Does the Free Market Punish Racism? What We Saw at the Donald Sterling Protest


A crowd gathered outside Los Angeles' Staples Center on Tuesday night before Game Five of the Clippers-Warriors NBA playoff series to protest racist comments made by Clippers owner Donald Sterling.

Reason TV talked with protesters about the NBA banning Sterling for life, how free markets reacts to racism, and whether government policies and other forms of institutionalized racism hurt black Americans far more than anything Donald Sterling said.

For more coverage of the Donald Sterling saga, click here.

Interviews by Alexis Garcia. Shot and edited by Zach Weissmueller.

About 4 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

NEXT: 3 Policies That Are More Racist Than Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Its not a true test since today we have laws which punishes racism and which restricts people from supporting it.

    A hundred years ago with different laws, whether racist ones or ones which allow free association the results might be different.

    The funny thing about freedom, it allows people to do things even if other people don’t like it.

    1. I don’t see how any of those laws affect this situation. Sterling didn’t do anything illegal in this instance and is not being punished by the government. Nobody made the sponsors pull out, nor is it illegal for racist consumers to support him for what he said.

      1. But it will effect for example whether other business owners will support him since they will fear being investigated by the law.

        The law effectiveness is not just about actualy putting people in prison and fining them, its about getting people to obey becasue of the fear of prison and fines. Who will be the person to stand up and say they agree with Sterling when this opens them up to investigation about every financial action they have taken. Did they hire X because he was Jewish and did not hire Y because he was black? Did they rent to someone and not another, etc etc.

        1. You seriously think the government was going to investigate the Clippers’ sponsors if they didn’t pull out?

          1. I have two words for you: Barry Bonds. Though not quite the same, it just shows you how are the .gov will go to investigate just about anything.

            1. It’s not the same. DJF’s grasping at straws. And in any case, the biggest factor was the likelihood of a player boycott that would derail the NBA playoffs.

              1. While it may not have happened, we’re inching more towards that direction on a daily basis. I can’t tell you how much “there oughtta be a law” derp I saw in the days immediately after the tape was released. Plenty of L.A. residents viewed the Clippers as a “public institution” with some calling for Garcetti to “take over the team” via eminent domain or some other such misguided illogic, and run it as a business for the benefit of L.A. anti-poverty programs.

                If we don’t call out those voices for the insanity they are now, and defend the rights of the most vile (although I still find Sterling’s comment no where near as vile as they’re being painted), then those scattered voices will grow into a chorus with time.

                1. Damn, you hang out with some crazy peeps here in LA Sudden. I didn’t even see anyone on the Internet propose that.

                  1. “Sterling didn’t do anything illegal in this instance and is not being punished by the government.”

                    From the LA City Council:
                    “The resolution, presented by Councilman Bernard C. Parks, also asked The Times and other newspapers to stop running ads for Sterling’s real estate empire and “alleged civic activities.””


    2. Donald Sterling isn’t being punished by any laws. The funny thing about freedom, it forces people to accept consequences for their words and actions.

  2. The free market has done a stellar job combating racism.

    No need for laws and that pesky government.

    1. It’s about time you started looking at actual evidence instead of covering your ears and repeating ThinkProgress talking points.

    2. It’s about time you started looking at actual evidence instead of covering your ears and repeating ThinkProgress talking points.

      1. Even the squirrlez want to emphasize your point!

    3. I don’t think a typical libertarian would fit your stereotype in that they/we do not want zero government. I believe you are looking for the anarcho-capitalist boards.

  3. OT: Is the website’s format all fucked up for anyone else, or is it just me?

    1. Yes its acting up

    2. It was acting up for me earlier. Reasonable was showing some weird things and the text looked a bit different. Seems OK now.

  4. In this case yes, The NBA employs a lot of black people and from what I understand the players said they were going to walk out. You can replace an owner a lot easier than you can replace the players. So, it sucks to be Donald Sterling.

    There is a flip side of this though. If the NBA wants to set the standard that anyone who is caught saying something racist even in their private life cannot be in the league, that is their right and indeed may be a necessity given the make up of their league. What happens when some disgruntled ex girlfriend or wife of a black player or coach drops a recording of them telling her “you can leave me but I better not see you with any white men” or something equally loathsome about Jews or Gays or whoever? Are they going to ban that guy for life? If they do, they will be consistent but I doubt the people who wanted Sterling’s head over this will be very happy about it. If they don’t, they just told their white fans that “racism is really bad and will not be tolerated in the league so long as it is an old white guy who is guilty”.

