Charles Barkley always has some goofy opinions, and that’s just when it comes to the game of basketball, so this next one shouldn’t come as a surprise.
By now you have to be aware of what happened late last week between the Golden State Warriors and Donald Trump. In case you’re not up to speed, it went like this: the Warriors were set to vote on whether to head to the White House. When asked about the upcoming vote, Stephen Curry said that he would vote no. Trump then heard about the video, and preemptively disinvited the team via Twitter.
As if that wasn’t wild enough, Barkley then weighed in on the matter during an NBA TV segment after all that went down.
The TNT broadcaster’s response was that he felt that the Warriors deciding to forgo a trip to the White House would set a bad precedent.
— NBA TV (@NBATV) September 23, 2017
“I think it’s really unfortunate. I think that it’s an honor and privilege to go to the White House, no matter who the president is. And also, I thought it would have been an opportunity for those guys to sit down and talk to the president about some of the issues and concerns they had.
“We’re all concerned about police brutality. I’m concerned about DACA. They could have negotiated a sit-down instead of just coming in, do that informal stuff where he stands there and you get your jersey and everything. It’s unfortunate. It’s just really sad, to be honest with you. When guys start not going to the White House because they don’t like who the president is, I think that sets a bad precedent.”
Remember, the Warriors didn’t actually decide to not go to the White House. It was Trump that told them they were not allowed to come. The team was set to vote on the issue, but didn’t actually get to do so after Trump saw Curry’s comments.
There is also something to be said for Barkley’s insistence that the Warriors had to go to the White House. That is, impressing upon an individual to partake in an activity of which they are morally or otherwise personally opposed. An activity that is not part of their contract, a specific part of winning the Larry O’Brien trophy, or part of what many would consider to be the American ideal — to force any person of free will to do such an inconsequential activity.
That’s before you even get into the idea that Barkley suggested, that the Warriors could have had a conversation with Trump about the issues with which they disagree on. Let’s not argue about whether or not that was possible at this juncture, but instead focus on the fact that the Warriors themselves said that is not something they felt they would be able to do. Head coach Steve Kerr specifically wrote as much in his article on Sports Illustrated:
Internally, we’d discussed whether it’d be possible to just go and meet as private citizens and have a serious, poignant discussion about some of the issues we’re concerned about. But he’s made it hard for any of us to actually enter the White House, because what’s going on is not normal. It’s childish stuff: belittling people and calling them names. So to expect to go in and have a civil, serious discourse? Yeah, that’s probably not going to happen.
Perhaps Barkley is right. Perhaps the Warriors refusing to go to the White House should they have been given the chance would set a precedent. However, should we not encourage the same kind of agency and liberty for our athletes — both as players and as private individuals — that we demand for our everyday citizens?
It seems as though, if the Warriors had refused the opportunity to head to the White House, it would have set a precedent alright. A very good one.
More from Yahoo Sports:
• FBI probe uncovers massive NCAA corruption scandal
• President Trump goes on Twitter tirade against NFL — again
• Cowboys owner leads team in taking a knee
• Chris Mannix: Led by LeBron and Pop, the NBA is ready to fight Trump