Q&A: Adam Silver

Courtesy of NBA TV

Q. Adam, on playoffs and possible changes, when you read the room with your owners, what's the feedback? What kind of split might you have when it comes to the idea of change? And then do you think this postseason coming up will have any more of a ripple effect than maybe years past in terms of which teams get in? 

SILVER:  Obviously, Sam, just to be clear we're not talking about any changes for this year. 

In terms of our owners, I haven't polled them necessarily on this issue yet.  And this process should work its way through the Competition Committee.  As you might imagine, there are certain Eastern Conference owners who like the status quo and certain Western Conference owners who are saying change is due. 

But on the other hand, I think we have a group of owners who are willing to take a long‑term view ultimately.  They understand over time that we're in a highly competitive marketplace.  That we want to put our best foot forward.  That we want the best product on the court.  That's been the way they've approached all our issues. 

So as I said, I think it's a difficult issue, because there are no perfect solutions.  And on one hand to the extent you increase the amount of travel, it goes directly against my first issue on reducing wear and tear on our players, and ensuring that on any given night our players are playing at the optimum level.
It's early days but we're going to take a very hard look at it. 

Q. Adam, as far as your scheduling concerns, what role could a concentrated preseason play in helping with that issue? And how likely will we see some changes there soon? 

SILVER:  Actually in response to Sam's question, I have talked to a lot of our basketball people about the preseason.  And my sense is, that while they still feel a training camp and a fairly long training camp is still critically important, especially because we have a lot of young players in this league and there isn't a lot of practice time once the season starts, I think they don't think the preseason games are as valuable as they once were, in terms of the conditioning of their players, in terms of getting a chance to truly observe players in game conditions. 

So I could see a scenario where while we'll continue to have a fairly lengthy preseason, we may be able to shorten it a little bit, and that will help with some of our scheduling issues, and we may be able to reduce the number of preseason games. 

Q. Commissioner, Portland has put in a bid to host the 2017 or '18 All‑Star Game. What's the likelihood that they could get one of those dates and the challenges that they may have to go through? 

SILVER:  Too early to say.  What we've talked to Portland about and other interested cities for beyond Toronto, which is next year's All‑Star Game, is one of the issues historically for communities like Portland is frankly the number of hotel rooms. As I said, we have 1,800 credentialed members of the media alone in need of hotel rooms. Then we have thousands of guests who come to town as well. 

So I would love to end up having an All‑Star Game in Portland.  It's really just a function of ensuring that we can fit in town. 

Q. Adam, one of your clear objectives during collective bargaining was to competitively rebalance the league, give everyone a well‑managed and fair chance. But if the TV money all comes in all at once in two years, you could have a situation where the Lakers would have as much as $80 million of cap room. The Knicks could have 50.  Miami, although you don't consider that a large city, but still a free agent destination, could have 60 million in cap room. Did you anticipate this potential consequence of what's otherwise a good problem to have a lot of money coming in, but to also have an undoing of the progress made on competitive balance? And what is, in your opinion, a realistic, negotiated solution to the problem? 

SILVER: Well, when you say did we anticipate it, it's what our system is.  The players receive on a sliding scale roughly‑‑ it ranges from 49 to 51 percent, as we negotiated the deal.  And because of the revenue targets we hit, the players will receive 51 percent of the new television money. 

And so, no, at the time we negotiated the deal, we weren't projecting that our television increases would be as large as they are‑‑

Q.  I'm sorry. I meant when you negotiated the television deal. 

SILVER:  No, when we negotiated the collective bargaining agreement we weren't then anticipating that this many years out that we would have this quick a jump in our television rights fees, but that's where the market has taken us.  As a result of those big increases that we know will now come in in the 2016‑'17 season, we approached the Union with a so‑called smoothing concept.  And just so it's clear, under that smoothing concept, the players would still receive 51 percent of the money that year.  But what we proposed is that we would lower the cap, artificially as the Union has characterized it to a lower level, then what would otherwise be 51 percent of the revenue.  The delta between where we lowered it and the 51 percent would be paid in a lump sum to the Union to be distributed to all the players.  And in that way‑ and this goes to the essence of your question‑ there would be a smoothing in of the increases, and you wouldn't see a one‑year spike in the salary cap.
That's something we presented to the Union.  Ultimately it's up to them to decide what is in the interest of the Players' Association.  I have a feeling there will be additional discussions.  I know they had a meeting last night and they made an announcement following their meeting.  I haven't had a chance to engage with the Union directly since they had that meeting last night.  My sense is there will be additional discussions.  But ultimately that is what our system is under the current collective bargaining agreement. 

