NBA moved the goalpost for Sarver despite decades of repugnant behavior

More than 10 months after a bombshell report from ESPN’s Baxter Holmes, independent investigators representing the NBA published the complete findings of their investigation into Phoenix Suns majority owner Robert Sarver. To the shock of no one within the Suns or Mercury organizations, the report details abhorrent tales of rampant misogyny, racial insensitivity and sexual misconduct from the Managing Partner of Arizona’s top professional basketball clubs.

In turn, the NBA declared that Sarver will serve a yearlong suspension from all basketball activities across both leagues and pay a $10 million fine, which will be donated across organizations addressing forms of racial and gender-based discrimination. That’s a nice start, but is this enough of a punishment? If it were one or two moderate examples of misconduct, then maybe, but we’re talking about decades worth of negligence that extends far beyond a few shortsighted remarks.

Investigation shows Sarver was consistently abhorrent and inconsiderate.

The comprehensive report, which was shared publically by the league, details instances when Sarver used the N-word despite repeatedly being told that he cannot do that, threatened the roles of women based on their pregnancy, made extensive sexual remarks, bullied his employees, berated others, and even exposed his genitalia.

Yet somehow, the NBA is blindly accepting the investigation’s claim that Saver did not act this way out of “racial or gender-based animus.” Why is the league moving the goalpost for someone who is blatantly disregarding the morals traditionally upheld by its institution?

The NBA is going back on its own precedent set by the Donald Sterling ban.

This isn’t the first time the owner (now more commonly referred to as a ‘Governor’) of an NBA franchise found themselves in deep water over racial remarks. In April 2014, an audio recording surfaced of then Clippers owner Donald Sterling making racist remarks in a private phone call with his ex-wife. Once the recording was substantiated, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver imposed a lifetime ban and effectively forced Sterling to sell the Clippers.

Although it wasn’t an easy process, the league stood with its Black fans, players coaches and staff to oust someone who was in direct opposition to the ideals the NBA represents. By this same stance, shouldn’t the NBA be imposing similar sanctions against Sarver?

One might argue that the statements made by Sarver aren’t as overtly racist as those made by Sterling, but this isn’t a one-off scenario. On numerous, documented occasions, Sarver was informed that his use of the N-word was unacceptable, yet he went on to repeat it several times over. Surely, repeated acts of racial insensitivity should suffice in exemplifying his blatant disregard for racial sensitivity and resistance to growth.

Even if the NBA wanted to stretch the idea that Sarver wasn’t evidently racist, he certainly discriminated against women. There were several documented occasions in which Sarver blatantly made discriminatory comments and berated female employees. Below are examples quoted directly from the section “Treatment of Women” published by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz:

Quote from subhead “2008: Inequitable Treatment of a Pregnant Employee”

"Witnesses recalled Sarver saying, in substance, that the employee could not perform the assignment because she would be “breastfeeding” and her “baby needs their mom, not their father"

Quote from subhead “2011: Video Incident”

"In March 2011, Sarver “screamed at” a female employee to voice his displeasure about a video she had prepared for a departing team executive. One witness overheard Sarver loudly rebuking the female employee about the video. Another witness spoke to the female employee, who was in tears, shortly after Sarver reprimanded her. Approximately one week later, Sarver visited the female employee’s office to discuss the video incident. Sarver entered the employee’s office, shut the door, and said in substance, “Why can’t we get along? What’s wrong with you?” When the female employee began to cry, Sarver then said in a raised voice, “Why do all the women around here cry so much?” Several witnesses heard Sarver yell at the employee."

More complaints of discriminatory behavior toward women were brought up in the report before moving onto an entire section entitled “Sexual, Crude, and Vulgar Comments and Conduct in the Workplace.”

Robert Sarver doesn’t belong in the NBA, so why are they keeping him around?

In the United States of America, multimillionaires get away with disgusting behavior all the time. If your bank account reaches a certain number of zeroes and you’ve got friends in the right places, it doesn’t take much to get out of hot water.

However, the NBA upholds a unique power over people in this calss. Owning a team is not only lucrative, but it’s an extremely fun commodity and rare symbol of status that’s reserved for only a select few people. They could easily use their influence over such individuals to set a precedent that conduct like this won’t be tolerated. Instead, by allowing Robert Sarver to get away with this behavior, the league is setting a dangerous precedent and robbing loyal Phoenix Suns.

Long before the exploitative escapades of Robert Sarver became public knowledge, the die-hard fanbase in Arizona has called for him to be removed from his position. He’s a problematic individual whose corner-cutting costs the team. He’s the main reason why the ‘Seven Seconds or Less’ era ended so abruptly because of his resistance to paying players when the bill comes due and trading away valuable draft assets to avoid the luxury tax. His stingy approach nearly ended in disaster this summer with former No. 1 pick Deandre Ayton just barely sticking with the Suns.

Commissioner Silver and the league’s Board of Governors could’ve put their foot down in this ruling with a lifetime ban that would force the Suns out of Sarver’s grasp. It would send a clear message that it stands with those who were impacted by his regime and set forth a path that more closely aligns with the values it projects.

We’re talking about the same league that encourages its players to protest racial injustice in meaningful ways. The NBA invests its resources into low-income communities and programs that ensure basketball is accessible to people from all walks of life. It’s largely been considered the most progressive of the United States’ four major professional sports leagues for the way it amplifies the voices and issues that are most important in our society.

That’s why it’s so difficult for many to wrap their heads around this decision. Is Sarver going to keep his teams because it’s too much of a headache to force him out of the league? Does the NBA fear the ire of right-wing activists who would surely bombard the league for being ‘too woke’ in their sensibilities? Or is this simply a decision based on the financial implications of removing someone with Sarver’s net worth from a position that he’d surely fight to keep?

Maybe it’s some combination of the three, or something else entirely, but the decision to allow Sarver to waltz back into his office after a vacation and some HR meetings doesn’t align with the NBA’s last decade of decisions.