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
NBA Opening Night 2022 Featured Powerful Bill Russell Tribute and Wins by Last Season's NBA Finalists
NBA Opening Night 2022 began with a two and a half hour TNT pregame show. The highlight of that show was a tribute about Bill Russell titled "Answer the Call." The tribute's first segment featured interviews with several NBA legends--including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Julius Erving, Spencer Haywood, Magic Johnson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Shaquille O'Neal, Paul Pierce, Isiah Thomas, and Jerry West--talking about how Russell loved to call them and dispense wisdom about basketball and life.
Erving noted that sometimes he can be "funny" about talking on the phone, but that he answered every time that Russell called. Thomas remembered that Russell called him after his fateful turnover at the end of game five of the 1987 Eastern Conference Finals, and Russell told him that he has to keep pushing forward, not letting that moment define him. It is remarkable to think about a Boston Celtics legend calling a Detroit Pistons star to uplift him in the middle of a closely contested playoff series versus the Celtics, but when you consider that Russell also formed a close relationship with L.A. Lakers great Kobe Bryant it is clear that Russell felt that his role as NBA elder statesman was larger than team loyalties and involved raising the game as a whole.
Johnson said that after he made his 1991 announcement that he was HIV positive, Russell sought him out not for a phone conversation but for an in person meeting during which Russell embraced him, told him that he had been a winner his whole life, and that he would beat HIV. Johnson said that was exactly what he needed at that moment--to literally be embraced at a time when there was so much fear about HIV and HIV positive people.
West treasures a note that Russell sent to him stating how much the players around the league respect him. West said that he will carry Russell with him in his heart until the day he dies.
Haywood said that in 1980, Bill Russell saw him not looking or
sounding right during an interview, called him, spoke to him frankly,
and put him on the road to recovery from being a cocaine addict.
The tribute's second segment focused on Russell's pivotal role in the Civil Rights Movement. After Medgar Evers was assassinated, Russell called Evers' brother Charles and asked what he could do to help. Charles Evers asked Russell to go to Mississippi and run a basketball camp to help desegregate the state--and Russell did that, at the height of segregation and strife in the Deep South. Russell's participation in the famous 1967 Muhammad Ali Summit in Cleveland with (among others) Jim Brown and a very young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (then known as Lew Alcindor) was shown as well.
After the tribute aired, TNT's newly re-signed studio crew of Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, Kenny Smith, and Ernie Johnson shared their personal reflections about Russell. Barkley noted that Russell was an outspoken advocate for social justice at a time when Russell did not have the security of generational wealth, in contrast to many of today's athletes. O'Neal mentioned how much it meant to him to earn Russell's respect, and O'Neal briefly lamented that he never developed that kind of relationship with Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Smith described how honored he feels to be Bill Russell's first draft choice as Sacramento's coach, and Smith talked about how he and all of his children were able to visit with Russell near the end of Russell's life. Johnson talked about how much he enjoys hosting the NBA's Legends Brunch during All-Star Weekend, recalling that Russell would typically be sitting front and center.
Unfortunately, that great start to the telecast was soon followed by what was essentially a 20 minute infomercial for Draymond Green as father/great team player/upstanding member of the community who enjoys interacting with fans. Draymond Green assaulting and battering teammate Jordan Poole was little more than a postscript to the glowing tribute that could have passed for a paid advertisement produced by Green's public relations team. It could not be more obvious that TNT is hoping that Green will have a major role with the network after his playing career ends.
I give Barkley credit for declaring that Green was "100% wrong" and for pointing out that there is something very jarring about Green saying that he did not give much thought to what he did until the video of his punch was released; Barkley stated what should be obvious: punching a co-worker is unacceptable regardless of whether or not video footage of the punch is seen by the public. Barkley said that he spent the first four seasons of his NBA career playing on edge because he was angry about various things that happened before he made it to the NBA, and he added that when you regularly play on edge then you will also end up going over the edge. Barkley admitted that he had gone over the edge many times before he changed his attitude, and he urged Green to undergo a similar attitude change. Smith suggested that, in light of the NBA's multiple offseason scandals involving various kinds of poor conduct, the NBA should institute counseling programs to help players adjust to having so much money and being under so much scrutiny.
