O.C.D

The NBA is moving away from the term "owner"

Recommended Posts

When we think of the term "team owner," we usually think of the crooked businessmen who buy teams to enrich themselves instead of building a contender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute pandering and an insult. Owners and Silver are doing this as a knee-jerk reaction to player complaints. The NBA has serious economic issues, player agencies colluding to influence and stack teams with their players (AD and the Lakers), middling Finals viewership, and a whole host of issues they should be tackling. The fact that the term owner is being used is bottom of that list. An owner owns the teams. A player signs an agreement that legally binds him to a team. The player is not owned by the team. His rights are owned for a set period in order to maintain fairness and control inflation, but the player at no point whatsoever is "owned". Player egos have been stroked in basketball like no other sport, to the degee that every player wants special and prefencial treatment, acts like a mercenary, and undermines the authority of the team leadership. It's the same story in soccer/football, and it's slowly eating away at the core of both sports. Paul Pogba got his manager fired and replaced, and after a year of him threatening to leave and the team essentially cowering to his (and other selfish players) demands, he's trying to force a move to another club. There is no loyalty whatsoever. MLB got rid of the term "disabled list" for this season because it was "offensive", and now after decades of having that term in baseball, everybody within baseball is essentially mandated to be politically correct and use the term injured list. The NWHL is in the midst of a politically driven boycott that will kill a league that remained as the only professional league for women in hockey after the collapse of the previous league. 

Frankly, of all the issues the NBA could chosen to deal with, this is the most meaningless issue anyone could have picked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, it's not for me to tell black people what should and shouldn't offend them.  I think any reasonable person, regardless of color, would understand the meaning behind the word from a business standpoint and be able to separate it from implying that they're slaves, however, I've heard the term used in certain contexts that have made me uncomfortable, specifically a time on SportsCenter where they were talking about a player and flat out said "he's going to have to explain himself to his owner" (don't recall exact player, but it was an NFL player that did something bad.)  Obviously, they meant his "team's" owner - there was no intent to offend, but just the fact that the term could very easily come up in that context probably makes this a smart move.

 

Also - why are pro sports the only area where the term "owner" is used at all?  You don't hear about the "owner" of Staples, the "owner" of PetSmart, etc. (intentionally selected private companies.)  Is it because it's a "franchise" deal? 

 

EDIT: also, in case anyone hasn't noticed, race relations and sensitivity / consideration are at their lowest point in a looooong time, so I don't have any issue with him making this gesture, whether truly necessary or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, what would be a better term than owner?

 

President?
Chairperson?

CEO?

Governor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Billionaire Emiritus$$$$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Also - why are pro sports the only area where the term "owner" is used at all?  You don't hear about the "owner" of Staples, the "owner" of PetSmart, etc. (intentionally selected private companies.)  Is it because it's a "franchise" deal? 

It used to be a thing in wrestling. Ted Turner was the "owner" of WCW, the times he was mentioned on Nitro. I recall Vince being referred to as the "owner" of the World Wrestling Federation before they switched to Chairman, and then CEO. And Todd Gordon was always regarded as the "owner" of ECW. At least until he sold it to Paul.

 

27 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

So now, what would be a better term than owner?

 

President?
Chairperson?

CEO?

Governor?

Shareholder/Majority Shareholder. You could call the person who sits on the Board of Governors a "governor."

 

1 hour ago, Solaris said:

Absolute pandering and an insult.

Not really? Like Vet said...race relations are at an all-time low in case you haven't noticed. And like Vet said, no one will confuse the context of the term "owner." Which, by the way, is the same thing the Commissioner said.

 

“I don’t want to overreact to the term because, as I said earlier, people end up twisting themselves into knots avoiding the use of the word ‘owner,’...But we moved away from that term years ago in the league."

 

That's from the article*, which you either skimmed or didn't read. So he's not even banning the term. He's just being sensitive to the racially charged atmosphere in society right now. Which isn't a bad thing. I don't think anyone is delusional enough to believe that changing a few words will cure society of its ills, but you know what? A bit of respect for the perspectives of others- ie empathy- never hurt anyone. 

 

*It's also a huge indication that @O.C.D is misrepresenting the story. The Commissioner of the NBA isn't banning the word "owner," he's merely expressing a desire to move away from it. The title for this thread that the OP chose is pretty click-batey, and it seems to have worked judging by the "outrage" we see from some replies. Anyway I'll be changing the title to be more accurate to the situation at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going with “Governor” as far as I know.

