• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2020 NBA Offseason - First Half Season Schedule Out

Be specific, rj, which things Kyrie is saying do you disagree with?
 
TownieDeac said:
Be specific, rj, which things Kyrie is saying do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

“I don’t support going into Orlando. I’m not with the systematic racism and the bulls***. Something smells a little fishy.”"

There's no systemic racism in the NBA. Is it perfect? No, but they are working hard for equality.

In fact, it can be argued that the NBA among the top employers in allowing and supporting it's employees openly voicing their opinions about social issues. In fact, Adam Silver has asked players to be vocal.

Kyrie can afford to anything he wants to do, but his actions could harm many rank and file players who only get a couple of years at low rates as well everyone else in the NBA.

If he wants to give back his money, let him. But he shouldn't be a privileged asshole and screw others out of living their dream and making a good living. His actions could screw every player in the NBA. That's not responsible.
 
You're right you know more than black ex-GMs, former NBAPA President Antonio Davis and others.

If Kyrie is successful and there is no finish to the season, he takes a massive platform away from NBA players. He will also blow up the livelihoods of hundreds of players.

Add to this, the NBA will support his social activism.

But oof, you can't deal with logic...
 
Hey you're the one telling him to shut up and dribble, rj.
 
Edited for clarification: Orlando airport released their positive case numbers recently (high!)

I know I wouldn't want to go work in a bubble in Florida with super lax containment protocols for the next several months.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Is it behind a paywall? It's from a journal I publish so I have access. I can send you the PDF if you're interested. It's from 2016.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) has a conflicted history navigating issues of race and Black identity. When audiotapes were released with Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling making racist comments, fans and players threatened to boycott playoff games. Within 4 days, the new NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Sterling for life. While Silver was lauded for his decision, coverage ignored the underlying structural issues that uphold inequality in the NBA. This article reviews recent communication and sport scholarship examining race and the NBA. By examining Silver’s decision using Kenneth Burke’s Terms of Order (1961), this article argues that the NBA continues to ignore how racism operates in the league.

Keywords Black masculinity, NBA, scapegoating, Donald Sterling, power
“You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games” (Golliver, 2014, ¶ 6). These comments were made by longtime Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling and published by tabloid news organization TMZ (Vaughn, 2014). They angered National Basketball Association (NBA) fans and caused some of the Clippers’ corporate sponsors to suspend or terminate their relationship with the team (Vaughn, 2014). The timing of the release of these tapes coincided with the Clippers’ 2014 first round playoff series, and throughout the NBA, players demanded that Sterling receive the maximum punishment (Vaughn, 2014). On April 29, 2014, newly appointed NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Donald Sterling from the league and was applauded for his swift action and support of the players (Jenkins, 2014).

While Sterling’s comments were despicable, the characterization of his punishment by NBA players ignores larger issues of power and inequity within the NBA. The NBA is 70% African American (Lapchick, 2013), which means that league-wide regulations often have the effect of controlling Black bodies/culture (Leonard, 2006). When faced with decisions regarding the complex cultural identity of the league, the NBA has frequently imposed strict controls. Whether it was the reaction to the 2004 brawl in Detroit (Grano, 2007), or the implementation of the dress code (Leonard, 2006), the league simultaneously celebrates Black culture, while attempting to regulate any potential consequences from the “messiness” of its identity. In this specific case, Sterling had a history of making racist comments but was not punished until these tapes were released (Vaughn, 2014). Part of the problem with how the NBA deals with race is NBA team owners are mostly White. Lapchick’s 2013 Race and Gender Report Card found that Michael Jordan is the only majority NBA owner who is Black. While there are 24 minority owners who represent communities of color (Lapchick, 2013), these numbers are low compared to the racial demographics of NBA players. While the reactions to the Sterling comments and subsequent removal from ownership was a news story that dominated the sports news headlines during the summer of 2014, this essay will evaluate the immediate reaction to the Sterling comments, specifically by current and former NBA players. This immediate reaction includes a 3-hr plus telecast of the Clippers/Warriors game on April 29, 2014, as well as other sources of response, most notably posted on Twitter.

The possibility of work stoppage and loss of corporate sponsorship was a toxic combination that the NBA needed to resolve. The NBA generates significant revenue, as evident in the recent television deal signed with ESPN/ABC and Turner Sports, worth US$24 billion over 9 years (Sandomir, 2014). The reaction by players to the Sterling ban raises questions about how power and race operate within the NBA. In this article, I argue that Silver’s actions were presented as a restoration of order, but obscured larger issues of institutional racism and power in the NBA. Through the evaluation of previous scholarly work on this issue, as well as applying Burke’s (1961) scapegoating theory, we can have a better understanding of how race and power is articulated in the NBA.

