OT - Donald Sterling Banned from NBA for Life

Submitted by MGoChippewa on

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced today that (likely soon to be former) LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling is banned from any type of involvement with the league or the Clippers for the duration of his life.  This punishment also came with a $2.5M fine, which is the most allowed under the bylaws of the NBA's constitution.  Silver also said that the league and its owners will do all things possible to force the sale of the Clippers.  Props to Adam Silver and the league's front office for doing everything in their power to remove this horrible person from the league's ranks.  

In reply to by boliver46

bronxblue

April 29th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^

The funny thing is, I actually think Sterling will have a decent legal argument, at least for damages, as it relates to the forced sale of this team.  He's going to be able to point to the NBA depressing the value of the franchise because the market knows he has to sell; it probably would have behooved the NBA to just suspend him and then quiety push him to sell.  

Needs

April 29th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^

espn's legal affairs analyst thinks that he wouldn't have much of a case, given the agreements between the teams that constitutes the NBA Constitution...

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterli…

bronxblue

April 29th, 2014 at 5:12 PM ^

I'm not saying he could sue for the punishment; that is clearly within the purview of the commissioner.  But when you basically, publicly force a guy to sell, Sterling could definitely bring suit claiming that the sale price was hurt by the fact that he basically had to sell and had a weaker negotiating position.  It may not matter in this case because the LA market is flush with cash, but I wouldn't put it past him claiming he deserves additional compensation.

jblaze

April 29th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

they really had no choice with the audio coming out. I would have been impressed if they banned Sterling after the media and NBA didn't care that he discriminated against minorities (and people with kids) for years and years. 

" It's telling of our current media moment: Sterling's record settlement in a federal housing discrimination lawsuit received relatively scant national media attention. But catch someone saying something awful on tape, and the floodgates open."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/04/28/307674055/for-sterling-a-spotty-reputation-further-tarnished

Ali G Bomaye

April 29th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^

Take any group of 450 men from age 20-35, and you're likely to find a few drug abusers and wife beaters.  The NBA suspends players for both these things, and has suspended players for life.

But there we're talking about employees of the NBA.  It's easy for the NBA to set and enforce rules regarding who may work for it.  Legally, it's much more complex to take action against a guy who owns a franchise, and who bought that franchise without any express conditions such as "if you prove to be a horrible racist, you can't come to any games."  That's why it's particularly impressive that Adam Silver took such decisive action to suspend Sterling for life.  He basically said "this guy is bad enough that we need to stop him now, and figure out the legal ramifications later."

Sterling has a reputation for never selling any investment, and I'd bet that he's going to take significant legal action against the NBA.  In this case, doing the right thing could end up costing them significantly.

Yeoman

April 29th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_Major_League_Ba…

The usual reasons were gambling and more recently PEDs, of course. In earlier times players were banned for asserting what would now be considered their labor rights, objecting to the reserve clause for example, or holding out.

Marge Schott is by far the closest parallel (although to be fair to her, I lived a good chunk of my life in Cincinnati and I don't ever remember any allegations that her views impacted the way she ran her car dealership--she had nothing like the history of discrimination lawsuits Sterling carries). Like a lot of these people she was eventually reinstated.

The non-gambling highlights:

