Is it helpful to punish the Clippers? Leonard s contract may allow the Clippers to get maximum salary space to sign up

Translator's note: The original text was published in The Athletic. The data in the text were as of the time of the original text (September 16th local time). The date and time involved are all local time

. So, what would it look like if the heavy hammer of punishment falls?

This is a big question this week, even if we may have to wait a few months to get the answer, as indirect evidence continues to accumulate, suggesting that the Clippers may blatantly evade the salary cap by funding a false endorsement contract signed by All-Star forward Kawhi Leonard with a now-bank-owned company called Aspiration.

Before starting, allow me to emphasize: at least so far, there is no solid evidence to link the investments of Clippers boss Steve Ballmer and Little Boss Dennis Wang with the amounts paid by Aspiration to Leonard, even if the time and amount of these investments are obviously suspicious. The coalition's investigation still needs to be carried out, but without a check that Ballmer sent to Aspiration with the notes "avoiding salary cap" written on it, the coalition's lawyers may face difficult choices when assessing the ultimate persuasion of their case.

Having said that, we can now at least fairly explore the possibility of severe punishment. If the alliance can convince an independent arbitrator to find that the Clippers have committed acts to evade the wage cap through an unauthorized agreement, the Clippers will face significant penalties under Article 13 of the Labor Agreement (just on page 341).

Moreover, if the Clippers are found to have such a salary cap violation, the league's official ruling will undoubtedly be harsh. In fact, the other 29 bosses will ask for this.

Regarding this, please allow me to emphasize: There is an assumption that even if the league determines that the Clippers have evasive behavior, they may be given lighter punishment because some other teams are doing similar things. Based on my seven years of experience in the league, I can assert that this is absolutely impossible.

There is indeed a certain degree of common violation of regulations in some things, such as starting free agent negotiations a few days (or weeks) ahead of time the rules allow, but that is completely different from what is now. This matter is completely beyond the bottom line, and almost every executive in the league believes that the most severe punishment should be imposed on the violators. Last week, NBA president Adam Schae himself said he had "very extensive power" in these cases, and while he did not mention medieval torture, he did specifically mention fines, draft picks and bans. The last three punishment measures are clearly written in Article 13. So, let’s talk more specifically about how to implement them if Xiao Hua imposed heavy penalties on the Clippers. What exactly does this heavy hammer look like, what are its limitations, and what does it mean for the Clippers, Leonard and the League?

The penalties for evasion are specified in Article 13, and one or two of them may have problems, and I will talk about the reasons later. But here are the penalties that Xiao Hua can use:

fine up to $7.5 million on the Clippers

fine up to $350,000 on the Clippers' draft picks

ban Ballmer or other Clippers personnel for up to one year, and fine up to $1 million on each person

declared Leonard's contract invalid and prohibited him from renewing the contract with the Clippers

demanded Leonard's return to the money he received from Aspiration

some of which were more direct than other options. In particular, fines are imposed on individuals on the Clippers team, without even requiring system arbitrators to agree to the NBA's findings. However, the $1 million fine for Steve Ballmer was like a parking ticket for him, and the slightest punishment. The same is true for fines of $7.5 million on the Clippers, which is less than 4% of the total salary of the Clippers, and is basically equivalent to a rounding error on the Ballman tax return.

Regarding draft picks, we can at least predict the league's response based on the precedent in the 1999 Joe Smith case. In that case, the NBA deprived them of five first-round picks for the Timberwolves' evasion, and most observers believe that the case was far less serious than the Clippers' current case.

However, the NBA cannot take more than five first-round picks from the Clippers because they only have five forfeit draft picks left. There is reason to think that the league will confiscate them all (the Clippers’ own draft picks in 2030, 2031 and 2032, and the 2027 and 2029 draft picks) and may also confiscate the two second round picks that the Clippers have not traded (2031 and 2032) and the 2026 second round picks they received from the Grizzlies (effective only if the pick is between 31-42). Similar to the Smith case, if the Clippers perform well, it is also possible that the league returns a draft pick in a few years.