Literature Review
Race as a Structural Concept
Race operates as a rhetorical concept. Individuals are classified based on appearance into particular racial categories (Carlson, 1999). Carlson (1999) discussed race from a Burkean perspective, described race as a “positive term” (p. 112), which historically uphold “social orders” (p. 113). Consequently, for the purposes of this article, it is important to examine race or racism as a structural issue that is upheld by institutional power structures (Gallagher, 2001). Sports leagues (like the NBA) and sporting events can be places where structural racism is reinforced. Structural racism refers to “the interaction of multiple institutions in an ongoing process of producing racialized outcomes” (Powell, 2008, ¶ 2). In the NBA, Griffin (2011) argued that the league upholds racism because it both promotes Black athletes, while using racism to uphold “unequal power relationships within the league” (p. 164). In other words, this operates as a form of structural racism.

At the individual level, race in the United States is complicated because people are uncomfortable participating in honest conversations about prejudices and perceptions of race (Bonilla-Silva, 2002). Instead, racism is seen as a disease that is separate from everyday discourse. In their review of the scientific approach to racism, Thomas and Brunsma (2013) argued that racism has been “reclassified as a pathological problem” (p. 1468), which shifts the focus from the social and political influences on racism and treats racism as an illness that can be cured or eliminated from a community.

Race in the NBA
The NBA is uniquely situated because 70% of its players identify as African American, compared to 12% of the U.S. population (Lavelle, 2010). In his evaluation of basketball culture, McLaughlin (2008) has characterized the NBA as “a black sport” which has provided “key images for blackness in our society” (p. 137). This characterization operates on two levels. First, there are only 10 players on the court at once. When television networks use close-up shots, audience members can easily identify individual players during the game (Fortunato, 2001). Consequently, the NBA is more closely identified with Black identity because of the limited number of players (Lavelle, 2010). Second, the cultural/social place of the league makes it an exemplar of Black culture. The NBA is considered to be the professional league most representative of Black identity due to its racial demographics (Leonard & King, 2011), the ability of players to express themselves via style of play on the court (dunks, creative moves; Grano, 2007), and the association with urban and Black fashion (such as shoes and clothing endorsements; Andrews & Silk, 2010). Consequently, issues of Black identity are part of the NBA’s everyday culture. However, in their discussion of the Black sports superstar, Cole and Andrews (1996) argued “race matters only when there is trouble and/or perceived threat” (p. 151). Nearly 20 years later, race remains contentious.

A number of scholars have studied race in the NBA (Griffin & Phillips, 2014; Guerrero, 2011; Lavelle, 2010; Leonard, 2004, 2006, 2012). For the purposes of this analysis, three main arguments are critical. First, the NBA provides little latitude for Black identity. In his study of the media representations of Magic Johnson after his disclosure of his HIV status, Rowe (1994) argued that athletes/celebrities are framed as “deviant” depending on “the corresponding structure of social power” (p. 8). In other words, reputation corresponds with cultural acceptance. In more contemporary research, Leonard (2006) has argued that the NBA wants to sell the creativity and excitement of Black culture, without any of the perceived negative consequences. Leonard described hip-hop identity within the NBA as “a threatening and potentially unprofitable inscription of Black masculinity” (p. 160). In other words, Black identity is acceptable when it is perceived as “safe” to Middle America (Lavelle, 2010).

Second, a number of scholars have evaluated how Black identity promotes profitability in the NBA. Andrews (2001) explored how NBA superstar Michael Jordan was characterized as a complex global icon who embodied Black identity, but also rejected the political responsibilities of being one of the most famous Black people in the world. With contemporary players, a “ghettocentric logic” functions, where athletes like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade have crafted a persona that both fits within traditional Black culture and identity, while being accepted by corporations (Andrews & Silk, 2010). Like Jordan, contemporary players cater to a global audience, or the “interests of transnational capital” (Mirpuri, 2011, p. 115). The NBA wants to maintain and develop overseas markets and wants to promote “safe” players. Guerrero (2011) has argued that high-profile NBA players, specifically LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, avoid political stances and adopted personas that “fans and corporate America, were more comfortable with” (p. 124). In a world where the NBA is focused on a system of transnational capital and crafting corporate-friendly personas, contentious issues like racism are not openly discussed because “racism refers to a system of social relations, a set of structured inequalities, cultural forms, and ideological norms, all rooted in radicalized conceptions and categories” (King, 2011, p. 167). These conversations open discussions that are uncomfortable and often avoided.