  • Oscar Walker was banned in 1877 for "contract jumping" by signing a contract to play for another team while still under contract to the team he left. (This was 98 years prior to the advent of free agency in sports; Walker was reinstated in 1879.)
  • Horace Fogel, Philadelphia Phillies owner, was banned in 1912 for publicly asserting that the umpires favored the New York Giants and were making unfair calls against his team.
  • Joe Harris of the Cleveland Indians was banned for life in 1920 after he chose to play for an independent team rather than the Indians. (Harris was reinstated by Landis in 1922 due, in part, to his service during World War I.)
  • Benny Kauff of the New York Giants was banned in 1920 for selling stolen cars. (Commissioner Landis considered him "no longer a fit companion for other ball players," despite Kauff being acquitted of the charges against him in court.)
  • Heinie Groh of the Cincinnati Reds was banned for two days in 1921 while he held out for a higher salary, and Landis gave Groh an ultimatum: play for the Reds in 1921, or face lifetime banishment. (Groh chose the former option and played out the 1921 season; he retired in 1927.)
  • Ray Fisher of the Cincinnati Reds was banned in 1921 after he refused to play for the Reds; he had asked for his outright release when the Reds cut his salary by $1,000 (equal to $13,222 today), but the Reds refused to release him. (Fisher was hired by the University of Michigan to coach baseball later that year, and was reinstated by Commissioner Bowie Kuhn in 1980; he died in 1982.)
  • Phil Douglas of the New York Giants was banned in 1922 after notifying an acquaintance on the St. Louis Cardinals that he planned to jump the Giants for the pennant stretch run to spite McGraw, with whom Douglas had had a severe falling out during the regular season.
  • Ferguson Jenkins of the Texas Rangers was banned in 1980 after a customs search in Toronto, Ontario, found 3 grams (0.11 oz) of cocaine, 2.2 grams (0.078 oz) of hashish, and 1.75 grams (0.062 oz) of marijuana on his person. (Jenkins missed the rest of the 1980 season, but was reinstated by an independent arbiter, and retired following the 1983 season. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1991.)
  • George Steinbrenner, New York Yankees owner, was banned in 1990 for paying a private investigator $40,000 (equal to $72,206 today) to "dig up dirt" on Yankees player Dave Winfield in order to discredit him; much of the information Steinbrenner received was from a small-time gambler and rackets-runner named Howard Spira, who had once worked for Winfield's charitable foundation. (In Steinbrenner's absence, Robert Nederlander, a limited partner, took control of the Yankees, and Joe Molloy, Steinbrenner's son-in-law, took control after Nederlander resigned.[5] Molloy relinquished the team back to Steinbrenner when Bud Selig reinstated him in 1993; Steinbrenner retired as owner in 2006, passing control to his sons permanently, and died in 2010.)
  • Marge Schott, Cincinnati Reds owner, was banned in 1996 for bringing Major League Baseball into disrepute by repeatedly making slurs against African-Americans, Jews, Asians and homosexuals, and showing a sympathetic attitude to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. (Schott had previously been fined $250,000 and banned from day-to-day operations of the Reds for the 1993 season for similar offending; she was the first, and to date only, woman to be banned, and also the only person to have been banned solely for the content of his or her speech on a matter of public concern; she was reinstated in 1998, resigned as owner in 1999 and died in 2004.)

Yeoman

April 29th, 2014 at 11:57 PM ^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_players_banned_or_suspended_by_the…

Ten players have been banned for substance abuse; six of those were later reinstated.

I'm pretty sure Stanley Wilson is the only NFL player to get a lifetime ban for anything not gambling-related. And Billy Coutu was banned from the NHL for assaulting an official.

Erik_in_Dayton

April 29th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

He got that award from the LA Chapter of the NAACP at least in part b/c he gave away many thousands of Clippers tickets over a number of years to disadvantaged children.  He's also employed Elgin Baylor as GM when there was - at least for a time - only one other African American GM in the NBA...What he said was awful, and it seems he's done awful things before, but his history re: race is more mixed than you might think at first blush. 

 

Ali G Bomaye

April 29th, 2014 at 3:45 PM ^

He gave away tickets to disadvantaged children at a time when Clippers games were nowhere close to selling out.  Those tickets were worth less than toilet paper.  He also once gave away tickets to celebrate "black history month" in March, because there was an even crappier game then.

It's still better than not giving away any tickets, but let's not pretend the man is a saint.