It says a lot about the current state of the NBA that the entirety of Commissioner Adam Silver's appearance on the pregame show consisted of talking about Green's punch (and Green's use of a racial slur directed at Kendrick Perkins during the summer), Phoenix owner Robert Sarver being suspended for a full season, and Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka being suspended for a full season. Ernie Johnson asked Silver a pointed question about whether--in light of so many incidents and scandals involving different teams--the public should have confidence in the way that the NBA's 30 franchises are being run. Silver conceded that this is a legitimate question, but then said that even though it is legitimate question to ask he has full confidence in how the NBA's franchises are being run.
Regarding Green not being suspended by the team or by the league, Silver said that the Warriors have earned the league's trust to do the right thing, and that typically the league will only step in when a situation involves two teams as opposed to an internal matter. To understand how absurd that is, just imagine any other workplace in which one employee punches another in the face--or imagine a star player being punched in the face by a non-star player. Do you suppose that the response might be different?
The NBA's hypocrisy is stunning, yet not surprising: some people can punch other people in the face but face no real consequences, and some people can utter racial slurs while facing no consequences, but other people would face significant consequences for similar (or even lesser) offenses. As always, the NBA cares about profits above all else, and every action that Silver and the league take--or do not take--should be viewed through that lens.
In response to a question from Barkley about Sarver, Silver stated that as Commissioner his power is limited to fining Sarver up to $10,000,000 (which Silver did) and suspending him. Silver added that he does not have the power to force an owner to sell his team. This is technically correct, though it should be recalled that Silver's public statements in 2014 about banning Donald Sterling for life go well beyond what Silver actually is empowered to do.
In the first game of TNT's doubleheader, the Boston Celtics defeated the Philadelphia 76ers, 126-117. Boston jumped out to a 9-2 lead, and the Celtics were ahead 9-3 when Al Horford had to go to the bench with his second foul; that call was a flagrant foul after Horford put his foot in James Harden's landing space on a three point shot attempt. Harden hit all three free throws, igniting a run that resulted in Philadelphia leading 29-24 at the end of the first quarter as Harden scored 16 points on 3-4 field goal shooting and 8-8 free throw shooting. Harden scored 22 first half points on 5-9 field goal shooting, but Boston rallied to tie the score at 63 by intermission. Joel Embiid scored 11 first half points on 3-7 field goal shooting, and the TNT crew rightly criticized Embiid for being too passive. Jaylen Brown (18 points) and Jayson Tatum (16 points) paced Boston's first half scoring.
The Celtics broke the game open in the third quarter, surging to a 95-82 lead before settling for a 98-88 advantage heading into the final stanza. The 76ers cut the margin to six early in the fourth quarter, but trailed by double digits for most of the final eight minutes before Tobias Harris slammed home a meaningless dunk with just under 30 seconds remaining.
Tatum finished with 35 points on 13-20 field goal shooting plus 12 rebounds, four assists, and a game-high +10 plus/minus number. Brown scored 35 points on 14-24 field goal shooting. The Celtics are not at full strength--they are missing injured center Robert Williams III, an excellent defensive player and powerful finisher in the paint--but they look like they are poised to make a deep playoff run.
The Celtics shot .561 from the field as the 76ers provided little defensive resistance throughout the game; there were several live ball turnovers after which Embiid and/or Harden did not even reach halfcourt before Boston scored or at least attempted a high percentage shot. As Jeff Van Gundy often says, horses trot but players run. You can rest assured that when a team's two highest profile players do not consistently put forth effort on defense that infects the whole team. The 76ers have a lot of talent, and that will enable them to win a decent amount of regular season games, particularly in a league where several teams are tanking--but there is still no reason to believe that this group has the right mentality or will develop the necessary habits to win a playoff series against an elite team. Harden scored 35 points--his single-game high as a 76er--on 9-14 field goal shooting; he looks to be in good shape physically, and he also looks to be primarily focused on what he can do offensively from an individual standpoint, as opposed to what he can do to maximize his team's chances to win a championship. Embiid finished with 26 points, 15 rebounds, five assists, and six turnovers; people who only look at individual numbers will say that Embiid and Harden are on their way to All-NBA caliber seasons, while people who understand the game will recognize that the 76ers still look like a team that will not advance past the second round of the playoffs.
