VIEWPOINT | BY JERRY BREWER
NBA, at intersection of societal change and a global pandemic, needs to nail its return
As annoying as NBA fiends may view it, the conflict over this restart is the healthiest discussion the league has had in quite some time. It is not boilerplate NBA drama. It is not further evidence that Kyrie Irving, co-leader of the resistance, deserves to be banished to whatever flat Earth he once imagined. It is good, honest and inclusive communication, and it should result in the negotiation of a smarter, fairer plan that makes playing basketball more digestible during this heavy time.
It’s too dramatic a response to consider the NBA in turmoil. The league and its many factions of players are in conversation. Finally. Revisiting the terms of the decision to play, amid both the novel coronavirus pandemic and international racial unrest, is necessary as the world alternates between an unprecedented pause and an unfathomable movement. Nothing is happening, and then everything is happening. The pandemic has created a social and economic stall; this battle in the fight against police brutality and systemic racism has mobilized with staggering speed.
These are strange times to live through, and in the moment, impossible times to fully grasp. It would be incongruous for the NBA to glide back into relevance. And now, with a coalition of players questioning the agreed-upon decision between union leaders and the league to resume in a Disney bubble near Orlando, it’s simply time for the NBA to talk, understand and grow in a manner consistent with the rest of America’s awakening.
Some of the messengers are polarizing, particularly Irving and Dwight Howard. But the message is worthy of deeper consideration. It is complicated and multifaceted, involving concerns about social justice, health and safety, extra protection against injury risk for upcoming free agents, the restrictions of having to live in a confined area for an extended period and the need for even more concrete plans that make clear the value of participation. But the whole conflict can be whittled down to one word: representation.
That’s pretty wild, when you think about it. In many ways, diversity is a great NBA strength. It is a predominantly African American league given significant credit — sometimes too much — for being the most progressive sports operation in the United States. Yet at the heart of this disagreement is the belief of some players that Chris Paul, the NBA Players Association president, other union leaders and some of the league’s biggest stars were too aggressive in committing to a burdensome situation without listening to more voices from the entire membership.
At the heart of this disagreement is, in essence, an issue of equality. It’s not racism, of course. But the NBA’s superstar-driven system has created a level of elitism and left a large number of players with a sense of invisibility. The superstar clique is so exclusive that Irving — a six-time All-Star and one of the union’s vice presidents — can’t get in the VIP section of the club. So there are many players who feel unheard, and they are rebelling. Their willingness to speak up just might keep the NBA from inadvertently sending the wrong message when it comes back.