Erik_in_Dayton

April 29th, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^

I'm not doing that at all.  Please see my first post in this thread in which I applauded the NBA for banning him for life.  My point here is that the LA Chapter of the NAACP had reasons to think well of him other than the fact that they gave him money. 

bronxblue

April 29th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^

If I remember correctly, Elgin Baylor hated working for Sterling and his lawsuit against the Clippers when they let him go specifically pointed out instances where Sterling was a racist.  And I believe a major reason he hired Baylor was because he was cheaper than other GMs due to the fact that NBA owners were probably a bit racist as well and didn't consider minority GMs at the time.  So it might have been a bit of a cost-savings decision and nothing too magnanimous  The fact the NAACP wanted to give him an award points more toward the poor management of the NAACP than anything great about Sterling.

Erik_in_Dayton

April 29th, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^

The LA Chapter of the NAACP was aware of the Baylor suit, though probably not what would come out in discovery, and the housing suit when they awarded him.  It was a poor choice, to be sure, but not one that was necessarily based entirely on Sterling giving the chapter money.

An important distinction here is that he was only awarded by the LA Chapter of the NAACP.  The national NAACP doesn't dictate what the LA Chapter does, and in fact the LA Chapter is currently refusing the national office's request that it rescind the 2009 award. 

Mr. Yost

April 29th, 2014 at 11:28 PM ^

Slave owners gave slaves things, they had "girlfriends" that were black, they had "friends" that were black, they had certain black people that they appointed to relatively "high" positions...but they were still slaves to the slave master.

It's not so cut and dry. Being a racist or discriminating doesn't have to mean you hate all of a particular race. And if it does, it doesn't make whatever slave masters, or people like Donald Sterling, acceptable because they don't hate 100% of people of a particular race.

The point is...just because you do something nice for someone, doesn't change a thing. MANY slave owners didn't necessarily hate black people, but they owned slaves, were racists and discriminated against people of color simply because that was the culture and that's the "way things are." Does that make the institution of slavery okay? No. Does that make this culture that Sterling speaks of okay? No.

Now we shouldn't act like Sterling is the only one, but we shouldn't think differently of him because of all the good he's done.

Question - how come no one talks about the guy who called Donald Sterling? What about him (or her)...who called him up and said "Hey Don, man...you need to talk to your black girlfriend man, she's positing pictures with black people on that Instragrams again --- and she's at the arena --- I heard she's taking them to your games, too. We can't have that Don...get your house in order man."

Obviously I made up that conversation, but how did it really go? Who said it? What it a friend? Another owner? How big is this group or this culture that thinks this way?

Clearly, I still have questions...

 

MGOTyrone

April 29th, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^

I think Sterling is a pretty disgusting human being but I'm not sure how I feel about him being forced to sell what he owns because of his personal, albeit ignorant, thoughts and/or beliefs.

MGoChippewa

April 29th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^

with the premise of what you're saying.  However, in this case, 29 other organizations are somewhat tied to the success of his organization.  And if he stays in place, he'll do significant damage to the league.  I'm not sure they'll be successful in trying to force him to sell, but I think it's definitely worth the shot.

buckeyejonross

April 29th, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^

Not really, he'll do significant damage to himself and his own business. His own team is losing sponsorships, not the Bucks. Good luck signing coaches and players and GMs. His punishment is everyone knowing he's a racist douche, which, if they were paying attention, was common knowledge. He made his own bed, lie in it.

Mr. Yost

April 29th, 2014 at 11:49 PM ^

So now the Clippers suck. Now they're in the lottery getting the #1 pick every year and those guys don't want to play for them.

You could go on and on and on and mention a million reasons why it's not good for the league.

Just because Chris Paul may be a free agent and sign with the Knicks to make them better doesn't mean anything. It's such a silly argument and way of thinking to begin with. Well, all the good Clippers players will be on other teams so the league will actually benefit, lol...

No. It's about perception, the NBA can't be seen as tolerant. The NBA needs competitive balance and having one franchise that no one wants to play for because of it's owner defeats the whole purpose of sport. What if the Warriors played the shitty Clippers 12 times in the regular season and the Nuggets only played them 4...the Warriors ended up 1 game better than the Nuggets and made the playoffs because they got to play a rec league team 8 more times.

