to maintain in regards to their attire. Particularly if it is team issued, or has team logos. And if they do have such a clause that all players in the NBA must follow, then the Heat broke contract, and IMO, should be punished for it.
@cincy, I believe that most of the pro leagues in the US are set up similarly, but probably not identically. For instance, I know that the owners in all 4 leagues do vote for and approve the commissioner, but whether they all have the power to literally oust an owner of another franchise, I don't know.
Polonius wrote: I've seen the "these were private thoughts" defense floating around, and I guess there's some merit to it. She seems to be almost cross examining him in her questions, which leads me to believe she was trying to get him to articulate his point.
During the commissioner's press conference, somebody asked if during the investigation Sterling argued that the comments were out of context or anything similar, and Adam Silver kind of flatly responded that Sterling did not dispute the statements or the opinions they hold.
I wonder what would happen if it came out that someone in the league front office put her up to it.
I really wonder if there will be enough of a vote to force him to sell. The reason I say this is that if a precident of private conversations being used against an owner is introduced, they might wonder which one of them would be on the chopping block next for making a stupid, unpopular comment.
The NFL also recently banned custom facecages unless the player had a "medical reason" for meaning we lost really cool ones like Karlos Dansby's
I know theyve had that policy for a long time in regards to the plastic visors worn by various players. Basically, it had to be clear, unless there was a medical reason for it. Terrell Davis of the Broncos was probably the most notable of these guys, because he got migraines so bad even his darkened visor wasn't enough.
don't quite a lot of players have "smoked" visors (although they could be college players). The British American football league definitely enforces clear visors only though
The NFL also recently banned custom facecages unless the player had a "medical reason" for meaning we lost really cool ones like Karlos Dansby's
I know theyve had that policy for a long time in regards to the plastic visors worn by various players. Basically, it had to be clear, unless there was a medical reason for it. Terrell Davis of the Broncos was probably the most notable of these guys, because he got migraines so bad even his darkened visor wasn't enough.
don't quite a lot of players have "smoked" visors (although they could be college players). The British American football league definitely enforces clear visors only though
LordofHats wrote: The NAACP is like the NRA. They sold out years ago
No. It would be akin to the NRA giving Bloomberg a lifetime achievement award. Though, his stupidity does continue to help them more than hinder them......
I don't understand the visor rule. I think they should make all players wear them. It would cut down about 80% of the face mask penalties. If they then required dudes to wear the tight bar masks, they could virtually eliminate them completely.
LordofHats wrote: The NAACP is like the NRA. They sold out years ago
No. It would be akin to the NRA giving Bloomberg a lifetime achievement award. Though, his stupidity does continue to help them more than hinder them......
I don't think he was arguing that the events were exactly the same, just that both organizations sold out to big money.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And yet, I'd be willing to bet money that most of those same players who were talking about a strike or whatever they were going to do, routinely use offensive and racist language, not only on a daily, but on an hourly or minutely basis.
He didn't just say a rude word. I'm so fething bored of this thing where people think it's all about who can and who can't say rude racial slang.
I mean, think about the following two statements;
'You can really play basketball, n-word'.
'I do not think you should continue hanging around with people of that particular ethnic group.'
The first statement uses a rude word. It is probably not a good thing to say.
The second statement uses all the proper, politically correct terminology, but is a horrible, ugly sentiment, arguing for racial seperation.
Figure out which statement is actually worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I thought Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had a good take on it. Full article here.
Moral outrage is exhausting. And dangerous. The whole country has gotten a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging.
...
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing.
That was a fantastic piece. Thanks for linking to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: From one perspective it gets results, and it gives the media ratings fodder so this trend is not going to abate any time soon. Seriously, I was in the gym and 3 out of 5 TVs were covering this story
It won't end as long as we rely on the media getting responsible and no longer trumping up offensive words from nobodies in to national scandals.
But it might end if we, as a society, get sick of that bs and stop, as Kareem Abdul Jabbar says, our Morally Superior Head Shaking.
I think would argue that the first statement may even be non-derogatory depending on the context like I've seen people use [see forum posting rules] as a term of endearment before.
Polonius wrote: Of course. His real crime, as always, was being racist on tape. The reasons the past sins weren't penalized as heavily is because there wasn't the proof (the DOJ's suit was settled quietly), and there wasn't the uproar.
But racial scandal is really bad for an entity that relies on minority dollars more than any other major sports league. It's one thing to secretly suspect somebody of being a bigot, but hearing it on tape makes it harder to ignore, you know?
