Podcast Summary: The Athletic NBA Daily

Episode: Does the NBA have enough to punish the Clippers?
Date: September 16, 2025
Hosts: Dave DuFour (The Athletic) with guest Mike Vorkunov (covers sport/business at The Athletic)
Main Theme:
A deep dive into the ongoing investigation into the LA Clippers, owner Steve Ballmer, Kawhi Leonard, and a complicated web involving sponsorship, questionable investment, and potential NBA salary cap circumvention.

Overview

This episode addresses the ongoing NBA investigation into the Los Angeles Clippers’ potential circumvention of the salary cap regarding player Kawhi Leonard’s sponsorship ties with the company Aspiration—a relationship tangled with investments from Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, large money transfers, and connections to ongoing federal fraud charges. Dave DuFour and Mike Vorkunov break down key details, analyze the NBA’s investigatory capacity and standards, compare historical precedents, and contemplate the possible fallout for both the Clippers and the NBA’s public reputation.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Background and Timeline of Aspiration-Clippers-Kawhi Relationship

• Aspiration sponsorship deal:

  • Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $20 million deal with Californian tech company Aspiration in April 2022.
  • Unusually, the deal required virtually nothing of Leonard—he did not fulfill the basic endorsement obligations (no appearances, no social media).
  • The contract followed soon after Aspiration also signed a $300+ million sponsorship with the Clippers.
  • Steve Ballmer had already invested $50 million in Aspiration in December 2021, and in March 2023 contributed an additional $10 million as the company was financially distressed.
    “There's some stuff laid out in the contract that what he would have to do, he ultimately did not do any part of it.” — Mike Vorkunov [03:04]

• Further complications:

  • Aspiration’s co-founder and a board member have since pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.
  • The struggling company, after Ballmer and Clippers Vice Chairman Dennis Wong’s investments, transferred $1.75 million to Leonard.
  • The rationale behind the size and nature of Leonard’s sponsorship is questioned internally and externally.

Investigation Status and NBA Rule Context

• Ongoing NBA investigation:

  • Focus is on whether the deals provided extralegal compensation to Leonard, effectively bypassing league salary cap rules.
  • Possible penalties include massive fines, suspensions, loss of draft picks, or contract voiding.
  • The burden of proof is on the league, which is demanding concrete evidence of wrongdoing rather than circumstantial suspicion.
    “They want the impropriety. They want it before they rule on it. And they said the burden of proof is on the NBA here.” — Mike Vorkunov [07:08]

• Investigation limitations:

  • NBA’s investigative power does not extend to compelling testimony from non-NBA actors (e.g., Aspiration executives).
  • Kawhi Leonard and Clippers executives can be called, but key figures from Aspiration and Leonard’s uncle, “Uncle Dennis,” may not be.

Historical Precedent: Joe Smith & the Timberwolves

• Comparison to 1999-2000 Minnesota Timberwolves scandal:

  • Wolves signed Joe Smith to successive below-market one-year deals, with an illegal side agreement for a future large contract.
  • The NBA had a “smoking gun”—written evidence of cap circumvention—which led to harsh penalties: lost draft picks, owner suspension, contract voiding. “They had the act of impropriety, not just the mere appearance of impropriety. And they took away five first round picks... and they voided the contract.” — Mike Vorkunov [15:47]

• Clippers case lacks direct evidence:

  • No “smoking gun” so far—mostly circumstantial red flags but nothing definitively proving coordinated circumvention.

Patterns, Intent, and Industry Context

• On the no-show and abnormal sponsorship:

  • While contractually, team-linked endorsement deals may end if the player leaves the team (standard), the unique aspect is the lack of deliverables by Leonard and possible deliberate structuring as compensation “off the books.”
  • The intent behind the arrangement and who orchestrated it (“Was it created so he'd never have to do anything on it?”) could be pivotal.

• Pattern of past Clippers’ questionable actions:

  • 2015: Clippers fined for improper sponsorship pitch to DeAndre Jordan.
  • Uncle Dennis’s (Leonard’s uncle/advisor) requests previously investigated in 2019 regarding potential improper inducements.
  • Recent claim by Patrick Beverley that a below-market deal was exchanged for 94 basketball courts as part of his compensation. “It certainly seems like the Clippers are doing a lot of walking like a duck here.” — Dave DuFour [21:54]

Repercussions, Public Perception, and League PR

• Possible NBA actions:
  • Unless direct evidence emerges, punishment may be light or nonexistent.
  • The risk is a loss of faith in the NBA’s fairness and accountability if fans perceive rules can be skirted with impunity, especially by wealthy owners.
  • If unpunished, such a tangled scheme could provide a “blueprint” for future circumventions. “If they didn't cheat doing this, they at least created a nice blueprint for some team that wants to give it a shot because it's, again, very complicated.” — Dave DuFour [25:41]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the challenge for the NBA’s investigators:
  “It's going to be interesting to see where the NBA goes. I think the pressure publicly is on them to do something... But it's also who can we talk to to find out about the, you know, who, what, when and where and why?” — Mike Vorkunov [07:08]

• On the Timberwolves’ smoking gun:
  “They had the act of impropriety, not just the mere appearance of impropriety. And they took away five first round picks... and they voided the contract.” — Mike Vorkunov [15:47]

• On the Clippers’ patterns and league reputation:
  “It certainly seems like the Clippers are doing a lot of walking like a duck here.” — Dave DuFour [21:54]
  “The biggest scandals are the ones that lean into our presumed assumptions.” — Mike Vorkunov [22:22]

• On no direct evidence surfacing:
  “I'd be shocked if there was any sort of smoking gun to the likes of which Glenn Taylor and Joe Smith had, where there's a contract that says, hey, wink, wink, this is just so that you sign with the Clipper.” — Dave DuFour [19:55]

• On the league’s public perception:
  “This is a business... that's based on public sentiment... If you feel like a team is out there not playing by the rules... it's got to be, I would assume, pretty deflating.” — Mike Vorkunov [24:22]

Highlighted Segments (Timestamps)

• [03:04] Sponsorship and investment details, nature of Kawhi’s deal with Aspiration, internal confusion
• [06:08] $20 million in Aspiration stock, strange math, questions raised
• [07:08] NBA’s investigation, what the league is looking for, limitations
• [14:46] Timberwolves/Joe Smith case breakdown and comparison
• [16:32] Discussion of evidence so far—no “smoking gun” for the Clippers
• [18:00] Exploring intent, the 'no show' contract, industry standards, and why this arrangement might be abnormal
• [21:54] Clippers’ pattern of questionable behavior and compensation, bringing in historical context
• [24:22] Implications for the NBA’s reputation if nothing substantial happens
• [26:18] Off-topic note: Adam Silver calling the NBA a “highlight sport,” changing fan consumption, and streaming issues

Tone and Takeaways

The conversation is analytical, skeptical, and at times, wry. The hosts tread the line between detailed reporting and skeptical commentary, highlighting the complexity of the case and the limits of NBA governance. The Clippers’ actions are cast as deeply suspicious but frustratingly hard to definitively rule as illegal, illustrating the opaque and messy overlap of sports, business, and league authority.

Conclusion

This episode serves as both an exposé on the evolving Clippers scandal and a meditation on the difficulties inherent in policing modern pro sports. The hosts urge listeners to stay tuned as the investigation (and potentially, more revelations) unfolds, emphasizing that this case might one day become standard reading in the annals of NBA governance—whether as a notorious rule-break or an indictment of the loopholes present in the system.