    These sorts of culture war dramas never really end well for anyone.

    1. Big difference a player or coach and an owner.

      1. Yes and no. A coach makes more decisions that directly affect players than an owner. Beyond that, the principle is the same in all cases. Part of the reason the NBA felt is had to act in this case was that it didn’t want its employees embarrassing its brand. No one knows who most of the owners are. Players in contrast are the stars. A racist player, especially if he were a star, would cause the league more embarrassment than an owner.

        1. John, don’t you understand black people can’t be racist, because White Privilege? Sheesh.

        2. John, I think that progressives may be more sensitive to racism from an owner as opposed to a player because of the whole corporate entity/rich old white man vs. a vulnerable race/class thing.

  5. O/U on the total number of Sterling threads? 15?

    1. At least Lou Reed never said anything racist.

      1. If I ran a day time talk show, I would book George Zimmerman, Donald Sterling, and that Bundy guy for a panel discussion on race in America.

        1. Would that be courageous enough for a Eric Holder? Add Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Melissa Harris-Perry. Put them in a cage in the Superdome and televise it. That would be courageous.

    2. Its this spring’s Trayvon Martin; one giant click and ad revenue generator.

      1. Thank god for that…the GDP numbers were bad today!

        And as always…..NEEDZMOARCHRISTFAG!

        Hey wait……

      2. This one simple trick that will put money into your pocket.

        1. My friends mother makes $50 an hour working at home blogging about Donald Sterling.

          1. Probably true in the case of Matthew Yglesias.

            1. But he knows this one weird trick to make $$$$$ blogging, poorly!

    3. I wouldn’t mind a thread on how stupid UCLA is for during down the $3 million donation. But that’s really the only aspect of the story I care about at this point.

      1. Sterling was saying that he was gonna have a hall named after him. UCLA denied that, but if that is indeed part of the agreement, I can see giving the money back.

        1. Didn’t know about the naming part. If it’s part of the agreement, it makes sense.

          1. But apparently a homeless teen shelter and the Goodwill of Southern California are also rejecting dontations from Sterling.

            Sorry homeless teens, we cannot buy you clothing because racism.

            1. And now my outrage is back.

              1. Per TMZ: L.A. Union Rescue Mission — It’s been receiving $10K a year. They’re keeping the cash, telling TMZ, “We take money from all kinds of bad people all the time.”

                So they accept public subsidy? (I’ll not mention my view of a great many of the people they “assist”, many of whom I have a reasonable level of familiarity with. This institution is among the reasons I can’t wear flip flops in many parts of downtown for fear of stepping on a heroin needle).

                1. Wait, are we angry at the institutions that are rejecting his donations or the ones that will keep accepting them?

            2. Proves that these outfits value political correctness more than the money they keep bawling for to help the sick and unfortunate.

        2. Yeah, pretty sure having Donald Sterling Hall on campus would lose you more than $3 million in the long term. Hell, maybe by next Wednesday.

          1. Would it have a white wing and a colored wing?

            1. Colored people will be allowed, they just won’t be permitted to enter before dark. Can’t let people know that you associate with em, after all.

              1. “Of course, you’ll have the good taste not to mention that I spoke to you.”

  6. I continue to be amazed about what people care about and think is important – while a shit like Benghazi just whistles by without notice.

    1. The freaks at Fox News talk about Benghazi hourly. Go there to get your fix.

      1. and thanks for the unrelated point.

      2. Wow, a news outlet actually covering shit that’s relevant to public policy and the actions of elected officials.

        THE OUTRAEG IZ BILDING!1!!!1!!

        1. FAKE SKANDALZ!!111!!!!

  7. maybe Spike Lee can buy the team

  8. Before answering this question we should define “racism”. It’s an extremely slippery term and can be invoked by any non-paleface with a grievance, ax to grind, or shakedown scheme. So, what is it and what is it not?

    Then let’s decide whether pressure groups (given legitimacy by affirmative action laws and regulations) are a component of a free market.

    After that we can talk.

    1. That is the 800 lb gorilla none of the outrage community will touch. Just what is “racist”? We seem to have totally lost sight of the fact that there are degrees of everything. It is entirely possible that Sterling thinks black people should be treated equally in society and might in fact have really liberal views about things like affirmative action and such yet also on a personal level just not be totally comfortable with other races or in this case hold the really antiquated view that your girlfriend leaving you for a black man is especially humiliating. Real people are often complex and defy easy explanation. That certainly isn’t a good thing but it is also not the same thing as having a real benevolent hatred towards other races.

