Banned for life

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, but what happens when you're the owner?

If a man loses his business for racist remarks, what happens to the players and coaches? A gay slur is a 50-100k fine, but a racial slur is 2 million, a lifetime ban, and forfeiture of assets.How many players have used the "N" word? How many have been in jail for assault, or selling drugs, or torturing and killing animals (Michael Vick)? Yet they can suit up and continue to make millions. There's a whole lot of stuff going on in professional sports much worse than being a racist in your own home, yet, actual criminal behavior seems to be ok. I'd rather a thousand horrible people say horrible things than have to watch every word I say for fear I might offend someone somewhere and lose my business or home, or whatever.

Simply put, the talent and the ownership are held to different standards because they're operating under a completely different set of legal obligations. The players are employees of the league. They're bound by how the contracts will be interpreted under Employment Law statutes and case law in respect to the league in general and their team in particular. Meanwhile, while the owners are similarly bound by Emplyment Law, they have the additional strictures of the contract they signed to be allowed to own a team in the NBA, which includes rights and responsibilities that the players do not have.*

And make no mistake, if a player said enough or did enough things the league found distasteful, they could, in fact, ban him from the league for life. That they rarely do so is probably all about $$$. They know it is the players that generate the income.

The bottom line: while you have a right to work and open a business, you don't have a right to any particular kind of work or business. NBA team ownership is very lucrative, but it has a whole bunch of conditions attached to it, one of which is not making the league itself look bad.










* such as the very important exemption from US Anti-Trust Laws.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Umm ... I'm sure you've said some nasty things about coworkers, bosses or employees over the years - we all have. That didn't create a hostile work environment, did it? In other words, your action did nothing by itself.

Legally speaking, mere words ARE sufficient to create a hostile work environment. But whether or not the words do so is a matter for the trier of fact to determine.

He's a nasty bigot, that's certain. The issue is that he was a nasty bigot in private and someone else decided to out him. That's not on him - he didn't make anything he said a policy, he never booted any of her friends from the games (even though he could have since they were using his seats), he did nothing.

It most certainly IS on him: he has a legally binding contractual obligation to the other owners and the NBA to avoid tarnishing the image of the league. Clauses like that are usually a matter of strict liability: they're 100% enforceable regardless of the how and why one manages to damage the brand.

Irrelevant. He's not being punished for things that happened a long time ago, he's being punished for this.

What is past is prologue. The events of the recent past are not the reason for the punishment, no, but they are symptomatic of his attitude. And the words for which he is being punished added poison to the water cooler.

He DID create a hostile workplace- now we know why.

What do you expect her to say? 'Yeah, bro. I recorded that old racist SoB and tried to blackmail him. He said f-you and threatened to take all the stuff he gave me back so I did what any girl in my position and used to a certain lifestyle would do: I sold that bleep to TMZ to get paid, son. That's how we do.'?

What SHE has said is:

1) Sterling recorded conversations in that place as a matter of routine, at his order. Sterling has not refuted this.

2) she did not release the tape, and wishes that it had never happened. (Probably- and I'm just speculating, here- because by doing so, it derails her gravy train.)

The theory that someone else released the tape was not floated by her.

And let's say the friend released it. You don't think it's possible she ordered him/her to do it so she could get paid, son? I mean, the absolute faith in an obvious gold digger is astounding to me. Yeah, I get the 'don't believe the racist piece of garbage' stuff but how it translates into 'trust the highly paid, 30 year old biracial* consort of an 80 year old billionaire' simply dumbfounds me.

Odds are good that having a billionaire sugar daddy is a lot more lucrative than a payout from a scandal rag. Especially since said payout wouldn't come with court side tickets to Clippers games, invites to exclusive events, etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I object to people losing assets over words said, especially in private. What's next? Someone personally doesn't approve of {insert topic here], and suddenly the witch hunt is on once again.

Except- and this is key- he freely signed the contract that allowed this to happen.

Heaven forbid that a seasoned businessman and successful lawyer be held to the terms of a contract that he signed!

 

[Umbran]

Those poor players, having nothing but the 100 million or so in the bank.

For a couple of them. However, a quick search discovers that the average salary is something like $3.4 million, and the median is down at $1.5 million - so the average is skewed by a relatively small number of highly paid players. Half of them are making $1.5 million or less a year.

