Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm getting tired of this same argument. This is getting old. It's real simple, how many sponsors will pull out for a player using the N-word? How many fans will stop going to games? That is the difference. It's about money. Sterling's actions cost the league sponsors, which of course means they lost money. When a players actions cost the league money, then maybe you will see a similar punishment.
I'm getting tired of this same argument. This is getting old. It's real simple, how many sponsors will pull out for a player using the N-word? How many fans will stop going to games? That is the difference. It's about money. Sterling's actions cost the league sponsors, which of course means they lost money. When a players actions cost the league money, then maybe you will see a similar punishment.
/thread
All of the above may be true, but the NBA has set a precedent for punishing future racially-biased comments by banning Sterling for life, especially considering 1) his comments were made in a private setting and were recorded without his knowledge (though I saw an article that indicated that he may have known they were being recorded) and 2) he has a history of shady behaviors that appear to have been anti-certain races and ethnic groups but the NBA did not take previous action against him for those behaviors. They banned him because of conduct detrimental to the league, not because his actions could potentially cost the league money; the decision was announced too soon for the league or anyone else to prove that it permanently or could have permanently lost money due to Sterling's comments.
I doubt players will be banned for life based on racially-biased comments; they don't hold the level of power, and therefore don't have the level of ability to undermine the league or its personnel, that owners do. However, I could see players getting significant suspensions (say, one year) for racially-biased comments, including those made privately and recorded without knowledge. Banning Sterling, rather than just suspending him for a period of time, has opened up the possibility of fairly severe penalties for league or team employees making racially-biased comments.
All of the above may be true, but the NBA has set a precedent for punishing future racially-biased comments by banning Sterling for life, especially considering 1) his comments were made in a private setting and were recorded without his knowledge (though I saw an article that indicated that he may have known they were being recorded) and 2) he has a history of shady behaviors that appear to have been anti-certain races and ethnic groups but the NBA did not take previous action against him for those behaviors. They banned him because of conduct detrimental to the league, not because his actions could potentially cost the league money; the decision was announced too soon for the league or anyone else to prove that it permanently or could have permanently lost money due to Sterling's comments.
Kia, Red Bull and State Farm -- all of which have featured Clippers players in their promotional materials -- backed away from the team, as did national and local advertisers such as CarMax, Virgin America, Corona, Commerce Hotel & Casino and Samsung.
Too soon to prove permanent lost of money???????????
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72
I doubt players will be banned for life based on racially-biased comments; they don't hold the level of power, and therefore don't have the level of ability to undermine the league or its personnel, that owners do. However, I could see players getting significant suspensions (say, one year) for racially-biased comments, including those made privately and recorded without knowledge. Banning Sterling, rather than just suspending him for a period of time, has opened up the possibility of fairly severe penalties for league or team employees making racially-biased comments.
Consider this, if you fine a player hundreds of thousands, depending on their income, that could hurt them, but realistically you can't really hurt an owner financially by fining or suspending him. Honestly there isn't really much of a way to punish him because even if he sells the team, he's going to get a return of hundreds of millions of dollars on his investment in the team. No matter what, he's still going to be very rich, so you haven't really harm him other than his reputation (which doesn't matter when he has other investments) and disassociating yourself from him. Is his punishment really that bad?
With the NFL adding a 15 yard Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty for the use of the N-word I could see the NBA apopting a 1 or maybe even a 2 shot technical for the same thing. Pretty sure no player would want to be hit with that technical on national TV. Could probably add in a few other slurs aimed at race and sexual orientation too. Kinda at the point where this s##t has gotta stop.
Too soon to prove permanent lost of money???????????
Consider this, if you fine a player hundreds of thousands, depending on their income, that could hurt them, but realistically you can't really hurt an owner financially by fining or suspending him. Honestly there isn't really much of a way to punish him because even if he sells the team, he's going to get a return of hundreds of millions of dollars on his investment in the team. No matter what, he's still going to be very rich, so you haven't really harm him other than his reputation (which doesn't matter when he has other investments) and disassociating yourself from him. Is his punishment really that bad?
I agree that Sterling's comments probably would have or would have had a negative impact on the Clippers or the NBA in the long-term if the NBA didn't take quick action. Having said that, leagues and teams change sponsors all the time, so how can you prove that Sterling situation caused a permanent reduction in the number of the sponsors for the team or league or cost the team or league money? The simple answer is you can't because it is too soon to make that determination.
What I'm saying is that you are assuming a casual argument that cannot be proven, and that your argument is not a valid argument for the NBA failing to take action against players or other league or team personnel who make racially-biased comments in the future, based on the precedent they've set with the Sterling ban. (You cannot assume that other sponsors wouldn't have signed on with the Clippers or the NBA at some point in the future, even if that was unlikely.) The NBA potentially opens itself up to lawsuits or at a minimum heavy criticism and charges of hypocrisy if it doesn't take action in those possible future situations.
As far as Sterling's punishment, I personally think it was both too severe and not severe enough. IMO, the NBA would have been better served and more effectively achieved its goal - to make it in Donald Sterling's best interests to sell the Los Angeles Clippers franchise (which I agree needed to be the goal) - by allowing the Clippers' personnel under contract to have the option to have their contracts nullified at some point after the season, say one month after the Clippers' season ends or the NBA season ends, if Sterling did not sell or initiate the process to sell the team during that period of time. It is not fair to the Clippers personnel IMO to be legally bound to a team (i.e. are unable to quit and seek employment with an employer in the same field and general location) owned by someone that those employees think could undermine them based on his personal beliefs. That kind of decision would have given the Clippers employees, most notably the players, the freedom to NOT play for a Donald Sterling-owned team AND would have encouraged Sterling to sell, probably even more than the decision that was made IMO. It would have NOT created a precedent where a person's words, rather than their actions, could result in a lifetime ban. (I personally believe Sterling should have been suspended and fined, but the suspension should have been lengthy but not permanent, say 2-3 years.)
Last edited by CHIP72; 05-02-2014 at 09:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
