Will Donald Sterling Spark a Movement?

Social injustice has an amazing capacity to persist until, under the right conditions, a spark ignites the movement that brings a long overdue change. But change is hard, and a great many sparks can burn to no avail.  As of this writing, Donald Sterling is a spark that has not yet ignited a movement.

Within the next week, we should know if his flaming bigotry will catalyze another step toward race equality in professional sports, or if it will burn brightly in the national media for a short period and be snuffed out without leaving a mark.

Sterling, (a.k.a "the worst owner of a professional American sports franchise"), spouted a tirade of racially charged comments in a recent recorded conversation, and those comments were leaked to the press yesterday.  In the ensuing 24 hours, athletes, race-relations experts, and Heads of State have all weighed in to voice their distaste for Sterling and to share opinions about how the world should react.

A lot of commentary has focused on how the current players on Sterling's team, most of whom are African-American, should respond as they make their way through the play-off series at hand.  Many other comments have focused on how the fans, who contribute to Sterling's riches when they attend Clippers games, should respond. I don't think either of these groups are broad enough to affect any real change.

The financial structure of the NBA ensures that Sterling will profit as long as the league profits.  Whether or not the Clippers players perform well (or at all) is practically immaterial to Sterling's financial results.  After all, he bought the franchise for about $15 million and it's now estimated to be worth anywhere from $600 million to $1.2 billion.  One should note, the team has stunk ever since he bought it, but financially it's a gold mine.  Even if fans boycotted the Staple Center where the Clippers play, Sterling would enjoy his share of league-wide gate and sponsorship revenues.  

It's not up to the Clippers players or the Clippers fans to affect change here.  It's up to the players on all other 30 NBA teams to unite and deliver a message to all their fans.  And it's up to those fans who fill the seats in all 30 arenas, and who drive the TV ratings (and advertising revenue), to withhold economic support of the league. It's also up to the corporate sponsors of all 30 teams to deliver an economic message (some are already stepping back).

If league revenues can be constrained by fan reaction, then the other 29 owners will interpret and enforce the NBA by-laws in a manner that removes Sterling from his current ownership position.  The law can't do it; he doesn't appear to have broken any laws.  The NBA Commissioner can't do it, he merely takes orders from the owners.  But the other owners could do it, and probably will, if motivated financially.

Will they or won't they? That depends on how the fans react, which may be greatly influenced by a well-crafted and uniformly delivered message from the players.  

Maybe Sterling will be just another innocuous spark in the long history of racial inequity in America.  But I'll be watching to see if this isn't the start of another change for the better. 

Obama: Imaginary Reader?

I love the State of the Union Address. I love the "pre-game" speculation about what the message will be, I love the actual performance, and I love the ridiculously partisan breakdown by each side when it is over. For me, it is a viewing event on par with the Super Bowl.

I have long suspected, but never actually confirmed, that the President is one of the imaginary readers who comments anonymously here at WWDS. Last night, I think we saw some evidence that he was either channeling Auggie or had read Auggie's recent post "Supreme Fallacy". If you missed it, here is his comment about the recent Supreme Court decision to reverse contribution limits from special interest groups:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

The full text of his address is widely available online. Even a casual perusal combined with a little creative insight indicates that he also believes pinatas are dangerous, steroids don't really help hitters, and modern pirates are sissies.

Sports Society

I am no fan of unnecessary formality but I tend to notice when reasonable boundaries are thoughtlessly breached. As was the case earlier today.

On my morning commute, I tuned into the sports news and learned that the Los Angeles Lakers visited the White House on a road trip to the east coast. The sportscast played a couple of snippets from interviews with the players and one of the comments really struck me.

In an interview taped prior to the team's visit to the White House, one of the players was asked what he was most looking forward to. He responded that among the many exciting opportunities in the nation's capital, he was "most looking forward to meeting Barrack".

I realize that we idolize athletes in our society and allow them to break the rules so consistently, and from such a young age, that many of them grow up and remain completely unaware of the notion that rules really exist. But have they really internalized a level of self-importance that places them on a first name basis with the President?

I don't think their coach would refer to the President on a first name basis, nor do I think the team owner would do so. I acknowledge that there is no harm in this and that obsequious formality should be avoided when possible. I was just taken aback that an athlete, when interviewed by the media, would presume such equality with what is perhaps our most respected office.