I would agree with anyone who says that broad conclusions should not be made based on one game, but I would also say (with a nod to Aristotle) that you are what you repeatedly do; the habits formed early in the season provide an indicator of the identity that a team has (or is forming). The Celtics have championship-level habits, which is why they have reached the Eastern Conference Finals four times and the NBA Finals once in the past six years; the 76ers do not have championship-level habits, and that is why--rather than "tanking to the top," as one writer erroneously asserted--they annually fail to advance past the second round of the playoffs.
In the nightcap, the Golden State Warriors received their 2022 NBA championship rings, and then they reminded everyone the difference between being a contender and being a pretender as they routed the L.A. Lakers, 123-109. I don't have a problem with LeBron James chasing Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's regular season career scoring record, but James should just admit that the main reason he is playing now is to surpass that mark: his Lakers are not built to win a championship, and James is not playing like a player whose main goal is to win a championship. In the first quarter, James scored three points on 1-5 field goal shooting while posting a -8 plus/minus number as the Warriors led 25-22.
The Warriors led 59-52 at halftime despite shooting just .420 from the field. Stephen Curry (16 points on 5-13 field goal shooting) and Jordan Poole (10 points on 3-7 field goal shooting) were the only Warriors who scored in double figures. Anthony Davis led the Lakers with 15 points while shooting 6-13 from the field, while James added 14 points on 5-15 field goal shooting. Russell Westbrook contributed 11 points on 5-8 field goal shooting and he had the best plus/minus number among the Lakers' starters (-1). At halftime, Barkley succinctly summarized the Lakers with three points: (1) They stink, (2) Davis and James are just out there having fun and getting meaningless numbers, and (3) the Lakers have scapegoated Westbrook to the point that they have stolen from him the joy of playing basketball. Barkley emphasized how much he respects Westbrook, and how upset he is about how Westbrook has been mistreated since joining the Lakers last season.
The Warriors are well known for obliterating their opponents in the third quarter, and this game was no exception as they built a 27 point lead (91-64) before settling for a 91-71 advantage heading into the fourth quarter. The Lakers never threatened in the fourth quarter, and their much-ballyhooed new defense is still a work in progress, to put it charitably. Curry scored a game-high 33 points on 10-22 field goal shooting, while Andrew Wiggins chipped in 20 points, six rebounds, and four assists. Klay Thompson added 18 points in 20 minutes, and Poole finished with 12 points. Green tallied a "triple single" (four points, five rebounds, and five assists), and his plus/minus number (+12) ranked fourth among the Warriors' five starters.
James continued to pad his scoring numbers in the fourth quarter while the Lakers never pulled to within closer than 12 points. James finished with a team-high 31 points, a game-high 14 rebounds, and a game-high eight assists. Those numbers are remarkable for anyone, let alone a nearly 38 year old veteran of 20 seasons--but those numbers also look and feel like "empty calories" in the context of the flow of the game and from the perspective of the Lakers trying to win a title. James is not playing much defense (he had no steals and no blocked shots
in 35 minutes), and he attempted three more field goals than any other player on either team; he was never a pass-first player,
and he sure is not a pass-first player now. James shot 12-25 from the field and 3-10 from three point range. Is his shot selection based on controlling the pace of the game, slowing down the Warriors and maximizing the Lakers' offensive efficiency, or is his shot selection based on making sure that he averages 28-30 ppg to catch Abdul-Jabbar as soon as possible?
Davis managed to avoid injury, but he also managed to avoid having any discernible, meaningful impact on the game. He had 27 points on 10-22 field goal shooting, six rebounds, zero assists, and a game-worst -21 plus/minus number.