Third, not only is racism rarely discussed honestly, the continued success of Black NBA players supports the enthymeme that the NBA is post-racial or colorblind (Grainger, Newman, & Andrews, 2006). Guerrero (2011) described the NBA as “always selling the “raceless” fantasy of meritocracy” (p. 139), meaning that because the league is predominately Black, we have moved past racism. This enthymeme operates on a couple of different levels. To begin with, there is an assumption that the NBA functions as an escape from poverty (Lavelle, 2013). Talent is enough to make the league. This assumption ignores issues of systematic poverty that might disproportionately impact Black athletes (Lavelle, 2013). Additionally, as Leonard and Hazelwood (2014) noted, the NBA has a “history of white paternalism” (p. 114), in reference to the various regulations placed on mostly Black players. Leonard and Hazelwood argued that professional sports are premised on the denial of racism, meaning that if racism and racial issues are the focus of the NBA, it denies the claim that sports are a meritocracy, governed by “objective” rules of play, and talent—as opposed to larger racial complications. In other words, the NBA works by not interrogating complicated questions surrounding racial dynamics, as well as the complicated representations embodied by its players (Leonard, 2012). The release of the Sterling comments, because they were so overtly racist, provides a space to examine how the NBA articulates race and racism.

Unfiltered Commentary and Representation
One of the ways to observe how the NBA articulates a vision of race is by evaluating live or unfiltered commentary. Two places where this type of commentary takes place are game commentary and Twitter. Sports broadcasters shape games through language choice and topics (Eastman & Billings, 2001; Hansen, 1999). Despite the increasing fragmentation of the media, Rowe (2012) characterized live sporting events as having “enduring cultural and economic power well into the 21st century” (p. 97). Live commentary is often seen as “the truth” because it happens “naturally” during the broadcast (Coogan, 2012).

Because of the structure of game broadcasts, sports commentary is seen as a continuous narrative, even with multiple voices within the text (Hansen, 1999). This narrative operates on two levels. First, commentators make “linguistic choices” about how to discuss “individual athletes” (Angelini & Billings, 2010, p. 366). For instance, personal information about players generates interest in the NBA by making players seem more relatable (Lavelle, 2010). Second, commentators use “personal gossip” to “create audience identification and loyalty” (McLaughlin, 2008, p. 179), which helps generate ratings by keeping the audience engaged in the game (Billings, Halone, & Denham, 2002). These strategies allow commentary to function like a soap opera (McLaughlin, 2008). In the case of the April 29 game, audience interest was heightened because of the Sterling comments; nearly five million viewers watched the game (an increase of 34% from the first two games in the series) even though it was a Tuesday night in April at 10:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time in the United States (“TV ratings Spike,” 2014).

In addition to the role of commentary, social media functions as a way to create a “truth” about sports from a variety of sources. As discussed in Kassing and Sanderson (2010), athletes often use Twitter or other social media sites to circumvent traditional media sources and active accounts operate as an alternative to traditional forms of media. In the case of Donald Sterling, many active and former NBA players used social media to criticize Sterling and encouraged Commissioner Silver to issue a harsh punishment (Vaughn, 2014). Even in a world where the league and networks want to present a positive image of the NBA (Billings, 2008), in this case, it was nearly impossible to ignore the criticisms of Sterling because of the intersection of player criticism and potential loss of corporate sponsors. Scholarship on commentary suggests that there are unique features within the game broadcast that can help shape how the NBA is framed.

Method
While players are the most visible to the general public, power in the NBA lies within the league office and owners (Grano, 2007; Leonard, 2006). Players are expected to generate profits and uphold regulations instituted by the league, not speak freely and potentially against the league (Griffin & Phillips, 2014). In the aftermath of the Sterling audiotapes, both players and corporate interests wanted Sterling gone. Because of the disruption caused by Sterling’s comments, order had to be restored to the league. A theoretical approach to analyzing this restoration is Burke’s (1961) Terms of Order, which traces the cycle of guilt, scapegoating, and restoration of order in a rhetorical event.

Burke (1961) defined guilt as a community’s response to a disruption to a “natural” order that is created by human application of morality to everyday situations. When a community’s value hierarchy has been disrupted, “guilt is intensely painful, and a person thus stricken will seek a cure at any cost” (Carlson & Hocking, 1988, p. 206). The NBA’s racial structure requires a nominal commitment to racial equality in order to maintain labor tranquility and relationships with sponsors who value its cultural cachet among young and urban audiences. I argue that Sterling’s comments disrupted that commitment in a way that created pain and anger amongst community members that the NBA could contain or tolerate overt racism, and forced the NBA to remove Sterling from the community.

