binary solo said:
Ownership rights are never absolute. Govts can exercise eminent domain on your property because they want to build a road or a secret military base. You get paid market value (as determined by them) and your only recourse is to go to the courst to get a better price, but you can't stop them buying your property unless you can prove to the courts that the road, or secret military base doesn't have to go there. And you can be banned from owning animals, and any animals you own be taken away from you, if you have been shown to mis-treat them. But that's not the point here. This guy still owns the Clippers, he doesn't have to sell and the NBA can't make him sell. But if he doesn't sell it becomes a worthless entity. Even he isn't rich enough that $600 million becoming $6 million isn't going to sting. If the NBA has a charter, and that charter includes provisions for penalties for prejudicial behaviour in relation to race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc, then I suppose players coaches and other affiliated people can and would face sanctions up to and including lifetime bans. If the NBA has no such charter then one wonders what the basis for the ban of this guy is, other than we don't like what he said and we don't want to associate with him any more, and whether the NBA is on reasonable legal footing in taking the action it has. How much might money talk I wonder? If Sterling were to offer all of the players double their current salary to keep playing for him, would players decide to forget what they know? Disappointed that you used the G.F. phrase in a non-ironic way. |
The NBA charter says they can.
