Lawyer's Perspective on the Kawhi/Clippers/Aspiration Case

[Dino-Might]

As long as Kawhi was being paid the max already by the Clippers and the extra 28 mil was just a bonus on top of that then the NBA can't do anything about it. They would need to prove that the extra 28 mil was the reason Kawhi chose the Clippers over other teams that would have been able to offer him the max as well and there is no way they can do that.

Think about what you are saying. The NBA has a max salary for a number of different reasons. Teams can't just pay players $200 million per year if they feel like - because if teams get involved in bidding wars, they will all be less profitable and may even lose money. The salary cap and max contract limits are there as a way to save owners from themselves - as a form of price control. That is in addition to any concept of fairness and a level playing field. If one team can simply pay a player $50 above the max, regardless of whether anyone else could match, why can't other teams. Quickly, the entire integrity of the salary cap structure would crumble.

This is why it is so important for the NBA to enforce the salary cap rules, not because of the consequences in any specific case, but because of it is important to maintain the integrity of the system as a whole.

There is nothing in the CBA or the Constitution that says the NBA has to consider whether the offending team gained an advantage as a result - only that they circumvented the cap rules. Now, I'm sure Silver would take that into consideration for the appropriate penalty but not to find a violation.

[jscott]

Other teams are doing this also. Probably 7-10 teams.

Source? Link?

[mtcan]

As long as Kawhi was being paid the max already by the Clippers and the extra 28 mil was just a bonus on top of that then the NBA can't do anything about it. They would need to prove that the extra 28 mil was the reason Kawhi chose the Clippers over other teams that would have been able to offer him the max as well and there is no way they can do that.

That's the point. Kawhi is NOT being paid the max...not his max at least. He took less than his max 3 times with the Clippers.

First time...he left money on the table from the Raptors who had his bird rights to go to LA.

Second time...he also signed for less than the max...hence the need to get money outside of the NBA salary cap from Aspiration.

Even with this current contract...he left money on the table to sign for 3 years 150 million. It made it such that Paul George would never get from the Clippers the amount that the Sixers ended up giving him.

And we now know why he was cool with taking less on an NBA contract...and that is because he was also getting money under the table through Aspiration.

And this arrangement clearly benefits the Clippers because it allows them to avoid the luxury tax and the aprons. If Kawhi were getting the absolute max...the Clippers would be hard capped in the aprons and the 29 other teams would get the luxury tax payments from the Clippers as a result. 29 teams are losing revenue because Kawhi isn't forcing the Clippers to give him a max NBA contract.

[flranger]

Easily, the most crazy coincidence to me is that this is Harvard vs Harvard crime:

Ballmer attended Harvard with Wong
Pablo attended Harvard

[The Servant]

Silver would have to establish that Ballmer knowingly did what he did with the intention of circumventing the salary cap. We do not know that this exists. Ballmer says he was defrauded. Aspiration was not owned by Ballmer and had many other sponsor contracts. This is not clear cut.

Even if Silver does deem an infraction, the penalty would not have significant teeth. The idea that in the last 20 years, the only NBA athlete who has received an endorsement deal and did not do anything material to help the company out was limited to Kawhi Leonard is just bonkers. The NBA will not do a review on every endorsement deal signed by every player, so they will not want to shine a light on this one.

I get that Kawhi is probably guilty, but there is little chance that the NBA will embarrass themselves by destroying a very well respected FMVP's reputation and severely handicapping a popular team with a very rich owner who is investing billions into the NBA brand, especially when you consider the amount of time that has already passed and the fact that the NBA did nothing in all these years to resolve it. This is a nothing-burger.

Oh I get as a fan wanting this to be nothing. I wanted Pants DJ and Earl K to be nothing instead there being rampant sexual harassment going on in the Mavs org. It was beyond embarrassing.

But you don't really believe there are a bunch (any?) of other players who got $50M in endorsement money for doing nothing(yes I know he didn't end up with all that in the end, but that was the agreement). Nobody could believe this. If a player got a small endorsement deal and never did anything? Sure maybe, but nothing close to this scope.

And its hilarious that just take Ballmer at his word when he says I just thought this was an amazing investment and its a pure coincidence my star player got the same amount I invested in an endorsement deal that required him to make no endorsement.

Now maybe there turns out there is an innocent explanation. But its not everyone is doing this and Ballmer is a bastion of honesty and straightforwardness lol.

Are you really thinking there are a lot of businesses that routinely spend FIFTY MILL!?!?!? ON NOOOOOTHHHHING?

WHAT?

[GoBobs]

Other teams are doing this also. Probably 7-10 teams.

Source? Link?

https://www.espn.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/11219095/dirk-nowitzki-takes-larger-pay-cut-expected-dallas-mavericks-agrees-3-year-deal-worth-25-million

https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/the-full-nowitzki/

[Patsfan1081]

Can you name another situation where the evidence was not crystal-clear and an NBA team received a crippiling penalty?