Burke (1961) identified two options for eliminating guilt: mortification and scapegoating. Mortification involves self-sacrifice, or what is known as “victimage” (Coupe, 2005, p. 122). In the case of mortification, an individual might remove himself or herself from a situation to restore order. In the case of scapegoating, “a community rids itself of its own imperfections” (Butterworth, 2008, p. 149). The linguistic process of scapegoating is reinforced through language use which helps maintain a hierarchy. As Brummett (1980) has argued, “the actual scapegoat can redeem the guilt from historical and cultural identifications” (pp. 66–67). In the case of Sterling, he defends his comments and sued the NBA to keep his team, and he was forced out of the NBA (Strauss, 2014). Consequently, this situation is an example of scapegoating, not mortification from a Burkean perspective.

Contemporary scholarship has used Burke’s concept of scapegoating as a methodological tool to evaluate the intersections of race, nationality, and guilt. Carlson’s (1999) essay about the shifting definition of Black identity argued that race operates within a “specific rhetorical community.” She urged critics to examine how race functions depending on the context: individuals and groups can construct how race is understood through language and association. Butterworth (2008) evaluated scapegoating in baseball during the steroid crisis to illuminate how identifying a single actor as the cause of blame prevented a comprehensive analysis of the impact of steroids. Grano and Zagacki’s (2011) analysis of the first post-Katrina football game at the Superdome examined how the narrative of recovery in New Orleans was used as a “purification ritual” (p. 218) to stifle conversation and the existence of the “untidy political consequences” (p. 219) in New Orleans. This work is helpful because it demonstrates how Burke’s treatment of scapegoating explains issues of identity and race. More specifically, Butterworth and Grano and Zagacki explored how crises in sports can be evaluated using scapegoating.

In this article, the texts under analysis focus on current and former NBA player reaction to the Sterling ban. It includes the TNT game commentary from the April 29, 2014, Clippers/Warriors game, which includes play-by-play, pre and post-game studio discussion, and tweets that appeared on the news ticker throughout the broadcast. The TNT broadcast was the first Clippers game after the Silver press conference and it functions as an important artifact to assess the reaction to Sterling’s ban. In addition to the game text, this article evaluates reactions from current and former NBA players that appeared in news coverage on April 29, 2014. This reaction includes a specific response from former player Kevin Johnson (the mayor of Sacramento who was appointed as special liaison to the league on behalf of the players) and Roger Mason Jr. (the NBA Player’s Association first vice president). While there was broad response to the Sterling ban, the players’ reaction was important because they were calling for a severe punishment. This essay specifically does not examine the Commissioner Silver press conference because that text is a related, but separate issue to examine. This essay evaluates how Silver’s decision is characterized by evaluating the construction of guilt, scapegoating, and restoration of order in the NBA.

Restoring Order
It’s Donald Sterling’s Fault
Order in the NBA would have been disrupted if sponsors left and players did not play scheduled playoff games. Much of the disruption of order that is discussed on April 29, 2014, justified why Silver had to remove Sterling. In the player response, guilt is defined by characterizing Sterling as a bad owner, whose words had an economic impact on the league.

Bad owner
In describing the effect of Sterling’s public comments, NBA on TNT host Ernie Johnson posited, “in the span of 72 hours or so, the luster of the arguably most entertaining first round of the NBA playoffs ever has been overshadowed by the racist ramblings of Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 16). In the pre-game show, former player and current analyst Charles Barkley described the emotional turmoil felt by the Clippers players in Game Four (April 27, 2014) because of the attention surrounding the release of the tapes. TNT provides additional support for this argument during the broadcast. In an interview clip, Coach Doc Rivers (a former NBA player) discussed the importance of a “healthy working environment,” indicating that Sterling did not provide that (and it is unclear if Rivers is discussing Sterling in general or the aftermath of the tapes), and referenced “pressure on the players to respond” to the tapes (Vaughn, 2014, p. 17). So much responsibility is placed on the players to reject Sterling that in separate segments, Barkley and Rivers argued that if Sterling owned the Clippers the next season, players and coaches should be free agents and leave the team (Vaughn, 2014). In this case, Sterling is identified as the scapegoat because his players are negatively affected by his public comments.

Focusing on the release of the tapes, as opposed to the overall problems created by Sterling’s racist words and actions, limits the effect of “harmful” racism. The problem with these conclusions is that in the same broadcast, there is discussion about Sterling’s previous racism, including the Department of Justice lawsuit challenging Sterling on housing discrimination in rental properties (Vaughn, 2014). And as was widely reported in the media, Sterling was infamous for poor treatment of Clippers players and employees, often using racist discourse (Simmons, 2014). These discussions indicate that only the TMZ comments are disruptive enough for drastic action by the league, even though Sterling may have made worse comments that were not publicized.

