NBA Commissioner Stern Continues to Clean Up the NBA Image
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/...s_code_stern_2

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...C-DT9705204233

from ESPN.com article:

Updated: Oct. 18, 2005, 5:50 PM ET
Stern sure players will comply with dress code
By Darren Rovell
ESPN.com


NEW YORK -- NBA commissioner David Stern spoke out for the first time on the specifics of the league's new off-the-court dress code on Tuesday.

Despite objections from players like Allen Iverson, who said he will fight to wear clothes in which he is most comfortable, Stern said he was "certain that it will be complied with."

Although Stern wouldn't say exactly how he would enforce the new regulations, which, among other things, bans injured players seated on the bench from wearing jeans and outlaw chains, pendants or medallions over the player's clothes while on team or league business, he did say that the league "will use a broad range of authority" to enforce compliance.

"If they are really going to have a problem, they will have to make a decision about how they want to spend their adult life in terms of playing in the NBA or not," Stern said.

Stern said he believed that much of the recent criticism over the league-imposed rules had to do with the fact that the players didn't know the specifics, which were released in a memo to the teams on Monday.

Calling the rules "quite liberal and easy going," Stern even joked that the dress code is something that "even (Dallas Mavericks owner) Mark Cuban can comply with." But Cuban, who often wears T-shirts and jeans to games -- told ESPN.com that there was "no chance, no way" that he would comply with the league's off-the-court dress code for its players. Sleeveless shirts are not allowed under the policy.

Iverson, whose do-rag will now be banned, recently told the Philadelphia Daily News that "just because you put a guy in a tuxedo, it doesn't mean he's a good guy."

Stern said the clothing that is suggested is universally thought of as appropriate for someone while they are in the spotlight.

"There are different uniforms for different occasions," Stern said. "There's the uniform you wear on the court, there's the uniform you wear when you are on business, there's the uniform you might wear on your casual downtime with your friends and there's the uniform you might wear when you go back home. We're just changing the definition of the uniform that you wear when you are on NBA business."

Stern kidded that certain players might receive a special stipend to buy new clothes.

"We don't know where the cut-off is, maybe if you earn less than $8 million, you'll get a scholarship from the commissioner," Stern said.

The joke was in reference to the comment made last week by Denver Nuggets center Marcus Camby, who reportedly told The Rocky Mountain News that he didn't see players complying with the new rules unless every player received a clothing allowance. Camby is scheduled to make more than $7 million in salary this season.

Stern was less than direct as to how the league would monitor whether the players were violating the business casual attire rules, cracking a smile when telling reporters that the NBA will employ a state-of-the-art piece of nanotechnology -- a special type of dust on the player that indicates when he is not appropriate attired.

It's not clear if other sports leagues will follow the NBA's lead.

Rob Manfred, the executive vice president of labor relations and human resources for Major League Baseball, said that there is currently no need to impose a dress code policy, aside from the current rule in which players have to wear appropriate baseball garb for postgame press conferences that are free of corporate logos.

"Because of the nature of our travel and the makeup of our employees, it has never been an issue that we had to centrally regulate," Manfred said. "The clubs have been close enough as to what they require of the players."

Stern spent Tuesday giving a keynote speech at the SportsBusiness Journal's Sports and Social Responsibility Forum. During the talk, Stern unveiled a new program called NBA Cares, a name given to all of the league's charitable efforts. Stern said that over the next five years, the NBA will guarantee that the league and its players will donate at least $100 million to charity, give one million hours to community service and build 100 facilities where children can learn and play. He said the commitment was significantly greater than what the league and its players have done over the last half decade.


Darren Rovell, who covers sports business for ESPN.com, can be reached at darren.rovell@espn3.com.





NBA Dress Code
In a memo issued Monday, the NBA set forth a "minimum" dress code starting with the 2005-2006 season. The following highlights are excerpted from the memo:
1. General Policy: Business Casual
Players are required to wear Business Casual attire whenever they are engaged in team or league business. "Business Casual" attire means:
• A long or short-sleeved dress shirt (collared or turtleneck), and/or a sweater.
• Dress slacks, khaki pants, or dress jeans.
• Appropriate shoes and socks, including dress shoes, dress boots, or other presentable shoes, but not including sneakers, sandals, flip-flops, or work boots.


2. Exceptions to Business Casual
There are the following exceptions to the general policy of Business Casual attire:
a. Players In Attendance At Games But Not In Uniform
Players who are in attendance at games but not in uniform are required to wear the following additional items when seated on the bench or in the stands during the game:
• Sport Coat.
• Dress shoes or boots, and socks.


3. Excluded Items
The following is a list of items that players are not allowed to wear while on team or league business:
• Sleeveless shirts.
• Shorts.
• T-shirts, jerseys, or sports apparel (unless appropriate for the event (e.g., a basketball clinic), team-identified, and approved by the team).
• Headgear of any kind while a player is sitting on the bench or in the stands at a game, during media interviews, or during a team or league event or appearance (unless appropriate for the event or appearance, team-identified, and approved by the team).
• Chains, pendants, or medallions worn over the player's clothes.
• Sunglasses while indoors.
• Headphones (other than on the team bus or plane, or in the team locker room).




What are your thoughts?

Back To the Basics
 

I have no problem with it. Hopefully, coaches on the collegiate level will follow accordingly. I was kind of surprised the player's union didn't object.

I commend Stern for requiring his players, coaches, and owners to dress the part.