And it's like a lot of things in business and in sports that you sort of you deal with this situation as it's presented to you.  And I don't want to act like it's a terrible problem to have, where we're thrilled that based on the interest in the NBA we're able to command these big increases in the television market.  And we will live with our deal.  It was structured in a way where 51 percent of that revenue, in essence, gets paid to our players. 

Q.  Adam, with the scheduling, the making of the schedule, is there any discussion or will there be or can there be about the calendar simply starting earlier, ending later than what you already do, or are you pretty much locked into a Halloween start and a June 20th end and that's got to be the way it is? 

SILVER: Sure, Brian. And I think that goes to the earlier question about the preseason. Training camp is critically important to our teams. Could we shorten it up a little bit if we didn't have quite the same number of preseason games, and then add those days in the regular season, so we would gain a little bit at the beginning?  And the question is towards the end of this season, can we push a little bit further in June closer to the Draft? I think there had been discussions‑‑ well, I wouldn't characterize them as discussions.  I've heard proposals about them moving The Finals past the Fourth of July. Generally the view has been ‑‑ in addition it just feels out of sync once you get into the summer ‑‑  historically those haven't been viewed as the best television nights, once you get into July, and just in terms of households watching TV. 

I will say maybe that's something we should look at, too. If we're truly going to take a fresh look at this, we have to examine what the appropriate time is to begin the season and when we should end it. 

But at least without a major overhaul in the way our season is now played, you're right, we can gain a little bit at the beginning of the season. We can gain a little bit at the end. When it comes to four games out of five nights and back‑to‑backs, literally every day matters. So that will be helpful to pick up a few more days on both sides of the schedule. 

Q.  Adam, you've come out and said that you think that the age limit should go up to 20. Michele Roberts from the Union came out pretty staunchly that she doesn't want to see that happen.  First of all, how much was it a priority to you to resolve this one way or another within the breadth of issues you have within the Union? You can't really compromise here; I guess not 19 1/2.  Where do you see this going? 

SILVER: When you say it has to be resolved, obviously it's 19 right now.  We had proposed 20 the last round of collective bargaining. And it remained at 19. I've been very clear, when you say how big a priority is it for me? I think consistent with my priority about youth basketball.   think it would be much better for the game if the minimum age were 20 instead of 19. 

Having said that, I do understand the other side of the issue. While the Union has stated its view that they want to keep it at 19, we haven't entered collective bargaining. We haven't sat across the table and discussed it with them. We haven't had an opportunity to present, in essence, our side of why we think it would be beneficial not just for the league, but for the players as well. 

So we'll see. When we get into bargaining, I'm sure we'll discuss it. 

Q. The last few years there has been a pretty significant decrease in home‑court advantage for teams. I think this year it's around 52 or 53 percent in terms of win percentage. Some of that has been attributed to the fact that there's a decrease in number of foul calls for the home team. Is that something the League has pushed for with its referees in terms of trying to eliminate home‑court advantage or how would you characterize why that is taking place? 

SILVER: Tim, I don't know the answer to that question. It's definitely not something we've pushed for. I think it's one of those things that's too early to say whether that's just a statistical blip or whether there's a trend there. That's just the nature of data. And so there's certainly no directive about home or away. It just may be that the teams as they've gotten more sophisticated in terms of analytics, they have a better understanding of defenses and offenses. There's more of a focus on every game now maybe than there was historically. 

But I don't know the answer to that. 

Read More

Q&A: Adam Silver

Courtesy of GQ

I'm not going to ask you a hundred questions about [NFL commissioner] Roger Goodell's handling of the Ray Rice scandal, because I realize you're not in a position to comment on someone else's problem. But I do want to ask you one: If placed in a position to advise Goodell, what would your advice be?

If Roger was to come to me—and he hasn't—my advice would remain confidential. And I'm not comfortable talking about what I would tell another league. We've had our share of issues, and—even before I was commissioner—I appreciated that other leagues didn't feel a need to pile on when we were having problems.

I'm certainly not pushing you to pile on. But when you see this happening to another commissioner, you must imagine yourself in that position.