The potential economic impact of Sterling’s comments
In the discussion prior to Silver’s April 29 press conference, the players were in a holding period waiting for his decision (Bernstein, 2014). In an interview during the Clippers’ game on April 27, Kevin Johnson argued, “Players just want their voices to be heard. They don’t want Adam Silver just to make a decision for them … they want swift and decisive action. They want Adam to be as extreme and to do the maximum sanctions” (Bernstein, 2014, p. 5).

An interesting storyline that emerged after the Silver press conference was that the playoffs would be boycotted if Sterling was not appropriately punished. Roger Mason Jr. argued that “I heard from our players and all of our players felt like boycotting the games tonight … We’re talking about all NBA players. We’re talking about playoff games tonight” (Markazi, 2014b, ¶ 2). It was reported that all of the players would act together to support the Clippers’s players stance against their owner (Boren, 2014). During the TNT pre-game, sideline reporter David Aldridge discusses this issue, stating that Clippers’ player DeAndre Jordan received a text prior to Silver’s press conference where he was told “this is bigger (the Sterling situation) than you, this is bigger than me” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 3), suggesting that protesting Sterling was more important than playoff basketball.

But there was little public discussion about the walkout prior to the press conference. The Clippers players had a team meeting before Game 4, where the possibility of boycott was “quickly dismissed” (Markazi, 2014a, ¶ 2). But the discussion reemerged after the Silver press conference. It is impossible to make a prediction about what would have happened had Silver given Sterling a more lenient punishment. But it probably would have hurt the players. Leonard and Hazelwood (2014) examined how the sports media used the “angry Black man trope” to question why players would continue the 2011 lockout, which the media argued denied fans games and NBA employees their paychecks. They found multiple examples of media discourse, which criticized NBA players for being overpaid and undereducated, even though they generated billions of dollars per year (“Stern estimates NBA,” 2012). Given the 2011 response, it stands to reason that there might have been a similar reaction in 2014, especially if all the players walked away in the middle of the playoffs.

In addition to the impact of possibility of a disruption of NBA playoff games, 15 sponsors suspended or terminated their relationship with the Clippers, including companies with relationships with Clippers players Blake Griffin (KIA) and Chris Paul (State Farm Insurance; Pfeifer, Bolch, & Rainey, 2014). After the game, there is video footage of Staples Center employees covering up advertisements and during halftime, Barkley jokes at a commercial break, “Didn’t everybody cancel their advertising?” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 10). The NBA is a transnational, corporate entity (Guerrero, 2011), so sponsorship is critical to the survival of the league. Both the possibility of playoff game stoppage and the loss of corporate sponsorship represent a disruption of the order to the NBA. Sterling as the scapegoat seems “natural” because he was directly identified as the disruption to the order of the league.

Making Sterling Go Away
NBA as raceless
Part of the reason that Sterling’s comments created so much controversy was because the NBA tries to position itself as “raceless” (Leonard, 2006; Mirpuri, 2011), meaning that the league does not want to navigate the complexities of race and racism. The Sterling ban is characterized as a “zero tolerance” response to racism in the NBA. In a tweet, Michael Jordan, the only majority owner in the NBA who belongs to a community of color, argued, “There can be zero tolerance for racism and hatred in the NBA” (Mandel, 2014, ¶ 20). In speaking on behalf of the players union, Kevin Johnson argued in his press conference, “This (decision) shows that there is zero tolerance for institutional racism” (“NBA bans Clippers,” 2014, ¶ 20). Johnson and Jordan justify scapegoating Sterling.

While Twitter is an inaccurate barometer of public sentiment because of the small number of users (Billings, 2014) and the lack of editorial oversight (Sanderson, 2014), Twitter was the platform for current and former players to express their reaction to the Sterling ban. A number of news publications included reaction to the decision, and many included a variety of tweets by influential NBA figures. TNT relies on these tweets to reinforce that removing Sterling was the appropriating scapegoating mechanism. There were a number of tweets that make the connection that Silver’s decision to ban Sterling restored order to the league.

Throughout the TNT broadcast, the news ticker updated viewers with news that Silver had banned Sterling from the league and fined him US$2.5 million dollars (Vaughn, 2014). The ticker includes tweets from many current and former NBA players, and these comments are repeated throughout the broadcast. Ryan Kelly, a rookie from the Los Angeles Lakers, tweeted, “No room for racism in the @NBA!” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 13). Jason Collins, best known to the general public as the first openly gay player in the NBA, wrote, “#lifetimeban on Donald Sterling. The ultimate #gonefishing” (p. 3). Collins referenced “gone fishing,” a TNT studio practice where teams who are eliminated in the playoffs are photo shopped into fishing gear, symbolizing that they are done for the summer. Former Chicago Bulls and six-time NBA champion Scottie Pippin wrote, “No place for racism in basketball or anywhere in 2014” (p. 6), and former Los Angeles Lakers player James Worthy wrote, “There was no other solution!” (p. 11). While these sentiments are admirable, they frame Sterling’s recorded comments as an isolated intrusion of racism into an otherwise pure, raceless forum. Burke (1961) has suggested that in order to resolve turmoil created by guilt, scapegoating the responsible party (the symbolic “kill”) can restore order. TNT included its own basketball personalities’ tweets calling out Sterling. Former player and TNT commentator Kenny Smith tweeted, “NBA is not a safe haven for racism or ignorance find a new home” (p. 4). Smith discussed his feelings about Sterling during the pre- and post-game show. Reggie Miller tweeted, “#BANNEDFOR LIFE” (p. 12). These comments reinforce Sterling’s culpability for the league’s turmoil.