      I know from my own experience that my mother was in many ways the least racist person on earth. She took in a black friend of mine in college who came from a horrible home and let him live with us one summer. Treated him better than she treated me in some ways. I never felt uncomfortable bringing black friends home and I never once in my life saw her treat someone differently because of their race. That said, if I had ever shown up with black girlfriend she would have had a stroke. Was my mother a “racist”? In some ways sure. But the actual person she was is a bit more complex than the cartoon cutouts society is always trying to create.

      1. So much this John.

        The discussion of who’s racist and what’s racist too often ignores the vastness of complexity inherent to any human (which so ironically is the very bedrock thought that actual racism is derived from, namely attributing the traits observed in greater numbers within a population to every member of that population, i.e. failing to recognize each individual’s extraordinary and personal complexity and where it may diverge from said traits).

        1. Is Larry Johnson a racist for calling for an all black basketball league and if so will he be banned for life?

          1. Pretty sure he’s not entirely relevant in the NBA anymore anyhow.

            1. He’s an executive with the Knicks, so actually he is, sort of.

            2. He is an executive with the New York Knicks

              1. Oh, I always wondered how why the Knicks managed to suck so much. That explains it.

                1. Dolan explains it better. They’d be Long Island’s answer to the Wilpons if the Wilpons weren’t already from Long Island.

        2. Brilliant description. This applies to all characteristics of the human condition. But gosh!! what will we do with all the unneeded labels?

      2. it’s not that complicated – racist is when a white person outside of liberal orthodoxy, meaning someone in the South, a rural area elsewhere, someone perceived as having tea party leanings, says something stupid.

        It’s why Paula Deen is broadbrushed for admitting to using a word years ago in the aftermath of a bank robbery. It’s tangentially why Eich is forced out at Mozilla; never mind that most of CA’s voters agreed with him.

        Stop and frisk is NOT considered racist because that’s right-thinking NY libs trying to cut down on crime. It is never the usual suspects like Sharpton foaming about whatever.

      3. You make a good point about complexity, but Sterling is a big fat racist and not just because of the conversation that was recorded. He’s actively harmed the lives of minorities over and over.

        1. Maybe so. If that is the case, why did the NBA not doing anything before?

          And if “harming the lives of minorities” is now the standard of racism, every big city mayor in America is guilty.

          Beyond that, if Sterling did so much harm and is such a racist, why is the NAACP giving him a second life time achievement award? Either Sterling isn’t really a racist or the NAACP no longer has any credibility. Which is it?

        2. but Sterling is a big fat racist

          Who knew the NAACP could be such a bad judge of character?

        3. “…actively harmed the lives of minorities over and over?”

          So, the entire Obama administration, the entire Clinton administration, the DEA, the entire federal government, and the governors of all 56 states are all raging racists? Then I fully agree.

        4. “He’s actively harmed the lives of minorities over and over.”

          Except, of course, for the players he’s paid millions to, right Tony?

          1. I don’t know why you idiots are defending this guy.

        5. And progressives have not?

    2. Race is an artificial construct. There is no such thing. Racism, I suppose, means making decisions based on that artificial construct.

      What we have in this country that is real is subcultures build around that artficial construct. Most of what is called “racism” today is really one cultural groups dislike of another group’s cultural. It’s not actually about making racial distinctions, per se.

      1. I probably should have proofread that… LOL

      2. Then how come they can do a dna test and figure out what race you are?

        1. “Homo spaiens sapiens” or “Warty”?

          1. The “STEVE SMITH” test will cost you extra.

        2. They can’t.

          DNA tests can determine your haplotype, and taken along with a broader survey of similar tests can place you in a geographic region. It can give you a general idea of where your ancestors came from, and what most people whose ancestors also came from that area look like, but there are very few distinct genetic markers within humans. I can think of maybe three (orientation of the birth canal in women from the Andes region, ear wax among I believe Tibetans, and the ipicanthic fold found among Asians). Everything else, including traits you think of when you think of “black” people, are not only found in other races but are not exclusive to a group of black people. Even including skin color.

      3. Any scientific inquiry would confirm that there are indeed physiological and genetic differences among the races. In many cases, cultural differences among the races are outgrowths of these.

        Scholarship on the subject, to be released next week.