Yeah, basically it's that this time there's a story with legs. The whole story can be captured in a couple of seconds of news time - Sterling said some racist stuff on tape, and here is part of that recording for you. 10 seconds and everyone is up to speed on the story, knows the key fact and has an opinion that they are posting on the internet.
Compare that to a DoJ investigation in to racially biased housing, people would have to watch like a whole hour of TV to figure out if that's happening, or maybe even read a news article that went on to a second page. That kind of story is never going to get far.
Cheesecat wrote: I think would argue that the first statement may even be non-derogatory depending on the context like I've seen people use [see forum posting rules] as a term of endearment before.
Doesn't really matter, because the N-word is so exclusive and exclusionary. Let's face it, most of us who peruse this website have skin that is far to pale to EVER consider using the word in conversation, and NOT look like a racist. The fact is, it's very usage is highly offensive to people, and for organizations like the NBA to sit around and "let" their players use that sort of language in what is ultimately a workplace, and yet go after some dude who makes idiotic remarks that are also racist is hypocritical to say the least.
Say what you will about the NFL's new "racial/discriminatory language" rule that goes into effect this next season, but at least theyre stepping up and doing something about it.
Jihadin wrote: Clipper fanchrise is on its death spiral I believe now
It is in the best shape it has ever been on the court, with bidders lining up out the door to spend a billion or so in the wake of Sterling's imminent departure.
Jihadin wrote: Clipper fanchrise is on its death spiral I believe now
It is in the best shape it has ever been on the court, with bidders lining up out the door to spend a billion or so in the wake of Sterling's imminent departure.
Hopefully, if it does get sold and moved, it goes to Seattle. In it's time, Seattle was actually quite the basketball town... Of course, the 'Hawks were terrible back then, and Ken Griffey Jr. was pretty young, and both the Hawks and Mariners' home was the Kingdome
Cheesecat wrote: I think would argue that the first statement may even be non-derogatory depending on the context like I've seen people use [see forum posting rules] as a term of endearment before.
Doesn't really matter, because the N-word is so exclusive and exclusionary. Let's face it, most of us who peruse this website have skin that is far to pale to EVER consider using the word in conversation, and NOT look like a racist. The fact is, it's very usage is highly offensive to people, and for organizations like the NBA to sit around and "let" their players use that sort of language in what is ultimately a workplace, and yet go after some dude who makes idiotic remarks that are also racist is hypocritical to say the least.
Say what you will about the NFL's new "racial/discriminatory language" rule that goes into effect this next season, but at least theyre stepping up and doing something about it.
I remember during my time living in New Orleans, I was one time, around midnight in a lot on Canal Street parking a car for a guest at the hotel I worked at. I was walking along a fence between the lot and the Iberville projects when a co worker in the booth up front just got a call that his relief would not be in until 1am.
He got pissed and yelled into the phone, "N word! You don't call me an hour late to tell me you'll be another hour late!"
That one word was echoing and re echoing from the project building, making it very uncomfortable for me, because I was the only person in view, and as stated, quite white, and even whiter after that word got yelled out, feeling imaginary crosshairs on me. I mentioned the poor timing and volume of the comments to my co worker on my way out of the lot.
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like black people took a word meant used to denigrate them and re-appropriated it as a term of affection between one another.
The weird thing is that nerds are doing the same thing right now and people who don't get what black people did don't notice
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like black people took a word meant used to denigrate them and re-appropriated it as a term of affection between one another.
The weird thing is that nerds are doing the same thing right now and people who don't get what black people did don't notice
Yah. Those are practically the same! It's uncanny! All those well educated, introverted white folks and their distinct history of oppression via institutionalized racism! They could be mirror images!
Nerd used to be an insult (not as severe mind you) but going on twenty years, nerds have reclaimed the word and now have a wide range of social acceptance. Hipsters are the new nerds, mostly because we needed a new word for obnoxious know it alls. It's the same basic principle, and its happening right now but some people struggle to grasp the concept, as we now see
LordofHats wrote: Nerd used to be an insult (not as severe mind you) but going on twenty years, nerds have reclaimed the word and now have a wide range of social acceptance. Hipsters are the new nerds, mostly because we needed a new word for obnoxious know it alls. It's the same basic principle, and its happening right now but some people struggle to grasp the concept, as we now see
Hipsters aren't nerds. Nerds are typically gainfully employed.
