Celtics very Realistically could have potential top pick with Clippers pick

[jaketwice]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

But... ....on the other hand, it makes me feel like Sterling thinks of his players as slaves, which brings to mind the unpleasant relationship between fans and professional athletes - which I think everyone would do well to get past. Surely, it puts the players in an awkward, and very unfair situation. Even worse: the truth is that the NBA is as pure a meritocracy as you will find. Racism should be a topic far from basketball - because the NBA asks one question, finally: can you help the team win?

I think his wife finally divorces him (after years of separation) and tries to take control of the team.

[mmmmm]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

[RyNye]

This is not accurate.

Actually, it is. Sterling broke an explicit rule laid out in the NBA bylaws, which he is contractually obligated to uphold. The scope of the commissioner's ability to investigate, arbitrate, and levy punishment are also clearly laid out in these bylaws. The punishment given to Sterling was within this scope. A judge would throw out the case as soon as he saw it. It is very cut and dry.

He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair.

"Abused his discretion"? What does that mean? Sterling admitted he made the statements and that he knew he was being recorded. There is no abuse. Whether you think it is fair is irrelevant. Hell, it doesn't even matter legally if it is objectively fair. The judgment was legally rendered within the confines of the NBA's bylaws. There is no legal recourse, unless malfeasance can be proven on the part of the NBA (as in, someone paid them off to do it, or something). This is extremely unlikely.

Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team?

California law is irrelevant. The statements were made public, and as part of the NBA's investigation STERLING ADMITTED IT WAS HIM AND THAT HE KNEW HE WAS BEING RECORDED. It doesn't matter at all how or why the recordings were leaked. This isn't a criminal case.

So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

It is a legal precedent, actually. You are not free from the consequences of your words or your actions. Employers have every right to take this kind of action, provided it is within the explicit scope of their contracts with the employees. By working for a company, you explicitly agree to follow their rules. This is extremely cut and dry, and laws of this sort are not new, they have been around for decades. Your vague hand-waivings about "gotcha" culture and unsubstantiated and irrelevant. This is NOT a criminal case, where such concerns might become relevant. Sterling and the NBA had mutually agreed upon rules and regulations. There is nothing Sterling can do about it.

If Sterling went to court, it would be thrown out almost instantly. Further, HE has no reason to go to court. Why would he? He has already admitted that it is him on the tape and that he consented to the recording, which takes away his only possible avenue of complaint against the judgment. Further, he will still make a lot of money for the sale of the Clippers. For a businessman who is notoriously unheeding of public opinion, what do you think he will do? Waste money on court fees for a case he is doomed to lose (and make no mistake, his lawyers are telling him that yesterday) or just cash out his chips, sell the team, and continue with his real estate business?

[LarBrd33]

I mean... after listening to the second recording... he basically has this mentality that he's running a charity for poor black kids... supporting them and putting food on their table by creating a league for them to play in.

http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

He clearly thinks blacks are less than whites.   

I can't imagine a scenario where he owns the team next year and the players willingly suit up for their white master.  It's not happening.   The spin is out of control at this point... they should have no trouble arguing that he's damaged the league.  He'll be forced to sell. 

Side note:  Was this even a phone conversation?  At one point in the recording, she gets him a drink.  Supposedly, if you listen to the whole hour of the conversation, it's clear that Sterling knew he was being recorded.

[jaketwice]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

[get_banners]

I think the challenge will be forcing him to sell the team. I'm not sure 2/3 of the owners will agree to that (as many of them are also pretty hateful people...easy to find out if you browse through some news stories on them) if for no other reason than the precedent it sets. Sterling will probably fight that in court. The lifetime ban is not the tricky issue...its him owning the team. Now, if there is a way to get him to sell, then yes, our pick from the Clippers next year will be in the 20s. If he fights it AND the players and Doc opt to leave AND they can find a way out of their contracts/force trades, then yeah, our pick might be awesome next year. However, the odds of all those things happening are slim to none. My guess is the Clippers situation gets resolved in the next year or so re: ownership and everyone stays because they have no other options (other than Doc, who can easily just quit) or because they think Sterling will no longer be the owner soon enough or because they don't care that the racist slumlord billionaire is making a ton of money off them and just want the symbolic win of him being banned from the NBA.

[mmmmm]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

Calm down.  "DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE" doesn't make you a racist.  It simply means you don't understand the legalities here.

The NBA is not banning Sterling and (potentially) forcing him to sell because he had a conversation (which may NOT have been over the phone and was apparently KNOWINGLY recorded so may not necessarily be considered 'private' -- though that doesn't really matter here).

