Apparently, the NBA Constitution has a requirement that franchise owners conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.
The powers of the owners to terminate another the franchise of another owner are contained in Paragraph 13 of the NBA Constitution (which was adopted by the NBA owners on Oct. 26, 2005). The specific reasons for termination are for gambling and the like. There's a general termination right if an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely."
The alleged failed contractual obligation would be Sterling's failure to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.
He failed in NEITHER. And it's not possible to even obliquely make the case that he did.
NBA made this move to squelch the political fall out. Union threats etc. This is for show only. NBA has no way to enforce this, and likely doesn’t care. If Sterling decides to take it to court, the NBA has an out when they lose in court. It becomes some one else’s problem and not theirs. All depends on if Sterling decides to go along with their charade or if he tells them to take a hike. And who knows what this goof ball might do.... or what his wife might do.
The link to the Constitution and bylaws is in post #404.
Hmm. Since when did a live-in lover become part of his conduct of business? His affair with the lover wasn't part of it; so how can his being rude to her, in whatever snotty racist way he chooses, be part of it?
Yeah, I know, the commissioner can call black white and he gets away with it.