Spurs sued for sitting players vs Heat claim they violated state law

Their employees, not slaves.

Can I sue a Mickey D's because my favorite cashier didn't come to work? They paid for a game between the Spurs and Heat, not player X vs player Y. What would happen if the Spurs traded all their top players the night before so they couldn't suit up?

 

This is getting ridiculous. People suing teams now because that team didn't play some of their players... Coach Pop had a good reason to sit out his players and plus, he has the rights to sit whoever he wants.

Even though that guy paid for expensive tickets, it was still a good game. This needs to end now. People will start suing NBA teams for stupid reasons like resting their star players before playoffs and such. Each team has the right to rest whoever they want.

 

There's a reason medical malpractice insurance is twice as expensive in Dade County than any other area in the country....

 

The cashier at Mickey D's isn't the product.

 

I can understand the complain but a lawsuit?!

A ticket is a just a ticket. It doesn't matter what the reason is, no player is guaranteed to play.

If a player is injured right before the game (or even in during the game), you can't tell him "You have to get back on the court and play, cause those tickets were already sold". Rudy Gay has missed a few games for "personal reasons" this season and they were not announced until right before the games started.

Furthermore can people sue Hawks for scoring 20 points in the first half? They paid to see more than that didn't they?

 

So if the Heat suck with Wade and decide to bench him; the fans can sue the team? At the end of the day, most of the suits at the game don't care about winning, they care about seeing star players so they can "talk about sports" at work the next day.

 

I'm glad the Spurs got sued. That's some bush-league crap Pop pulled. I think it'll be settled quickly and we won't ever hear how the lawsuit story ended - NDA and all.

Nobody pays to see Rudy Gay.

 

Not that any analogy is perfect, but the more accurate one would be you go to a McDonald's, they have the Quarter Pounder up there, you order it, pay for it, wait for it, they call your order, you pick it up, and its a single chicken nugget, and they say sorry, we decided to send the quarter pounders back.

That said, what would likely happen in that case is the customer would be refunded, if not by that location, than by McDonald's corporate (assuming a big enough stink was made).

I don't think the Spurs should be getting sued. I do think that fans should at a minimum be refunded the "premium" they paid for the "premium" ticket, but more likely be refunded the whole ticket... by the league, who already fined the Spurs.

The league also needs to set up rules which say this can't happen... IF they decide those are the rules they want to have.

 

That legal standing is total crap, and will be shot down in court. Move along ladies

 

Buying a ticket against the Spurs doesn't guarantee you a seat to watch Timmy and Co. It only guarantees you a seat to watch the Spurs players...which they saw. Now you might assume and hope for Timmy and I can totally understand the disappointment when the starters weren't even in the building but to sue for this is ridiculous.

I think it's more like going to Morton's, ordering the porterhouse and instead of getting a choice custom porterhouse cut, they cooked you up a porterhouse that they bought at Randalls. It might not be quite as good but it's still a porterhouse. If the menu doesn't specify then you ordered, paid for and got a porterhouse.

 

I doubt the Spurs settle such a ridiculous lawsuit. The guy paid to see the Spurs. He saw the Spurs.

 

the 250K fine should go to the fans.

 

That decision also affected people that gambled on that game.

 

It is oftentimes easier to pay a modest sum to make these things go away than actually let it go before a judge. Even if the suit was without merit, there are costs associated.

My mother's company long ago was sued by a local resident after an industrial accident because his dog wouldn't bark thereafter. Sure, they could have beat him in court, but who wants to bother with that. So they settled.

 

Think about the precedent it sets.

 

Except the NBA is very specific in their marketing. They don't market teams, they market players... including Duncan, Parker, etc. (more so in previous years, but still).

In your example, if the Morton's had language on the menu, or a radio/tv/newspaper ad that specifically talked about how the porterhouse is a special porterhouse sourced blah blah blah, then they served you a cheap, Randall's one, absolutely as a customer you should be entitled to a refund. It's false advertising.

I'm not sure what the law is, mind you, just my opinion...

 

So it's Stern's fault after all.

 

How exactly does the NBA market players and not teams?

A more appropriate analogy would be if Morton's served you the worst cut from the special porterhouse source.

 

I disagree. The product is a basketball game. Otherwise shouldn't I be just as satisfied as seeing Duncan vs Lebron in a ping pong match?

The product specifically for that day is the San Antonio Spurs vs Miami Heat. Not Tim Duncan's vs Lebron's. I understand that the NBA markets stars because it's easier to relate to a person instead of a team location or logo.

Should I sue the Rockets if Lin doesn't play tonight against the Clippers because I had purchase my tickets in advance? Doesn't matter the reason why the coach opts not to play his players. As long as the correct team shows up and plays against the home team, to me that is the extent of the contract between the fan.