Banned for life means he can't go to any NBA games or practices, or go to Clippers offices or facilities.

Also, the $2.5m is going to go to anti-discrimination and tolerance charities picked by NBA and the players association. I hope the It Gets Better Project gets some!

If the NBA forced Sterling to continue owning the team in order to "crush the value of the team", wouldn't that destroy the jobs and careers of a lot of people that work for the Clippers that aren't Donald Sterling?

This is a tough call...I don't really believe in the WSJ's free-market fantasy world - the one in which the lazziez-faire free-market hands out moral punishments - indeed, markets are basically amoral. Right now there's a lot of outrage, but that will fade, even moreso as Mr. Sterling fades (having been forced off the stage with the ban) - indeed, he'll remain the owner, profiting, while people forget he is the owner.

The NBA isn't the government and the franchise does not include any free speech protections - indeed, the WSJ and their ilk would defend to the death the right of the NBA to have selective private membership and freedom of association...at least with regard to non-public viewers. Seems they are perfectly fine to dispossess him of his team now, even if he does get paid handsomely for the investment.

Too bad he isn't black, then he could insert "nigga" every fifth word and people would think he was Einstein.

I agree with @2. Wouldn't that hurt the players and employees?

Given Mr. Sterling's existing level of involvement of the team (strictly a fan), a lifetime ban is fairly minimal punishment. a $2.5 million fine is likewise peanuts.

I would have preferred that the NBA forgo these types of punishments in leiu of making a sacrificial stand in the name of the greater culture. I wanted them to simply seize the team and let Sterling have his day in court. The message being that the NBA was willing to whether whatever financial losses they might incur in order to deliver their brand of justice

I doubt the genuineness of any argument suggesting everyone wait for the ideal time. No one in the NBA front office is stupid enough to let this drag on for two or three years. Would that be fair to the fans who support the league? @14, seizing a white billionaire's property for hate speech, are you hoping to melt Sean Hannity's brain? Last week, the federal government couldn't seize a herd cows grazing illegal from a welfare queen rancher.

Bigotry will always be profitable in the good ol' USA. Our entire economy was built on it.

GermanSausage @5: Isn't there some guy who wants to buy a basketball team and move them to Seattle?

Damn, I shoulda thought of that. The Clippers become the Sonics, and Shawn Kemp gets bumped from the title of most spectacular dunker in Sonics history. For you non-NBA fans out there, I'm talking Kia pitchman Blake Griffin.

There would also be a certain moral justice to such a transaction. The LA Clippers--the team Sterling created when he moved the team from San Diego--would cease to exist. And I'm not sure they'd be all that missed. Face it, before Blake came along, they were the Chivas USA of the NBA. (Had to slip an MLS reference in there too.)

Like the honey badger, the billionaire just doesn't care about financial penalties. So make him sell it before it ruins the standing of the rest of the league.

Forbes keeps sticking to their "estimates", while teams are selling for 40-80% more than those estimates. We just saw it in Sacramento and Milwaukee. The same thing will happen in LA. The franchise's value won't go down. It's only going to increase. Sports teams aren't like any other business.

@ 19, I was thinking that the NBA also has an interest in getting rid of Sterling that supercedes the fiscal punishment of allowing his team to devalue over time (a scenario that I doubt would come to pass, for the reason you cite).

@19 - yep. There continues to be an artificial cap on supply of teams and a seemingly never-ending line of billionaire white dudes waiting to buy them when they do come available. $575M for a team in LA, when the frickin Sacramento Kings just sold for near the same amount? No chance; Guggenheim Partners (the Magic Johnson group that paid $2B for the Dodgers) would pay $800M, easy, as would any number of others.

I don't care that he's going to make so much money off of it. There's no way around that that's remotely legal. The NBA doesn't have eminent domain powers. I think it's more important for the franchise to be out of Sterling's hand so no new black players are forced to play for him by the draft. That would be beyond the pale.