The story began as whispers before exploding into a storm. Reports revealed Clippers owner Steve Ballmer invested $50 million into Aspiration, a financial start-up, shortly before Kawhi Leonard signed a $28 million “no-show” endorsement deal with the same company. The deal required virtually no work from Leonard, not even endorsement, fueling suspicions it was a covert attempt to bypass the NBA’s strict salary cap rules—considered one of the league’s cardinal sins. When the report surfaced, the reaction across the NBA was immediate: shock, disbelief, and growing scrutiny of Ballmer’s role.

Think about it. A “no-show” deal worth tens of millions, tied to a company now bankrupt, looks suspicious at best. To critics, it smells like the biggest salary cap circumvention case of the century. Yet the Clippers deny everything, releasing statements that push back hard. Ballmer himself went on camera to defend his actions. But as the NBA begins its investigation, a new question has emerged. Even if there is no smoking gun, will Adam Silver still act? That’s where the debate turns fascinating.

In a video that surfaced, Bill Simmons compared the scandal to a courtroom drama. He explained, “Whatever can happen, losing draft picks, voiding the contract, whatever it is. This is basically the OJ civil trial versus the OJ trial. You only need to kind of think something happened and have enough evidence to be like, I think that happened, so we’re doing this.” His point was that the league doesn’t need undeniable proof to step in. This isn’t about a traditional trial where guilt must be proved beyond a doubt. Instead, he hinted that the NBA could punish the Clippers simply because “something smells with this.” That perspective highlights how reputation alone can sway Adam Silver’s decision-making.

Chris Mannix echoed the concern but narrowed in on the $28 million figure. He said, “It’s the 28 million and it’s the nothing.” To him, Leonard didn’t even need to do much to avoid scrutiny. A single commercial or small public gesture could have changed the perception entirely. In his words, “If he had just gone out there and done one of those stupid HEB commercials that the Spurs did back in the day… we would not be having this particular conversation.” Instead, the deal looked too hollow to ignore. Mannix argued that the league faces a clear choice: deliver a crushing punishment like Minnesota’s Joe Smith case or back away completely.

Still, Ballmer is standing his ground. He insists he never crossed the line and was misled by Aspiration. “They conned me. I made an investment in these guys thinking it was on the up-and-up, and they conned me at this stage.” He even called on the NBA to investigate thoroughly, emphasizing how much he values cap rules. But here’s the lingering issue: denial does not equal innocence.

Even though Steve Ballmer has publicly denied any knowledge of Kawhi Leonard’s $28 million endorsement deal with Aspiration, doubts continue to linger. On a recent episode of ESPN LA, radio hosts Steve Mason and John Ireland unpacked the controversy, with Ireland sharing an anecdote that cast Ballmer’s defense in a different light.

Ireland revealed he had dinner with a friend who knows someone who worked closely with Ballmer “for years.” When asked if it was possible, Ballmer truly didn’t know. The former employee was blunt: “Steve Ballmer is the most aggressive, detail-oriented boss I have ever worked for. There is zero chance that A, he wasn’t aggressive in pursuit of Kawhi, and B, that he didn’t know anything. He knew something.” Could the NBA still hammer the Clippers even without direct evidence despite multiple links leading to it? Or will the lack of proof allow Ballmer and Leonard to walk away untouched? That uncertainty leaves Leonard’s future with the franchise in limbo as Silver weighs his options.

Not just with the Lakers, Kawhi Leonard’s camp made unethical demands to one more team in 2019 free agency

The Clippers scandal has now taken a twist that stretches back to Kawhi Leonard’s free agency in 2019. According to a new report, Leonard’s uncle and manager, Dennis Robertson, raised similar demands when negotiating with the Toronto Raptors. It seems that the “no-show” deal with Aspiration may not have been a one-time request, but rather part of a larger pattern.

Bruce Arthur of the Toronto Star spoke with several sources from the Raptors front office. They recalled Robertson asking for more than just a standard contract. He allegedly wanted ownership stakes in companies tied to Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment and millions in sponsorship money. One source said Robertson insisted Leonard should receive at least “$10 million per year in extra sponsorship income.” That alone raised eyebrows within MLSE, since teams are forbidden from negotiating such deals.

But what stunned Raptors officials even more was Robertson’s position on endorsements. As one Raptors representative remembered, when told about the many sponsors eager to feature Leonard, his camp replied, “We don’t want to do anything.” The request was clear: Leonard would take the money, but he would not make appearances or commercials. MLSE flatly rejected those terms, and Leonard later chose the Clippers after they met enough of his conditions.

This revelation ties directly to the current investigation. Leonard’s eventual $28 million deal with Aspiration, alongside another $20 million in stock, mirrors the same “no-show” endorsement style Robertson once allegedly pushed for. Even without direct proof, these past negotiations could give the NBA circumstantial evidence of intent. If investigators expand their scope to include those earlier discussions, it could help them piece together a more complete case.