During the TNT broadcast, former player and game broadcaster Reggie Miller described the effect that social media had the Silver decision. “You know social media had a lot to do with this, once the audio tape came out on TMZ. People reacted on Twitter and Instagram and so forth. I think that was part of the reason that the commissioner was so swift in his decision” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 8). TNT’s broadcast of tweets emphasized the sole responsibility of Sterling and allowed current and former players to participate in the process of casting Sterling out of the NBA community.

“All hail, Adam Silver”
For order to be restored, elimination of the scapegoat must resolve the conflict created by guilt (Burke, 1961). Looking at the reaction from players, the Silver decision was affirmed. In fact, Kevin Johnson stated that “I believe that today stands as one of those great moments where sports provides a place for fundamental change—how our country should think and act” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 17). Johnson’s comments confirmed that Silver’s decision is a civil rights moment for the league. There are no critical comments made about the punishment. All of the discussion about Silver is positive, focusing on the evaluation of his decision and larger social issues

Silver is right
Silver’s decision is applauded. During the post-game show, Charles Barkley stated, “I was proud of the NBA today” and “they stood up for their players. And they stood up for people out there” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 18). Barkley’s statement makes the connection that Silver’s punishment is a stand against racism and also reinforces the belief that the NBA is an exemplar for race relations. During the game broadcast, Reggie Miller characterized Silver’s decision: “It was loud, it was precise, and it was exactly what we needed” (p. 3). The use of the “we” language reinforces the fact that Silver is speaking for the league. Via Twitter, LeBron James affirms Silver and thanks him for “protecting our beautiful and powerful league!!” (p. 4). James’ opinion is important because he is one of the most powerful and influential NBA players and was in a position to potentially criticize the decision. Current NBA player Charlie Villaneuva, who self-identifies as Hispanic, tweeted, “I’m very satisfied and embrace the action taken by our commissioner, Adam Silver. Great job!” (p. 5). Villanueva’s comments provide credibility from other underrepresented groups that Silver’s decision takes a stand against racism. Former NBA player Michael Finley tweets, “Commissioner Silver stepped up! Our game thanks u. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming #NBAPLAYOFFS” (p. 4). This comment makes the assumption that the symbolic removal of Sterling was a critical stance against racism the league and that the natural order appearing to be free of racism could resume.

It is important to remember that Silver had been Commissioner for less than 90 days when the Sterling tapes were leaked (Jenkins, 2014). While he had extensive experience as deputy commissioner, this incident was his first test (Vaughn, 2014). Reggie Miller notes during the game “I don’t know if your legacy can be made after 88 days on the job? But his was” (p. 4). Miller’s comments elevate the importance of Sterling’s decision. On Twitter, LeBron James and Magic Johnson applaud Silver for his “leadership” (Vaughn, 2014). Michael Jordan tweeted, “I applaud NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s swift and decisive responses today” (Mandel, 2014, ¶ 20). Magic Johnson tweets, “former and current NBA players are very happy and satisfied with Commissioner Silver’s ruling” (Adler, 2014). Johnson’s opinion is critical because Sterling identified him in the TMZ tapes as a Black person he did not want coming to games (Bernstein, 2014). Since his retirement from basketball and his transition from “Tragic Magic” after his HIV diagnosis (Rowe, 1994), Johnson is one of the most beloved former players in the NBA, known for his entrepreneurial efforts, and community leadership. For the restoration of order, it was important that Johnson was publicly supportive of Silver’s decision.

Chris Paul, during the halftime interview on TNT, thanks Silver for being “brilliant today, brilliant” (p. 9). Paul is a leader in the player’s union, as well as a member of the Los Angeles Clippers. Here, he credits Silver with resolving the conflict caused by Sterling. Paul pleads, “we just want to come out here and play basketball” (p. 9). The comments reinforce the argument that some level of racism is acceptable because Clippers players were not impeded from playing before. Sterling did not become racist overnight, but his previous comments are positioned as less harmful than the TMZ comments.

