This isn't about morality, it's about business. Donald Sterling has now been deemed bad for the NBA's business. They let it slide before because it didn't hurt them financially. On the other hand, a player has to do more than get busted for drugs to be a threat to the NBA's bottom line. People can complain about moral equivalencies but it's about business and what's best for the 29 other owners. It's their Association, not ours, so it's their right to include or exclude someone based on this alone. The NBA is certainly not interested in privacy issues. The comments are now public, not private, so it's irrelevant.bradd80 said:Ah yes suddenly the NBA is so morally high and almighty yet they don't permanently ban players for doing drugs and having criminal records.
This guy shouldn't have been punished for having private racist thoughts any more than individual black players should be punished for having private racist support for black militant groups. People should be able to have whatever private thoughts they want. If he had intentionally made his feelings public, that would have been different.
Of course nobody wants to hear the NBA says it's all about money, so I agree there is hypocrisy in dressing it up otherwise, but that's life. The General Marketplace decides these things. Fifty years ago, Sterling gets a free pass for this. Today he doesn't. Like I said no one is owed shyt in this life.