They are banning Sterling for behavior detrimental to the NBA.   This is not a criminal issue but a matter of internal civil contracts to which all members of the NBA 'family' are bound.   

Sterling's behavior clearly has the potential to cause financial damage to NBA business.

If you go do something profoundly embarrassing and potentially costing your employer's business money, your contract can be terminated too.

Again, because this has nothing to do with criminal law, it doesn't matter how the information about Sterling's behavior became public.  If his rights were violated, they were violated by his "girlfriend".

The NBA is simply acting within ITs rights to protect it's business.

[Neurotic Guy]

While the likelihood of the pick becoming a lottery pick is debatable, I do not think it's debatable that the pick as a trade asset is worth somthing more today than it was a week ago.  This advantage may dissipate a week from now, but what was surely a pick in the mid-late 20's a week ago now has the potential to be a lottery (or even a high lottery) pick.   

Though the practical difference might be marginal, the pick is simply a more attractive pick with more potential 'upside' today than it was a week ago.

[nickagneta]

Its being reported that the paragraph that allows for the vote of the owners to remove an owner states the NBA must prove that Sterling's actions were a breach of a contractual obligation that caused adverse affects to the other owners or members of the NBA. Since its a vote of the members, does Silver have um-appealable right to send it to the vote without first providing proof? In that case does Silver have that right by law being the commissioner in the league?

Also, everyone does know that this is for franchise termination, not for ownership change. If in the 15 day period where this begins if Sterling does not agree to sell, the franchise will be terminated. That in itself could cost the NBA players 15 jobs, the jobs of many working for the Clippers and cause havoc for scheduling for the NBA. Going this route, if Sterling wants to fight, could get messy and should almost assuredly be a long term thing. I definitely do not see a billion dollar business being sold before next season starts. At least that's my opinion. Just about everything would have to go perfectly right for Silver and the NBA with Sterling putting up no fight whatsoever, in order for the league to have a new owner before next season.

[jaketwice]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

Calm down.  "DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE" doesn't make you a racist.  It simply means you don't understand the legalities here.

I appreciate you saying that. I know there are some young people who use this website - and I don't want to be branded as something I am not just because we are having a spirited disagreement about legal ramifications.

The NBA is not banning Sterling and (potentially) forcing him to sell because he had a conversation (which may NOT have been over the phone and was apparently KNOWINGLY recorded so may not necessarily be considered 'private' -- though that doesn't really matter here).

They are banning Sterling for behavior detrimental to the NBA.   This is not a criminal issue but a matter of internal civil contracts to which all members of the NBA 'family' are bound.   

Sterling's behavior clearly has the potential to cause financial damage to NBA business.

If you go do something profoundly embarrassing and potentially costing your employer's business money, your contract can be terminated too.

Again, because this has nothing to do with criminal law, it doesn't matter how the information about Sterling's behavior became public.  If his rights were violated, they were violated by his "girlfriend".

The NBA is simply acting within ITs rights to protect it's business.

You may be right. What I reject is the "he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment," statement. While there are powerful arguments in favor of punishing him, those arguments are not unassailable.

Sterling is a SHAREHOLDER, not an employee. He is the owner of the Clippers. You cannot take away my stock in General Electric because I make some comments the general public finds despicable. Do you think a condominium housing association should be allowed to take title to the condominium of  an 81 year old grandmother because the post-man overheard her call him a racist name?

Don't forget: Sterling did not make these conversations public himself. He did not hold a press conference. The truth is, many men would lose their jobs if their employers knew of their furtive late-night internet proclivities. ...but that would not be justice. Is there a substantive difference between being a secret racist, and not being a racist? The punishment seems just in the court of public opinion - but Sterling was expressing a private opinion.

What does this punishment say about our society? Should we always be on our guard with our loved ones - even our most intimate loved ones? Would you want every single thing you say to your girlfriend potentially subject to public digestion?

In some ways, Sterling's crime was trust...

...again - I am not saying I disagree with the punishment. But it is not "all but impossible" that a Judge would look at the punishment and find it abusive. That is a possibility.

[jambr380]

Its being reported that the paragraph that allows for the vote of the owners to remove an owner states the NBA must prove that Sterling's actions were a breach of a contractual obligation that caused adverse affects to the other owners or members of the NBA. Since its a vote of the members, does Silver have um-appealable right to send it to the vote without first providing proof? In that case does Silver have that right by law being the commissioner in the league?

Also, everyone does know that this is for franchise termination, not for ownership change. If in the 15 day period where this begins if Sterling does not agree to sell, the franchise will be terminated. That in itself could cost the NBA players 15 jobs, the jobs of many working for the Clippers and cause havoc for scheduling for the NBA. Going this route, if Sterling wants to fight, could get messy and should almost assuredly be a long term thing. I definitely do not see a billion dollar business being sold before next season starts. At least that's my opinion. Just about everything would have to go perfectly right for Silver and the NBA with Sterling putting up no fight whatsoever, in order for the league to have a new owner before next season.