No one is struggling to "grasp the concept." Some of us just recognize a very bad analogy.
That's not the point Most Hipsters have jobs to, but much like the nerds of old, we have mean stereotypes about them*. Don't worry. Maybe in 40 years Hipsters will be cool too and we'll all have to live with them pointing out they were hipsters before it was cool
*Cause the 40 year old virgin living in his parents basement was never an assumption anyone made about certain kinds of people
Some of us just recognize a very bad analogy.
it's only bad if you decide to be needlessly obtuse about it
cincydooley wrote: Sebster, you should check out the video of Bomani Jones just lighting up his colleagues regarding this situation.
Hes been, perhaps, the most spot on about this whole situation, in my opinion.
I can't view it from work, what does the article say?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Doesn't really matter, because the N-word is so exclusive and exclusionary. Let's face it, most of us who peruse this website have skin that is far to pale to EVER consider using the word in conversation, and NOT look like a racist. The fact is, it's very usage is highly offensive to people, and for organizations like the NBA to sit around and "let" their players use that sort of language in what is ultimately a workplace, and yet go after some dude who makes idiotic remarks that are also racist is hypocritical to say the least.
I really don't think there's any value at all in that line of discussion, to be honest. Basically what you're saying is that because it generally sounds racist when you or other white people say it, then no-one should be allowed to say it.
I mean, ultimately, if the speaker didn't intend any racism and the recipient didn't take any, there's no problem. Now, there's never a guarantee that the recipient won't take offense so I think it's sensible to never use the word, but that's a long way from what you're saying.
The NFL also recently banned custom facecages unless the player had a "medical reason" for meaning we lost really cool ones like Karlos Dansby's
Spoiler:
I don't even know why you would want to wear that. Face cages stifle breathing enough as it is.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: In addition to what they wearing during games, the NFL is pretty insistent on what players wear before and after games as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
It's no different than the NFL forcing coaches to wear team apparel instead of something more professional like a business suit as in other sports (NBA, NHL, etc.).
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
Not when part of your job is to promote Nike and not their competitors, and is being well paid to do so. If you are a driver for Coke you can't be seen wearing Pepsi t-shirts or drinking pepsi products while working either, and vice versa.
Polonius wrote: Of course. His real crime, as always, was being racist on tape. The reasons the past sins weren't penalized as heavily is because there wasn't the proof (the DOJ's suit was settled quietly), and there wasn't the uproar.
But racial scandal is really bad for an entity that relies on minority dollars more than any other major sports league. It's one thing to secretly suspect somebody of being a bigot, but hearing it on tape makes it harder to ignore, you know?
Yeah, basically it's that this time there's a story with legs. The whole story can be captured in a couple of seconds of news time - Sterling said some racist stuff on tape, and here is part of that recording for you. 10 seconds and everyone is up to speed on the story, knows the key fact and has an opinion that they are posting on the internet.
Compare that to a DoJ investigation in to racially biased housing, people would have to watch like a whole hour of TV to figure out if that's happening, or maybe even read a news article that went on to a second page. That kind of story is never going to get far.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think most people find overt, superficial racism unseemly. Not wanting your girlfriend taking pictures with black guys is both racially discriminatory, it's also petty and without gain. People see this, and go, "there's a guy that just plain don't like black folk."
Housing discrimination, on the other hand... well, people love it. Not all people, and certainly not those discriminated against, but for the most part, people like that the can, or wish that they could, limit what types of people lived in certain areas. Ethnic enclaves, gritty blue collar neighborhoods fighting against gentrification, and good old fashioned Red Lining all exist because while we're racially open minded in theory, we all are keeping an eye on our property values.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
Not when part of your job is to promote Nike and not their competitors, and is being well paid to do so. If you are a driver for Coke you can't be seen wearing Pepsi t-shirts or drinking pepsi products while working either, and vice versa.
That depends on what your contract defines as "working," which in this case I do not know the exact wording. A football players' "work" includes watching game film, so does that mean he has to wear Nike apparel while doing it on the off chance that there is a member of the press present at the training facility?
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a fine like this if the violation is a breech of contract. That being said, I still think it is stupid to have trivial things like that I a contract.
I'm guessing it is also easier for the league to ignore housing discrimination since it doesn't really involve or impact the league.
Now they have him on tape telling her not to bring those black guys (former NBA players) to HIS games (the NBA's games) and how he is kind enough to give his black players (current NBA players) food and housing (pay their NBA salary).