That I do. I think about that all the time. But that's different than offering advice to the NFL. That's the NBA offering advice to itself. What can we learn from how this was handled? If we have a player arrested for domestic violence, how will we handle it pre-adjudication, when it's still an allegation? How do we balance the player's due process against the public clamoring for instant justice? While I don't want to offer advice to the NFL, there is a lot that can be learned here. We view ourselves as a learning organization.

Here's a simpler version of what I'm really asking: How do you approach the crisis management, when a mistake has already been made? When a problem happens and something goes wrong—how do you respond to the public relations nightmare?

Just as a general matter, we've learned that honesty, transparency, and directness with the fans and the owners is critically important. It's always important to seek advice from other people … when we were handling the situation with Donald Sterling, in those few days before we had to make our decision, I received some fantastic advice from other owners. And it wasn't a matter of what the fine should be or what the suspension should be. It was more from a process standpoint: How I should approach it, how I should view it personally. One of the benefits we have as a high-profile sports league is that virtually anyone will answer our calls. My advice is to get advice, and to get it quickly … And frankly, this is especially true with issues involving race. I bring my own perspective to those issues, but there are different perspectives: The perspective an African-American brings, or the perspective of an African-American of a specific generation, or the perspective of someone holding public office.

Does the NBA's racial inversion—the fact that the league is around 77 percent black, while American society is roughly 13 percent black—inevitably complicate every issue you face?

I don't try to put it aside. I try to deal with reality on its own terms. To act as if our league wasn't 77 percent African-American—or to ignore the predominantly white-male ownership—those variables become factors in what we do.

Give me an example of an issue that becomes more complicated because of that reality.

I'm not sure it complicates it, necessarily. Sometimes it simplifies things. In other industries, they might have to weigh these issues differently. Going back to Donald Sterling, here was a situation where nearly 80 percent of his employees were African-American. The fan base was also heavily African-American. So in that case, the racial component actually clarified my response.

But that raises a different issue: Let's assume that Donald Sterling had made the same kind of offensive comments, but not about African-Americans. What if he'd made similarly offensive comments, but not about race?

I'm not sure if it ultimately would have led to a different outcome. But here again, I'm just trying to deal with reality: Race is the third rail in this country, in my view. And while we may have ultimately done the same thing, prejudicial statements against other minority groups may not have the same media outcry, or the same reactions from sponsors, or the same reactions from fans. I'd like to think we'd protect those other groups as much as any other group. But the outcome also might have been different if you didn't have the president of the union, Chris Paul, playing for that team. Or if you didn't have someone as thoughtful as Doc Rivers as the coach. Or if you didn't have social media sharing that audio 10 million times in the first twenty-four hours. All of those things have a direct impact on the facts that are then presented to me.

What if Sterling had made those comments about Asian-Americans? Asians represent less than 1 percent of the league's players. Would that prompt you to consider the problem differently?

I think I would not be being honest if I said that if the comments had been directed toward another minority group in society, the response would have been the same. Again, it's hard to deal in those kinds of hypotheticals. But in this situation, there is no doubt that the racial composition of our league and the historical track record of the NBA were things we considered. I would like to think that if the league is tested in a similar situation—but that the target of the animus was some other ethnic group—that we would also react in the right way.

Your handling of the Sterling problem was almost universally supported. But I'm curious: How much discomfort did you have with the idea of stripping an owner of his franchise for having problematic social views? Were you worried about the precedent this decision would set?

Number one, it all happened so quickly. I heard the tape on Saturday morning, and Donald Sterling had been banned by Tuesday. And I was traveling at the time—I had a pre-planned trip to three NBA cities over that weekend. So in a way, I benefited from not having time to dwell on the greater societal implications of that decision. But thinking about it now, I am less concerned—precedentially—with the fact that an owner can be removed for his beliefs. I am more concerned with it from a privacy standpoint. I am mindful that this began as a private conversation between Mr. Sterling and a girlfriend. In some ways, this case was made easy for us, because that private conversation—completely unrelated to any acts of the NBA—was made public and widely distributed. So from the NBA's perspective, I was dealing with a public statement. But that is something I've thought about quite a bit. This did not originate as a business conversation. It was not intended for public dissemination. And in fairness to everyone in the NBA, we have to consider the appropriate lines. We're all entitled to our private thoughts, and even an occasional misstep or misstatement should not be career-ending.