Thank you, Nick - tp. If everything you said above is true, it really gives all involved a lot to think about. Can you imagine the franchise being terminated? That would be so much worse than anything that Sterling has said or can say.

[saltlover]

Regarding the recording...

If Sterling was wronged by the recording being released, he can go after TMZ, Deadspin, Stiviano, and anyone else involved for damages.  Those damages start at $2.5 million (his fine today) and could be much greater.  But that is a separate issue from the NBA.

[Kane3387]

Its being reported that the paragraph that allows for the vote of the owners to remove an owner states the NBA must prove that Sterling's actions were a breach of a contractual obligation that caused adverse affects to the other owners or members of the NBA. Since its a vote of the members, does Silver have um-appealable right to send it to the vote without first providing proof? In that case does Silver have that right by law being the commissioner in the league?

Also, everyone does know that this is for franchise termination, not for ownership change. If in the 15 day period where this begins if Sterling does not agree to sell, the franchise will be terminated. That in itself could cost the NBA players 15 jobs, the jobs of many working for the Clippers and cause havoc for scheduling for the NBA. Going this route, if Sterling wants to fight, could get messy and should almost assuredly be a long term thing. I definitely do not see a billion dollar business being sold before next season starts. At least that's my opinion. Just about everything would have to go perfectly right for Silver and the NBA with Sterling putting up no fight whatsoever, in order for the league to have a new owner before next season.

Thank you, Nick - tp. If everything you said above is true, it really gives all involved a lot to think about. Can you imagine the franchise being terminated? That would be so much worse than anything that Sterling has said or can say.

Sterling seems like a pretty evil guy. Wouldn't surprise me if he tries to make all this as bad as it can possibly get.

[DarkAzcura]

I mean... after listening to the second recording... he basically has this mentality that he's running a charity for poor black kids... supporting them and putting food on their table by creating a league for them to play in.

http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

He clearly thinks blacks are less than whites.   

I can't imagine a scenario where he owns the team next year and the players willingly suit up for their white master.  It's not happening.   The spin is out of control at this point... they should have no trouble arguing that he's damaged the league.  He'll be forced to sell. 

Side note:  Was this even a phone conversation?  At one point in the recording, she gets him a drink.  Supposedly, if you listen to the whole hour of the conversation, it's clear that Sterling knew he was being recorded.

What about the leak where he didn't want to pay Redick his contract because he felt it was too much for a white player? The guy just seems straight up ignorant. I'm not even sure he thinks one race is better than the other anymore after reading that about Redick.

[danglertx]

Its being reported that the paragraph that allows for the vote of the owners to remove an owner states the NBA must prove that Sterling's actions were a breach of a contractual obligation that caused adverse affects to the other owners or members of the NBA. Since its a vote of the members, does Silver have um-appealable right to send it to the vote without first providing proof? In that case does Silver have that right by law being the commissioner in the league?

Also, everyone does know that this is for franchise termination, not for ownership change. If in the 15 day period where this begins if Sterling does not agree to sell, the franchise will be terminated. That in itself could cost the NBA players 15 jobs, the jobs of many working for the Clippers and cause havoc for scheduling for the NBA. Going this route, if Sterling wants to fight, could get messy and should almost assuredly be a long term thing. I definitely do not see a billion dollar business being sold before next season starts. At least that's my opinion. Just about everything would have to go perfectly right for Silver and the NBA with Sterling putting up no fight whatsoever, in order for the league to have a new owner before next season.

Nice to see someone with the same take on it as I have.

Unless Sterling is just tired of the NBA and is OK selling it, I see no way this doesn't end up in court.  Yes arbitration clauses are not usually tampered with by Judges, but the first fight would be over whether or not the arbitration clause is even appropriate. 

Even if this case goes to an arbitrator, it is complicated and will be much like a trial that Sterling will draw out as long as possible.  Look how long ARod held off his hearing.  Then there is no guarantee an arbitrator will side with the NBA, see Ryan Braun for idiotic arbitrator decisions.

Then Sterling would have a pretty good case.  Look at all of the players who have espoused anti gay sentiments.  One even made a rap album that was homophobic  and misogynistic.  None of them were banned for life. 

The NBA would also have to prove losses.  Losses to the Clippers wouldn't do, it would have to be NBA losses.  It can't be "good will" losses, it would have to be monetary.  Not as easy to prove as you'd think.

No way I see this ending cleanly or quickly.