OT: The NBPA and the Clippers situation
I'd suspected that at least some of the players on the Clippers had threatened to boycott their next playoff game if Donald Sterling wasn't swiftly punished. But according to the VP of the NBA's players' union, it was even more dramatic than that: many players spread across many teams were threatening to boycott.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10858191/nbpa-vice-president-roger-ma…
I think this is an important illustration of a role that a sports union can play, which I think is relevant to the distant future of current unionization efforts within the NCAA. But there will be plenty of people who disagree with me about that, including the Ghost of Section 1, PBUH, who we can all pretend has already posted below that the rush to judgment of Donald Sterling forced by the villiainously PC NBPA is representative of a great evil threatening civilization. YMMV.
I made a new topic here because I didn't see this discussed in the original Donald Sterling thread, and because I thought it might be interesting to discuss this in connection with NCAA unionization efforts. What are the red lines that might lead to boycott threats from players? Presumably documented racism by a coach/AD would qualify, but what about coaches who regularly oversign? What about preposterously punitive drug testing policies? Or are D1 NCAA football or basketball players too diverse a class to come to a consensus about a boycott over anything?
April 29th, 2014 at 10:38 PM ^
A boycott could be accomplished without a union. Don't get me wrong I'm a huge union guy being in one myself but unions can't force companies to do things outside the CBA.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
There are massive organizational challenges in the NCAA case, given the number of people and institutions involved. I can imagine individual teams refusing to play games--I have vague memories of rumors of a basketball team planning to refuse to play if they made it far enough in the tourney--but I'm not sure how large-scale boycotts would be organized without the kind of representative structure that a union provides. It would certainly make it easier.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
watch the top link brian put on the side and then adjust conversations accordingly.
also watch the one below it b/c it's hilarious.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:47 PM ^
Why are they using the word "boycott" instead of the word "strike"? I've been speaking that way, too, but I think they're just avoiding the word "strike" for political reasons. (It'd be nice if the professional journalist who wrote that article had addressed this point.)
April 29th, 2014 at 11:13 PM ^
A boycott is the avoiding interaction with a certain entity for punitive reasons. A strike is the cessation of work to try to affect something about the employment situation for the workers. You could call it a "strike" if you want, and it wouldn't be a ridiculous term, but I think boycott is more accurate based on the aims of the protest.
The other reason it is more of a boycott is that they are continuing to perform many of the functions of their jobs. They just aren't going to play games (or, rather likely, they weren't going to play one game).
Besides, in the sports world, we almost always call these events "boycotts," such as the olympic boycotts.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^
Isn't that because countries (which are not employees of anyone) and their Olympians (who are not employees of the Olympics) are the ones refusing to participate during Olympic boycotts? NBA players are employed by their franchises (or maybe by the NBA; I don't know the contractual details).
April 29th, 2014 at 11:32 PM ^
They're employed by their teams, but they also fall under the reach of the NBA. So are the Warriors protesting to their employer or not?
Not that it really matters. It's semantics. And it didn't happen.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^
I agree that it's semantics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. "Boycott" conjures up images from the Civil Rights Movement; "strike" conjures up more controversial ideas.
Anyway, I think we're on the same page. Thanks for helping me think through it.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
with or without a union.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
it's a lot easier to face the potential consequences of a boycott with a union to fall back on than it is by just doing it of your own organization/volition. and considering modern athletics is not chalked full of examples of players taking bold stances, i think players would definitely have the consequences of their actions on the forefront of their minds...
April 29th, 2014 at 10:56 PM ^
But why would any other team if there weren't a larger organization at work facilitating the communication? Why wouldn't the Warriors just look forward to the free win? Is Kevin Durant supposed to call up Zach Randolph and ask if he wants to boycott? Is Chris Paul supposed to call them both?
April 30th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
Ah yes, join a union. We have automated robocallers that can spread a message so you don't have to.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
April 29th, 2014 at 10:57 PM ^
do what they do because of what they think is right, but rather what they think external forces want them to do.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:00 PM ^
April 29th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^
it's overgeneralized obviously.
but very prevalent.
mark cuban yesterday: forcing donald stern out for his personal opinions is a slippery slope.
mark cuban today: "I 100% support Adam Silver's decision."
