With Monday’s reports that the Boston Celtics rights group, led by Wyc Grousbeck, plans to sell 100 % of the 18- time tournament group, there’s a probability that Fenway Sports Group was make a play for the NBA franchise.
LeBron James owns the Boston Red Sox, the Pittsburgh Penguins, Liverpool FC, and another significant sporting goods as a lover of John Henry’s.
Had James become a Celtics gamer- owner? Little answer: No.
How about James becoming a Celtics landlord while playing for the Los Angeles Lakers instead? Similar truth: No.
The reason is that player-ownership is expressly prohibited by the NBA-NBPA collective bargaining agreement.
No NBA participant may gain or maintain a direct or indirect attention in the possession of any NBA Team or any business or institution, whether privately or publicly held, that has an interest in any NBA Team.

The division would reject any player’s attempt to buy into a team.
Part 12 contains exclusions, though none possible applies to James and FSG. A player may acquire rights in publicly traded assets that represent less than 1 % of a team’s total. FSG is privately held, so that provision would n’t help James. Section 12 likewise contemplates situations where the NBPA invests on behalf of” all people”, but that’s also not valid. Similar things are said about Section 13, which addresses NBA people purchasing capital in WNBA groups. The Celtics, clearly, are an NBA group.
There are numerous justifications for outlawing player-owners.
In terms of British labour rules, control and workers are negotiating a CBA to discuss wages, time, and other working conditions. Under the non- legal work provision, when managing and labour bargain those terms, they are free from antitrust scrutiny. A player-owner may have concerns about the validity of the exemption’s extended application.
James as a player-owner may even raise operational and privacy concerns. He might be able to gain access to sensitive financial data that each part thoroughly guards, which may cause issues when the two parties negotiate. If James were to own the Celtics, he may even bargain his own and those of his friends with himself ( and other members of the equity group ).
While some have suggested that James is the Lakers ‘ de facto general manager, especially since they signed Bronny James last week, James becoming a true owner of a group would take it one step further.
It would also be absurd to think that James would play for the Lakers and even own a portion of their rival. For the most part, James ‘ role as a Lakers player/Celtics user serves as a pointless distraction for both the Dodgers and the club. That kind of partnership might even lead to legitimate inquiries as to which group he is actually affiliated with.
The possibility of a participant- operator is n’t fresh in the NBA. When Magic Johnson, a minority owner of the Lakers, left in 1996, was required to sell his stake ( he later purchased it back ). Michael Jordan, the current user of the Charlotte Bobcats, practiced with his staff in 2011. He was perhaps still capable of playing video games even at the age of 48. But he did n’t.

If FSG buys the Celtics, James was divest his ownership to avoid any problems. At age 39, he’s even closer to the end of his occupation than the end. He had the option to refinance his interest in FSG in the same way Johnson did with the Lakers.