>>
>>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
>
>
>You know I'm a free-market advocate. Having said that, there is a context here - the team and the brand of the LA Clippers is not his property in the same way a person might own a privately owned company. Yes, owners can buy and sell, but it's still subject to the approval of the league charter.
>
>The NBA hierarchy (and it's similar for other major pro sports) is a weird symbiotic, nearly recursive relationship between the owners and the commissioner. This is part of the reason why some have argued that pro sports should be forced to pass the test of the U.S. AntiTrust laws. There's little question that the NBA is a monopoly - whether it's a coercive monopoly is a different question.
>
>I'm not saying I agree with all it - but the property ownership context is important.

Regardless of any property ownership context, a lot of people will evaluate the NBA actions in light of whether the punishment fits the crime.