It is worth noting that the Clippers' swap rights partners in 2027 and 2029 will not be affected by such penalties. The Clippers draft picks confiscated in 2027 will be the lowest pick among themselves, the Thunder and the Nuggets, and in 2029 it will be the lowest pick among themselves and the Sixers. If the Clippers draw the top three picks in 2029 and the swap rights are protected by 1-3 picks, the draft pick will be directly confiscated - a windfall for any team that follows closely in the lottery draw. 76ers will be selected in their regular rankings at that time.

imposed a maximum year-long ban on Ballmer and other Clippers - the explicit provisions of the labor-capital agreement seem to limit the length of the penalty - which undoubtedly creates some embarrassment when Ballmer's shiny new palace Intuit Dome hosts the 2026 NBA All-Star Game. But again, this has a rather direct historical connection to the Smith case, as Timberwolves owner Glenn Taylor was suspended for nine months at the time.

This brings us to the biggest, ugliest, and most confusing part of the matter: the possibility of declaring Leonard's contract invalid. Considering the violation, this is the most direct and feasible penalties. But unfortunately, it also brings the biggest problems for other teams in the league.

This problem comes from two aspects. First, is the league's announcement of the invalidity of the contract to punish the Clippers or is it doing them a favor? Leonard's contract amount next year is $50 million, and although he is still a top player when he is healthy, he is still absent due to injuries. (You must have heard this joke: Aspiration is Leonard's second "name" job). If Leonard's contract is void, the Clippers will have maximum salary space in the summer of 2026, by which time they can completely create a new lineup and may even try to poach LeBron James from their city rivals Lakers.

This leads to a second aspect of declaring the contract invalid: can they still include the $50 million in the Clippers' salary cap for the 2026-27 season while declaring the contract invalid? Surprisingly, for such a huge document, its specific operating mechanism is not clearly stated, and there is no entry for "invalid contracts" in the definition of Article 1 of the Labor Agreement. Opponents certainly want to see such punishment, but it seems unlikely to be the end result in my opinion - it is basically a double penalty that allows the Clippers to bear the impact of their salary cap while not getting players.

A perhaps more interesting question is whether Sul can count the amount Leonard received from Aspiration into the Clippers' 2026-27 salary cap, because the money has not been included in their books in any previous season. This will eliminate the concerns about the double penalties mentioned above while still preventing the Clippers from getting unexpected cap space. This can also partially calm the complaints of other bosses who believe the Clippers should pay luxury taxes for the Aspiration payments that Leonard received in previous years.

Finally, it is the trickiest part of declaring a contract invalid, and it is the reason why I finally think this is a big problem for the league: the chaos that will cause for the free agent market.

training camp is about to begin, no team has cap space, and the league's investigation may take weeks, if not months, to complete. This isn't even time to arrange an arbitration hearing and awaiting case ruling, and we may not get some form of solution until halfway through the season.

So, can you imagine if Kawhi Leonard suddenly became a full free agent midway through the season and was banned from renewing the contract with the Clippers? What if he decides to stay in Los Angeles and signs with the Lakers on a basic salary contract? What impact will this have on the competitive balance? Furthermore, if he signs with any team with a meager salary, wouldn’t that greatly distort the competitive landscape of the playoffs?

I speculate that if Leonard joins a championship team with a small special contract, the other 28 bosses will definitely protest. But for a free agent of this level that appeared in the season, Xiao Hua had no good way to maintain market rationality. The only workaround I can think of is to ban Leonard from the entire season, but this seems to be too harsh and also means a fierce clash with the players' union. From a league perspective, it would be much easier if Leonard could be able to find the next home in an orderly manner in the summer if the whole process was dragged into the spring and then declare the contract invalid after the regular season. If this is not done, the league may feel that it may be easier to keep Leonard's contract on the Clippers' books and instead punish the Clippers for the additional funds sent to him by Aspiration, or to come up with other novel ways of punishing them.

So, if Adam Xiao Hua and an independent arbitrator both believe that the Clippers are evading the salary cap, this is the situation he is currently facing. If that's the case, losing several draft picks, fines for Ballmer and a year-long ban are almost certain.

The real question is how Leonard's contract will be handled. Ideally, I am sure the league might be more willing to set a precedent for declaring a contract invalid. But in reality, it would be so problematic to impose this penalty on players of this level midway through a season that the league finally decided it would be better to avoid slight troubles.

Author: John Hollinger

Translator: GWayNe