Housing racism doesn't really have anything to do with the NBA. This rant had everything to do with his status as an NBA owner.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That depends on what your contract defines as "working," which in this case I do not know the exact wording. A football players' "work" includes watching game film, so does that mean he has to wear Nike apparel while doing it on the off chance that there is a member of the press present at the training facility?
It very well may. I know that, when playing NCAA football, I was required to wear team gear any time I was doing anything related to the team that someone might see; and that was in D3. So it wouldn't surprise me if NFL players are contractually forced to do the same.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
Not when part of your job is to promote Nike and not their competitors, and is being well paid to do so. If you are a driver for Coke you can't be seen wearing Pepsi t-shirts or drinking pepsi products while working either, and vice versa.
That depends on what your contract defines as "working," which in this case I do not know the exact wording. A football players' "work" includes watching game film, so does that mean he has to wear Nike apparel while doing it on the off chance that there is a member of the press present at the training facility?
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a fine like this if the violation is a breech of contract. That being said, I still think it is stupid to have trivial things like that I a contract.
I think a lot of them, if not individually then the NFL or the players league, have promotional contracts. It also may not be that they have to wear the sponsors gear, but that at the very least they can't wear something promoting the competitor of the sponsor. If Nike is paying money to team X to be able to say they are the official sponsor of team X I imagine there are rules governing it. Certainly at home they can, but going into, during, and coming out of games is probably covered.
Wasn't there an issue recently (within the last two years) with an athlete wearing another team's hat, or maybe it was another sports team's hat? They get annoyed at that stuff as well.
Wasn't there an issue recently (within the last two years) with an athlete wearing another team's hat, or maybe it was another sports team's hat? They get annoyed at that stuff as well.
Durant has been known to wear a SuperSonics hat on occasion. But I don't think that pissed off anybody except Seattle.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
It's no different than the NFL forcing coaches to wear team apparel instead of something more professional like a business suit as in other sports (NBA, NHL, etc.).
It is, though. Team colours are completely appropriate for members of a team. Branded items from a rival company are a different thing entirely.
Presumably there is a swinging penalty clause in Nike's sponsorship contract with the league. I assume that as a quarterback the player gets enough that $10,000 is the least you need to fine him to actually hurt him. (Note that he didn't learn a lesson from the first occasion.)
Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. You’re actually rooting for the clothes. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt!
"As GNN launches, Ron decides to broadcast what the people want to hear, rather than what they need to hear, and devise a sensationalist and attention grabbing newscast"
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think most people find overt, superficial racism unseemly. Not wanting your girlfriend taking pictures with black guys is both racially discriminatory, it's also petty and without gain. People see this, and go, "there's a guy that just plain don't like black folk."
Something that isn't being asked right now, and perhaps should be, is why he cares about it IN PUBLIC when he clearly doesn't have a problem associating with minorities in private. To me, it's perhaps indicative of his concern over what his peer group will think (which, prior to his death, including Jerry Buss as a close friend). Which means there are (perhaps unsurprisingly) other owners that share his views but are better at discretion. I think that should b a very real concern.
Housing discrimination, on the other hand... well, people love it. Not all people, and certainly not those discriminated against, but for the most part, people like that the can, or wish that they could, limit what types of people lived in certain areas. Ethnic enclaves, gritty blue collar neighborhoods fighting against gentrification, and good old fashioned Red Lining all exist because while we're racially open minded in theory, we all are keeping an eye on our property values.
It's also a reason why forced mixed income housing isn't that common.
Ahtman wrote: This has all reminded me of this Seinfeld bit:
Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. You’re actually rooting for the clothes. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt!
Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.
OT: I'm glad they finally nailed this racist piece of gak. If he had told his girlfriend, "Make sure you bring your 10 year old sister, she's fethable as feth", no one would be worried about the implications of private chat made public.
feeder wrote: Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.
When Peyton Manning went to Denver I know a lot of people that turned on him and I didn't really get it. I liked him before and I still like him now. He is a very dynamic player at both organizations.
feeder wrote: Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.
Would you say you find racist statements more objectionable than breaking someone's neck over a game, then?
feeder wrote: Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.
Would you say you find racist statements more objectionable than breaking someone's neck over a game, then?
I find deliberately racist statements more objectionable than accidentally breaking someone's neck, yes. No more tragic or regrettable, but objectionable, yes. Intent is key here, I think.
feeder wrote: Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.
When Peyton Manning went to Denver I know a lot of people that turned on him and I didn't really get it. I liked him before and I still like him now. He is a very dynamic player at both organizations.