Westbrook scored 19 points on 7-12 field goal shooting, he grabbed 11 rebounds, and he dished for three assists, but as I type these words someone is splicing together a clip of his four turnovers and his airball three pointer to "prove" that Westbrook is the Lakers' biggest problem. James had five turnovers and seven missed three pointers, but those 12 squandered possessions will be ignored by the mainstream media and on social media.
There is no denying James' talent and his durability, but it is
interesting to look at his championship impact during his era compared
to the championship impact of other great players: George Mikan
dominated the late 1940s/early 1950s while winning five titles, Bill Russell dominated in the 1950s and 1960s while winning 11 titles in 13
seasons, Julius Erving won three titles in a 10 year span (more than any
other star player from 1974-83), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won six titles
during his 20 year career, Magic Johnson won five titles in a nine year
span, Michael Jordan won six titles in an eight year span, Shaquille O'Neal won four titles in a seven year span, Kobe Bryant won five titles in an 11 year span, and Tim Duncan won five titles in a
15 year span. Entering his 20th season, James won four titles in a nine
year span, but he has never been the league's dominant winner during his
career: O'Neal, Bryant and Duncan dominated the 2000s, while Stephen Curry has
dominated the late 2010s/early 2020s with four titles in an eight year
span. I will never understand the notion that the greatest player of
all-time conversation is limited to just Jordan versus James--because it
is far from clear that James surpassed Bryant, O'Neal, or even Duncan in the
post- Jordan era.
Curry's place in history is interesting to evaluate. He was clearly the second best player behind Kevin Durant on two of his four championship teams, but he has also been an All-NBA caliber player for all four of his championship teams. One comparison that comes to mind is John Havlicek. Havlicek won eight championships, but Bill Russell was the best player on six of those teams, and Havlicek earned just one Finals MVP (the award did not exist during Havlicek's first six championship seasons, but he would not have won the award during any of those NBA Finals had the Finals MVP been given out in the 1960s). I would argue that Havlicek was a better all-around player than Curry--Havlicek was bigger and stronger, and Havlicek was elite at both ends of the court while Curry is only elite offensively. As great as Havlicek was, no one has seriously suggested that he was the greatest player of all-time or even the greatest player of his time, but he did make the 11 player 35th Anniversary Team selected in 1980. Since 1980, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Giannis Antetokounmpo have all surpassed Havlicek, so if one buys the premise that Havlicek was better than Curry then it is difficult to accept the notion that Curry should be ranked in the all-time top 10. One of the problems is that many people who do such rankings (1) lack historical knowledge/context and (2) are not consistent with the standards that they apply.
I have followed James' career from the start--and attended many of his games in person during his first stint in Cleveland--and I have always found him both amazing and baffling. As great as he has been and still is, I would argue that he is missing something when being compared to the dominant winners such as Russell, Abdul-Jabbar, Magic, Jordan, and Bryant. Russell went 11-1 in the NBA Finals, Abdul-Jabbar went 6-4, Magic went 5-4, Jordan went 6-0, and Bryant went 5-2. James' Finals record is 4-6. That is not terrible, and I know that some people would argue that James should not be "punished" for supposedly carrying inferior teams to the NBA Finals (though I don't give much credence to that, because one player cannot carry a team to the NBA Finals, and James has consistently had more help than many media members are willing to admit)--but is a 4-6 NBA Finals mark indicative of being so great that no player other than Jordan is even in the conversation with James? I don't buy the argument that James' longevity is being held against him; if we pretend that he retired after winning the 2016 title, then he has a 3-4 NBA Finals record and he is not close to being the leading scorer of all-time. How does pretending that the past six years did not happen help James' case for being ranked as the greatest player of all-time?
It is foolish to try to diminish James' status to the extent of pretending that he does not belong in the greatest player of all-time conversation, but it is odd to suggest that James has clearly surpassed every player in pro basketball history with the possible exception of Jordan, because the eye test, the numbers, and historical context do not support that sweeping assertion and that casual dismissal of the accomplishments of other all-time great players.
Labels: Adam Silver, Bill Russell, Boston Celtics, Draymond Green, Golden State Warriors, Ime Udoka, Jordan Poole, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Philadelphia 76ers, Robert Sarver, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 2:59 AM
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
