NBA Suspends Grizzlies’ Ja Morant 25 Games for Second Gun Video
The NBA has suspended Memphis Grizzlies star Ja Morant for 25 games—one of the longest suspensions in league history—for conduct detrimental to the NBA, as first reported by The Athletic. Morant’s suspension, handed down on June 16, reflects his repeated transgressions of holding firearms on Instagram Live videos.
In March, a video showed Morant holding a firearm at Shotgun Willie’s, a gentlemen’s club in Denver. The NBA suspended him for eight games. Two months later, after the Grizzlies season ended, a video showed Morant in a car holding what appears to be a gun.
More from Sportico.com
Ja Morant's Gun-Video Apology May Not Fly With NBA, Sponsors
Ja Morant Loses $39M From All-NBA Vote, While Jaylen Brown Scores Big
Morant, 23, hasn’t been charged with a crime for either incident, but compliance with the law isn’t the applicable legal test. This is a workplace behavior and contractual matter, and Morant is a “repeat offender” after already being suspended for the same underlying offense.
NBA commissioner Adam Silver has the collectively bargained authority to determine if Morant engaged in “conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association” and, if so, assign a punishment.
The league and its players association (NBPA) have crafted a uniquely detailed workplace policy regarding firearms. Under Section 9, Article VI of the CBA, players are barred from possessing a firearm in various situations though not explicitly on social media videos. Players also have an affirmative duty to inform their team about firearm ownership and proof of license and registration.
The policy reflects safety and public relations concerns about players handling and using guns. Like other pro sports leagues, the NBA is an entertainment entity that is protective of relations with broadcasters, sponsors and most importantly, fans, including parents of young children. Morant having a second gun controversy shortly after serving an eight-game suspension likely suggested to the league a longer suspension was needed to deter him from a third offense.
Metta Sandiford-Artest, formerly known as Ron Artest, served an 86-game suspension (73 regular season games and 13 playoff games) for his role in the 2004 “Malice at the Palace,” while Latrell Sprewell was suspended 82 games, later reduced by a grievance arbitrator to 68 games, in 1997 for choking his coach, P.J. Carlesimo. In 2010, the NBA suspended Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas for an indefinite period that ultimately lasted 50 games after Arenas, armed with a gun, had a showdown with teammate Javaris Crittenton, who was also armed.
Morant and the NBPA can appeal the suspension to a grievance arbitrator. The NBPA might share the NBA’s concerns about Morant but nonetheless find the punishment excessive. The union also has an interest in preventing new precedent from being set as it could be relied upon by the league in future punishments.
Morant and the NBPA could also concede he deserves a suspension but insist a shorter one is warranted. Morant hasn’t broken the law and he’s offered both expressions of contrition and pledges to become a better person.
One hurdle for Morant and the NBPA is the repeat nature of his offenses: Morant didn’t “learn his lesson” the first time around. The arbitrator might also concur with the NBA that firearms represent a serious topic that ought to be treated seriously in the context of suspensions.
Morant will pay a hefty price on account of his suspension, even if it is reduced. Next season his salary climbs from $12,119,440 to $33,500,000. Per the CBA, a player loses 1/145th of his salary for each missed exhibition, regular-season or playoff game when the suspension is fewer than 20 games, but 1/110th of his salary for a suspension of 20 or more games.
Morant could also lose lucrative sponsorships with Nike and other companies. Those contracts likely contain “morals” clauses which permit the company to cut ties or suspend an endorsement when an athlete brings the company into public disrepute. One risk to a company in terminating an endorsement, especially for conduct that isn’t illegal, is potential backlash from their customers or other athletes with whom they have, or plan to, negotiate endorsements.