I don't really understand this much either... I mean, if one of the Sedin twins were to be traded to Toronto, I'd be mad as hell.... At the GM and "Front Office", but would never boo the player. I mean, in Peyton's case, it was the front office who said, "well, we have andrew luck, who we feel will get us to a superbowl sooner than if we keep you around, so pack your bags. Thanks for what you did for us."
At the same time, when players do something like Lebron James did when he went to Miami, I completely understand and feel the booing/hate directed at him at the time was justifiable. There's a certain measure of professionalism that I think players should have. Turning a change in teams into a reality show/ media spectacle is extremely unprofessional.
feeder wrote: I find deliberately racist statements more objectionable than accidentally breaking someone's neck, yes. No more tragic or regrettable, but objectionable, yes. Intent is key here, I think.
Wow. Seriously, man. Wow.
In one case all you have are words and possibly hurt feelings. In more serious cases you have civil courts to provide relief. In the other, a person has died. The survivors and family have to deal with that forever. You claim intent, instead is key instead of actual damage.
I must fervently disagree with your outlook on this issue and likely your fundamental values system, too. In my book, life is always more important than anyone's feelings. Intent is fine for determining motive but Canada seems to have crossed the line and wandered deep into thought police territory. I am always stunned and amazed to find people who can't understand (or don't care) why that is so dangerous.
Voltaire wrote:I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
Seriously, Canada, What the hell's happening up there?
Just "being" a pedophile isn't a crime, anymore than being a racist is. One has to act on those disturbed thoughts in order to commit a crime. I'd like to live in a society where belief in racial superiority/inferiority is as abhorrent as the belief that little children are ready for sex.
feeder wrote: I find deliberately racist statements more objectionable than accidentally breaking someone's neck, yes. No more tragic or regrettable, but objectionable, yes. Intent is key here, I think.
Wow. Seriously, man. Wow.
In one case all you have are words and possibly hurt feelings. In more serious cases you have civil courts to provide relief. In the other, a person has died. The survivors and family have to deal with that forever. You claim intent, instead is key instead of actual damage.
I must fervently disagree with your outlook on this issue and likely your fundamental values system, too. In my book, life is always more important than anyone's feelings. Intent is fine for determining motive but Canada seems to have crossed the line and wandered deep into thought police territory. I am always stunned and amazed to find people who can't understand (or don't care) why that is so dangerous.
I think you misunderstand me. Bertuzzi didn't go out there intending to paralyze Moore, he was trying to get him to fight because he cheap-shotted Bertuzzi's captain. The end result was a terrible, awful mess, but it was an accident. Just like McSorley and Brashear. An accident is an unintended outcome of actions.
This racist old piece of gak told his girlfriend not to bring black people not by accident, because he is a horrible human being. He chooses to be one every time he wakes up and puts on his socks. That's what I find objectionable. He chooses to be intolerant.
I am not saying breaking necks is preferable to saying racist gak. I am saying I find people who choose to be horrible people more objectionable than people who are involved in terrible accidents.
Breotan wrote: Saw this today and thought I'd leave it here to stir up the discussion a little bit.
I was checking for news about this, but any stories I found about it were mostly about Sterling with maybe 3 sentences about the call for an all Black league.
That is because no one took him all that seriously, though it did make the news as we have heard the story. It just isn't an interesting story, and not even on the same level of moronic. It was stupid, but not modern day plantation owner stupid. Trying to create some false equivalence shows a serious misunderstanding of history and society.
Ahtman wrote: That is because no one took him all that seriously, though it did make the news as we have heard the story. It just isn't an interesting story, and not even on the same level of moronic. It was stupid, but not modern day plantation owner stupid. Trying to create some false equivalence shows a serious misunderstanding of history and society.
Yep. I mean, I'd have no problem if they kicked the idiot who called for a black only league as well, but it isn't hard to figure out why one issue is hit harder - there is an actual, still completely real problem with some people, particularly older and often quite rich people, who do not want to associate with black people. There is not an actual, real issue with black only basketball leagues popping up around the country.
Ahtman wrote: That is because no one took him all that seriously, though it did make the news as we have heard the story. It just isn't an interesting story, and not even on the same level of moronic. It was stupid, but not modern day plantation owner stupid. Trying to create some false equivalence shows a serious misunderstanding of history and society.
Moreover, Larry Johnson is not an owner and has no real power within the Knicks organization, let alone the NBA.
