> It's interesting that the US Government can't prosecute or fine Sterling for his opinions and speech, but the NBA can. He must have signed some waiver when he bought the team. Sports team owners tend to have large egos and strong opinions, it's interesting they would do something like that.
>
>Back in 2005, the NBA League Office and the Board of Governors (basically the owners) agreed to some rule changes with respect to ownership.
>
>The NBA commissioner has the ability to indefinitely suspend if they deem there is conduct extremely harmful. In the past I've felt the league office sometimes when overboard. In this case, I agree with the league office. It wasn't just one or two racial comments (though that would be unacceptable) - it was a series of statements that were so ugly and so indefensible that the league felt it tarnished their brand if they allowed Sterling to continue.
>
>I can't comprehend why Sterling had the views he did. Nine times out of ten I might make a distinction between what someone says in private and what they say in public - but in this case the stuff was so vile that there was no way the league could allow him to represent the team and league brand in any kind of setting.

No doubt Silver and the NBA made the decision based on what they think is best for the league. I haven't looked at the ownership rules but they wouldn't have made the decision unless (they thought) it was legal to do so.

Still, there are troubling aspects: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/04/donald_sterling_ban_he_should_sell_the_clippers_but_the_nba_shouldn_t_force.html