The average career of an NBA player seems to be about six years, the average (not median) career earnings is $24 million. I'm going to guess the career median earnings are more like $9 million. So, I think you're off by a factor of 10 or so.

Now, compared to the career earnings of most folks on the street, that's a lot. But Sterling's worth something like $2 Billion.

As to folks like you and I, it's not the amount of zeroes involved, it's the principal of the thing.

We can approach this in two different ways:

1) See that, in his position, somewhat different principles may apply. He can be held to a higher standard than is generally applied to most folks.

2) We be very clear about what might happen to him. Him being forced to sell the Clippers isn't like you or I losing a home, or having a Mom-and-Pop business taken away without recompense. As such, the principles involved in his situation, and what happens to Mom-and-Pop, are rather different, as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For a couple of them. However, a quick search discovers that the average salary is something like $3.4 million, and the median is down at $1.5 million - so the average is skewed by a relatively small number of highly paid players. Half of them are making $1.5 million or less a year.

The average career of an NBA player seems to be about six years, the average (not median) career earnings is $24 million. I'm going to guess the career median earnings are more like $9 million. So, I think you're off by a factor of 10 or so.

This article has an interesting bit of trivia on that:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1195981/index.htm

TRIVIA QUESTION: Entering this season, how many players in NBA history had won an NCAA title, an NBA title and earned more than $90 million as a pro?

Answer: Two. One is Michael Jordan. The other is Antoine Walker.

And this guy wound up playing for the equivalent of a burger-flipper's salary in 2012.



As for this:

As to folks like you and I, it's not the amount of zeroes involved, it's the principal of the thing.

The principle involved isn't what you think it is. It's not a question of free speech, its a question of whether a private group can control its membership and police its members by enforcing its own rules.

Because this is, at its core, a guy being kicked out of a private club. The club happens to run a multibillion dollar a year business, yes, but that doesn't mean he has a perpetual right to continued membership in the club. Membership in that club is highly conditional- violate the terms & conditions, get voted out by the other members.

Think of it like being in a country club or the American military. Both restrict free speech. Badmouth the business of another country club member, or cause the club itself to be viewed in a negative light and you could face sanctions like membership suspension or expulsion...even if it was in a private conversation that became public.

Article 88 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use "contemptuous words" against the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, and other specified high government officials. Enlisted members can be prosecuted under Article 134 for using similar words. The words have to be "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Military members have gotten into trouble for calling officials "fascists," "thieves," murderers" "tyrants" "fools" and "gangsters."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Nevermind. Getting too political for ENworld.

 

[Dannager]

Umm ... I'm sure you've said some nasty things about coworkers, bosses or employees over the years - we all have. That didn't create a hostile work environment, did it?

It certainly lays the groundwork for one!

In other words, your action did nothing by itself.

And, similarly, Sterling's girlfriend recording an innocuous conversation would have done nothing by itself. But the conversation wasn't innocuous. It was vile. It was blatantly racist. And it made him, his team, and the league vulnerable to a PR disaster.

And, fortunately, there are consequences for all of those things.

Hopefully that puts things in perspective for you. The man said something he thought was in private and someone else decided to make it public - not him. He didn't do it, he never wanted to do it, if it were up to him none of his employees ever would have heard it.

Of course he didn't want to be publicly exposed as a racist, fined a huge amount of money, and have the ownership of his team put in jeopardy! But he was careless in addition to being repugnant, and so here we are.

He's a nasty bigot, that's certain. The issue is that he was a nasty bigot in private and someone else decided to out him. That's not on him

No one cares. No one should care. He's a racist. It doesn't matter if he's a public racist or a "private" racist (read: racist only when he thinks he can get away with it). He knew he was a racist, he knew there was always a chance that someone he shared his racism with could expose him, and it's finally happened.

It is on him. He is not freed of any responsibility simply because he was only racist in front of one person of color instead of a thousand!

- he didn't make anything he said a policy,

It's clear that he has operated on a lifelong policy of racism - embroiled in discrimination suits, known for bringing his girlfriends into the team's locker room to show off his players' "beautiful black bodies", etc.

