Announcers and analysts have been fired before for making disparaging remarks (see Jimmy the Greek). If Barkley were to say something deemed as over the top and something they can't defend, then he'll be fired for it by TNT. Decorum.
Barkley is funny. Sometimes you can get away with saying things that might seem offensive to some if everybody laughs. Sterling is not funny. If you listen to his "apology" its obvious that he is suffering from dementia and has very little touch with reality
You neither pray nor expect me not to retort. "Franchise " has little to do with this unless their is a clause in the contract that says the NBA can force you to sell your business if they disagree with your private free speech. They can kick him out of the NBA, ban him from games, and call him names. But forcing a private owner to sell a business seems a bit much.
The NBA, MLB, NFL are not the same franchises as McDonalds. They are more like cartels with limited anti trust exemption (or in the case of MLB almost total). The private ownership is limited by the league rules. For example a franchise owner can not sell a team to whoever he wishes but prospective buyers must be approved by the league. Ask Mark Cuban he made higher offers for the Rangers and Cubs but MLB would not allow them to be sold to him. They share revenue and much more that wouldn't be tolerated in general business. They can force owners out as MLB did to McCort and the NBA did to Shinn (yes I know Shinn went bankrupt but the MBA forced him as they would not allow him to sell it without approval). It could have been messy and spent years in court and I would say that had Sterling felt he had a chance in court he would have fought this but he caved. His reputation as one who relished court fights is well established. The ownership of a major sports franchise is nothing like owning McDonalds or Papa Johns but is a privileged and limited circle where the rules are different. Like any power it is one the leagues limit use of as much as possible but they will use it when the league's well being is threatened as the NBA's was by Sterling's actions. Whether you think it right or wrong is one thing but to debate their ability and power to force the sale is another.
I haven't read the bylaws and agreements that NBA owners sign but a couple of points of contention are: 1. Sterling bought the Clippers in 1981. It was a much less politically correct world in 1981 than it is now and I would think that the agreement Sterling signed at the time didn't contain some of the clauses that it does now. Nobody could have anticipated social media and its effect to immediately disseminate every random utterance and the public'r reaction to it. I guess the old adage "What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas no longer applys to anything. Did Sterling agree in 1981 to be bound by any possible amendments to the agreement he signed? 2. Sterling's estranged wife is half owner of the team. She is still legally married to him and wouldn't she have some rights in the case. If there were no forced sale and Donald Sterling decided to sell the team and Shelly was against it and wanted to keep her half what would happen? I don't know anything about California community property law but she has to have some kind of legal rights.
It would be better if there were a member of the bar comment on the details but as I have heard and read in various news stories the answers to your questions are: 1) As with any consortium or cartel changes in the rules of are made by a vote of some majority or super majority and if you want to be part of the group you sign on to them or sue. As far as has been noted he signed on to all changes. 2) Apparently the team is owned as some sort of holding company that Shelly and Sterling own jointly. But it doesn't matter they can force the sale though she will get her portion of the receipt. Remember they are selling the team not having it confiscated for nothing. The Sterlings are likely to receive over $1BILLION in profit.
What Winston said, there is a Trust they both were partial owners of that owned the team, so to remove him, she has to be removed as well. They are simply removing the trust's ownership, not individual members. Sterling would fight this if he thought he had a chance in hell, Silver is a lawyer also so you can be damn sure he did his homework to know it was ironclad before he went for the kill.
money is not his motivation. his racism, ego and dementia have been in the forefront guiding his decisions for a decade.