I mean just stuff like that, you don't want to deal with. You could go on and on. You can talk about the money, the sponsorships, the competitive stuff, the human rights aspect, the league imagine aspect. You can talk about a BUNCH of variables and come up with a BUNCH of reasons the league can't have this.

Mr. Yost

April 30th, 2014 at 7:33 AM ^

...you'd realize that I wasn't just responding to you. But rather many of the comments made in this particular "mini-thread" since it was a conversation taking place.

That's also not what you said in your post that I responded to. It may have been what you MEANT, but it's not what you said.

lazyfoot10

April 29th, 2014 at 2:47 PM ^

I get where you are coming from, but he owns a team that is part of a league, so the team really isn't totally his.

Owners can force a sale with 75% approval, which I imagine they have.

It's not like he owns a piece of land or something. He owns the Clippers, but if the other owners want him out, he's out.

Mr. Yost

April 29th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^

I hope everyone reads this because it's a very simple way to sum up what happened and why it happened. There are far too many people on here with the "well he owned the team" mindset and don't understand this simple concept.

You may not AGREE with the decsion. But literally EXACTLY what you've used as an analogy is what happened.

Well done.

coldnjl

April 29th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^

I agree. No laws were broken and this act was not performed near a Clipper Facility (that I know of). How would anyone feel if speech made at home to a significant other caussed you to lose money, your job, and your car? Just don't fee this is right, regardless of what was said (disgusting IMO).

Mr. Yost

April 29th, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^

You're missing the ENTIRE point.

He represents the NBA. He's part of the NBA. It has nothing to do with free speech, how he said it or where he said it. It doesn't matter that some golddigging hoe dimed him out. NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

All that matter is that he is part of the NBA and to protect their league, their imagine, etc. - they can do what they want.

The poster above you have a GREAT analogy, it's like being a homeowner in a strict association.

You can own the home, but go try and put swastikas all over your house...they'll kick you out so damn quick...doesn't matter if you haven't missed a payment, if you were nice to everyone and minded your own business. In the end, you're affecting the image of the neighborhood and if you join THEIR association, they can remove you. 

Don't get it twisted...he's not being removed because he thinks this way, he's being removed because he got caught, it got out, and it's affecting the league image.

Too many of you all think just because he owns the team he can do what he wants when he wants...or at least say what he wants. This is still the NBA and there are still limits.

jblaze

April 29th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^

and him staying hurts every owner and stakeholder in the NBA. They are (hoping) to kick him out because he is hurting their paychecks. It's not about his beliefs or thoughts.

Sponsors have ran for the hills, players (and coaches) do not want to play for him and the NBA was getting slammed by everybody.

This is a business decision, not anything surrounding anybody's beliefs.

Blue Mike

April 29th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^

I don't quite get the "Sterling is hurting the entire league" argument to why he should be forced to sell or give up the team.  You're telling me that fans in Miami are going to stop watching the Heat because Sterling is still an owner of a team?  Not likely.  

I think the fine and the suspension are understandable, but forcing someone to sell their business because of their beliefs seems to be a stretch.  If people are outraged, stop buying Clipper tickets and merchandise.  The rest will take care of itself.

Mr. Yost

April 29th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^

If guys don't want to play for the Clippers, it hurts competitive balance.

He lost 15 sponsors, league sponsors that refused to have the Clippers as part of their name...he lost them in 2 hours.

If the NBA is seen as tolerant to any type of racist behavior, it hurts the league.

...you can't really be that blind to see how it hurts the league, I just pulled these 3 off the top of my head, but you and I could sit and make a list of 50 things in 10 minutes if we really wanted to.

Sports

April 29th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^

He hasn't been forced to sell the team. He's been banned. Adam Silver is going to try to force him to sell, but that's a bit different from it actually happening. With the inevitable lawsuit that Sterling will file, it will be a long time before this guy goes away. Unless he dies, which, given his age, is a possibility...