Maybe some of the players can now create a line of men's dress attire. **light bulb**

However, if those emm effas cannot afford to buy a Men's Wearhouse suit on their salary, :rolleyes: and actually do get a clothing allowance,:mad: Stern might get a stern letter from me. :p

But I applaud it. It's time for a change and to eliminate some of the thuggish looking appearance that some of the players espouse.

I think that since it is couched in terms of business attire, I guess it is okay.

A lot of these kids are young. Think about how we were dressing when we we 19-22. Part of the way that they dress is a reflection of their youth.

I agree with Iverson--just because somebody is in a suit, it doesn't make them a better person than who they already are; it just makes them a person in a suit. I am of the opinion that people should be able to wear what they want, and that clothing should not dictate how you are perceived. But that is idealist, I realize.

Good job.

For real....a clothing allowance....:rolleyes: The nerve of them to ask for that

I just read that some player...I think Steven Jackson from the Pacers...said the policy was racist because of the rule that says no jewelry wore outside of your clothing and young black guys like to wear their chains/necklaces out side of their clothing.

ETA: Here is a bit from an article on msn.com
__________________
But the new policy is taking some heat already, with Indiana Pacers guard Stephen Jackson telling ESPN that the league ban on chains worn over clothing is "a racist statement" from the league.

Jackson said he had no problem with requiring players to dress better. But he drew the line at players being told their chains and necklaces can't be visible over their clothes.

"I just think that's attacking young, black males," said Jackson, who wore four chains to the Pacers exhibition game against San Antonio on Tuesday night. "The part about wearing suits, I think we should dress up. A lot of guys have gotten sloppy with the way they dress and I have no problem with that. But the chains, that's going a little too far."

Jackson told ESPN that the policy on jewelry was "a racist statement because a lot of the guys who are wearing chains are my age and are black. I wore all my jewelry today to let it be known that I'm upset with it.

"I'll wear a suit every day. I think we do need to look more professional because it is a business. A lot of guys have gotten sloppy with the way they dress. But it's one thing to [enforce a] dress code and it's another thing if you're attacking cultures, and that's what I think they're doing."

__________________

Racism? Yeah right.

Is it really "cultural" to wear the chain on the outside of clothes? Or is it just something that the Niggerati or Colored Coalition do? Just tuck the dayum chain on the inside of your clothes.

Also in regards to the comment about them being young and not knowing how to dress. . . I have mixed feelings about this. I think this is a poor mentality to espouse. The more we get, the less we do. Back in my grandmother's era, folks dressed appropriately with a very minimal amount of money. Folks had 2 outfits -- dress and play. I have older cousins who tell me they had ONE pair of underwear. ONE. But now we got a little bit of money and more choices and folks want to dress any type of way. Got kids coming to church in jeans. WTH?!?!!? Come to church looking any kind of way. I bet you if Big Mama was still around, the real BIG MAMAS, kids would wear shirts and ties to church.

But I digress. Put on some nice business casual attire and go to work, NBA stars. You might not really be a saint or a better person in a suit in tie versus a doo rag and sagging off da arse jeans, but you can at least look the part.

The NBA is going after more corporate and global markets. Historically they've always marketed players (Magic, Bird, Jordan, KG, Shaq, AI) rather than teams, so this move follows "suit" if you will. I really think they'd like to "de-negroize" the league, do away with the cornrows/tatoos, but they know they can't get away with that, so the "image, dress code" look is the next best thing.

Look at most NBA arenas. The lower bowl seats are generally filled with corporate types. You may see the lovely Steeltrap hugged up courtside with Jack Nicholson out in LA, but by and large, the NBA is not targeting the AfAm audience, particularly the 18-30 audience who wear this type of newly-banned gear most predominately. Nike, Reebok, and1, et al are, but not the association. The NBA is like "hey, if you don't like the move, you don't have to work in the NBA."

not saying I agree totally, necessarily, but thats the play, IMO.

Hey, HK74, how is asking for a clothing allowance any different from the corporate CEO who asks for a receives a housing allowance as part of his compensation package?

TonyB, let's be for real here. If come bargaining time, an individual player wants to negotiate a clothing allowance as part of his deal, go for it! Negotating is a critical part of getting what you want in your comp package. We all should be doing that, regardless if you're a CEO, NBA player, or accountant.

But don't say that going shopping for these clothes will now cause them unexpected financial hardship (which is what one player is basically saying).

Are you trying to tell me that these players currently do not own suits, dress slacks, etc.? And let's say for the sake of argument they don't (lol) the price doesn't change that much across the men's department ($150 pair of khakis vs. $150 of sneakers).

And now, these new dress codes are racist. :(

I'm just speechless for the moment.

I didn't say that they didn't know how to dress, I said that they are dressing like young people dress these days. They know how to dress--like young folks.

And so young folks don't know how to put on a suit and tie or dress pants and button down shirt when going to work or work related functions?

No, I'm not making any of the assertions you mentioned above.

But see through the alleged "absurdity" of Jackson's statement for a moment, and you see an apples-to-apples comparison, that raises a question or two. No, a $7 million a year player does not need a clothing allowance, IMO, but neither does a 7-figure-a-year CEO need a free house to live in (yet, this happens everyday and nobody says boo about it).

Maybe Jackson was showing the absurdity of the rule change with his statement -- which is the point I was alluding to. I haven't read yet where this was collectively bargained, so just how "enforceable" it is at this point is unclear to me.

That's why I said, since they couch it in business terms, I guess that it is okay.

I would agree with Tony B, I think that it is an attempt to "corporatize" (yeah, I made that up) the league, in terms of appearance.

However, I don't think that there is anything culturally specific about baggy pants or gold chains. That is just ridiculous--and speaks to a whole nother proble m about what confused for culture these days.