Adam Silver wants to phase out the term ‘owner’

[TheSundanceKid]

Amazing... Governor sounds worse than owner. Straight away I think of prisons.

I guess calling them partners makes sense, but tbh if it's inconsistent with other sports it's just a bit weird

[Neurotic Guy]

My thoughts are Political Correctness  is a disease.

You seem to have many like-minded friends here.  I have a different point of view and I'm not expecting anyone to agree with it, but hope that some will hear me out.

Political correctness doesn't come from nothing. It's really reflective of a natural societal "correction".  It absolutely goes too far at times and people should call it out when it does.  This thread reflects a pretty good example of correctness gone awry, but the knee-jerk hatred of political correctness is also a bit of an over-reaction in my opinion.

There was a time not that long ago when our societal norms were quite different regarding overt negative messaging about race, ethnicity, gender and homosexuality.  I remember the free and easy use of the "N" word among my parent's contemporaries as well as blatant sexism and homophobic remarks and aggression practiced with impunity in my schools, neighborhood/community, and even in religious venues.  The advent of Political Correctness hasn't fixed anything, but it is an understandable response as our free, diverse, multi-cultural society grapples with changing values. In my lifetime (born in the late 50's) I believe we've gone from too much insensitivity to a certain degree of oversensitivity.  Finding the right balance is the job of future generations, but having some historical context (i.e., why it exists) in a discussion of Political Correctness seems to me to be only fair.

With regard to the "Owner" issue, it sounds to me more like a thought Silver is having than an actual proposed policy change.   My guess is that it won't actually get traction because it's rather silly to not be able to refer to team owners as owners.   With that said, it's also a bit short-sighted to not consider why it could be worthy of discussion.  I think MJ is currently the only African-American majority owner in a league whose players are 75% African American.  Players in the NBA are in many ways more of a commodity than in other work arenas.  They are ridiculously well-paid and inordinately showered with attention (mostly positive), so the slavery metaphor is dramatically lacking and deeply flawed.... however, players' services are essentially drafted and purchased by owners and, very much unlike any other business that I am aware of, are traded as commodities. Players play out their contracts to attain Free Agency, a form of earned occupational freedom which allows them to select their owner.  My point (likely lost in the weeds here) is that there is some metaphoric validity when it comes to "optics".  I am not suggesting that the NBA resembles slavery in any real terms, I am just saying that predominantly White Ownership utilizing predominantly Black Service in an arena where workers are drafted, purchased (contracted) and traded presents optics that can conjure the ugly metaphor.   

So let me be clear -- I am in agreement with most here that the idea of phasing out the term "owner" is an absurd idea. However, the idea that political correctness is a societal bogey monster at minimum ignores our nation's history and at worst can blind us to true examples of hatred or discrimination. Having discussions about why Silver would consider phasing out "owner" should not be a problem.  And truth be told, many on this thread dismissed it as political correctness or a joke without deeming it worthy of thought.  I side with most of you, I just think the idea is worthy of showing respect to those who might have a different viewpoint about the subject.

[GRADYCOLNON]

In general, his idea seems irrelevant.  But simple optics can have a profound way of making people view things.  Like changing what words mean, and in this case, using a confusing title to distance owners from their financial investments as stakeholders in these franchises.

Why is this important?  Well, typically when things like rebranding happen, it means something else is about to shift or at least it is going to lead to a transition of some sort.  Unlikely to seem important once introduced, but eventually becomes important.  Slippery slope type of stuff, at least its a hunch.  So the best thing to do is keep an eye on it, to monitor its progression. 

[mr. dee]

Imagine if the word owner is replaced by governor:

"He's the governor of that iPhone there."

[RPGenerate]

Imagine if the word owner is replaced by governor:

"He's the governor of that iPhone there."

Or we can say "He's the partner of that phone over here."

[Ogaju]

truth is the NBA is more of a partnership since they deal with revenue sharing in their CBA, but in that partnership there are owners and players. There are great points on both sides of this issue. There was a day when the owners and their families treated athletes like horses. Those days are not too far gone so you have to understand the players flexing their muscles in their new enlightenment.

[boscel33]

can you own a restaurant? can you own a small business? But you can't own a professional sports franchise?

I agree, this is a STUPID idea.

[angryguy77]

My thoughts are Political Correctness  is a disease.

You seem to have many like-minded friends here.  I have a different point of view and I'm not expecting anyone to agree with it, but hope that some will hear me out.

Political correctness doesn't come from nothing. It's really reflective of a natural societal "correction".  It absolutely goes too far at times and people should call it out when it does.  This thread reflects a pretty good example of correctness gone awry, but the knee-jerk hatred of political correctness is also a bit of an over-reaction in my opinion.