Finally, TNT commentator Kenny Smith discusses the complex racial issues that are present in the NBA. He notes that Silver is a White, Jewish man, and Smith praises him for his discussion of basketball history in his press conference. “He remembered all of that, he remembered his history, not just as a basketball person, but his history as an African American pioneer, being a White man” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 19). Smith provides the only explicit acknowledgement of the existence of differences in social location between the commissioner and players. But Silver’s decision is not progressive.

Describing it as a transformational racial moment in the NBA is contradictory with the framing that Silver uses in his press conference. All of the “pioneers of the game” (Vaughn, 2014) that justify why the NBA is progressive on race relations represented progressive change within the league. The removal of Sterling is not the same as integrating the league or opening the door for LGBT players. Instead, it removes this marginal figure. As discussed at length between Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith on the NBA on TNT, Sterling had been making these types of comments for years (Vaughn, 2014). But what’s different about the comments exposed by TMZ is that these previous comments did not make the NBA look bad in the national media and they weren’t explicitly about excluding Black people from Clippers games.

Implications
This incident and the response from the NBA raise interesting questions about the public/private rights of free speech held by NBA owners. Despite the racist comments made by Sterling, he made them in private, not at an NBA function. As many journalists noted at the time of the ban from the NBA, Sterling was known for making racist comments to players and staff members of the Clippers, but he was not punished for these comments (Vaughn, 2014). In fact, when questioned during his press conference about how previous comments factored into his decision, Silver was clear that the punishment was based on the TMZ comments and his comments about Black fans and players (Vaughn, 2014). The existence of the audiotape of Sterling’s comments allowed the NBA to make the choice to remove Sterling from the league. But, his removal did not diminish everyday racism in the NBA.

Given other instances in the NBA, such as the recent voluntary sale of the Atlanta Hawks by its owner who was caught in an email making inappropriate racial comments about the fan base (Lee, 2014), it seems like the existence of publicly released comments is the only thing that makes racism unacceptable. In the case of the Hawks, in the summer of 2014, Atlanta Hawks GM Danny Ferry made “racially charged comments” about Sudanese-born NBA player, Luol Deng, during free agency period discussion (“Danny Ferry Takes,” 2014, ¶ 1). Ferry was placed on an indefinite leave of absence (that continues as of this writing), but was not fired (“Danny Ferry Takes,” 2014). As Ferry’s comments were investigated, an e-mail from controlling owner Bruce Levenson was found, where Levenson used racial demographics to explain ticket-buying practices (“Danny Ferry Takes,” 2014). Levenson announced that he would sell his controlling interest (“Danny Ferry Takes,” 2014), a decision that did not involve pressure from NBA management. The Hawks story was treated differently in part because the team made voluntary disciplinary actions, whereas in the case of Donald Sterling, Sterling showed no remorse for his comments (Vaughn, 2014). But the Hawks did not deal with their racially inappropriate discourse until it became public.

In the case of Donald Sterling, in the short term, Silver’s decision helped diffuse a potentially spiraling conflict. There were no player boycotts, the Clippers won their first round series, and the playoffs continued. After a contentious legal battle, the Clippers were sold to Steve Ballmer for two billion dollars (a profit from the 1981 purchase price of US$12 million dollars) (Bloom, 2014), a sale that resulted in significant financial benefits to Sterling and his family. Shelly Sterling (Donald’s wife) negotiated a generous package where she retains courtside seats, the titles “owner emeritus/number one fan,” and will even receive three championship rings should the Clippers ever win the NBA Championship (Strauss, 2014). The team sale benefits her husband via the family trust (Bloom, 2014). So even though Donald Sterling is banned, he still benefited from the sale.

Despite the resolution of this short-term conflict, there are still some long-term implications for how the league negotiates power. First, there are unanswered questions about the role of agency and race in the NBA. Charles Barkley makes the distinction in the post-game commentary that he and his colleagues on the NBA on TNT, specifically Shaquille O’Neal and Kenny Smith, are “in the game” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 18), meaning that they are different from other underrepresented groups because they are wealthy. While Barkley makes an implicit argument about the intersection of race/wealth, it does not excuse the NBA supporting racism.

Second, treating Silver’s decision as a civil right decision for the NBA ignores the disparities between players and the league/management. This issue was highlighted during the 2014 free agency period. Governed by the 2011 NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), this agreement is widely considered to favor ownership and management over players (Lowe, 2014). For teams to avoid paying a tax, players must take salary cuts, which help the team owners save money (Lowe, 2014). Moreover, the CBA provides incentives for players to sign with their home team (Goldsberry, 2014). Even though professional athletes are generally well paid, basketball players’ salaries are not allowed to accurately reflect their market value (Lowe, 2014). Unlike baseball, where players can sign long-term deals worth nearly US$300 million dollars (Badenhausen, 2014), the current CBA prevents players from signing contracts that represent their market value (Lowe, 2014).

