Did Ja Morant get what he deserves?
Was Adam Silver’s punishment too harsh for Morant?
Most people get told by an authority figure that “actions have consequences” at some point in their life. Some believe that this can ring hollow with global atrocities or personal acts of malpractice that seem devoid of ramifications, and I’m sure many share this sentiment about Ja Morant. Morant, the superstar point guard for the Memphis Grizzlies, received a 25-game suspension for brandishing a firearm for the second time on an Instagram livestream; the first occurrence of which earned him an 8-game suspension back in March. After the initial mishap, Morant publicly took it upon himself through an interview with Jalen Rose and a supposed enrollment in a counseling program in Florida, where the young NBA player apparently battled and overcame internal demons. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver gave Morant the benefit of the doubt with the first incident, but Morant metaphorically slapped him in the face with the reveal of the subsequent footage that showcased Morant once again wielding a gun on an Instagram livestream. Whether or not Morant learns from his mistakes is yet to be seen, but we likely will not see Morant on the court until 2024, leaving pundits and fans with a lot of time to think about the conditions of this punitive measure taken by the league.
Similar to the guidelines of Kyrie Irving’s 2023 suspension for overt glorification of antisemitic rhetoric, Morant may not even be allowed to play once the 25 games run their course. In addition to Morant losing about $7.5 million worth of his contract, Morant will not be allowed to return to franchise activities until he also completes a program administered by the league to ensure his compliance with standard NBA public behavior. This immediately led to outrage from the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), which is led by President C.J. McCollum (of the New Orleans Pelicans) and vice-presidents that include the likes of Jaylen Brown (Boston Celtics), Donocan Mitchell (Cleveland Cavaliers) and teammate Jaren Jackson Jr. A public statement released by the NBPA claims that the suspension’s requirements for reinstatement are excessive and are not “consistent with past discipline in our league.” Agree or disagree with the clear attempts by the NBA to encourage some sort of rehabilitation for troubled players, my reference to Irving’s ordeal directly contradicts the claims from the NBPA that there is no precedent for such conditional features of a suspension. More than just Irving’s scenario, I find it disingenuous to blame the absence of a precedent, when there has not been a similar situation to Ja’s in the NBA’s history. Most major suspensions have resulted from violence, such as “The Malice at the Palace” or Dennis Rodman getting suspended 11 games for kicking a cameraman (1997). Gilbert Arenas’ scandal is the most appropriately comparable past situation, but again, he was suspended for not only committing a crime by owning a gun without a license, but insinuating violence with firearms directed towards another player (Javaris Crittenton). Arenas was not suspended with the consideration of a preceding reputation that suggested a track record of ignorance, his sole mistake was clearly severe enough to justify one of the largest punishments in NBA history. While Morant did not necessarily encourage violence through his actions, aside from other alleged incidents that may suggest otherwise, he portrayed a degree of reckless abandonment that not only threatened to cause a regression in the NBA’s tidied image of the late-2000s, but he is also affecting the broader American discourse of gun-control.
The United States is home to over 19,500 non-suicide gun-violence deaths in 2023; 296 have come from mass shootings. These numbers pop out on their own, but it’s safe to say that Silver, and myself, are more concerned about a different number. Over 2,900 children (under 18 years old) have either been injured or killed as a result of gun violence in 2023. Morant is a fresh and exciting face for the NBA with his first Nike signature shoe having come out this year; both markets, the NBA and basketball shoes, are followed by a considerably large demographic of children, some of whom may be more impressionable than others. While polling rarely takes children’s opinions into account for official research because of the potential for irregularities or required parental consent, it is evident that the NBA’s viewers skew younger. In 2023, 63% of those above the age of 65 are “not a fan” of the league, the same label applies to 51% for ages 45–64 and the largest combined demographic of the labels “avid” and “casual” fan is 60% of 18–34 year olds. More than this though, Morant’s actions could simply be bad for business; older millennials or younger members of Generation X may see the controversies surrounding the assumed faces of the NBA and begin to formulate the pretense that the league is becoming immature and returning to the stigma that surrounding teams like the Portland “Jail” Blazers and players like Rasheed Wallace and Latrell Sprewell. It’s a stretch to infer that there’s an automatic correlation between Morant’s actions and the potential for increased gun violence, but for a league that has gone through years of reforming its image, it’s understandable that Silver would not even want to risk the possibility of such a connection being made.
The accusations of Silver “making an example” of Morant are still blasphemous though; Morant made an example of himself. Morant has ironically become an inverse role model, epitomizing for young stars in the world of professional athletics what not to do with their public image. I hope that Morant’s ordeal does not discourage blooming athletes from expressing their personalities and their idiosyncrasies, however eccentric they may be, but this entire situation has identified the inevitability of a personal windfall for those who do not heed to the public identity of their respective sports’ higher-ups.