Also that meme is disingenuous, Johnson made his comment via Twitter, not on TV.
And he didn't call for an all black league. He called for a league of their own, which is, I think, an important distinction. And one that gets to the heart of the matter: you have mostly black workers (albeit highly paid ones) working for nearly all white owners.
Polonius wrote: And he didn't call for an all black league. He called for a league of their own, which is, I think, an important distinction. And one that gets to the heart of the matter: you have mostly black workers (albeit highly paid ones) working for nearly all white owners.
Well, I'd be fine if the Clippers renamed themselves the Peaches.
I'm....uncomfortable with how much the plantation analogy is being played up here, because I don't entirely understand how it's THAT different than they NFL, a league that although 80% of the players aren't black, close to 70% are.... Source
What's the big distinction? Is the difference that in the NFL, despite the numbers being not that dissimilar, about half of the stars are actually white?
I personally think the jump to do the, "oh, well she said...." Game is a bit silly and misses some of the overall pictures. Do I think Larry Johnson is racist? Probably? Should he, as an NBA Lower level executive face some consequences? Probably. Should thy look anything like Sterlings? Absolutely not.
Finally, I think all the "there are no black owners argument" that is being screamed from the hilltops is foolish because it fails to accept that there simply aren't that many blacks in the US, let alone the world, that qualify financially to own any professional sports team. There simply aren't enough black billionaires.... If Oprah genuinely wanted to buy a team outright, I think she's be welcomed because she ticks two boxes. But she's about it in the US. And yes, I know everyone likes to tout that Magic Johnson is an owner of the dodgers. But let's be honest with ourselves here: he owns about 2.5% of the team (he contributed $50MM to the $2.15B the Dodgers were purchased for). That's no small chunk of change, but it's sort of a notable thing. Shaq owns, according to forbes, a similarly sized share in the Kings.
I don't say this because I don't want diversity in ownership; rather, I think the community needs to be a bit pragmatic in how it addresses ownerships....
Polonius wrote: And he didn't call for an all black league. He called for a league of their own, which is, I think, an important distinction. And one that gets to the heart of the matter: you have mostly black workers (albeit highly paid ones) working for nearly all white owners.
Well, I'd be fine if the Clippers renamed themselves the Peaches.
I'm....uncomfortable with how much the plantation analogy is being played up here, because I don't entirely understand how it's THAT different than they NFL, a league that although 80% of the players aren't black, close to 70% are.... Source
What's the big distinction? Is the difference that in the NFL, despite the numbers being not that dissimilar, about half of the stars are actually white?
I think its simply that NFL players know they'd be cut and blackballed for saying stuff like that. Nearly all NFL players, aside from a small handful of stars on each team, are pretty replacable. The NFL is far more able to control their players, black and white, due to this. Combine that with the smaller number of players on an NBA team, and the more minimal uniform, and NBA players are marketed as stars, by themselves and the league, far more than individual NFL players. Paradoxically, its the fact that NBA players have as much security as they do that allows them to make such comemnts.
Also, fan interest is heavily tilted. Black people are more likley than average to be an NBA fan, while white people are less likley. NFL fandom is pretty color blind.
Finally, I think all the "there are no black owners argument" that is being screamed from the hilltops is foolish because it fails to accept that there simply aren't that many blacks in the US, let alone the world, that qualify financially to own any professional sports team. There simply aren't enough black billionaires.... If Oprah genuinely wanted to buy a team outright, I think she's be welcomed because she ticks two boxes. But she's about it in the US. And yes, I know everyone likes to tout that Magic Johnson is an owner of the dodgers. But let's be honest with ourselves here: he owns about 2.5% of the team (he contributed $50MM to the $2.15B the Dodgers were purchased for). That's no small chunk of change, but it's sort of a notable thing. Shaq owns, according to forbes, a similarly sized share in the Kings.
I don't say this because I don't want diversity in ownership; rather, I think the community needs to be a bit pragmatic in how it addresses ownerships....
Nobody thinks that racism is keeping black people from owning the teams. At least not in the sense that the leagues won't sell to black people. The fact that in four leagues, with over 100 teams, there isn't a single black billiionaire that can afford a team is probably what's concerning to all involved.
I think to address the overall point: I worry that people are so gunshy about accusations of racism that they just look over a comment for any sort of racial preference and assume racism. I guess it'll happen, but it's discouraging. Is Larry Johnson a racist, in the sense that he hates white people? I don't know. I really don't. I know he suggested he thinks it 'd be cool to have a league owned by black people, presumably with black players and playing for black crowds.
