Will the NBA Suspend an Unrepentent Antisemite Who is One of the League's Biggest Stars?
In his first press conference after promoting a vile, antisemitic movie via a social media account that has over 4 million followers, Kyrie Irving not only refused to acknowledge that he is wrong and that his actions are hurtful, but he lashed out at a reporter who gave Irving an opportunity to retract his hateful stance. Instead of apologizing for promoting hate, Irving focused on the semantics of the word "promote." Here's a hint, Kyrie: when you have millions of followers and you post a link to a movie, you just promoted that movie to millions of followers.
Irving is not only ignorant of history and unwilling to acknowledge the responsibility that he shoulders as an influential public figure, but he is defiantly ignorant, and his defiance is grounded in a simple reality: he is confident that the NBA is not going to take any action against him. All that the NBA has done thus far in the wake of Irving's hateful act is issue a general condemnation of hate speech that did not even mention Irving by name. Irving is so powerful that the NBA will not even publicly rebuke him by name! NBA Commissioner Adam Silver understands very well that in order to keep receiving his paycheck it is in his interest to not fine or suspend Irving, or at least to wait for Irving to become so outrageous and toxic that he can "lead from behind" and discipline him amid a public outcry to do so.
Some would argue that Irving has a First Amendment free speech right to say what he thinks. That is true, but let's be clear about what the First Amendment protects and what it does not protect: it protects citizens from having their speech curtailed by government action. So, Irving has a right to make ignorant, hateful social media posts--and his employer has a right to fine him, suspend him, or even terminate his employment. Customers have a right to not buy products that he endorses. Other citizens have a right to speak out against Irving's ignorance.
The NBA has proven that it only cares about profits, not principle, and metes out punishment based not on the nature of the offense but rather on the popularity and power of the offender. That is why Donald Sterling was banned for life, Robert Sarver was suspended for a year, and Mark Cuban faced no punishment.
The NBA suspended Meyers Leonard last year for uttering an antisemitic slur but that was an easy call for the NBA: Leonard is a journeyman player who never averaged 10 ppg in a season, so suspending him makes the league look like it cares about antisemitism without facing any risk of a backlash. If the NBA suspends Kyrie Irving, people with clear minds will understand and applaud, but many fans will be outraged, which could cost the NBA a lot of money. No one is going to protest yelling "Free Meyers," but I could picture people protesting an Irving suspension.
It is not only the league that is hypocritical. NBA players spout off on a regular basis about social justice. Every NBA player who condemned Robert Sarver and/or Donald Sterling but is now silent about Kyrie Irving's blatant antisemitism is a hypocrite. Unless I missed an Irving condemnation, that list of hypocritical players includes but is not limited to LeBron James, Chris Paul, and Draymond Green (who is not only a hypocrite but who also somehow managed to punch out a teammate and avoid being suspended by his team or the league).
Let me be crystal clear: I am not defending Sterling, Sarver, or Cuban. I have said that Cuban should have been disciplined, and I have no problem with Sterling and Sarver being disciplined. The point is that the NBA and the NBA players are hypocrites who are not sincerely pursuing social justice but instead cynically pursuing profits while hypocritically and selectively voicing support for select causes and outrage at select offenses/offenders.
Bill Reiter is right on target:
If you don't know much about the documentary Kyrie put out there, "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America," you can read this excellent breakdown at Rolling Stone. The
documentary is based on a book, written by the director, that is full
of antisemitism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamaphobia. That book
purports many influential Jewish people "worship Satan or Lucifer."
It's
awful stuff that deserves no equivocation. There's no excuse for
sharing such garbage. Not a player's talent. Not the good deeds he's
done in the past. Not the I'm-smarter-than-you series of deflections he
tried to foist off Saturday night after his team lost to the Pacers,
a game which dropped his team to 1-5 and required his teammates to
address the antisemitism percolating on their star's social media.
The question now is what comes next. Teammate and fellow superstar Kevin Durant,
asked if this was a distraction Saturday night, said, "Absolutely not.
