Dein erstes Forum » a lawsuit could be worth billions,

Neophyte NBA commissioner, Adam Silver, speaking at the IMG World Congress of Sports (which is apparently a real thing), was asked if he envisions sponsorships appearing on player jerseys in the next five years. Without hesitation he responded, "Definitely." This, of course, is not revelatory, as there has been smoke coming from this fire pit for years. But the foregone conclusion of his answer, making a foray where none of the other major North American team sports have gone, still felt surprising. He would later add fuel to the fire stating, "Its inevitable. Its such an enormous opportunity for our sponsors to connect with us. I think the marketplace is asking for it." There is something sitting uneasily in those words. First, an admission. I get it. This is the way of the world and not just in athletics. Corporate advertisements are now an integral part of bringing sports and entertainment to the masses. Ads subsidize a ton of beloved stuff from music festivals to television series to this website. I am thankful for the ad models that bring value to the advertisers and consumers alike. Frankly, at this point if an event doesnt have corporate sponsors it feels amateur to my eye. But my beef is that the NBAs latest revenue tool doesnt arrive with even the most basic pretence of being a value add for the consumer, and at a time when the league is massively, historically profitable. It isnt even a plea from the league to fans to understand that novel revenue tools are needed to sustain stability or whatever. Its just that "the marketplace is asking for it." (Quick note before further maligning the Commish. He did admit yesterday that maybe the whole t-shirt-as-jersey experiment the NBA launched towards the end of last season isnt a lock to pan out. Phew.) The precedent of sponsored jerseys has long been established in countless sports from international soccer to Nascar. (This is apparently a Liverpool FC jersey for kids though that wouldnt have been my first guess.) Even sibling leagues, the WNBA and NBA D-League, have encouraged and profited from jersey sponsorship for several years. Um, but when Commissioner Silver says "the marketplace is asking for it" he is hedging on what the marketplace actually is. Shouldnt the marketplace consider the biggest stakeholders and contributors in the hard-earned dollars-to-NBA equation (AKA the fans)? Numerous related tweets and blogs have erupted in the past few days concerned about the same distractions 1981-me dealt with. But despite a tendency to stand in solidarity, I find myself less than concerned. My focus is not so much aimed at the inevitable uniform developments, but more on predicting the next step. Where will the advertising stop? If the NBA allows the final frontier of their reach, the players clothes, to be monetized by sponsors, how much would it diminish their capacity to limit players from earning off their own skin? Players are already more or less free to cut private sponsorship deals in practically every segment of product or service. Wouldnt the league erode their own ethical (read: judicial) high ground that might have otherwise prevented a player from tattooing an ad on their neck or sleeving their arms with monthly specials? With the next collective bargaining session set for three years from now, it is altogether possible that the questions raised by these types of sponsorships will be debated for the first time. What is without question is that how to divvy up the new-found revenue from jersey ads will loom large. I dont know a ton about the inner-workings of the mind of agents, but I suspect they dig on money and material if HBOs Entourage has taught me anything. What is to keep those agents from speculating on the next set of potential revenue tools? This new territory is, of course, a way for neophyte commissioner, Adam Silver, to make his mark on the league and, more importantly, to get in the good graces of team owners and league sponsors. I do not have a problem with these tactics as they are baked into his job description. But when the final vestiges of the basic game have to share space with sponsors who subsidize it, and in a time when the NBA is flourishing, I havent heard a word on what we fans get out of this latest version of the marketplace, other than a personal expectation that whats to come would have blown 1981-mes head straight off. Gallays Poll #4 Where should the NBA draw the line on advertisements? a) A small patch on the jersey is no big deal. But thats it.b) I dont mind if they re-name the Raptors with pretty much any corporate identity. But thats it.c) With so many inked players, I have no problem if Birdman becomes Kentucky Fried Birdman. But thats it.d) The back of the jersey is the future of innovation as Metta World Artest demonstrated. Lebron Jameson Irish Whiskey would move merchandise. Pedro Martinez Jersey .com) - Even on the day his New Hampshire football team became the nations top-ranked team two weeks ago, coach Sean McDonnell conceded something about the team they replaced at No. Brock Holt Red Sox Jersey . Meanwhile, the Jets extended their winning streak to four and remain perfect under Paul Maurice. Its the Jets second four-game winning streak of the season, the other coming in