April 29th, 2014 at 11:09 PM ^
I didn't mean to say I was happy about that. I don't think I did say it, either, but I don't know. The fact is I am happy about it, but that's not supposed to be the point. I just think it's interesting. The actual point is that it's important to recognize that unions can play this role when thinking about the future of the NCAA. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.
I'm not sure I understand what would make it extortion if Silver did what he did only to ensure that the playoffs go on as scheduled. He's running a company, and the employees made a demand. I do think it's neat that the union allowed players to speak so effectively, but I don't think it's extortion. I mean, was it extortion when the NBA fined McRoberts for elbowing James? Was it extortion when Stern made players dress up on their way to games? (If you're going to call those things extortion, then I'm not sure it's bad for something that you call extortion to happen.)
ETA: Sorry, I don't think I actually answered your question so far. If I thought the punishment were too much or the offense not that bad, I'd probably still think that the outcome showed the power of the NBPA. I also don't think I'd be unhappy about it, though. I'm pretty much always happy when slumlords get fucked for political reasons we shouldn't get into here. Again, YMMV.
The Gramblig State football team didn't need a union when they refused to play after Doug Williams was fired as their coach.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:05 PM ^
- Sterling strikes a deep emotional chord with shameful personal bigotry, and situational discrimination in his economic dealings (e.g. the housing lawsuit) based on the context. But as the withdrawn NAACP lifetime achievement award shows, he knew when to spend money when it was in his interest. NBA players get a large share of the NBA cashflow, if memory serves, 53%.
- The NCAA reigns as an all-powerful ivory tower institution that benefits those on the inside. Coaches, ADs, bowl representatives, and administrators make millions. The players that fans idolize are prohibited from profiting from their popularity.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:17 PM ^
I think the NCAA is substantially worse than Sterling qua Clippers owner. Qua slumlord, I suspect it's a close call, but I don't really know enough about his dealings. I've heard that he facilitated institutional discrimination by keeping minorities out of certain properties, a la longtime Dearborn mayor Orville Hubbard. The NCAA is an institution unto itself, though. So I'd think of Donald Sterling, slumlord, as akin to Alabama, exploitative NCAA program par excellence.
How's that for overthinking it?
April 29th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^
April 29th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^
April 29th, 2014 at 11:23 PM ^
and how much money the coaches makes is irrelevant, vast majority of those players are trainees and are not ready to play professionally, and many will never play professionally. if they think that they have been mistreated, they need to look at medical residents who work 80 hours per week under very stressfu environments and make less than 50K a year and carries a 200K+ medical school loan, while the insurance companies, hospital executives make a lot of money. Why not let them unionize and call a strike?
April 29th, 2014 at 11:35 PM ^
But you don't get a lot of brain damage or rhabdo in medical school. Just sayin', there are some legitimate concerns that go WAY beyond the amount of compensation.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^
Well, for starters, I don't understand why medical residents aren't unionized. Are they legally barred from unionizing because they're medical professionals? Or have they just not done it? I also don't think medical residents put their longterm physical health in jeopardy by doing what they do [BiSB beat me to this point], but presumably you're in a better position to know that than I am. (I also think you shouldn't complain about making less than 50k. The median 2012 US income was $26,989, and the average was $40,563. But whatever.)
I don't understand what you mean when you say the players aren't ready to play professionally. Given the money in the system, players can be given full cost of attendance scholarships so that playing D1 football just is playing professionally, albeit at a low and modestly paid level. (This is part of why coaches' salaries are not, in fact, irrelevant.)
April 30th, 2014 at 12:09 AM ^
is nowhere near as low as $50k. Residency salaries are a crock of shit
it's kind of hard to tell. Wikipedia says the median for a woman 25 or older with a professional degree is $48,536, but that number's from 2003. (The median for a man is given as $88,530.) But the relevant number will be the median income for somebody in the first 3 (or whatever) years post-degree, and I guess you'll want to exclude medical residents from the dataset. Please post it when you find it.