Silver is applauded as the savior of the league when in reality; the league’s power structure is not fair to players. The lack of player agency was accentuated during the Sterling incident because there was no permanent player leadership to represent their interests (Shelburne & Stein, 2014). Kevin Johnson acted as a special liaison for the players because they had no official representative to meet with the league (Shelburne & Stein, 2014). Labeling Silver as a savior protecting the league, or as Ernie Johnson calls him, “the player’s commissioner” (Vaughn, 2014, p. 22) ignores the institutional power disparities between the league and its players and the financial conflicts between a majority Black labor force and White ownership and leadership structure.

Third, Sterling’s comments are not representative of the racial dynamics within the NBA. The NBA continues to negotiate its identity with Black players, and Sterling’s punishment did not mean that the NBA is post-racial. As numerous scholars have argued (Grano, 2007; Leonard, 2012; Leonard & King, 2011), the NBA is still struggling to market its players in a way that accurately reflects the complexities of race and power. As Guerrero (2011) has argued, “Why are today’s black NBA players forced to negotiate the fickle ideological pressure that demands that they sell an illusion of a constructed black ‘realness’ as long as they don’t ‘buy into it’ themselves … even as the rest of America, and the world, does?” (pp. 124–5). Sterling’s ouster does not shatter this illusion. If anything, it buttresses the assumption that racism manifests in its most pernicious form as explicit and malicious. Sterling had been making racist comments and business decisions for years prior to April 2014, but he was only punished when he was caught on tape and sponsors pulled financial support (Vaughn, 2014). Using such a high threshold for punishment means that it is unlikely that more common incidences of racism will be punished or that unequal structures will be rectified. By focusing only on Sterling’s comments and ignoring everyday racism, Silver did not address the problem of structural racism in the NBA. His actions are an example of what Brummett (1980) described as the separation of the scapegoat from its own historical and cultural connections. Sterling becomes the symbol of racism and ignores structural and inferential racism that is still upheld by the league.

As communication and sport scholars, we must continue to study how representations of race are articulated in the NBA. Since the NBA is one of the highest profile organizations in the world with such a high concentration of Black members, it is critical to examine how the league deals with race. If Silver is correct in arguing that the NBA is an exemplar of racial progress (Vaughn, 2014), it is necessary to evaluate how these relationships operate.
 
TownieDeac said:
Edited for clarification: Orlando airport released their positive case numbers recently (high!)

I know I wouldn't want to go work in a bubble in Florida with super lax containment protocols for the next several months.
Click to expand...

Holy shit. So it looks like DeSantis just blurted out 260 of 500 Orlando airport workers tested positive and the airport says that's not true. Ugh.

I think the bubble plan has some issues and I would be fine if they just skipped to the playoffs and bringing family in. They should also put some back to backs in the schedule since travel isn't a concern.
 
TownieDeac said:
Hey you're the one telling him to shut up and dribble, rj.
Click to expand...

Once again, your reading comprehension would get an F in sixth grade.

I've never said anything like that to imply I have is another one of your lies.

He has every right to say whatever he wants, but he also has the responsibility for the repercussions of those words. Let him do a daily YouTube or IG or podcast about every issue he deems important. Get 10M followers and give all his money to creating social awareness and helping those who need help.

But he doesn't have the right to harm his brother union members.
 
RJKarl said:
Once again, your reading comprehension would get an F in sixth grade.

I've never said anything like that to imply I have is another one of your lies.

He has every right to say whatever he wants, but he also has the responsibility for the repercussions of those words. Let him do a daily YouTube or IG or podcast about every issue he deems important. Get 10M followers and give all his money to creating social awareness and helping those who need help.

But he doesn't have the right to harm his brother union members.
Click to expand...

Weren’t you really offended by somebody saying that you had elementary school quality reading comprehension ability?
 
That doesn't mean I'm wrong about how you act here.

Gundy listened to and espoused OAN views but coached a majority black team. In his private life, he supported a racist outlet, but he had to make himself look the opposite fashion in the workplace.

You could edit a thousand professional articles but still read anything that doesn't agree with you here wrongly.
 
A few more thoughts, still in this meeting:

1) I didn't get an F til college
2) I get paid handsomely for my reading comprehension abilities
3) Posted that article full text so feel free to engage with it
4) Kyrie's responsibility to the league is to stand up to structural racism on behalf of its 70+% nonwhite membership
 
didn't rj ask townie to edit his book for free?

what low standards he has for his own writing given his opinion of townie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top