The only impact is you guys and everybody outside the locker room."
If
Durant is saying that he and his teammates don't care [about] the hateful
ideas Kyrie is spouting and advancing, then shame on Durant and shame on
his teammates. Talent and friendship shouldn't be covers or excuses for
antisemitism, racism, misogyny and other forms of hate, a fact Durant
and the NBA should know better than most.
This
is a league that, rightly and impressively, has tied much of its brand
to social justice. That commitment to justice should not be paused
because one of the NBA's stars doesn't like accountability when it's
applied to him.
The NBA and the NBA players have a great opportunity to show how much they really care about fighting hatred and promoting social justice. I will be disappointed but not surprised by the deafening silence that will ensue.
Labels: Adam Silver, antisemitism, Chris Paul, Donald Sterling, Draymond Green, Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, NBA, Robert Sarver
posted by David Friedman @ 8:13 PM
The NBA's Triple Standard Regarding Owner Misconduct
"NBA Cares" is a nifty slogan, but the truth is that the NBA cares about profits, not genocide in China or any other cause that does not help maximize profits. One could debate whether or not the NBA's primary objective should be to maximize profits, to do good for society, or some combination of various goals, but it is hypocritical for the league to pretend that its primary objective is anything other than maximizing profits.
Within the past decade, three different NBA majority owners have been implicated directly or indirectly in conduct that is racist, misogynist, and/or just generally inappropriate for a workplace. L.A. Clippers majority owner Donald Sterling was privately recorded making several racist comments in 2013, and the recording was made public in 2014. Dallas Mavericks majority owner Mark Cuban presided over a workplace with an institutional culture of sexual harassment lasting nearly 20 years, as detailed in a 46 page independent report released in 2018 (some of the conduct predated Cuban's ownership, but most of it happened while he was in charge and was done by people who he hired and managed). A just-released 43 page report documents inappropriate language and conduct by Phoenix Suns majority owner Robert Sarver.
Before we review how the NBA handled each of these situations, keep in mind that the NBA cares about profits, and note these facts:
1) Mark Cuban is a popular owner of a successful NBA franchise.
2) Robert Sarver has solid progressive credentials based on his charitable work and his outspoken support of certain causes.
3) Donald Sterling was, to put it bluntly, a slumlord.
Connect the above dots, and it is not surprising that Mark Cuban was not punished, although he voluntarily donated $10 million to women's advocacy groups. It is also not surprising that the NBA fined Robert Sarver $10 million and suspended him for one year but has not moved to end his ownership of the Phoenix Suns or Phoenix Mercury. It is not in the least bit surprising that NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Donald Sterling from the Clippers' facilities and strongly encouraged the other NBA owners to vote to terminate Sterling's ownership of the team; such a measure required 22 out of 29 owners to agree, but before a formal vote was taken Sterling's wife agreed to sell the team after a court found that Donald Sterling was no longer competent to make such decisions as a result of dementia.
Examining these situations in chronological order, it should be noted that California is a "two party consent" state, which means that unless Donald Sterling consented to being recorded the recording of his racist remarks that led to him being banished from the NBA was illegal. Sterling has admitted that he made the racist remarks, but it is not clear if he consented to being recorded. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar agreed with Sterling being banned from the NBA but also said that whoever recorded Sterling should be punished, noting that every U.S. citizen--including racists--has a right to privacy. The NBA acted swiftly to sever ties with Sterling because Sterling had no support base inside the NBA or outside the NBA, and because there seemed to be a credible threat that players might boycott or take other actions that would affect profits if Sterling were not removed from power. The bottom line is that there was no economic downside to getting rid of Sterling, but a lot of economic risk if the NBA kept him around.