      4. Those are all differences between regional human populations, not “races.” You can make similar DNA distinctions between Norwegians and Slovakians, even though we call them both “white.” Obviously, African and European descendants are highly interbred in the USA, but you can also find regions in the world where the people are sort of in-between. How you define them racially depends on the parameters you use for that artificial concept.

        1. Of course population groups don’t neatly fall into black, white, asian, etc., but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t indeed genetic markers responsible for the differences in population groups. Moreover, population groups tend to be most similar to those other population groups within immediate regional proximity. That has led to the broad categorization of blacks and whites and asians as sort of catch all terms to encompass the varying populations that make up our construct of a “race”, but that construct is equally informed by the observations of the various populations that make up that larger “race”, so while “white” is indeed a construct, it is a construct intended to function as a catch-all of the prevailing genetic profile common across the populations of Europe.

          1. The thing is, the construct breaks down as populations interbreed, and yet the concept remains in use. I know I’m being a bit contrarian, but I find the the concept of “race” to be useless and counterproductive in an age when people settle all over the world and interbreed.

            There are people with lighter skin than mine when I have a suntan who self-identify as “black”–as a result, they live within a separate culture than mine, even if are they are located next door to me.

            In the end, most people prefer to associate with people who look like themselves. We are, at heart, pack animals and identify our “pack” based in large part on visual identity.

            1. Someday we will all be Heroic Mulattoes!

              Didn’t Larry Niven’s Ringworld future see almost everyone vaguely Pacific Islander and attractive? Man, I could only hope…

      5. “Race is an artificial construct. ”

        Yeah, Women’s fashion is an artificial construct, as well. But you know, it still exists.

        Race is a culture construct, based upon ethnicity. It most certainly exists.

  9. Not sure I see what the current brouhaha has to do with the free market. All I see is the press howling about it. If anyone has taken a financial hit over it, I sure haven’t heard about it. Beating your chest and bellowing loudly has nothing to do with markets.

    1. Maybe, maybe not…but it sure is fun!

    2. While the league forced Sterling’s hand on the sale with the lifetime ban, had they done nothing it would have certainly resulted in Clippers attendance taking a massive hit, players and staff leaving, and the Clippers themselves becoming a massive money suck for Sterling. Inaction on the part of the NBA may also have resulted in overall financial hit reverberating to other teams throughout the league. The NBA’s action was intended to pre-empt the market forces.

    3. It doesn’t really have a lot to do with markets except in the most generic sense: consumers and employees will be less likely to associate with businesses who’s owners do not share their values, whatever those values may be. In this day and age, the culture values non-racism. In the 20s South, the culture would have valued a racial hierarchy of sorts and, say, someone who married a black woman might be subject to similar non-governmental actions depriving him of a job.

      In my view, such actions (while not as bad as government action regarding same) are a problem precisely because they stifle any semblance of a public life in favor of enforcing the societal values held by the rest of society. One of the great achievements of industrialized free markets and rationalized production is that they insulate economic life from other aspects of life. I don’t know (or care) whether the Safeway clerk is a gay Democrat who is also a Seventh-Day Adventist, and I don’t have to in order to do business with Safeway. Safeway is OK hiring people for their competence and not their politics or culture. With the advent of the internet and different norms about privacy these gains are being reverted somewhat, and unlike Nick and co. I can’t say I’m a fan of this brave new world.

  10. Man, this web site is fucked up.

    (This is a TEST).

  11. I doubt this will change the NBA’s declining popularity.

    1. The only fouls they have called are on Sterling.

      1. I think the NBA really laid down the law because Sterling mentioned cancelling his trip to Europe on the tape.

        As we all know from watching any NBA player attempt a layup or dunk, the league fully supports traveling.

  12. At one level markets can punish or reward racism, depending on what people want. In a racist town a restaurant owner that does not allow blacks might enhance his popularity compared to one with a contrary policy. In a society that abhors racism that will hurt his business.

    But what markets do is they at the least allow someone the freedom to try something different, and it is from these niches of tolerance that greater tolerance has a chance to grow. That can not happen when governments run thing, because they work through general and coercive laws.

    1. A town that determined to exclude other races will do so regardless of laws. Even with all of our laws, there are still small towns in this country where black people would not feel very welcome and would be subject to so much scrutiny they would quickly leave town. They are small and isolated but they do exist. That is because laws can only do so much. But their existence doesn’t mean that other towns would go the same way if the laws didn’t exist. Their existence just means society is going to do what it is going to do laws be damned.

