If the judge does undo the sale, the NBA says it has a legal interest in making sure any new owner is "qualified in all respects to operate an NBA team and has the ability to provide for the long-term financial stability and efficient operation of the Sonics."
You know what promotes long-term stability? Not moving teams.
The Schultz group's requests to void the sale "are fundamentally inconsistent with the most basic rules and regulations governing the operations of the NBA and its member teams, which do not authorize or permit ownership transfers without the express approval of the NBA," the league said in its request for intervention.
It's interesting to see this. To my knowledge, the NBA has never had an antitrust exemption expressly acknowledged. Here they seem to be not only asserting such an exemption, but rubbing everyone's nose in it. But I will admit that this is where I'm wholly out of my depth. I do know that threatening a league's antitrust exemption is not good strategy for our side in general, since that would make it easier, not harder, for franchises to move.
But you know what? I'm almost past the point of caring. Sure I'd like Schultz to win, but the NBA has been damaged beyond a point of no return in my mind.
I would add that although I've been semi-bullish about Schultz's case in the past, I think it is a lot harder to get an equitable remedy like recsission once the horses have been let out of the stable, so to speak. This is looking like more and more of a long shot.