The NBA just handed the Los Angeles Clippers one of the harshest punishments in league history. The investigation ruled that the franchise violated salary-cap rules through a series of improper endorsement arrangements involving Kawhi Leonard. This has reopened an old question about where the league draws the line between endorsement deals and salary-cap rules.

This time, the conversation has pulled Michael Jordan into the spotlight. An X post by Basketball Examined mentioned:

“MICHAEL JORDAN IS THE SALARY CAP CIRCUMVENTION KING: When Jordan first became a minority owner of the Bobcats, NBA personnel were already letting it be known that he had an unfair advantage due to his exclusive access to future NBA prospects in his Jordan Brand All-American high school game and Flight School camps. This goes back to 2007, btw.

“When Jordan then became the majority owner of the team in 2010, walls were put up by the NBA to make sure Nike was making its decisions for the JORDAN brand on its own for salary cap reasons and to ensure that Charlotte didn’t have a leg up on the competition, which would have created a competitive imbalance.

“This was, of course, a departure from its previous statements that suggested Jordan handpicked his endorsers.”

Jordan became a minority owner of the Bobcats in 2006 before taking over as majority owner in 2010. By then, his deep ties to Nike and Jordan Brand, and his access to some of the country’s top young basketball talent through events and camps, had created a potential conflict.

He was in a position where he could influence an NBA team while remaining closely associated with a massive basketball shoe brand. If an owner could steer players toward endorsement opportunities with a company connected to him, those deals could raise questions about whether players were effectively receiving compensation outside the NBA’s salary structure.

The Basketball Examined post stated the list of Charlotte players associated with the brand. Stephen Jackson, Gerald Henderson, and Gerald Wallace in 2010. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Jeffery Taylor followed in 2012, while Cody Zeller joined in 2013.

ESPN reported at the time that Zeller became the fourth Bobcats player signed by Jordan Brand. The number stood out because the brand had only around 20 active NBA players under contract, making Charlotte’s concentration unusually high. And the pattern continued.

• Al Jefferson and Noah Vonleh joined the brand in 2014.
• Frank Kaminsky and Kemba Walker followed in 2015.
• Nicolas Batum and Dwayne Bacon were later added in 2017.

So, the tweet claimed that Jordan’s dual roles should have been examined, but the NBA chose not to. However, there is no proof that Michael Jordan circumvented the salary cap.

The NBA did not announce that Jordan secretly directed Nike to sign Charlotte players. The league’s reported position was that restrictions prevented him from making those decisions.

However, the pattern was brought up once again after the NBA fined the Clippers $30 million and stripped them of five future first-round picks for salary cap circumvention. It also suspended owner Steve Ballmer for one year.

Kawhi Leonard was fined $700,000. Now, one viral post is asking whether the league has always treated salary-cap concerns the same way.

The NBA recognized the issue

ESPN’s Darren Rovell reported in 2013 that the league had procedures in place to separate Jordan from Jordan Brand’s endorsement decisions. The timing was notable because Charlotte had just added its fourth player to the Jordan Brand roster.

“Certain restrictions were put in place to ensure compliance with our rules,” NBA spokesman Mike Bass said in 2013.

Bass also explained that the league’s Board of Governors had recognized Jordan’s relationship with Nike and the fact that Jordan Brand had endorsement agreements with NBA players.

The message was that Jordan could own the team, but he could not simply decide which Charlotte players received Jordan Brand deals. That is why the tweet is tied to the Clippers investigation. It centered on outside business opportunities connected to Leonard, including an endorsement arrangement involving Aspiration and three other sponsors.

In Jordan’s case, the league said it had established safeguards to prevent his ownership position from influencing Jordan Brand’s endorsement decisions. But for the Clippers, the league determined that the team had crossed the line.

So, the old Charlotte story has become relevant because of the NBA’s latest ruling. The Basketball Examined post’s final line was “the nba’s rigged.”