2025-26 Team Developments: Trades / Free Agents / News / Rumors / Ideas

i'm going with yes, lol. ballmer should put some folks here on his shelbourne plan.

isn't this actually written in part of the cba regarding these things: if the deal doesn't make sense, that's evidence. people keep pointing to him not doing anything (which is a huge issue), but it's also that he was paid way more than others who actually did things. when the league's lawyers come asking, what are aspiration's folks going to say to that? that it was a good faith effort to sway ballmer to invest more? if ballmer then invests more because of this relationship...isn't that still cap circumvention? in a reverse sort of way? if ballmer was a sensible business man (which he obviously must be), wouldn't he just refuse? if he's investing in part to ensure that an endorsement deal gets paid out to his guy, that's circumventing the cap.

maybe. though it's also clear they invested in order to get ballmer on board.

if a third party (instead of me) opens a fake hot dog stand and pays my player a bunch of money, then i float them more money than that, is this a good thing for the league/cba? instead of incentivizing owners to create companies, this could incentivize companies to create sham endorsement deals at huge value then come knocking for investments, right?

honestly, the evidence that would get me off ballmer for this is if at some point long before we ever heard of this, he told the league and other owners about the situation.

like if you're investing heavily in a company that you know has an endorsement deal with your franchise player, isn't this a point at which you take a look at that deal? and if you're totally innocent, wouldn't you just call silver and say "hey, i'm realizing that i'm into something that's pretty weird right now"?

absent him doing that, my mind isn't changed much even if the order of the investment was semi-inverted (not totally, as payments occurred after, too).

 

I think Lowe brought up a (and maybe the) critical point on one of his recent podcasts - you either intentionally circumvent the cap, or you don't. The cap circumvention rules were designed to prevent what happened with Joe Smith - where there was an explicit agreement to lower his cap number so they could make other player moves. There is no "negligence version" of cap circumvention where you say "well, Ballmer may not have told Aspiration to pay Kawhi this money, but the no-show contract is so sketchy that he should have made it his business to know everything that was going on." That is not in the CBA. Maybe it should be, but it's not right now.

No parties involved want to create a precedent that teams need to proactively police contracts between players and sponsors. The players don't want that because, in their mind, their earning potential is already limited by the CBA so why should the league/team have any say on how much I get paid in an endorsement deal. The teams (and by that I mean ownership) don't want it because it just creates more liability for them and they don't want to be put in a position where they have to tell a player that he's not actually worth what the sponsor is offering them. And I don't think the league wants it either because the NBA is star-driven and they want these sponsors in the fold and the players promoted. I think some team executives want this stuff policed more, and that's where the anonymous reactions from other teams are coming from, but I'm not sure their opinions really matter in this tbh. At the end of the day they're just team employees.

 

that clause is already in the cba, though.

employees whose performance is evaluated based on a supposition of a somewhat even playing field. that's why they're the mad. and justifiably so.

if the resolution here is a big "welp...", then a box has been opened that was not open before, imo.

 

No, I don't think it is. Aspiration could pay Kawhi $100 million to do nothing if they wanted to, for whatever reason. It only becomes impermissible under the CBA if it's part of an arrangement with the Clippers. The part about compensation from a sponsor being substantially in excess of the fair market value of the player's services that everyone quotes is from Section 13.1(b) of the CBA. 13.1(b) says that you can infer an impermissible team/sponsor relationship where the compensation from the sponsor is way above FMV and the player's contract with the team is way below his FMV. That doesn't mean that an egregious marketing contract with a sponsor is violative of the CBA. It means that it can be, in conjunction with other evidence, the basis of for an inference of impropriety. An egregious marketing contract in isolation isn't violative of anything.

So for example, LeBron did those Sprite commercials. To my knowledge, Sprite doesn't have any endorsement or other relationship with the Lakers. Sprite can pay LeBron whatever it wants to do those commercials.

 

Ballmer had access to the financials.

