The entire salary cap circumvention case against Steve Ballmer and the Los Angeles Clippers rests on this premise: Kawhi Leonard had a “no-show” endorsement contract with Clippers’ sponsor Aspiration. That endorsement paid him $48 million ($28 million in payments, $20 million in now worthless stock options) but there is no evidence he did any promotional work for the company (no appearances, no marketing, no posts on social media).
Andrei Cherny, the former CEO of Aspiration, released a statement pushing back on the idea that Leonard had a “no-show” contract — the endorsement contract listed things he had to do — and said there was never a discussion of the NBA salary cap during discussions of the contract. He added that the much-discussed “beliefs” clause in Leonard’s contract — that he couldn’t be forced to do anything he didn’t believe in — is standard in celebrity contracts and does not apply to things like talking to the camera or posting on social media.
With the many “hot takes” in the past 10 days about the Clippers/Kawhi Leonard, it’s been surprising (though maybe it shouldn’t be) that until now no reporter has bothered to reach out to me for the facts about that contract. This is what I told the NY Times/Athletic today: pic.twitter.com/VuhlM02fCQ
— Andrei Cherny (@AndreiCherny) September 12, 2025
Two things can be true. As Cherny noted, Leonard’s endorsement contract had specific provisions he had to fulfill — one eight-hour “day of work,” making five social media posts (including retweets) over the course of a year, and more.
Also true: There is no evidence he ever did any of that work. Yet the checks kept coming.
What the Clippers can argue — and what might give the other owners pause when it comes time to punish Los Angeles — is that it is not their job to police players’ endorsement contracts. The Clippers can claim they were not in any way involved with what Leonard did or did not do with Aspiration. Both the other owners and the players’ union are going to be hesitant to set a…
..
