Article content continued

For that, Antetokounmpo was suspended one game. It is hard to know why such a dangerous, reckless play was met with such a light penalty. Antetokounmpo’s clean record was surely a factor, as was Dunleavy’s considerable résumé as an agitator (he had swiped at Antetokounmpo’s head on the other end, and taken a shot at the head of Bucks guard Michael Carter-Williams earlier in the game). Given the Bucks’ situation, it was easy to empathize with Antetokounmpo in his careless moment.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

Still, there was no consistency in the NBA’s reaction. Four years ago the NBA suspended Lakers centre Andrew Bynum five games for flagrantly fouling Dallas guard J.J. Barea in a similarly hopeless situation as the one facing Antetokounmpo. Bynum admittedly had more of a history of questionable fouls, but Antetokounmpo’s foul was no less egregious than Bynum’s.

Yet, there was no uproar over the penalty given to Antetokounmpo. A young, frustrated player did a silly thing, sports’ version of boys will be boys, and so the punishment was accepted as just and sensible. The story just went away, and surely the NBA was glad to have one of its ascendant, likable players out of the negative news cycle.

The contrast of these two events points to a disturbing trend in all professional sports — league punishment is now about public relations rather than the crimes themselves. Applying a proportional penalty that doubles a punitive measure and a disincentive for others is now secondary to the optics of a situation. Nowhere is this clearer than in the NFL, which is mostly its own doing.