The documented misconduct under Cuban's rule is significant and disturbing. Even though Cuban himself was not accused of misconduct, it is axiomatic that an organization's chief executive is ultimately responsible for the workplace culture and for the conduct of the people who he hires, particularly when those people have authority over other employees. It is difficult to picture a similarly situated chief executive in any other field keeping his job with no consequences--but Cuban is a popular, charismatic figure, and his politics are generally in line with the NBA's politics. Also, Cuban is quite savvy regarding media manipulation and he would not shirk from a fight in a court of law and/or in the court of public opinion; trying to force Cuban to sell his team could have a negative effect on the NBA, including but not limited to Cuban possibly airing dirty laundry about the league or other teams. The bottom line is that when you are both popular and powerful, the risks of getting rid of you outweigh the risks of keeping you around. Sure, over the years the NBA has fined Cuban from time to time when he shoots his mouth off, and he accepts that as a cost of doing business, but he is not an old, dementia-ridden slumlord with no allies of consequence.
The documented misconduct under Sarver's rule is mainly conduct by Sarver himself. It is interesting that the report makes a point of stating that no evidence was found that Sarver's misbehavior was animated by racist or misogynist motives; he is depicted as a billionaire businessman with a sophomoric sense of humor and a personality that thrives on bullying people/pushing boundaries. Any other chief executive who conducted himself that poorly for that long after that many people counseled him to behave differently would not keep his position, but on the NBA's caring about profits scale Sarver falls somewhere between Sterling and Cuban, but closer to Cuban. Sarver says the right things publicly and he supports the right causes, but his tenure in Phoenix has been tumultuous at times and it is no secret that his behavior toward subordinates has not always been proper. The NBA does not want to just cast aside an owner of a winning team who publicly supports their social justice initiatives, but the NBA also understands that because Sarver--unlike Cuban--was directly involved in misconduct it is not good business to just completely let him off the hook. So, $10 million--which for a billionaire is equivalent to $500 for a person who makes $50,000 a year--plus one year away from the business sounds about right to the NBA.
The interesting thing to monitor now is that the announcement of Sarver's discipline has been met with disapproval from several media outlets, including commentators on Sirius XM NBA Radio. The NBA has rabbit ears for detecting which way the winds of popular opinion are blowing, and if Sarver is less popular than the NBA suspected then I would not be surprised if Adam Silver hastily convenes the NBA owners and figures out a way to announce that the owners reached a consensus that Sarver must be dealt with more harshly.
What is the point of comparing the disparate ways that the NBA dealt with three owners who brought disrepute to themselves and the league? The point is that process matters. If a company (or the government or anyone with power) can use any means necessary to obtain a desired result, then all of our freedoms are in jeopardy; it does not matter if the desired result in a particular instance is just--the corruption of process is a slippery and dangerous slope.
The NBA should have a defined process in place regarding owners who preside over a toxic workplace, and that process should be consistently applied. Instead, the punishment seems to be based not on severity of conduct but rather on potential negative reactions/publicity that could affect profits. If you research and read the details of confirmed misconduct, it could be strongly argued that what happened within the Mavericks organization under Cuban was worse than what happened in the Clippers organization under Sterling or in the Suns organization under Sarver--and Cuban's denials that he knew about the rampant misconduct are implausible, at best: one of his employees who later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor family violence assault and interference with emergency request fled the scene of the crime and was arrested at the Mavericks' offices!
I want to make it clear that I don't have any sympathy for Sterling, Cuban, or Sarver. It would not bother me if all three were banned from the NBA. My point is not about the punishment directed toward any one owner, but rather that the process does not appear to be grounded in objective evaluation of evidence and consistent administration of justice. The NBA is a private employer that has broad discretion in these matters, but the implications of inconsistent punishment of serious workplace offenses should concern everyone.
Labels: Adam Silver, Dallas Mavericks, Donald Sterling, L.A. Clippers, Mark Cuban, NBA, Phoenix Suns, Robert Sarver
posted by David Friedman @ 7:46 PM
The NBA Tries to Figure Out How to Best Monetize the National Anthem
The NBA requires teams to play the National Anthem before each game, and the NBA requires team employees to stand respectfully while the National Anthem is played. These rules are not new. Over 20 years ago, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (formerly known as Chris Jackson) found those rules objectionable and he decided to remain in the locker room while the National Anthem was played. The NBA did not ban him, but the league suspended him without pay for one game before he and the league agreed to a compromise stipulating that Abdul-Rauf would stand with his eyes closed during the playing of the National Anthem. After fulfilling his part of the compromise for a few seasons, Abdul-Rauf ultimately pursued career options other than being an NBA player, though he did return to the NBA for the 2000-01 season.