Let's say the recording of Sterling and his girlfriend had been brought directly to the league office and was never disseminated to the public. The lack of attention would obviously not alter his internal belief system. How would that have impacted the response? You're essentially saying that his private statements matter more because someone else made them public.

That's a very good question. We still would have acted on it, even if it had not gone public. But it would have been a different circumstance. Again, in the case of Donald Sterling, we had the potential for immediate damage to our business. I was acting to protect the best interest of our business, in addition to doing what we believed to be right. Now, you raise a separate issue: What if there was a secret recording that only I was aware of, as we had in a situation with another team [comments made by Atlanta Hawks general manager Danny Ferry about a player, Luol Deng]—if there was an email that only a small group of people knew about? What is the response? … I think it's my job to handle the full complexity of every situation, as opposed to establishing bright lines that define how a league should respond. Every situation is going to be different. And the one thing we're all learning is that if something is supposedly private, but it has been recorded or videotaped, it's highly unlikely that it won't become public. So that's something else that must be considered. That's why leagues have commissioners' offices. I've had people tell me the league under-reacted to Danny Ferry's clearly inappropriate statement about Luol Deng. But at the same time, when I've asked them about how they felt about Paul George's clearly inappropriate tweet about domestic abuse, they say, "Well, I'm not sure if his contract should be terminated just because he put out a stupid tweet that he quickly apologized for." So I ask them, should there be a different standard for a GM who says something he immediately regrets?

You've said that nationalized gambling is now inevitable in this country, and that you have no moral problem with it, and that you want the NBA to be involved. All of that said, do certain aspects of this notion still worry you?

Absolutely. I have lots of fears, and a lot of them come from what's already happening now, which is widespread illegal sports betting on the NBA. That has existed forever, but now it's been mainstreamed. You can go to any search engine and put in "Bet NBA," and then spend your entire day looking at those sites with up-to-date point spreads and up-to-date information on who is officiating those games. If you enter your credit card, you can start making bets. Now, that might be illegal in the United States, outside of Nevada. But millions of people are doing it. So my view is that—if this is going to exist anyway—we're better off partnering in some way with the government, and the gaming companies, in order to regulate it. Both for the league and for the bettors. We need to insure that the information about injuries are properly reported and we need to make sure there is no inside betting from people who should not be allowed to make bets.

Do you have any thoughts about tweaking the game itself? Have you considered changing the dimensions of the court — perhaps slightly widening the width of the floor and the width of the foul lane? Or have those debates evaporated?

There are certain physical constraints with that, at least in the short-term, because of the construction of the arenas. But over time, those adjustments could be done. It's interesting you should ask about this, because I was just in Spain, watching the Basketball World Cup with Patrick Baumann, the head of FIBA. And we actually talked a little bit about this, as we were watching the championship game. We were looking out on the court and looking at the size and speed of the the players. I don't know if this is something that anyone in the NBA is currently pushing for, but it might be something we should continue to look at.

If you could instantly change anything about the NBA, without having to negotiate the terms or compromise your position, what change would you make?

I would have a harder salary cap. I still think it's unhealthy for the league when a team like Brooklyn goes out and pays an exorbitant luxury tax in order to give themselves a better chance to win. From a league-office standpoint, the ideal league would be for all thirty teams to compete based on the skill of their management and players, as opposed to one team paying more to get better talent. So creating a more even system would be at the top of my list. And I'll give you one more: I think it would benefit the league to raise the minimum age from 19 to 20.

Why can't you do that now? If it's possible to dictate that players can't sign until they're 19, why is making that age 20 any more complicated?

The reason we can't unilaterally do it is because it must be collectively bargained. We bargained with the union many years ago in order to move it from 18 to 19. Going to 20 was on the table during the last bargaining cycle [in 2011], but it was an issue we parked, having already lost several weeks of the season [due to the lockout], and we were anxious to get the season going. But it's something I hope to address in the near future.

What is the union's principal argument against raising the age limit? It seems like it would be good for everyone—the NBA, the college game, the physical development of the players.

Their principal argument is that it's a restriction on players. And as a philosophical argument, I totally understand that. Of course it's a restriction, in the same way a draft is a restriction. But our view is that it would make for a better league. You'd have more skilled players, more mature players. The draft would be better. It would be better for basketball in general. Strong college basketball is great for the NBA. And we know those players are eventually going to come to the NBA, whether they are 19 or 20 or 21.