Is that racist? I can see how it looks racist "see! He doesn't want white people around!" But that ignores the fact that racial tension exists, that black people might not like that everybody that owns the company they work for is white. I think to find that a statement like that is racism presupposes that being a minority in a world where the majority owns nearly everything is exhausting.
I've lived as an ethnic minority as a kid, and it sucks. You can try to integrate all you want, but at the end of the day you want to be aroudn people like yourself.
Per CNBC, valuations for the Clippers are on the order of $1B right now. This guy's laughing all the way to the bank.
Nobody thinks that racism is keeping black people from owning the teams. At least not in the sense that the leagues won't sell to black people. The fact that in four leagues, with over 100 teams, there isn't a single black billiionaire that can afford a team is probably what's concerning to all involved.
According to Forbes Oprah is the only American born black billionaire. Magic's net worth is around $500MM. Bron is at like, $200MM. Jay-Z is at around $550MM. P-Diddy is one of the highest at $700MM.
The absurd level of wealth required to purchase a professional sports team in the US in 2014, for black Americans, simply isn't there....yet. I think that just needs to be kept in consideration when people start wringing their hands. I mean, I almost wish they could convince Aliko Dangote or Isabel dos Santos to purchase a controlling interest in the Clips. I think it would be a great thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The NBA clearly isn't opposed to diverse ownership; Vivek Ranadive, who's net worth is on par with Combs, just became the primary owner of the Kings.
cincydooley wrote: According to Forbes Oprah is the only American born black billionaire. Magic's net worth is around $500MM. Bron is at like, $200MM. Jay-Z is at around $550MM. P-Diddy is one of the highest at $700MM.
The absurd level of wealth required to purchase a professional sports team in the US in 2014, for black Americans, simply isn't there....yet. I think that just needs to be kept in consideration when people start wringing their hands. I mean, I almost wish they could convince Aliko Dangote or Isabel dos Santos to purchase a controlling interest in the Clips. I think it would be a great thing.
Again, I think most people are aware that there aren't a lot of super rich black people. Its just that, as facts go, its not the most reassuring one for a situation like this.
Digging deeper, the fact that I find a touch concerning is that all of the black wealth is concentrated in entertainment and sports.
I'd bet all the money in my pocket that the NBA will bend over backwards to sell the clips to a black owner. Which may end up being the most interesting cause of action sterling can bring. I dobut he'll be able to win in court to keep his team, but if he can show they didn't take the largest offer... that's just not right, IMO.
Digging deeper, the fact that I find a touch concerning is that all of the black wealth is concentrated in entertainment and sports.
I think it's interesting that Magic is actually the only one of the group I listed that didn't acrue the bulk of his wealth from those industries; Most of magics wealth is from investments and the foresight to get on board early with Starbucks franchises.
I'd bet all the money in my pocket that the NBA will bend over backwards to sell the clips to a black owner. Which may end up being the most interesting cause of action sterling can bring. I dobut he'll be able to win in court to keep his team, but if he can show they didn't take the largest offer... that's just not right, IMO.
I'm right with you. It's going to be really interesting.
Maybe it's just me, But I don't see pedophiles and racists on the same level.
I would certainly agree that I would prefer my 14 year old "haafu" daughter to associate with a racist than with a paedophile. However I would much prefer her not to associate with either of them, and to find some nicer friends instead.
Polonius wrote: I think to address the overall point: I worry that people are so gunshy about accusations of racism that they just look over a comment for any sort of racial preference and assume racism. I guess it'll happen, but it's discouraging. Is Larry Johnson a racist, in the sense that he hates white people? I don't know. I really don't. I know he suggested he thinks it 'd be cool to have a league owned by black people, presumably with black players and playing for black crowds.
Is that racist? I can see how it looks racist "see! He doesn't want white people around!" But that ignores the fact that racial tension exists, that black people might not like that everybody that owns the company they work for is white. I think to find that a statement like that is racism presupposes that being a minority in a world where the majority owns nearly everything is exhausting.
I've lived as an ethnic minority as a kid, and it sucks. You can try to integrate all you want, but at the end of the day you want to be aroudn people like yourself.
Remember we DID have exactly that in Baseball in the 1910s-40s, and the Negro Leagues folded because they simply couldn't maintain enough interest among their communities to keep the ticket sales up. Combine that with the Majors picking up Jackie Robinson and there really was nowhere for them to go.