I cannot to be honest.

All owners and FO personnel have a team of legal professionals to make sure that, if they are on the fringes of the law/rules, things aren’t so crystal clear in their disfavor. If crystal clear is the burden of proof then you may as well not have rules at all.

But this thread was started by a lawyer who confirmed that the burden of proof is in balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, so is there reason to doubt the lawyer?

As a Patriot fan I’m embarrassed to admit I had a similar mindset as your’s during “inflate gate”. The other owner’s aren’t going to risk having egg on their face, especially after Ballmer/Clips had already been punished previously for a similar yet lower scale incident. The paper trail is getting bigger by the day, too many “coincidences” lining up. Zero chance there’s just a slap on the wrist, even if by some miracle Ballmer is proven to be just ignorant of the situation.

[Patsfan1081]

I already cover this provision. That provision has two conditions: 1) Kawhi's sponsorship is above FMV; AND 2) the clippers contract is below FMV. Since Kawhi got max, I don't think that provision will specifically apply in this case.

That being said, it is RIDICULOUS for clippertown to claim Kawhi's sponsorship deal is even arguably FMV.

Again, what is FMV? If Aspiration felt that it had a chance to name the Intuit Arena as the Aspiration Arena, then maybe they felt it was FMV.

Maybe Kawhi had a bunch of committments that he never fulfilled and that is why he was promised so much and why they didn't pay him fully.

The assertion that the FMVP of a Championship team had an FMV of zero is the only ridiculous thing here. Kawhi at the time was one of the most recognizable names in all of the sports world. He was always going to get paid, but in this case it was not directly by the Clippers.

Pablo and his guests go over all of his obligations /stipulations in his contract word for word. The lack of obligations, not to mention the comical nature of them, is in part a small inclination of how fake this “sponsorship” is. Probably good to know what his contract entailed and not just guess if you’re going to defend him.

[brutalitops]

Other teams are doing this also. Probably 7-10 teams.

Source? Link?

https://www.espn.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/11219095/dirk-nowitzki-takes-larger-pay-cut-expected-dallas-mavericks-agrees-3-year-deal-worth-25-million

https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/the-full-nowitzki/

I cant see anything about a player sponsorship mentioned. Did you prehaps post the wrong article?

[JonFromVA]

Silver has no choice, nor do the other owners. They have to solve this issue. If you allow the transfer of funds from owner to X to player then any cap circumvention rules and basically large parts of the CBA breakdown. The rules would be meaningless.

All any owner would need was to create a BS “plausible” rationale incase they get caught. Hell, they wouldn’t even need that since Ballmer is just saying he didn’t know. Either there are going to be cap rules or there aren’t, this is the test. Funds cannot go owner to X to player, that’s just create a cap circumvention lane that everyone will drive down.

On the other hand, the owners don't want chaos, and while the appearance of circumventing the cap is bad (for the league) - it's not necessarily nuclear option bad. Of course any exploiter with half a brain will come up with a plausible explanation, but the last thing billionaire owners want to see is one of their reputations ruined over something they didn't do.

So, IMO, this comes down to what's an acceptable smoking gun?

Can they catch Ballmer in a lie?

Can they find someone to testify Ballmer knew about Kawhi's contract when he said he had no knowledge of it?

Can they at least corroborate what the former Aspire employees are saying?

Can they find a text, email, or memo that contradicts Ballmer?

It's not unreasonable to expect the league to dig up something - if they want to - and it's there.

Yes, when it's all said and done the commissioner can always act in the best interests of the league, but he has a lot of things to weight and ultimately his job isn't to punish wrongdoing - it's to make the league stronger and wealthier.

[inonba]

Let's add more fuel to the fire. Most probably don't noticed Kawhi missing games but going into the season of 2022, Kawhi played 7/27 (26%) games up until the week of the payment. For the remainder of the season, he played 45/55 (82%) of the remaining games. Pure coincidence or does it explain the urgency of getting that payment to Kawhi?

[vxmike]

As long as Kawhi was being paid the max already by the Clippers and the extra 28 mil was just a bonus on top of that then the NBA can't do anything about it. They would need to prove that the extra 28 mil was the reason Kawhi chose the Clippers over other teams that would have been able to offer him the max as well and there is no way they can do that.

Raptors were able to offer more.

[Mavrelous]

I'm absolutely baffled Ballmer knew this transaction existed, knew it's public record now, and still went on that ESPN interview.

[GoBobs]

Source? Link?

https://www.espn.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/11219095/dirk-nowitzki-takes-larger-pay-cut-expected-dallas-mavericks-agrees-3-year-deal-worth-25-million

https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/the-full-nowitzki/

I cant see anything about a player sponsorship mentioned. Did you prehaps post the wrong article?

