Looking forward to seeing a lawyer (who has read the NBA Constituation and Bylaws) dissect all of this.
The lifetime ban seems feasible, as does threatening to retract Sterling's ability to use NBA trademarks with his teams or even participate in games... those threats alone could compel him to sell...
But what exactly is the clause that allows them to force him to sell? And how exactly is it worded that it can cover someone's private thoughts and opinions? Presumably it's not worded to only cover things deemed racist by most of society. What else could trigger this clause?
Someone mentioned the gay marriage thing earlier. Society is slowly tilting towards accepting gay marriage. Could an owner who speaks out against it privately be forced to sell based on the same reasoning for forcing Sterling to sell? Maybe not now, but what about when there's enough popular outcry? What's the threshold?
Don't get me wrong, the "just" punishment is being doled out here -- but the legal aspect of it is kinda fascinating.
|