      The problem of a small minority in a truly intolerant society is a problem that Libertarians have a hard time addressing. The free market can’t solve if the minority is small enough and the majority determined enough. The free market can enforce intolerance in such cases. Imagine if instead of being run out for being a moron, Sterling were being run out because he was Jewish. What if we had a society where the vast majority of the country thought Jews had no place running a business and once it came out that Sterling was Jewish the players said they wouldn’t play and the fans in mass said they wouldn’t go to Clippers’ games? I think the market would dictate there that the NBA do exactly what they did here.

      The bottom line is, the free market only solves this if you have a large enough minority that can just exist on its own or you have a tolerant enough society that it won’t boycott in large numbers for immoral reasons.

  13. professional sports have no resemblance to the free market. They are cartels whose collective success relies on individual market success. Things like salary caps, free agency, and the like were exclusively to prevent the rich teams from simply buying up the best players. Best example of this is the NFL where Roger Goodell’s wet dream of a season would be all 32 teams with records of 8-8.

    1. Best example of this is the NFL where Roger Goodell’s wet dream of a season would be all 3231 teams with records of 8-8 and whoever Peyton Manning plays for will be 16-0 and that’s why the league never calls Offensive PI for those clearly illegal pick plays.



      Chiefs Fan

    2. professional soccer seems to be pretty free market. you aren’t rewarded for poor play like the NFL and NBA drafts.

      1. Yes. If we had popular minor leagues like the UK does in soccer, you could have a promotion system. That would be great but it will never happen. The American leagues are too tightly controlled and the owners would never want to be held accountable for putting out a shitty team.

        The other problem is that the US is such a larger and more fragmented media market than the UK. For example, London has at least three Premier League teams that I can think of (Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur) and there are probably others I can’t think of. So if one of those teams gets demoted it is no big deal. The NBA in contrast has one team in Chicago. if the Bulls ever got demoted, it would be a huge revenue loss to the league. The NBA would as a business decision ever let a team like the Bulls or the Knicks get demoted.

        1. 6: Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Fulham, Crystal Palace, and West Ham.

      2. and professional soccer has competitive imbalances in which 2-4 teams are competing for a championship and the rest are filling in scheduling dates. The American approach, ironically, is the collective route wherein the survival of the league depends on all teams being at least somewhat competitive.

        1. Americans can’t stand a loser. Hell, Americans can’t stand the lack of a winner (which is central to my thesis as to why soccer has not taken off in the U.S.).

        2. It depends on the league but that simply is not true. With 2 weeks to go in the EPL 5 teams are still competing to avoid the 3 relegation slots. Even a few weeks ago almost half the league was in danger. At the top there isn’t just a title to contend for but the 4 CL spots and 2 Europa league spots below that. Really only the teams safely in the middle of the league have nothing to play for and like I said above most of those only secured safety from the drop recently. In addition there are the national and European cups to compete for.

          My Lastros on the other hand truly area filler team with no relegation to avoid. Not that I think that relegation/promotion would work in a franchise system or that it should.

          1. Blame Branch Rickey, who came up with the idea of a farm system.

            More on topic, he also came up with the idea of integrating baseball, and signed Robinson from Montreal.

    3. And actually, free agency is the very essence of market competition (at least in labor competition). In fact, most leagues that adopted the salary cap did so several years after free agency began and they noticed certain teams were becoming overly dynastic while other teams floundered for lack of resources to pay for free agents.

      And while individual teams within a league are cartelized and function under varying rules that may include salary caps, luxury taxes, etc., it is done with the benefit of the larger product in mind (NBA basketball, NFL football, etc.) Its best to view sports leagues competing for viewership with other sports leagues. Part of the NFL’s dominance in the sport viewership market is directly related to its equalizing institutions that ensure all teams have a shot at competitiveness within the league.

      1. The basic problem in running a sports league is that media markets are not equal. Imagine if you ran a “restaurant league”. New York and LA by virtue of their realtive size and wealth are going to stomp all over smaller cities year after year. You just can’t run many Michelin Star Restaurants in Denver and Milwaukee like you can in New York and LA.

        The same is true of professional sports teams. There is no way a baseball team from Kansas City is all things being equal going to have the resources to compete against one from New York. A true free market results in the complete domination of a few large market teams. Such a league proves less attractive to fans overall than a socialized one where teams from different sized markets can compete more equally.