Dirk takes a below market deal. Cuban buys the rights to his documentry.

There was also a recent Harden deal where he opted out of a 47 mil player option to sign for 2/68 which was extremely fishy.

Jalen Brunson's dad was hired as a coach of the Knicks and now he is out here signing team friendly deals.

It is the kind of thing that is hard to catch people doing. The only reason things came to light here is the fraud that was going on at the company already.

[Kingsway_fan]

Kawhi and Balmer need to be made to pay heavily.
Loss of multiple first round picks.
Kawhi banned one year, no pay.

Balmer. 100m fine min... max, forced to sell franchise

[brutalitops]

https://www.espn.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/11219095/dirk-nowitzki-takes-larger-pay-cut-expected-dallas-mavericks-agrees-3-year-deal-worth-25-million

https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/the-full-nowitzki/

I cant see anything about a player sponsorship mentioned. Did you prehaps post the wrong article?

Dirk takes a below market deal. Cuban buys the rights to his documentry.

There was also a recent Harden deal where he opted out of a 47 mil player option to sign for 2/68 which was extremely fishy.

Jalen Brunson's dad was hired as a coach of the Knicks and now he is out here signing team friendly deals.

It is the kind of thing that is hard to catch people doing. The only reason things came to light here is the fraud that was going on at the company already.

You couldn't even dig and see Dirk has taken below max deals before the 3/25 and your

The Harden deal is fine and allows flexibility to opt out and grab a better deal if the clippers go down the sink.

Below deal markets are fine. Or some of the bet on yourself deals. But please don't link leaving some money on the table as any sort of "see every team does illegal deals".

[sashaturiaf]

Forget the lawyer speak and actual legal ramifications. NBA is a cartel that runs by its own rules and will ALWAYS do what's good for business.

This case is too public now to make go away, and Ballmer is too big to fail. To save the "integrity" of the league and the owners I mean Governors investments they're going to come down hard on a scapegoat which will probably end up being some stooge at the Clippers and Kawhi/uncle Dennis. Stooge gets fired, Clippers gets a slap on the wrist, Kawhi is handed a multi year ban and given a brinks truck to drive back to his mansion and shut up, which is what he wants anyway.

[SAKURABA216]

As long as Kawhi was being paid the max already by the Clippers and the extra 28 mil was just a bonus on top of that then the NBA can't do anything about it. They would need to prove that the extra 28 mil was the reason Kawhi chose the Clippers over other teams that would have been able to offer him the max as well and there is no way they can do that.

Think about what you are saying. The NBA has a max salary for a number of different reasons. Teams can't just pay players $200 million per year if they feel like - because if teams get involved in bidding wars, they will all be less profitable and may even lose money. The salary cap and max contract limits are there as a way to save owners from themselves - as a form of price control. That is in addition to any concept of fairness and a level playing field. If one team can simply pay a player $50 above the max, regardless of whether anyone else could match, why can't other teams. Quickly, the entire integrity of the salary cap structure would crumble.

This is why it is so important for the NBA to enforce the salary cap rules, not because of the consequences in any specific case, but because of it is important to maintain the integrity of the system as a whole.

There is nothing in the CBA or the Constitution that says the NBA has to consider whether the offending team gained an advantage as a result - only that they circumvented the cap rules. Now, I'm sure Silver would take that into consideration for the appropriate penalty but not to find a violation.

I'm referring to this specific situation. Kawhi is already getting paid the max to be the centerpiece of his own team in Los Angeles, which just built a new stadium for said team. On top of that, Kawhi made it clear that it was important for him to move back home to be in Southern California. I think it would be a lot easier to prove something like this if he wasn't earning the max because it is very difficult to calculate his exact FMV. We see it all the time that the small market team has to overpay for all-star level players and even superstars will choose to give up the last year of a max contract to go play in a bigger market. Maybe these shady endorsement deals are part of the reason why.

[tamaraw08]

I'm absolutely baffled Ballmer knew this transaction existed, knew it's public record now, and still went on that ESPN interview.

Is there actual proof of this?
Can Torre provide evidences that can directly point to Ballmer being aware of these transactions?
Can Silver simple ignore the fact that Clippers minority owner actually put 2 mil to Aspiration so that company can pay Kawhi a few days after?

[Mavrelous]

I'm absolutely baffled Ballmer knew this transaction existed, knew it's public record now, and still went on that ESPN interview.

Is there actual proof of this?
Can Torre provide evidences that can directly point to Ballmer being aware of these transactions?
Can Silver simple ignore the fact that Clippers minority owner actually put 2 mil to Aspiration so that company can pay Kawhi a few days after?

No official proof, just safe assumption...