Ballmer was known as a hardcore strictly numbers-driven CEO at Microsoft.

Ballmer has a history of sleazy business tactics as a business leader.

If Ballmer is reporting Aspiration to the SEC, that means he did it under the behest of his legal team.

What if Ballmer only decided to take Aspiration to the SEC because that money was *intended* for Kawhi but Aspiration ran out of money and couldn't pay Kawhi?

He also invested $10 million more on March 2023.

IMO, there's an 80% chance Ballmer knew what was going on. But what we're debating at this point is whether or not it can be proven. That's the tricky part because Ballmer has a horde of lawyers who are giving him advice on how to proceed and the onus of proving something like this is unimaginably difficult. Think about it again: This would have never been figured out if Aspiration didn't go bankrupt.

Is it possible Ballmer *did* believe in Aspiration, had no issue with the money being paid to Kawhi in exchange for getting investments into Aspiration, and then his insistence that he was duped is that the company used money that was reserved for Kawhi for other purposes? Just because Ballmer believed in the company doesn't mean he didn't take advantage of that company to get Kawhi paid. There are numerous reasons why Ballmer might report Aspiration to the SEC.

The underlying topic at hand here really is: Why in the world did Aspiration pay Kawhi infinitely more money than anyone else to do nothing? How is it Kawhi was the one who was caught doing it when his party made the same demands to other teams many years ago? Why couldn't Stephen Curry or Luka be caught? Two players who certainly would deserve that type of money instead of boring Kawhi. One or two things is a coincidence. All of these circumstances aligning:

1) Aspiration had a deal with the team and a player.
2) Ballmer is known as a numbers-driven business analytic leader. In fact, he was heavily criticized for being too focused on numbers which is why they forced him to step down as CEO of Microsoft. Tough to really make the case here that he got bamboozled. Aspiration was a private company. Ballmer had access to the numbers if he was a prospective investor. Remember, Ballmer kept putting up money into Aspiration after the initial funding. So he obviously looked into what they were doing. It never came up that Aspiration was pumping tons of money into Ballmer's star player? LOL... cmon. Once Ballmer knew Leonard was endorsing Aspiration or being paid by them, he as an investor has the right to ask how much... No CEO will turn down a request from Ballmer. He can literally fund your company just for s***s and giggles.
3) Kawhi's party made similar demands to other teams....
4) Kawhi's party received those demands and MORE with the Clippers.
5) The CEO of Aspiration was warned by his high executive cabinet that the Kawhi deal was bad... yet, the CEO of Aspiration still wanted it.
6) Leonardo DiCaprio/Robert Downey Jr. (10x more famous than Kawhi), were paid significantly less than Kawhi... So Kawhi got paid infinitely more to do significantly less (or nothing at all)?

None of these make sense or add up. It smells like s***. But intent is difficult to prove when deals are structured like this so I would understand if the NBA didn't outright blame Ballmer. I would be very surprised if the Clippers don't get penalized here.

 

This is simply not true.

Any clause usually contains wording that the leading party has the ability to take action that is flexible based on the circumstances.

It isn't directly stated because you can't list every example of abuse but it reserves the right of the NBA to investigate and take other actions. If the NBA felt that there is something obviously fishy going on here and wanted to take measures to make sure it doesn't happen again even if they can't definitively prove it, they can do it. It's up to Ballmer and Kawhi at that point to contest with the NBA.

This falls under that which is why the NBA is investigating strongly via third-party to avoid conflict-of-interest. If the NBA felt there wasn't a case because the CBA doesn't cover it, they wouldn't have came out stating there was an investigation.

The CBA does not require “definitive proof” (e.g., a signed document). The Commissioner can act based on a “preponderance of evidence” or reasonable inference of intent to circumvent.

