I feel if the NFL had any balls, they'd copy the NBA's example and force him to sell the team, change the name, and ban all season-ticket owners for life for financially supporting a racist name WHICH IS MATERIALLY MUCH WORSE THAN STERLING'S COMMENTS.
I agree. If Snyder wants to insult Native Americans in the privacy of his home I have no issue with that. It is the offensive name that his football team has that is an insulting to everyone. See if you can find any local tribe willing to give their name to the team for a cash payment. Change the name to that tribes name and everyone is happy.
So you support Sterling's appeal of his banishment and fine because he made his comments in a private conversation with his whore - err - I mean "friend"?
Yeah you should be able to say whatever you want in your own home.
He can say what her wants without prosecution. But he owns a franchise. And the other 29 owners have to right to protect their brand.
No they don't. Why do they care what he says at home. I am sure if you put microphones in the homes of NBA players they would say all sorts of stuff that would hurt the NBA. It is an invasion of privacy and he is allowed to have his views in private that are his own. This is a horrible path to set. He should sue them for everything they have. If he was a press conference and said things like this than it hurts the league and they can throw him out.
I think the woman that taped this and leaked it is a horrible human being. On this I'm sure we agree. I'm also sure that some of the other owners and players are horrible people who say horrible and hateful things all the time that never get heard. But the bullet has left the gun. Time and place and context do not matter a this point. And this is a franchise, other peoples financial interests are at stake and subject to VERY significant damage. I think they are within their rights to protect these interests.
Well the league may or may not be within their rights to protect these interets...Sterling may be iwthin his rights to protect his interests from significant damage.
It will come down to the courts.... there are arguments for both sides... I don't think anybody can say with any level of certitude whether this should shake out, legally speaking, one way or the other..
Taking away people's property is not a simple matter even if at first glance it looks to be so.... Mark Cuban made a comment yesterday that taken out of context, and combined with his prior history as an owner, could result in the Sterling precedent being used on him... One could argue Cuban has done more that could be construed as being against the league's interests than Sterling...
Lets also be clear... the man is 82 years old and may be losing his mind...