Its pretty odd to me that a group of intelligent people that probably fill their resumes with notions of leadership and independent accomplishment would just submit themselves to that process year after year like a bunch of sheep.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^
Typos. We all make them; and it's obvious that, but for the inability to make the post-posting edit, you would've changed it to hedge fund manager. But this one conjured up an image of three kings bringing their gold to the "hedge fund manger." . . . And then waiting for the "crash at the creche."
On a serious note, I agree with your message. There's never a good reason to endure abuse and irrational, demeaning treatment, just because someone else might have it worse. And that always reminds me of this:
a fair shake, the select few that are idolized, are a big part of putting butts in seats, and sell jerseys in their likeness, they are prohibited from even doing a commercial. Why?
Whether it's a union or just the lifting of the monopoly-guarding restrictions, those few that contribute to the mega cash flows should be able to participate in the fruits of their popularity.
at the University of Michigan are unionized. It's called the House Officer Association and has helped negotiate better working conditions and salary/benefits. It is very successful, which is why you haven't heard of it. Working conditions for medical residents nationally have also improved dramatically over the past decade, but not because of unions (more from public concern about inadequate care and the threat of liability).
Some equate unions with strikes and corruption. However, at its core, these are collective bargaining units that amplify the voice and impact of their otherwise ignorable individuals.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:46 PM ^
April 30th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^
Graduate student unions are university-specific, but the intercollegiate nature of athletics should militate in favor of a national union. That's what UCLA players were after when United Steelworkers first came on the scene in 2002 and what Ramogi Huma, who's apparently spearheaded the union push since the late 90s, seems to want. I don't know how things will actually get there, though. Presumably the earliest university-specific union(s) will join forces with subsequent ones as soon as possible: they can only pressure their universities into bargaining for things the NCAA will allow, and exercising decisive influence on NCAA regulations will require the involvement of lots of NCAA member schools.
No matter the situation, that almost always leads to change.
Just stupid
I guess the best lesson to learn here is always assume there's a camera watching you and everything you say is being recorded. Better stay political correct the rest of your life or you might end up being outed the same way.
...he's a PUBLIC figure and a representative of the NBA. When he became an NBA owner, that became part of the deal. These are the consequences for someone who is a representative of the league.
No one said he should go to jail or be penalized by the law --- THAT is where people are getting this confused. He's not on trial for anything related to this and he won't be, there isn't a warrant out for his arrest. However, the NBA has an image and standards of its own and if you violate that...something like this may happen.
The Gay Rights Movement is huge in America right now, I'd imagine there would be a huge uproar if he made similar comments that went public about homosexuals. But here's the thing, I doubt the majority of the workforce in the NBA is gay, I also doubt that 100% of the workforce in the NBA would disagree with Sterling like 100% of the workforce disagreed about this. Is that right? No - but it's (gay rights) something that is being discussed and debated even today. So there are people on both sides. The race issue is still discussed today, of course, but it was a movement 50 years ago...it's been widely accepted publicly that racism and discrimination due to race is bad --- and has been that way for a long time.
So when this happened, yes, EVERYONE was going to jump on it...in all leagues, but ESPECIALLY in the NBA.
I find it funny that Sterling talks about the "culture (he) lives in"...but THIS is the culture the rest of us live in. And when you make ignorant remarks - especially as a public figure, these are the consequences. You don't get to yell free speech or whine that it was private. Sterling's NBA culture wasn't going to tolerate this for a second. America wasn't going to tolerate this for a second...publically. I know that and you know that. This story broke on TM fucking Z! THAT is the world we live in right now....ESPN isn't going to stop on this any more than they're going to stop giving us a weeks worth of press conferences when someone comes out of the closet.
This is the culture of ESPN/TMZ and popular America. He also has to understand the culture the NBA where LeBron James is the face in today's game and while everyone is going to be offended by the comments, there are a lot more people in the NBA that directly look like the group you're discriminating against than most any other league.
Here is an interesting take on this whole deal...whether you agree or not, it's worth a listen - especially after the 2-3 minute mark.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
He should have the privacy to not be recorded in his home, and I believe that he does. That right does not erase or nullify what was said though. This is not a court of law. Whether the girlfriend will be prosecuted for illegally recording him, or if he has civil suit options available is another discussion.