There was a time not that long ago when our societal norms were quite different regarding overt negative messaging about race, ethnicity, gender and homosexuality.  I remember the free and easy use of the "N" word among my parent's contemporaries as well as blatant sexism and homophobic remarks and aggression practiced with impunity in my schools, neighborhood/community, and even in religious venues.  The advent of Political Correctness hasn't fixed anything, but it is an understandable response as our free, diverse, multi-cultural society grapples with changing values. In my lifetime (born in the late 50's) I believe we've gone from too much insensitivity to a certain degree of oversensitivity.  Finding the right balance is the job of future generations, but having some historical context (i.e., why it exists) in a discussion of Political Correctness seems to me to be only fair.

With regard to the "Owner" issue, it sounds to me more like a thought Silver is having than an actual proposed policy change.   My guess is that it won't actually get traction because it's rather silly to not be able to refer to team owners as owners.   With that said, it's also a bit short-sighted to not consider why it could be worthy of discussion.  I think MJ is currently the only African-American majority owner in a league whose players are 75% African American.  Players in the NBA are in many ways more of a commodity than in other work arenas.  They are ridiculously well-paid and inordinately showered with attention (mostly positive), so the slavery metaphor is dramatically lacking and deeply flawed.... however, players' services are essentially drafted and purchased by owners and, very much unlike any other business that I am aware of, are traded as commodities. Players play out their contracts to attain Free Agency, a form of earned occupational freedom which allows them to select their owner.  My point (likely lost in the weeds here) is that there is some metaphoric validity when it comes to "optics".  I am not suggesting that the NBA resembles slavery in any real terms, I am just saying that predominantly White Ownership utilizing predominantly Black Service in an arena where workers are drafted, purchased (contracted) and traded presents optics that can conjure the ugly metaphor.   

So let me be clear -- I am in agreement with most here that the idea of phasing out the term "owner" is an absurd idea. However, the idea that political correctness is a societal bogey monster at minimum ignores our nation's history and at worst can blind us to true examples of hatred or discrimination. Having discussions about why Silver would consider phasing out "owner" should not be a problem.  And truth be told, many on this thread dismissed it as political correctness or a joke without deeming it worthy of thought.  I side with most of you, I just think the idea is worthy of showing respect to those who might have a different viewpoint about the subject.

It's  what happens to those who are not considered PC is the problem.
Support the wrong business or wrong person who is labeled evil for not being PC or endorsing things the PC police want, then you are labeled as an "ism." People have had their lives destroyed because they didn't go along with a certain group.

I think most would agree it's a good thing to try and be respectful of your fellow man, but you should not be forced to respect.

I see the term "snowflake" try and be turned around on those who are anti sjw/pc, but it's misguided to say there's a similarity between one who demands language/actions be used a certain way and one who gets upset that he's being coerced into certain language/actions.

PC isn't coming to society by education, it's coming by force and leaving a trail of careers and lives behind it. When people see a reaction to something so little as a name change, it isn't the word that they're mourning, it's the reasoning and force used to make the change.

It's kind of funny to me in a way. We've been told to keep religion out of politics to keep certain values from being forced on the public. Seems like we've just replaced one group with another.

[fairweatherfan]

It's  what happens to those who are not considered PC is the problem.
Support the wrong business or wrong person who is labeled evil for not being PC or endorsing things the PC police want, then you are labeled as an "ism." People have had their lives destroyed because they didn't go along with a certain group.

This is pretty vague - what are some of those certain groups and what is motivating them? Surely you're not going to be PC in describing why you're against it.

[Kuberski33]

Well, you could call the majority partner a 'chairman' as they do in soccer. Wyc after all does not own 100% of the Celtics. They - and many NBA teams - probably have multiple limited partners who are also technically 'owners'.

But I do think the PC concern for the term is dumb. In addition to the physical assets and rights to market the Celtics brand, the ownership group actually owns the players contracts - which they're obligated to pay even if the player gets hurt, under performs etc.

To infer that they 'own' the players is just being hypersensitive.

[Somebody]

My thoughts are Political Correctness  is a disease.

You seem to have many like-minded friends here.  I have a different point of view and I'm not expecting anyone to agree with it, but hope that some will hear me out.

Political correctness doesn't come from nothing. It's really reflective of a natural societal "correction".  It absolutely goes too far at times and people should call it out when it does.  This thread reflects a pretty good example of correctness gone awry, but the knee-jerk hatred of political correctness is also a bit of an over-reaction in my opinion.

