By Shaylyn Austin
Editor-in-Chief
Many have argued that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s statements were damaging to the reputation of the National Basketball Association, and, therefore, NBA commissioner Adam Silver had every right to act in the best interests of the league. The fact that this power is laid out in the league’s constitution and by-laws is true, and the argument that Sterling’s comments were in fact harmful is well-justified.
However, Silver only has the right to act under the confines of the league’s constitution, which has very specific articles when dealing with misconduct of persons who are not players. Not only are the articles that Silver had to draw upon to justify and enforce his sentences against Sterling questionable, but the source that leaked the recording is as well.
TMZ’s decision to leak the suspiciously-attained audio recording only serves to perpetuate its image of a debauched self-proclaimed media outlet and cement its only concerted goal of infringing on the private lives of celebrities in order to extort them for ratings and publicity. For the purpose of journalistic ethics and integrity, Silver should not have inflicted as harsh of punishments upon Sterling, because in doing so he only inflated the reputation of the corrupt organization.
Of course, one can excuse Silver, for he was under immense pressure from the league and its fans. However, this pressure may have led him into making decisions that are not backed by the clearly-defined articles of the league’s constitution.
In order to ban Sterling from the NBA, Silver would have had to act under article 35A(d), which allows the commissioner to “suspend for a definite or indefinite period … any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.”
While at first it may seem proper means to inflict a lifetime ban against Sterling for his wrongful comments, there is a different sub-article that would have been more suitable for Sterling’s situation.
Article 35A(c) specifically addresses statements made that are “prejudicial” or “detrimental” to the team or league.
The major difference between these articles is the specification between “conduct” in (d) and “statements” in (c). Sterling is clearly being punished for statements, comments made within the walls of his private home, not conduct. No matter how prejudicial or even offensive his views are, Sterling did not act upon them.
It seems as though Silver used 35A(d) and not 35A(c) because the former allows for suspension, while the latter does not. This suspension is not supported if the two articles were put in to ensure that only wrongful conduct would result in suspension, not speech.
The second major punishment, a $2.5 million fine, was most likely backed by article 24(1), which allows the commissioner to impose a penalty that “in his judgement shall be in the best interests of the Association.”
Silver’s decision to split the sources of the first two punishments in order to impose the maximum possible penalties was undoubtedly an attempt to quell the mass outrage against Sterling among fans and players. However, this is not justification to blatantly ignore the specifics of a constitution that was designed to handle situations just like these.
Ultimately, Silver’s reasoning for these consequences will only come out in a lawsuit that Sterling will have to file against the league, most likely under terms of a breach of contract. While he has yet to do this, he definitely has strong reason to.
Leave a Reply