This week, the Chicago Bulls waived guard Jaden Ivey for “conduct detrimental to the team.” No, Ivey did not assault anyone or gamble on games. He did not call for violence. Ivey expressed his opposing religious beliefs, including criticizing the NBA’s Pride Month celebrations.
There is no question that private companies have the right to control employees’ on-the-job speech, including barring demonstrations such as kneeling during the national anthem. However, the Ivey controversy exposes the hypocrisy of sports associations and teams in the combination of corporate virtue signaling and athlete speech limitations.
Companies in various fields have asserted the right to condition contracts on the possibility of termination due to public behavior or comments that are detrimental to the company.
Notably, this was a player speaking off the basketball court who was deemed “detrimental” to the brand. The main concern is the lack of consistency. Actors such as Rachel Zegler have tanked their own movies to use their platforms to advance their own political viewpoints. Likewise, athletes have routinely espoused controversial views on racial divisions or law enforcement without losing their contracts. Recently, teams supported athletes espousing anti-ICE sentiments. In other words, it is not advocacy but the cause that these companies focus on when allowing or punishing speech.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member