Clearly the WHITE executives at the shoe company are determined to keep black athletes poor. They are racist!
Ridiculous of course. No rich white man in America wants the appearance of racism. There is no payoff for it. In fact, you put your position and your wealth in immediate danger.
The only racist conspiracy exists in the mind of the left.
You're trying to distract again from your original complaint, which had to do with alleged racism in giving out WNBA shoe contracts. It's a very "politician" move you're pulling -- when you look like you're losing on the original point, deflect to some other point and move the goalposts. Come on now, no one here is falling for this.
I have already made that argument at least a half a dozen times.
The bigger Picture is the systemic racism in who gets to own sports clubs.
Stupid. You want to own an NFL franchise - you pay $5 billion.
Stuff like this sends LRC into a frenzy so let's not use racism but let's say this shows some bias. It shows bias simply because there's no thought given about how to raise star athletes up. There are plenty of non-white athletes in the WNBA a shoe company could market.
I think the worse thing is what they do with jerseys. You can't even buy your favorite players jersey and they don't carry all sizes (kids a lot of times). Before you say the WNBA doesn't make money & this & that they're not even trying half the time. Market your stars & carry their merch. It's not that hard. If you're doing that & there's no interest, fine, but I don't think that's the case.
1. You are lying. Each of the three sources I posted concerns Jews claiming they are not white. The 3rd one is from Jpost. None of them was written by an African.
Honestly, the first time I saw the article, the only 1 that opened up was the NYTimes magazine article written by an African American with the anecdote from one Jew not wanting to check off any box. I just saw the others.
I'm sure you've read plenty of posts by Burke.
What about the other two?
Don't know who Burke is or why what he says applies to me.
I have already made that argument at least a half a dozen times.
The bigger Picture is the systemic racism in who gets to own sports clubs.
Nope. You have not. Your posts are generally one or two sentences long and are bare assertions stating conclusions with no supporting evidence. There is one post I found that contains four sentences, which is perhaps the closest thing to an argument you've made. You said:
"If the shoe companies believe this [that white players are more marketable than black players] and it's not so, the owners are racist. If it is true, the public is racist. How do I know how the companies think? Based on their actions of giving 3 white players their own shoes and no black players when blacks are the majority of the league"
This is fallacious reasoning, which is common among race grifters and race activists: the old "disparate impact" argument. If less black people get X than white people, it must be because of systemic racism. Except that there are always plenty of other possible explanations which people making the argument always try to conceal or ignore. You're also still trying to distract from the issue by continually bringing up ownership demographics in other leagues, including leagues where even the most basic knowledge of the sport would show that black players get all kinds of endorsement deals.
I'll make one counterargument and leave it at that until you provide any kind of actual argument for your conclusion: if there are a grand total of three players with shoe deals in an entire league, then there is unlikely to be systemic racism because around 99 percent of the players, regardless of race, do not get shoe deals. If only three people from a large pool get anything, you don't have nearly enough data to determine anything. You'd be on stronger ground if there were 50 players with shoe deals and white players were overrepresented, but even so, the old "disparate impact" fallacy would still be staring you in the face.