NBA commissioner Adam Silver brought down the hammer hard this week on psycho Donald Sterling. It was one of those rare situations where nobody- even the ones most offended by Sterling's stupid utterances, could ask for more than what Adam handed down in terms of a punishment. He suspended him for life, fined him the maximum allowable 2.5 million dollars, and vowed to force him to sell his team. He showed no pity. He is being universally praised by the media and, most importantly, the NBA players who are his employees. A defining moment for Silver who has been the commish for just a few months and he might very well be remembered for this decision the rest of his tenure. It was the right decision morally and from a business perspective as well. It would have been perceived as too harsh in some circles if not for that fact that Sterling is a repeat offender who has just been dodging this for a long, long time. Some of the stuff Sterling has done in the past with his real-estate projects with respect to housing discrimination is shocking and much more offensive than what he said on this recording. He finally got caught though everybody already knew he was a racist and a nut-job. He has zero apologists and that tells you all you need to know about this guy.
Some callers on sports radio and even Mark Cuban the day before the verdict were worried about this leading us down a slippery slope. How much can the NBA get involved with moral and social judgements? Sterling didn't break any laws and he does have his freedom of speech, especially inside the walls of his house. Ironically, the only illegal activity here might have been the recording that was leaked to TMZ if Sterling didn't know he was being taped. Also, there is the concern about where does the NBA stop now? What happens if another owner makes a homophobic comment for instance? This was Cuban's concern though he fully supported Silver after the verdict. What these arguments are missing is that this is not a legal or moral decision as much as it is a business decision. Nobody can put Sterling in jail for what he said and he has every right to free speech. But owning a NBA franchise is a privilege and not a constitutional right. Businesses always have bylaws and contracts which lets them fire people if they start hurting their business. This is exactly what happened here. People get fired across America for incompetence everyday. Employees, who have never done anything illegal ever in their life, routinely lose their job at IBM or Microsoft or Citibank. So NBA has every right to take action against it's people if they hurt business in any way, shape, or form.
Sterling will go to court and might even win, but NBA absolutely did the right thing for itself here. Sterling deserves to be "fired" for both incompetence and unacceptable behavior. It was in the NBA's best interest to punish him. A business has many stakeholders and one of the most important ones are the employees, though they are often ignored in corporate America. The NBA players are the employees here, albeit well-paid ones. The players are predominantly black and were really irate at Sterling to the point the specter of a playoff boycott was a realistic possibility. That would have been unprecedented and amazing and I almost wish it had happened just for the shock value. Commish Silver had to do the right thing to please his employees because they are important in any business, but even more so in a sports league where they are the product. Does that mean Silver doesn't deserve any credit for taking a moral stand? Of course he does because he took a difficult decision which was also morally right. And even making the right decision from a purely business perspective is leadership and deserves a lot of credit.
As for the slippery slope argument, I don't see one. We can sit here and pretend like there are no double standards and unfairness in the world, but we all know that's a lie. A few years back, Roger Clemens, made a racist and inappropriate joke about Koreans and Japanese in America when Korea and Japan played each other in the World Baseball classic. Nobody cared or even criticized him. If anybody had made a similar joke about blacks, they would have been roasted over the coals. I was really upset at his comments, but at the same time, I do understand that Koreans don't have the same numbers, cultural relevance, or historic baggage as blacks do in America. So of course the reactions were different and Clemens got off easy. Thats life. Let's say another NBA owner comes out tomorrow and says something inappropriate about gays or women or Belgians, what does the Commish do? I strongly believe the Commish will do what his business needs dictate and nothing more or less.
First of all, his players may get upset with that, but not to the same extent as with Sterling because few of them are gay, there are probably a couple of Belgians, and definitely no women. Offending blacks is a lot more personal for the NBA players than any of the above. As for the customers, offending women would be the hardest to deal with for the league, followed by gays, and last and of course the least, Belgians. And the owner who is doing the offending probably doesn't have the same rap-sheet as Sterling. My point here is, there are too many variables here and the Commish does not owe the same punishment to every other owner or offender. That would be morally consistent, but there are enough excuses to not do that if the Commish or the other owners don't want to. I would like him to do the morally right thing, but I know enough about life to realize each situation will be treated on it's own merit and there will be double standards. The bottom-line is, we now have a Commish who has shown us he can be strong, he can lead, and he can stand on the side of the good. Kudos to Adam Silver for starting his tenure with a bang. We can all now get back to the first round playoff games, which have been epic. Sterling's stupidity distracted all of us for a few days. Commish's swift and strong action has put the focus squarely back on the games, where it belongs.