I honestly don't know if society has changed to a point where a minority basketball league would survive. It would absolutely NEED star power, and I simply cannot see Lebron or someone of his "stature" leaving the money of the NBA to a startup league. It'd be one sure way to get blacklisted if/when this fictional "black league" folded.
Polonius wrote: I think to address the overall point: I worry that people are so gunshy about accusations of racism that they just look over a comment for any sort of racial preference and assume racism. I guess it'll happen, but it's discouraging. Is Larry Johnson a racist, in the sense that he hates white people? I don't know. I really don't. I know he suggested he thinks it 'd be cool to have a league owned by black people, presumably with black players and playing for black crowds.
Is that racist? I can see how it looks racist "see! He doesn't want white people around!" But that ignores the fact that racial tension exists, that black people might not like that everybody that owns the company they work for is white. I think to find that a statement like that is racism presupposes that being a minority in a world where the majority owns nearly everything is exhausting.
I've lived as an ethnic minority as a kid, and it sucks. You can try to integrate all you want, but at the end of the day you want to be aroudn people like yourself.
Remember we DID have exactly that in Baseball in the 1910s-40s, and the Negro Leagues folded because they simply couldn't maintain enough interest among their communities to keep the ticket sales up. Combine that with the Majors picking up Jackie Robinson and there really was nowhere for them to go.
I honestly don't know if society has changed to a point where a minority basketball league would survive. It would absolutely NEED star power, and I simply cannot see Lebron or someone of his "stature" leaving the money of the NBA to a startup league. It'd be one sure way to get blacklisted if/when this fictional "black league" folded.
Oh, of course it wouldn't work. It would also get sued out of existence, as you can't legally run a "blacks only" business any more than you can run a "whites only" one.
Even the old Negro Leagues were never really major league in caliber. They had some great players, but only a handful of franchises that were able to operate for mroe than a few years. There are some interesting stories about black business owners under Jim Crow that were ambivilant about integration, due to the loss of their own virtual monopolies. Tellingly, they all supported it anyway, because they felt that when not even money could buy respect, it wasn't worth as much.
There are two differences now: even at their peak, black players were never more than a significant minority in baseball, while the NBA has only a small white minority (much of that international). This also is position independent, with hall of fame level players of both races at all positions (compare to the NFL, with few white Wide Recievers but few (if any) black kickers). Second, there are black businesses that can really handle the finances of a league.
Realistically, nobody is going to start a league and alienate potential fans.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I saw this, and I feel like it's an interesting, but probably not feasible option: sell the team to public shareholders, like the Packers.
Frazzled wrote: Per CNBC, valuations for the Clippers are on the order of $1B right now. This guy's laughing all the way to the bank.
I suspect Mr. Already-has-more-money-than-he-can-spend would rather own a flashy cool sports team than (sigh) another billion dollars. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most sports teams money pits for their owners?
Teams, I don't think so. Stadiums usually are. The money in sports is really in merchandise, franchise, advertisement. The stadiums are usually huge money pits which is why many stadiums are owned by other companies (for advertisement).
According to Forbes 4NBA teams had a negative operating income in 2013: the nets (new stadium), the 76ers (who went on a 26 game losing streak this year), the t-wolves (who are terrible) and the Hawks (-3.6MM) whom I don't have any real explanation for other than that watching on TV hawk home games seem to be as abysmal as Heat home games in terms of interested attendees.
Frazzled wrote: Stadiums are usually owned by government entities which have bamboozled the voting public into sinking billions of dollars for minimal benefit.
Word.
Many stadia are boondoggles got up by local city governments on the principle that attracting a major sports team will bring a lot of money and stuff.
cincydooley wrote: According to Forbes 4NBA teams had a negative operating income in 2013: the nets (new stadium), the 76ers (who went on a 26 game losing streak this year), the t-wolves (who are terrible) and the Hawks (-3.6MM) whom I don't have any real explanation for other than that watching on TV hawk home games seem to be as abysmal as Heat home games in terms of interested attendees.
I believe that Atlanta faces the same problems that the Tampa Bay Rays (baseball) do. Their stadium location is such that you'd either have to leave real early from work to make the game on time, or miss half+ of the game, and be out till 2am the next day. I'm sure that there are many other issues with the Hawks, but their biggest one this past season was attendance at home games (this is just from listening to ESPN radio, as it should be clear by now that I strongly dislike the sport of basketball).