        The mistake a lot of Libertarians make when thinking about professional sports is they think of the franchises are real competing entities. They are not. They are divisions of the larger NFL or NBA corporation. When you think of it that way, whining about socialism in pro sports makes about as much sense as whining about socialism in the various regional divisions of Apple.

      2. ensure all teams have a shot at competitiveness within the league.

        minus the Lions

        1. Come on now, Vikings fans need some glimmer of hope at least twice a season.

    4. Not that professional sports leagues don’t have other free market problems, like government financed stadiums, but the examples you give are perfectly free market. How a private organization sets it’s rules is irrelevant to whether it is part of the free market or not.

      1. the examples I cite are designed with one thing in mind: league-wide competitive balance. The Giants, for example, are not trying to take market share from the Cowboys. The corporation of the NFL is devoted to the success of the whole; pro sports leagues are cartels in that regard.

        A free market is when rival leagues have tried to upstage those in existence. All have failed. The old AFL had the best success with its teams subsumed into the NFL. The ABA has similar success, albeit in a much smaller scale as did the old World Hockey Association.

    5. Professional sports are absolutely about the free market. But the comparators are not one team against another team, but one sports league against another team.

      Individual teams are franchises that are part of another business. They need each other to survive.

      Ford’s mission is to sell all the cars and put Toyota out of business. The NFL’s mission is to get all the viewers and put all other competing programming and entertainment products out of business. By contrast, the Lakers’ mission is to beat the Celtics on the court, not to put them out of business. Similarly, one McDonald’s franchise is not trying to put other McDonald’s franchises out of business, but to put the local Burger King franchise out of business.

      1. ^^THIS^^

        I am amazed at how many people don’t understand that.

        1. Wareagle got there before I did…

        2. I hadn’t fully grasped that before. My interest in sports is usually limited to complaining about our taxpayer funded stadii.
          I have wondered in the past about that entire draft process. Seems like an odd way to hire people and to be hired.

      2. Yes, just because other football leagues have failed to compete with the NFL doesn’t mean the NFL isn’t competing with other sports leagues or other entertainment options in general.


    6. They’re not even cartels, really. Each league is a single business that gives franchise owners a carefully measured amount of freedom to create the illusion of market competition. They’re not “competitors” in the free-market sense any more than your local McDonald’s is competitng with the McDonald’s a mile down the road.

  14. Sometimes I wonder if that dude really has a clue man.

  15. I have an idea.

    Let’s protest by not commenting on stories written about this ridiculous issue.

  16. This is the free market in action. A man says something offensive, public opinion responds by pulling sponsorships, and the profit motive removes him from position.

    1. And then the “freedom means nobody’s allowed to tell me I’m a shithead” crowd comes in.

    2. Why are only white people subject to these “rules”? Who makes these “rules” anyway?

  17. A lot of innocent people will be hurt by the backlash.

    Did the players quit on his team in protest or are they supporting his bigotry?

    1. so if you don’t quit you are supporting his racism ? thats the standard now …

    2. There were plenty of players that went to the Clippers of their own free will. Sterling’s reputation has been well known for years. Players still opted to go and take his paychecks.
      Why the “outrage” now?
      He was set up.

  18. Does the Free Market Punish Racism?

    Obviously not … Al Sharpton has a show on NBC …

  19. what if this nasty old man decides to trade everyone of his players, fire his coaches and sell off the rest of the Clippers hard assets and simply shut this franchise down in response ?

  20. What happened to Sterling has nothing to do with the free market.
    It has everything to do with someone that had an agenda. Sterling was set up. Otherwise why did no one EVER do anything about Sterling’s well known racist ideas until now? Again. Sterling was set up.

  21. Alexis Garcia: “We know he’s a racist, but …”

    STFU you pop-culture nitwit. You know noting of the sort.

    “He should be forced to sell the Clippers, but he will make some sort of a profit…”

    Oohh, well, we can’t have that, can we?! hahahahaha

  22. I can’t help but wonder how this would have played out if he’d been caught on tape talking about Asians, or Hispanics. Or if he was a black man and said this about white men. I mean, I know how it would play out in broad strokes–no one would give a fuck and his behavior would be excused as eccentricity or something–but the cynic in me is curious about the details.

    1. wwhorton, you wish might be granted. I spotted these articles on Newsbusters and the American Thinker about some recent declarations of Mississippi Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson.……..rling.html

      But knowing the mainstream media….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.