 

I mean, idk man. Like BBTV said, I get it and as a middle class white male, I can’t tell anyone of any other race what they should and shouldn’t be offended about. But this seems like a bit much.

 

I write for some local newspapers. The person signing my check owns the business. He is the owner, it’s how it’s listed on the masthead. I write about various businesses around town. Most in charge call themselves the business owner. Occasionally, there’s a founder/co-founder, but I find that usually find that with charities or clubs or whatever.

 

They bought the team with their money. They own the team. They’re the owner. They bought and own the franchise. They employ the players. They own the organization. But if there’s enough of the league that sees it as a problem, then yeah shareholder or governor also works.

 

IDK, to me, it also feels like this isn’t something that needed to be announced in any form. They could have just done it and then only answered to it when someone noticed. Because now they're going to have to deal with plenty of the “snowflake” insult crowd. Bigger headache than it needed to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

*It's also a huge indication that @O.C.D is misrepresenting the story. The Commissioner of the NBA isn't banning the word "owner," he's merely expressing a desire to move away from it. The title for this thread that the OP chose is pretty click-batey, and it seems to have worked judging by the "outrage" we see from some replies. Anyway I'll be changing the title to be more accurate to the situation at hand.

He's disallowing the use of the term owner internally in regards to the NBA. The desire he's expressing has the full weight and power of his position and will be enforced. ESPN is already acquiescing. He's not making suggestions he's implanting new policy a.k.a the term "owner" is not allowed to be used any longer.

 

Please help me to understand how the word ban is a misrepresentation of the new initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Still MIGHTY said:

IDK, to me, it also feels like this isn’t something that needed to be announced in any form. They could have just done it and then only answered to it when someone noticed. Because now they're going to have to deal with plenty of the “snowflake” insult crowd. Bigger headache than it needed to be

 

This was my first thought. This "owner" controversy was something that I had never heard about it until I saw people being weird about the change on the internet. You could have quietly made the change and most people wouldn't have even thought twice about it if they had even noticed that it happened.

 

2 hours ago, neo_prankster said:

When we think of the term "team owner," we usually think of the crooked businessmen who buy teams to enrich themselves instead of building a contender.

 

Do we think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

He's disallowing the use of the term owner internally in regards to the NBA. The desire he's expressing has the full weight and power of his position and will be enforced. ESPN is already acquiescing. He's not making suggestions he's implanting new policy a.k.a the term "owner" is not allowed to be used any longer.

 

Please help me to understand how the word ban is a misrepresentation of the new initiative.

 

Quote

Mr. Silver acknowledges the term occasionally pops up in league memos, but he said he is “sensitive” to the issue. There is no hard rule banning the title, and many teams — including the Warriors — continue to use it.

From the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who governing-executive-partner da Chiefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Not really? Like Vet said...race relations are at an all-time low in case you haven't noticed. And like Vet said, no one will confuse the context of the term "owner." Which, by the way, is the same thing the Commissioner said.

 

“I don’t want to overreact to the term because, as I said earlier, people end up twisting themselves into knots avoiding the use of the word ‘owner,’...But we moved away from that term years ago in the league."

 

That's from the article*, which you either skimmed or didn't read. So he's not even banning the term. He's just being sensitive to the racially charged atmosphere in society right now. Which isn't a bad thing. I don't think anyone is delusional enough to believe that changing a few words will cure society of its ills, but you know what? A bit of respect for the perspectives of others- ie empathy- never hurt anyone. 

 

*It's also a huge indication that @O.C.D is misrepresenting the story. The Commissioner of the NBA isn't banning the word "owner," he's merely expressing a desire to move away from it. The title for this thread that the OP chose is pretty click-batey, and it seems to have worked judging by the "outrage" we see from some replies. Anyway I'll be changing the title to be more accurate to the situation at hand.

