Larger point from the Sterling matter

[Fan from VT]

THere are a few things to consider here. I won't even bother trying to state all of them, but just a couple that come to mind.

1. The NBA is a monopoly that should violate several anti-trust laws. The reason it (and other sports leagues) are allowed to exist is because, legally speaking, they are equal partners with an official employee player's union. If owners tried to collude to make a league and were negotiating with players individually, I believe that would be fully illegal by anti trust laws. So the players (and their union) are not inconsequential as the OP believes; the existence of the union is actually necessary for the league to exist in the USA, and is in fact a critical partner of the league's existence. This is not some helpless victim getting bullied here.

2. Shouldn't we appreciate that a majority of employees has some ability to cast off a hateful despicable millionaire? Are we really at a point where we worship the possession of money so much that we celebrate someone like Sterling's untouchability? It's one thing to wonder about his legal rights (though of course the US constitution does not apply here, he is not facing any legal consequences; this is a business partnership, like a board of directors forcing out one member that is damaging the company), but it's another to celebrate and root for his "right" to simply use his power and money to continue making lives crappy for his employees, tenants, etc. With campaign finance laws, recent changes to legal systems, Sterling support, etc, it really seems like we are increasingly putting more and more value on being able to consolidate money in an individual's possession as a societal ideal increasingly farther and farther above public good, the moral considerations of the many, etc. Do we really want the sum total and defining ideal of America to be $$$$$$$$$$?

3. Related to the above point, it's really interesting how we really seem to be slipping more and more as a country toward complete corporation immunity and power, but then I think (and this may be a generalization), many of the people who support coporate worship are protecting Sterling. I don't think you can have it both ways. The Pro-corporate laws (ie antitrust exemptions, ability to put the bottom line before ethics, etc) really seem to be what is going to allow the NBA to evict Sterling without much legal opposition.

[D.o.s.]

Nice post.

[LooseCannon]

This is not about the tyranny of the majority, this is about what wonderful things a powerful union can do for its members.

And as we all know 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'

Your conclusion is not far from my opinion if you take time to really think about it.

If you take time to think about, you may reach the conclusion that I am telling you that you are wrong.

Giving the individual too much power to do whatever they want is one way to increase corruption.  Democracy can be a check on individual power.

[CoachBo]

Sterling agreed to this process.  His actions directly damaged the NBA brand.  There was no reason for him to expect that his actions would result in such severe consequences, but the NBA Constitution permits that.

A majority group of black players is certainly pushing the process. I don't see anything wrong with that.  NBA players are essentially partners with the owners in the NBA venture, and they should make their voices heard.

TP for a concise and accurate post that captures the simplicity of Sterling's predicament.

Really nothing complicated about this situation. Sterling violated the NBA Constitution that he has consented to operate under, which allows the league to make him disappear if two-thirds concur.

Overcoming that burden in court is going to be a severe legal challenge for him.