I'm more opposed to the government prohibiting businesses from terminating their contracts when they consider it to be in their best financial interest.
Perhaps I'm out of the loop on this because I will admit I'm confused by this statement.
I also want to ask, are we considering each individual team as the owners business that participates in an association or are we looking at this as that the team is owned by the NBA and he just funds it and receives the profits because there is a HUGE difference. IF the team is OWNED by the NBA and Sterling is merely an investor, cash out his shares and be rid of him in the best interest of your company, yes I get it. If the team is owned by Sterling and he is part of an association, well in my eyes then you can't force him to sell the team because he owns it. You can ban him from the association but which will probably eventually lead to him selling the team, but that is totally different.
By forcing him out through a vote, the NBA is trying to do what their legally binding contract says they can do. The only way this isn't going to happen is if the NBA says, "Everyone says we're setting a bad precedent so let's backtrack on what the commissioner said we would do," or if Sterling successfully sues for an injunction against a sale. The former isn't going to happen and the latter is an act of government prohibiting the NBA from doing what it believes is in its best interest.
Not that I think they'll be able to force the sale the way they want. I think your earlier prediction will be spot-on.