During the COVID-19 "bubble" last season, the league permitted players and team employees to kneel during the National Anthem, but that was more about granting some leeway during unusual circumstances than actually changing the rules. This season, everything was supposed to return to normal. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban apparently did not get that memo. His team did not play the National Anthem before home games this season, and this supposedly went unnoticed by the league until Cuban made some public statements drawing attention to how he flouted the league's rules, whereupon the league informed him that the rules have not been changed. The Mavericks have resumed playing the National Anthem prior to games, with some commentators praising Cuban's initial actions and other commentators praising the league for enforcing its longstanding rules.
It is difficult to believe that the NBA did not know about Cuban's National Anthem policy until he publicly spoke about it. No, the league was willing to let things go if no one complained--but as soon as this became a public issue, the NBA did some back of the envelope math and figured out that the NBA's declining ratings would decline further if other teams followed Cuban's example. So, Cuban issued some weak statement about his new policy not really being a policy but rather just some kind of experiment, the NBA stated that its rules had not been changed, and everything has returned to normal.
The NBA's hypocrisy would be laughable were it not so self-righteous and absurd. The league breaks its collective arms patting itself on the back for being progressive: "The NBA Cares," we have been told ad nauseam.
What a farce. The NBA cares primarily about profits. If the NBA thought that it could make more money by having someone read excerpts from The Communist Manifesto before each game then the NBA would do it in a heartbeat; if the NBA thought that paying customers did not care about the National Anthem then the NBA would drop the National Anthem in a heartbeat.
For now, playing the National Anthem is a better financial decision than not playing the National Anthem.
There is no principle at work here other than maximizing profits. There is nothing inherently wrong with maximizing profits--provided that no laws are broken and no people are harmed--but it is obnoxious when a multi-billion dollar business repeatedly makes money-centered decisions while at the same time touting how progressive it is.
The NBA does not care about genocide in China, because doing business with China is a significant revenue source that the NBA is determined to maintain and grow.
The NBA does not care about the health and safety of its players, as demonstrated last week with the ludicrous scene of Kevin Durant being told that he could not play, then being permitted to play, and then being told that he could not play and that he would have to isolate for a week. If he has to isolate due to contact tracing and "an abundance of caution" then why doesn't every player--every NBA employee-who came in contact with him also have to isolate? Follow the money: if the NBA did that, then the season would collapse, and the league would lose hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars. So, instead we have a charade that is less about health and safety, and much more about acting like the league cares about health and safety.
The NBA dragged its feet for decades while players who retired prior to 1965 struggled in their old age without having an NBA pension. After many of those players passed away, the NBA finally threw a small amount of cash to the survivors. The ABA-NBA merger stipulated that the combined league would honor the pensions of ABA players, but the NBA is apparently waiting for a few more of those guys to pass away before helping out the survivors. The total amount of money that it would take to help the remaining ABA players who do not have pensions has been estimated at less than $2 million. That is pocket change for the NBA. The NBA loudly proclaims "Black Lives Matter" but is unwilling to commit even a relatively small amount of money to help the players--most of whom are Black--who helped build the league into the multi-billion dollar business it is today.
Commissioner Adam Silver gets a lot of credit for how he dealt with racist owner Donald Sterling. Sterling was a racist owner for decades, but the league never did anything until it was clear that Sterling's racism had become a public scandal that could cost the league money (and possibly lead to a player boycott).
A 43 page report detailed an institutional culture of sexual harassment that lasted for over 20 years in the Dallas Mavericks' organization. Cuban was not directly implicated in any improper conduct, but the report stated that "significant errors in judgment" and "institutional failures" had happened on his watch. Cuban and the Mavericks received no discipline from the NBA. Media members who cover the NBA regularly praise Cuban for being a
progressive and innovative thinker. Remember all of this the next time
you hear about how much the NBA is doing to empower women and girls.