 

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you have to prove cap circumvention with a piece of paper that says we're circumventing the cap, like the Wolves did with Joe Smith. You can make an inference of cap circumvention from circumstantial evidence. What I'm telling you is that there is no concept of negligent circumvention in the CBA. You have to make the inference that this was intentional on Ballmer's part. Cap circumvention is an intent crime under the CBA.

 

And the NBA doesn't need to definitively prove it. They have the ability to take action as if it was intentional if they choose to.

"well, Ballmer may not have told Aspiration to pay Kawhi this money, but the no-show contract is so sketchy that he should have made it his business to know everything that was going on." That is not in the CBA. Maybe it should be, but it's not right now.

It is in the CBA. Just not directly stated and vague because it gives leeway for the NBA to cover these very tricky situations. You're also just using one example. It wouldn't be enough to charge them with any violation(s) if that's just one aspect. But you ignore that Kawhi was paid more... Aspiration had a contract with the Clippers as well (maybe only got it as an additional benefit of paying Kawhi?), Kawhi's uncle already demanding stuff, other teams declined, Clippers agreed and then Kawhi somehow gets paid money to do nothing? Lots for the NBA to use and decide here.

(c) Presumption of Violation. If the NBA has reasonable cause to believe that a Team or Player has engaged in conduct that violates this Article, such conduct shall be presumed to be a violation of this Agreement, subject to the Team’s or Player’s right to rebut such presumption in any proceeding conducted pursuant to this Agreement.

(d) Commissioner’s Authority. If, after an investigation, the Commissioner determines that a Team, Player, or other person has violated this Article, he may impose discipline in accordance with Section 12 below. In making such determination, the Commissioner may rely upon any relevant evidence, including but not limited to testimony, documents, or other information obtained during an investigation.

Section 2(c) establishes that if the NBA has "reasonable cause" to suspect a violation, it is presumed to have occurred unless proven otherwise.

Just to clarify, I understand your POV of the negligence. If this were just Ballmer making a bad deal and didn't know, sure. But there's so much wrong in this situation that him being wrong is just coincidentally compiled with other very wrong moves that it is difficult to ignore. When there is too much negligence involved at every level and they all align like a venn diagram, there is enough info.

Like, why did you keep putting in money to that company...? Did you not check their expenses, ask yourself why it's doing poorly, ask the other executives (who said Kawhi getting paid was bad for business) and ignored all of that to just keep putting more money?

And where did the $2 million from the other Clippers owner come from? Is this some sort of bundle package deal?

 

You are still mixing up evidentiary standards and actual elements of the crime. You have to think that Steve Ballmer intended for all this to happen. If Aspiration gave this money to Kawhi for whatever reason, and Ballmer was actually completely unaware of it, then there is no cap circumvention. Period. You cannot accidentally circumvent the cap. Whether the league is able to provide it directly or only make an inference based on circumstantial evidence, at the end of the day they have to think that Ballmer intended for it to happen. They are hiring a law firm to investigate to see if there is enough evidence to infer that Ballmer intended for this to happen.

Think of it like 1st degree murder. 1st degree murder is defined as intentional killing with malice aforethought. It's easier to have a video and a confession to prove 1st degree murder, but you don't need them. You can convict for 1st degree murder by using circumstantial evidence. But at the end of the day, intent is part of the definition of 1st degree murder. It's not 1st degree murder without it. Without specific intent it may be 2nd or 3rd degree or manslaughter, but it's not 1st degree. The thing is, the CBA doesn't really have a 2nd or 3rd degree cap circumvention. Either you intended to do it, or you didn't.

 

like in conjunction with a 50 million dollar investment in the company by the owner.

right. not only do the lakers not own or invest heavily in sprite (particularly around the time of lebron's endorsement), but i'd also bet sprite paid other people of similar stature similar money for similar services, so the contract in and of itself wouldn't be weird, either.

one is totally fine. one is completely suspicious. is this being lost or are we just playing devil's advocate? because i definitely understand that ballmer can lie and lie and lie and the ways in which people lie and get away with things.