Marijuana is legal in Colorado. A player from the Denver Nuggets can legally smoke weed but would be penalized by the NBA for doing so. What will you do if these drug laws continue to erode, state by state?

It doesn't force us to change our policy. Plenty of employers have rules against employees drinking, which is perfectly legal. This is a policy matter, and it's our strong preference that our players do not consume marijuana. We believe it will affect their performance on the court. That said, marijuana testing is something that's collectively bargained with the players' association, and we adjust to the times. But we're much more concerned about HGH testing and designer performance-enhancing drugs. Among our many priorities going forward, marijuana is not at the top of our list.

Read More

Atlanta Hawks going up for sale....Updated

Bruce Levenson, owner of the Atlanta Hawks, will put the franchise up for sell after the revelation of a 2012 racist email.  One such email included the following:  “white fans might be afraid of our black fans.”

Statement from Levenson:

“Over the past several years, I’ve spent a lot of time grappling with low attendance at our games and the need for the Hawks to attract more season ticket holders and corporate sponsors. Over that time, I’ve talked with team executives about the need for the Hawks to build a more diverse fan base that includes more suburban whites, and I shared my thoughts on why our efforts to bridge Atlanta’s racial sports divide seemed to be failing.

In trying to address those issues, I wrote an e-mail two years ago that was inappropriate and offensive.  I trivialized our fans by making clichéd assumptions about their interests (i.e. hip hop vs. country, white vs. black cheerleaders, etc.) and by stereotyping their perceptions of one another (i.e. that white fans might be afraid of our black fans). By focusing on race, I also sent the unintentional and hurtful message that our white fans are more valuable than our black fans.

If you’re angry about what I wrote, you should be. I’m angry at myself, too. It was inflammatory nonsense. We all may have subtle biases and preconceptions when it comes to race, but my role as a leader is to challenge them, not to validate or accommodate those who might hold them.

I have said repeatedly that the NBA should have zero tolerance for racism, and I strongly believe that to be true.  That is why I voluntarily reported my inappropriate e-mail to the NBA.

After much long and difficult contemplation, I have decided that it is in the best interests of the team, the Atlanta community, and the NBA to sell my controlling interest in the Hawks franchise.

Hawks CEO Steve Koonin will oversee all team operations and take all organizational reports as we proceed with the sale process.

I’m truly embarrassed by my words in that e-mail, and I apologize to the members of the Hawks family and all of our fans.

To the Hawks family and its fans, you have my deepest gratitude for the past ten years. Working with this team and its extraordinary executives, coaching staff, and players has been one of the highlights of my life. I am proud of our diverse, passionate, and growing legion of Hawks fans, and I will continue to join you in cheering for the best team in the NBA.”

Statement from Adam Silver:

“Following Bruce Levenson notifying the league office this July of his August 2012 email, the NBA commenced an independent investigation regarding the circumstances of Mr. Levenson’s comments.

Prior to the completion of the investigation, Mr. Levenson notified me last evening that he had decided to sell his controlling interest in the Atlanta Hawks.  As Mr. Levenson acknowledged, the views he expressed are entirely unacceptable and are in stark contrast to the core principles of the National Basketball Association.  He shared with me how truly remorseful he is for using those hurtful words and how apologetic he is to the entire NBA family – fans, players, team employees, business partners and fellow team owners – for having diverted attention away from our game.

I commend Mr. Levenson for self-reporting to the league office, for being fully cooperative with the league and its independent investigator, and for putting the best interests of the Hawks, the Atlanta community, and the NBA first.

We will be working with the Hawks ownership group on the appropriate process for the sale of the team and I have offered our full support to Hawks CEO Steve Koonin, who will now oversee all team operations.

The NBA and its teams have long had in place anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies in order to facilitate respectful and diverse workplaces.  Earlier this summer, the league re-doubled its efforts by, among other things, making it mandatory for all league and team personnel to receive annual training on these issues.”


Statement from the Hawks:

Today’s statement from Controlling Owner Bruce Levenson is extremely disappointing and the email that he sent over two years ago was alarming, offensive and most of all, completely unacceptable and does not reflect the principles and values of the Hawks organization. In partnership with the NBA, we will work to ensure that a new ownership team will be put in place that is united and committed to the Atlanta community.

Steve Koonin

CEO, Atlanta Hawks

Read More