mid-November. https://www.cheapredsox.com/111z-rick-porcello-jersey-red-sox.html . Not that Durant cared. The only streak he cares about is still intact. Nathan Eovaldi Jersey . - The Mavericks built a 12-point lead with 2:50 to play, gave away all but two points of it, and still managed to hang on. Gorkys Hernandez Red Sox Jersey . PETERSBURG, Fla.It has been announced that the Los Angeles Clippers have been sold to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer for $2 billion. Don Sterling purchased the San Diego Clippers in 1981 for $12 million before moving them to Los Angeles in 1984 (without the permission of the league, by the way). The team had a number of suitors, including Oprah Winfrey, David Geffen, Larry Ellison, Magic Johnson (known to many for his show The Magic Hour), Grant Hill, Sean Combs, Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Matt Damon (but no Ben). While a deal has been announced, the sale of the team is not finalized. The key issue that will need to be addressed before the team can be sold is the likelihood of Don Sterling objecting to the sale of the team by way of a court action. Contrary to what you may have heard, the Clippers are not owned by Sterling personally. The team is actually owned by the Sterling family trust, which would include his wife Shelley. Assuming that Don Sterling has control over the trust, he would be the one with the sole authority to sign off on the sale. However, ESPNs Ramona Shelburne has reported that Don Sterling has been declared by "medical experts" as "mentally incapacitated." As a result, his wife Shelly has obtained sole power over the trust. A court, though, will generally hold a competency hearing and make that ruling. Given the speed at which this sale has been handled, it would be a surprise to learn that such a hearing was held. Rather, it seems he may have undergone a psychological assessment. As a result, should Sterling not agree to sell the team, he could turn around and sue the league. If he is indeed not mentally incapacitated, he would argue that his wife Shelley did not have the authority to unilaterally sign off on the sale of the team. Sterling could also argue proportionality: the punishment doesnt fit the crime. While his comments were disturbing, he would argue that they were made in private, illegally recorded and nothing unlawful was said. As a result, compelling the disposition of the team is too severe a penalty. As far as the NBA, it has reasonable arguments to make to strip the Sterling family trust of its ownership stake in the Clippers. Bottom line is that the NBA Constitution provides that an owner cannot do anything that "adversely" affects the league. With sponsors, players and fans all reacting negatively to Sterlings comments, the NBA is arguing that his comments adversely impacted the leagues economics and reputation. Remember the focuus is not on what Sterling said, but on the impact his comments had on the league.dddddddddddd A fine distinction but a distinction nonetheless (and one that allows me to pay my mortgage). Ive also been asked whether Sterling could argue that he shouldnt be forced to sell the team because he was mentally incapacitated at the time he made the comments. This defence was not raised in his written submissions related to his June 3 hearing where the league will look to strip him of his ownership stake. However, that does not preclude the introduction of this defence at a later date. That being said, such a defence would be difficult to make out. The NBA Constitution doesnt care if you intended to do something, but only that is was done. The NBA Constitution provides that an owner cannot do anything that will "affect" the league "adversely". The introduction of the term "affect" and the absence of language requiring intent or a certain mental state of mind make a mental incapacity defence challenging. So even if Sterling did not have the intention of making those comments on account of cognitive impairment, the leagues rules focus on the impact or result of those comments. On the other hand, if Sterling does not oppose the sale of the team, the NBA will want him to sign a release waiving all claims against the league arising from this case. Basically, the league will want his guarantee he wont sue. Since a lawsuit could be worth billions, this release is pretty important. There has been some talk that Shelley may want to stay on as a part-owner. The NBA wants the Sterling name permanently disassociated from the team so that wont fly. The league will therefore want an assurance from Shelley that she is out. The hearing to strip the Sterling family of its ownership of the team (or as the league calls it, its NBA "membership") is scheduled for Tuesday June 3. At the hearing, the league will need 22 of 29 owners to vote to remove Sterling. Assuming the league has the votes (a pretty safe assumption), Sterling would be removed as owner immediately following the vote and Commissioner Adam Silver would take over control of the team. Its that quick. In light of the potential sale of the team to Ballmer, the league is likely to postpone the June 3 hearing if it has assurances from Sterling that he will not oppose the imminent sale the team. If, however, the indication is that Sterling is prepared to fight, then expect the hearing to proceed on June 3. ' ' '