 

You being negligent that many times is circumstantial evidence.

Otherwise the NBA would never be able to prove anything. No owner is going to be openly sending an email to someone to circumvent the cap.

The fact is, the NBA doesn't need to definitively prove it. If they have enough evidence, they can treat it as circumvention of the cap.

And quite frankly, there is enough evidence. I understand you're arguing two different things: Whether Ballmer did intend to do it versus does the NBA have enough to say he intended it even if he didn't.

I 100% believe Ballmer intended to circumvent the cap whereas you might not think so which is why you're harping on whether or not it was intended.

I refuse to believe Ballmer is that dumb. I've got a large stake in Microsoft dating back nearly two decades that were passed down to me. He's been well-known in the business space to be overly competitive and unethical business tactics.

 

Even if Sprite was a team sponsor, it wouldn't matter if the team wasn't involved in the Sprite/LeBron contract. If a Lakers team sponsor came to Jeanie today and said hey, we just signed a contract with Luka to pay him $100 million to do nothing if he doesn't want to, and Jeanie actually had absolutely no idea about it until that moment, Jeanie hasn't now circumvented the cap. Like yeah that's weird, but that's not the team's problem. It's not Jeanie's job to monitor what goes on between sponsors and players.

I make the point because (1) I'm a lawyer and like to talk about this stuff and (2) there seems to be a sentiment that this is all so fishy that something just has to happen to the Clippers. That's just not how the CBA works. It all comes down to Ballmer's intent. And there may even be enough evidence of that now! But if you actually read the CBA and how 13.1 and 13.2 define impermissible team/sponsor and team/player arrangements, I think it's far from certain that anything happens to the Clippers. And there are legitimate reasons why the CBA rules are structured they way they are.

 

Timing matters though for contextual evidence, though.

Ballmer invested in Aspiration not even a year before Kawhi re-signed. Perhaps setting up the future Kawhi payments?

The size of the company in question also matters.

Sprite doesn't *need* to do this. They pick who they want because they're a large company.

Aspiration might *have* to do this because they want Ballmer's business, name recognition, other connections (Would Aspiration have been able to secure OakTree's investment is Ballmer didn't lend credibility to the investment)?

I don't see these scenarios as equivalent.

The context here is going to matter in these discussions.

 

I come away from this whole discussion glad of 3 things.

1. I'm glad that Balmer doesn't own the Lakers! I bet he asked!!!
2. I'm glad we never signed Kawhi! And I used to love him because, for me, he was a local boy who made it big time. Unfortunately, he is a douche bag.
3. There will forever be a stench on the Clippers. It was already there, but this has solidified it.

 

The more this gets bandied about, the more it looks like a big fat, controversial, nothing burger. At least it's something to talk about, killing time before camp starts.

 

When does circumstantial go into the large chunk of information all pointing in the same direction?
I think an understated rationale for this which hasn't been talked about a lot, is that Kawhii is maybe the least marketable superstar of not just basketball but any professional team sport. He makes Tim Duncan look like Barkely in terms of personality.

The public numbers back this up his New Balance deal something like 5 million a year while Lebron and Durant have lifetime deals that start at 300 million. There is a why to the Kawhii camp really banging the drum for these unseemly deals to make his income comparable to his peers

 

Aspirstion wasn’t a publicly listed company, their financials weren’t checked or measured. They just put whatever the heck they wanted into their financials, that’s part of the premise on them defrauding investors.

So when you say Ballmer should of known, that’s the whole point of the case against the CEOs, they couldn’t have known because all the documentation provided, pointed to a company that was doing well but needed cash flow. That’s how they managed to defraud so much money from investors. Aspiration will be the fall guy here, they’ll say something along the lines of: Aspiration wanted to invest into the Clippers in a meaningful way, Ballmer reciprocated, Aspiration also endorsed Kawhi to build favour. Turns out the CEOs were conducting a huge case of fraud.