Some callers on sports radio and even Mark Cuban the day before the verdict were worried about this leading us down a slippery slope. How much can the NBA get involved with moral and social judgements? Sterling didn't break any laws and he does have his freedom of speech, especially inside the walls of his house. Ironically, the only illegal activity here might have been the recording that was leaked to TMZ if Sterling didn't know he was being taped. Also, there is the concern about where does the NBA stop now? What happens if another owner makes a homophobic comment for instance? This was Cuban's concern though he fully supported Silver after the verdict. What these arguments are missing is that this is not a legal or moral decision as much as it is a business decision. Nobody can put Sterling in jail for what he said and he has every right to free speech. But owning a NBA franchise is a privilege and not a constitutional right. Businesses always have bylaws and contracts which lets them fire people if they start hurting their business. This is exactly what happened here. People get fired across America for incompetence everyday. Employees, who have never done anything illegal ever in their life, routinely lose their job at IBM or Microsoft or Citibank. So NBA has every right to take action against it's people if they hurt business in any way, shape, or form.
Sterling will go to court and might even win, but NBA absolutely did the right thing for itself here. Sterling deserves to be "fired" for both incompetence and unacceptable behavior. It was in the NBA's best interest to punish him. A business has many stakeholders and one of the most important ones are the employees, though they are often ignored in corporate America. The NBA players are the employees here, albeit well-paid ones. The players are predominantly black and were really irate at Sterling to the point the specter of a playoff boycott was a realistic possibility. That would have been unprecedented and amazing and I almost wish it had happened just for the shock value. Commish Silver had to do the right thing to please his employees because they are important in any business, but even more so in a sports league where they are the product. Does that mean Silver doesn't deserve any credit for taking a moral stand? Of course he does because he took a difficult decision which was also morally right. And even making the right decision from a purely business perspective is leadership and deserves a lot of credit.
As for the slippery slope argument, I don't see one. We can sit here and pretend like there are no double standards and unfairness in the world, but we all know that's a lie. A few years back, Roger Clemens, made a racist and inappropriate joke about Koreans and Japanese in America when Korea and Japan played each other in the World Baseball classic. Nobody cared or even criticized him. If anybody had made a similar joke about blacks, they would have been roasted over the coals. I was really upset at his comments, but at the same time, I do understand that Koreans don't have the same numbers, cultural relevance, or historic baggage as blacks do in America. So of course the reactions were different and Clemens got off easy. Thats life. Let's say another NBA owner comes out tomorrow and says something inappropriate about gays or women or Belgians, what does the Commish do? I strongly believe the Commish will do what his business needs dictate and nothing more or less.
First of all, his players may get upset with that, but not to the same extent as with Sterling because few of them are gay, there are probably a couple of Belgians, and definitely no women. Offending blacks is a lot more personal for the NBA players than any of the above. As for the customers, offending women would be the hardest to deal with for the league, followed by gays, and last and of course the least, Belgians. And the owner who is doing the offending probably doesn't have the same rap-sheet as Sterling. My point here is, there are too many variables here and the Commish does not owe the same punishment to every other owner or offender. That would be morally consistent, but there are enough excuses to not do that if the Commish or the other owners don't want to. I would like him to do the morally right thing, but I know enough about life to realize each situation will be treated on it's own merit and there will be double standards. The bottom-line is, we now have a Commish who has shown us he can be strong, he can lead, and he can stand on the side of the good. Kudos to Adam Silver for starting his tenure with a bang. We can all now get back to the first round playoff games, which have been epic. Sterling's stupidity distracted all of us for a few days. Commish's swift and strong action has put the focus squarely back on the games, where it belongs.
2 comments:
Well said!
When it comes to other minorities, I think Silver's decision might have depended on the commercial impact of the (hypothetical) offense on the NBA brand. If major sponsors like State Farm and CarMax started pulling their endorsements from a team (or the league) due to homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise bigoted words/actions from a team owner, that owner could well have suffered the same punishment that Sterling got, regardless of how many fans belonged to the offended group (although I concede that fan following and sponsorship aren't completely independent).
To your point, if Native Americans had more of a voice (especially now that money equals speech), the Washington NFL team would definitely have changed their name by now.
Yes, this has been, without a doubt, one of the most exciting first rounds in NBA Playoff history. All but three of the series have gone the distance and probably the most exciting series (Houston-Portland) only went 6! #LillardClutch
Agreed. The Washington situation bothers me a lot. They should absolutely change the name of that team and they are not because they have nothing to lose financially by holding on to it.
Post a Comment