The NBA should be ashamed of all of this, but as long as the cash keeps coming in the league's attitude is, in the vernacular, "Money talks and BS walks." Murdered people in China, destitute basketball pioneers, a racist owner, female employees enduring sexual harassment while Cuban looked the other way--it is all BS to the NBA.
Do not take this to mean that other leagues are better. MLB is a joke, and I have written about that before; it is ridiculous that Bud Selig is in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and that the PED cheater Alex Rodriguez is a celebrated baseball commentator. The NFL, like the NBA, has also not done right for many of its retired players, and the league is trying to figure out how much crowd-pleasing violence it can get away with allowing while giving lip service to being concerned about brain injuries. How many NFL Hall of Famers have died as a result of brain injuries? How many ex-NFL players have ended up homeless due at least in part to their brain injuries severely impacting their ability to function? How many ex-NFL players have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the torso so that their brains can be preserved for study?
I know more about the NBA than I do about the other leagues, and I have covered the NBA in person, so it is only natural that I write more about the NBA both in terms of the greatness of its athletes and the hypocrisy of its organizational policies.
The National Anthem "controversy" stems in part from non-lawyers and non-scholars struggling to understand what the Constitutional right to free speech entails. The right to free speech means that the government cannot restrict your right to free speech; the right to free speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want without facing any consequences. A private employer has the legal right to restrict its employees' speech in many ways: it can contractually prevent employees from revealing proprietary information, it can determine what employees may or may not do with company-owned computers/internet access, and so forth, provided that such restrictions are spelled out as terms of employment and do not violate federal or state laws. Thus, the NBA can set as a condition of employment that its teams play the National Anthem prior to each game, and that each team employee shall stand respectfully while the National Anthem is played. Anyone who does not accept that condition of employment is subject to discipline, up to and possibly including termination of employment.
The United States' history and flaws are well-documented, and seemingly discussed in the media on a daily basis now. There is a tendency to forget that this country was founded by people who fled tyranny, and that this country's significant efforts in World War I and World War II (to cite just two examples) did much to preserve and extend freedom around the world. This country, for all of its shortcomings, is a place where a person who has no college education can accumulate generational wealth--tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars--on the basis of athletic skill. Anyone who does not want to stand for the National Anthem has plenty of other employment options: there are basketball leagues all over the world that do not play the U.S.National Anthem before their games, and players have the opportunity to offer their services to the highest bidder in any of those leagues.
I am not deeply offended by people who kneel for the National Anthem, but I am puzzled by what they think they are accomplishing. The National Anthem is not the Confederate flag; it is not a symbol of oppression, unless you believe that this country is fundamentally evil. I believe that this country has done wrong and must do better, but that this country is also, in President Abraham Lincoln's heartfelt, eloquent words, "the last best hope of Earth." I believe that there are other, better ways to protest injustice, and/or call attention to specific situations than not standing for the National Anthem. The playing of the National Anthem is a moment when all of us can stand together in gratitude for what this country has accomplished, and in hope for what this country will accomplish in terms of righting past wrongs/doing better in the future.
Although I stand for the National Anthem, I can respect someone who peacefully decides to kneel--but only if that person is also willing to accept the potential consequences of that action. If the National Anthem is that offensive to one's ears, then the political and economic systems that enable the NBA to exist and thrive are also offensive.
It really is simple. The NBA, as a private employer, has a right to play the National Anthem before games with the expectation that its employees will stand respectfully while the National Anthem is played. Each person has a right to decide what terms of employment are acceptable financially, morally, and otherwise--and each person has a right to decide to seek employment from an employer whose rules and policies align with behaviors that are are palatable to that person.
Labels: ABA, Adam Silver, China, Dallas Mavericks, Donald Sterling, Mark Cuban, National Anthem, NBA, Pre-1965ers
posted by David Friedman @ 10:00 PM
