.png)
 |
| NBA Commissioner Adam Silver Photo: Kathy Willens / AP |
The American public has spent two weeks praising Adam Silver's first act of decisiveness amid the ugly, damaging and very public spectacle created by Donald Sterling. The NBA commissioner moved swiftly, firmly and within the legal confines of his job after recordings of Sterling's racist remarks became public. Silver banned Sterling for life and fined the Clippers owner $2.5 million. These actions, completely within Silver's right as commissioner, comprised not only the most severe penalty the league has ever seen, but one of the harshest levied on any team owner ever.
For this, Silver won praise from almost everyone, including myself. His decision, especially regarding the maximum fine, was brilliant. While many people -- including Silver, it can be assumed -- would have preferred to bury Sterling under a much larger fine, Silver knew as a lawyer to stick to the maximum penalty. Less restraint might have given Sterling reason to take the league to court, where he's been characterized as "tyrannical." (That he's doing it anyway is surprising and may be a flawed legal strategy.) Silver was as severe as he could be without going over the top, and the result was one that everyone -- or everyone but Donald Sterling -- could cheer: a lifetime ban, $2.5 million fine, NBA stands strong against racism, fans rejoice.
But is it possible that in his valiant proclamation, Silver may have unintentionally hung his owners out to dry? When he urged the remaining NBA ownership to force a sale of the Clippers, did Silver inadvertently force a vote that the owners otherwise could have avoided for fear of the unwanted and possibly quite damaging consequences? Consequences of which some of the owners -- most notably Mark Cuban -- were aware?
When I first began looking into Sterling's options for fighting a sale, I was expecting a brick wall of legal stipulations and bylaws. Otherwise, why would Silver have been so emphatic? For the first few days, I felt confident.
One of the prevalent theories on Sterling's possible actions involves making the Clippers part of his impending divorce. The belief is that, because the Clippers are owned by a family trust, the team would be tied up in the divorce as Sterling and his wife divide up their property.
I spoke with attorney Alan Fanger, a sports legal analyst out of Boston, and he believes the divorce will be a non-factor. First, Fanger explains that if an asset in a divorce is a franchised business, as the Clippers team is, and the owner has his rights stripped by a third party -- the other owners, in this case -- the spouse loses the right to step in and claim she will be given the team in the divorce.
But what about it being owned by the family trust? Also not a big deal, as it turns out: all sports teams are owned by trusts or corporations for liability protection. Sterling, if not the trustee of the trust, is probably the largest beneficiary, who in turn has the right to control and direct the trustee. This takes us back to reason No. 1: Sterling has his rights stripped and his wife cannot claim she'll get the team.
Read the full story: www.sbnation.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Policy:
The author of this blog will attempt to engage in conversation via the comments section whenever possible and recognize the 24/7 nature of the internet. Moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular operational hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible, however admins and/or the author is unable to commit to replying to every comment posted.
This is a moderated blog. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, it is expected that participants will treat each other, as well as the author and admin, with respect. Comments that contain vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind will not be posted. Comments that are spam or that promote services or products will not be posted. It is requested that all comments remain on topic.
The Elder Statement blog does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this blog is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. The Elder Statement blog may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. The Elder Statement blog does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those Web sites that may be reached through links on our Web site.
To protect individual privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include phone numbers, addresses or email details in the body of a comment. Such information will result in removal of a comment.
Thank you for your attention.
The Elder Statement