Race relations are not at an all-time low, just for the record. An all-time low would be for instance the 1960s when riots were commonplace and America was literally being torn apart. What you mean to say is that things have gotten worse (in your eyes) instead of better over the last few years. I can agree with that to a degree. But from most of the people I speak to, the average person doesn't care about all of this stuff, frankly. They want to see good basketball. What truly happened to evoke this change is that many of the players (along with influencial people among the ranks) decided this term was offensive. The NBA has been majority black for longer than a decade, but suddenly this became an issue this season. They have the right to have their own opinions and express this, but the league doesn't have to agree to change it. In their eyes, they wanted to change something and they did, but even if you completely remove the term, it will never disappear. [MOD EDIT] I can understand them being offended by the term, but at the same time, I think every fan would agree that this is not the conversation to be having right now. Words in themselves become offensive when someone decides they are offensive. Year from now we could see the term "national" be offensive because it seemingly "excludes" nations who don't have teams. Any word or term can become "offensive" with enough pressure. [MOD EDIT] You decide what you are offended by. There is no black or white on this issue. Everything in itself is offense and non-offensive in the same instance. It's just if people agree that it is offensive. The fans who I know do not see any issue with the "owner" term remaining. They just have an issue with Golden State constantly being in the Finals. The entire AD affair was laughable and an embarassment to the league, but instead of stepping in and working to correct this issue. The players don't seem to want collusion to be dealt with, perhaps because those with the most power in the league are the ones benefiting. I find it intresting that one of the most outspoken players on this issue (Draymond Green) is a player on a team that is often cited as an example of everything wrong with the modern NBA. Despite all of this, I would still label it pure pandering to change the name because of a select group of players and activists who voiced their opinions. There is no poll that's been taken among players or fans to decide if the term is offensive to the "majority". You're simply taking it on their word. That doesn't mean very much in the large picture. 

 

18 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Also - why are pro sports the only area where the term "owner" is used at all?  You don't hear about the "owner" of Staples, the "owner" of PetSmart, etc. (intentionally selected private companies.)  Is it because it's a "franchise" deal? 

 

This is because in both of these situations the "owners" are not individuals, they are large holding companies. There is a large difference between a huge company like the two you mentioned (who in turn is owned by a larger holding) and an owner of a professional sports team. Business structures are completely different (i.e. a sports team is nearly always privately owned by individuals, while companies are owned by a larger amount of individuals who usually don't have controlling interest) and often you do hear about the owners of companies making decisons. I'm based in the financial sector so I have different exposure and a different understanding, but there is a huge difference between companies and teams. The amount of ownership held by a majority shareholder in a sports team is usually higher than the amount of ownership in a company. Owners of sports teams are more prevelant because they are the face of their franchise. Illicth was known as not only the Tigers/Wings owner but also as the owner of Little Caesers, and he was quite prevelant in both fields. In casual chat people often say "Oh yeah, my dad owns a store down the block" or "His uncle owns a pharmacy". They're majority owned by them

 

Edited by officeglenn
Politically incendiary language + no need to bring Native American naming controversies into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to bet that what lies under the surface here is memories of the :censored: people like Donald Sterling pulled, which might also be prompting the push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always been uneasy when black players end up in situations that have them referring to "my owner." It'd be really bad if they were southerners in seersucker suits; fortunately they're mostly just old Jews with real estate and hedge funds. It happens now and then because I guess you have your coach and your GM and then up the line is the guy who owns the organization. It's a peculiarity of pro sports' outsize ownership roles and the organizational hierarchy/loyalty/etc. In no small business would you call the proprietor "my owner." He'd just be your boss.

 

But this is still some quality Neoliberal Basketball Association stuff. It's funny enough that insisting on calling the ruthless billionaire owners "Executive Managing Chairmen" or whatever doesn't materially change the reality of them owning the teams, but my favorite part is that when people pushed back, the league said "well actually we've already been doing this all along so we really never did anything wrong in the first place." Okay great! Jerry Reinsdorf still sucks no matter what you want to label him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Home, Away and Alternate, now Owner too? Three words sum up this entire decision; What’s the Point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is stupid enough to top ESPN paying $3,000,000,000/year for the TV rights after this TV contract ends (barring some FANG tech company also overpaying to an even higher degree), that would keep things going as normal however long interest can last. You could do something to increase competition in the league, like idk, a hard salary cap like the NFL/NHL has. Seems to work for them and you don't see superteams in those leagues either. But, why take on something that is going to strangle potential growth long-term when you can do something that is ultimately a voluntary PR measure?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, the admiral said:

Who governing-executive-partner da Chiefs?

OOOOWWWNNNSSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.