Kawhi Leonard and his representation made unprecedented demands to the Toronto Raptors when he was a free agent in 2019. This is according to a report by Bruce Arthur of the Toronto Star.
Coming off a Finals MVP run in helping the Raptors win their inaugural NBA championship, Leonard’s list of demands appear to line up seamlessly with what he reportedly received from the climate finance firm, Aspiration, in Los Angeles. This deal is why the Clippers are accused of circumventing the salary cap to pay Leonard additional money.
Leonard wanted a trade for Paul George, who was then with the Oklahoma City Thunder, despite a lopsided price tag. He also wanted an ownership stake in the Toronto Maple Leafs, as well as other companies outside MLSE’s scope.
Moreover, like with Aspiration, the Raptors were told to sort at least $10 million annually in sponsorship income. The kicker: Leonard didn’t want to do any sponsorship work, whether it be ads or appearances. He just wanted the money.
MLSE informed Leonard’s representation, led by his uncle, Dennis Robertson, that a stake in the Maple Leafs was impossible. The sponsorship proposal was rejected as well.
When the George trade possibility was initially reported back in 2019, the cost was said to be Pascal Siakam, Fred VanVleet, four first-round picks and matching salaries.
How Much Trouble Could Clippers, Leonard Be In?
This will all come down to proof.
According to the league’s collective bargaining agreement, circumvention “may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a player contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of (cap circumvention).”
Furthermore, the CBA also stipulates any contract by a team or team sponsor can be deemed a violation if the compensation “is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player.”
Does receiving $7 million annually without performing any kind of service in exchange constitute a violation? It would have to be a very convincing argument that Leonard’s name association alone with the brand was worth that otherwise.
Nearly a couple decades after his playing days, Joe Smith’s name is as relevant as ever.