There was a time not that long ago when our societal norms were quite different regarding overt negative messaging about race, ethnicity, gender and homosexuality.  I remember the free and easy use of the "N" word among my parent's contemporaries as well as blatant sexism and homophobic remarks and aggression practiced with impunity in my schools, neighborhood/community, and even in religious venues.  The advent of Political Correctness hasn't fixed anything, but it is an understandable response as our free, diverse, multi-cultural society grapples with changing values. In my lifetime (born in the late 50's) I believe we've gone from too much insensitivity to a certain degree of oversensitivity.  Finding the right balance is the job of future generations, but having some historical context (i.e., why it exists) in a discussion of Political Correctness seems to me to be only fair.

With regard to the "Owner" issue, it sounds to me more like a thought Silver is having than an actual proposed policy change.   My guess is that it won't actually get traction because it's rather silly to not be able to refer to team owners as owners.   With that said, it's also a bit short-sighted to not consider why it could be worthy of discussion.  I think MJ is currently the only African-American majority owner in a league whose players are 75% African American.  Players in the NBA are in many ways more of a commodity than in other work arenas.  They are ridiculously well-paid and inordinately showered with attention (mostly positive), so the slavery metaphor is dramatically lacking and deeply flawed.... however, players' services are essentially drafted and purchased by owners and, very much unlike any other business that I am aware of, are traded as commodities. Players play out their contracts to attain Free Agency, a form of earned occupational freedom which allows them to select their owner.  My point (likely lost in the weeds here) is that there is some metaphoric validity when it comes to "optics".  I am not suggesting that the NBA resembles slavery in any real terms, I am just saying that predominantly White Ownership utilizing predominantly Black Service in an arena where workers are drafted, purchased (contracted) and traded presents optics that can conjure the ugly metaphor.   

So let me be clear -- I am in agreement with most here that the idea of phasing out the term "owner" is an absurd idea. However, the idea that political correctness is a societal bogey monster at minimum ignores our nation's history and at worst can blind us to true examples of hatred or discrimination. Having discussions about why Silver would consider phasing out "owner" should not be a problem.  And truth be told, many on this thread dismissed it as political correctness or a joke without deeming it worthy of thought.  I side with most of you, I just think the idea is worthy of showing respect to those who might have a different viewpoint about the subject.

It's  what happens to those who are not considered PC is the problem.
Support the wrong business or wrong person who is labeled evil for not being PC or endorsing things the PC police want, then you are labeled as an "ism." People have had their lives destroyed because they didn't go along with a certain group.

I think most would agree it's a good thing to try and be respectful of your fellow man, but you should not be forced to respect.

I see the term "snowflake" try and be turned around on those who are anti sjw/pc, but it's misguided to say there's a similarity between one who demands language/actions be used a certain way and one who gets upset that he's being coerced into certain language/actions.

PC isn't coming to society by education, it's coming by force and leaving a trail of careers and lives behind it. When people see a reaction to something so little as a name change, it isn't the word that they're mourning, it's the reasoning and force used to make the change.

It's kind of funny to me in a way. We've been told to keep religion out of politics to keep certain values from being forced on the public. Seems like we've just replaced one group with another.

TP.

[Erik]

This might come as a surprise to some of you who know me to be a no PC type of guy, but I think this is the right move here.

You can’t compare a sports organization with a restaurant. A restaurant owner owns the tables, the recipe, the building, the kitchen. Employees are free to quit any time and go work at Another restaurant. A sports organization’s primary assets are the players, and they’re under contract. That plus the Sterling thing, it’s a change that may seem silly, but it’s a positive move.

[Kuberski33]

This might come as a surprise to some of you who know me to be a no PC type of guy, but I think this is the right move here.

You can’t compare a sports organization with a restaurant. A restaurant owner owns the tables, the recipe, the building, the kitchen. Employees are free to quit any time and go work at Another restaurant. A sports organization’s primary assets are the players, and they’re under contract. That plus the Sterling thing, it’s a change that may seem silly, but it’s a positive move.

They don't own the players. They contract with the players - the same way you contract with a company to supply products or services. If I sign a contract to provide business services to a company, they don't own me.  We have an agreement that we're both obligated to honor under terms of the contract. When a player signs a contract, it's an agreement to supply services.

A sports organization's primary assets are the team's brand & the rights to market it - along with membership in the league.  Players come and go. They're not owned. Membership in the league and control of the brand (subject to league guidelines) are permanent - i.e. 'owned' -until sold.

[tenn_smoothie]

More evidence of our country's slide into insanity. The biggest problem isn't idiot Draymond proposing this idea, the real problem is Adam Silver taking Green seriously and not telling him to take a flying leap.

God Help Us.

[mmmmm]

So what do we call the people who own the franchise?

Hmm.... well, technically, the players are contractors.

So the teams are technically their 'clients'.

That is, of course, merely what they should be called in relation to the players.

In relation to their franchise', they are the franchise shareholders.