Not that any of that matters. Even if he hadn't let his racism affect how he treated those around him (he did), it doesn't change what he said.

he did nothing.

He said plenty. Speech is a form of action, and you can (and should) be held liable for it.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that he acted on anything he said.

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that his beliefs had any impact on his NBA business practices.

3) What he said he said in private. It was a private conversation meant for a specific, singular audience.

4) That private conversation was leaked and that is the only reason anyone knows about it. Had it not been released nothing would have changed.

I mean, if you can't see how number 4 makes all the difference in the world, I don't know what to say. He didn't do anything. Not a damn thing. He said some terrible things but he did so in a private - lemme explain this one: as in not even remotely business related - conversation.

Meh, if people are fine with other people punishing someone for something they think, I can't really talk to them. I sure as hell won't offer a hand to help when their time comes, either.

 

[Dannager]

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that he acted on anything he said.

That doesn't make racism okay.

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that his beliefs had any impact on his NBA business practices.

Yes, there is. And even if there weren't, it doesn't make racism okay.

3) What he said he said in private. It was a private conversation meant for a specific, singular audience.

That doesn't make racism okay.

4) That private conversation was leaked and that is the only reason anyone knows about it. Had it not been released nothing would have changed.

Had he not opened his mouth in the first place or been a tremendous racist nothing would have changed.

I mean, if you can't see how number 4 makes all the difference in the world, I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps you should consider not saying anything? Sterling certainly would have benefited from that advice.

He didn't do anything.

Speech is a form of action.

He said some terrible things but he did so in a private - lemme explain this one: as in not even remotely business related - conversation.

No one cares. It doesn't matter whether what he said reached the ears of one offended party, or one thousand offended parties. His character is not improved by being a coward in addition to a racist.

As for it not being "remotely business related," we're talking about a man who willingly signed into a contract that stipulates, among other things, that he can be punished when his personal decisions and actions cause harm to the association. Once he put his signature on that contract, his every action became business-related.

Meh, if people are fine with other people punishing someone for something they think, I can't really talk to them.

He's not being punished for thought. He's being punished for opening his mouth, exercising his vocal cords, and producing racist speech.

You want to make this about punishing thought because that gives your argument a leg to stand on - a leg it otherwise lacks.

I sure as hell won't offer a hand to help when their time comes, either.

If my "time comes" in the same manner that Sterling's time came, I will have deserved every ounce of it. The man isn't being framed. He isn't having words put in his mouth. He's not being misrepresented. The best thing that you can possibly say about what he did is that it is not literally illegal for him to have said it. (Don't forget to read the hover-text!)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that his beliefs had any impact on his NBA business practices.

That is simply incorrect:

1) he has a history of bad relations with the minority players on his team- including actions like delaying issuing their salary checks- which had detrimental effects on the morale and play of the Clippers. It was not until the conversation was leaked that anyone fully understood why he antagonized his players.

2) once the conversation was leaked that negative impact spread league-wide.

3) What he said he said in private. It was a private conversation meant for a specific, singular audience.

So what?

There are no guarantees of privacy. Whenever you speak to another, whatever you write down, any thought you allow to exit your mind and enter the universe beyond its confines may eventually reach an unintended audience.

In many cases, there are consequences for those who redirect that information. And in some cases, there are consequences for those who originated the thought.

4) That private conversation was leaked and that is the only reason anyone knows about it. Had it not been released nothing would have changed.

Good thing it got leaked- the corporate culture of the Clippers should improve in his absence.

I mean, if you can't see how number 4 makes all the difference in the world, I don't know what to say. He didn't do anything. Not a damn thing. He said some terrible things but he did so in a private - lemme explain this one: as in not even remotely business related - conversation.

It doesn't change a thing.

Private clubs like the NBA largely don't care about what a member does in private...until it becomes public. And then, they don't care HOW it became public, they only care if it damages the club. Pretty much, private clubs can police their own, as long as they don't do anything illegal in doing so.

Sterling said something in private that got leaked, and it cast a pall over the Clippers & the NBA. His publicized comments cost the Clippers hundreds of thousands if not millions, and threatened to cost the NBA hundreds of millions.

The NBA didn't cause the leak, but that doesn't mean they're not well within their rights to act on it.