How bold will the NBA be in Donald Trump’s America?

NBA commissioner Adam Silver visited two foreign countries over the past week in service of expanding the league’s map. He joined the Pacers and Nuggets in London for a day game, and flew to Mexico City to watch the Spurs and Suns play a few nights later.

These overseas trips are so common now as to feel ordinary. We have multiple international regular season games, plus preseason trips to Europe, South America, and Asia. It’s only a matter of time before there are preseason games in Johannesburg, Dakar, and Melbourne, too. There is mutual appetite for the NBA to travel broadly.

In that respect, Silver’s comments about Brexit while in London raised some eyebrows. Perhaps they ought to have been bigger news back here in the United States. They were, in a way, a warning shot toward a Western lurch toward nationalism. From the Telegraph:

”This notion we have that wherever you grow up — whether in London or Beijing or Johannesburg or Paris — that if you’re the very best basketball player you’re going to come together and play in this one league.

“So we pay a lot of attention to things that potentially impact borders and, I think as a sport, we are also very focused on principles and values. That includes inclusion and diversity and respect for others.”

Brexit, of course, set in course the path for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. This columnist is not equipped to delve deep into the weeds of the Brexit vote, but the popular interpretation is that a majority of Briton voters preferred to limit immigration — especially by Eastern Europeans and Middle Eastern and North African refugees — and opposed cooperating with mainland Europe on economic policies.

Vote breakdowns indicate that those who supported Brexit were more likely to be older, less likely to be college graduates, and more likely to live in rural, less diverse communities. An ethnic vote breakdown isn’t useful due to Britain’s relative homogeneity, but the more diverse areas of the nation — the cities, essentially — largely voted to remain in the EU.

Now consider Silver’s comments again: “We are also very focused on principles and values. That includes inclusion and diversity and respect for others.”

Saying this in response to questions about Brexit is telling. There is a simple case against Brexit for Silver to make as the chief executive of a large corporation with international interests: it’s all about the money. Brexit creates economic uncertainty in Europe, where the NBA has long sought to extend its brand.

But Silver didn’t just make the case about money. He framed it in broader social terms: “We are also very focused on principles and values.”

That gets especially interesting for two reasons.

Just days later, Silver embraced Mexico, suggesting that a midseason tournament could come to its capital city. This is an idea that had been floated for London in previous years — in fact, Silver briefly mentioned it in the UK last week. But here he is, talking up Mexico City as the potential host. He also discussed Mexico City as a potential expansion city — an international honor previously reserved for London.

The NBA denies that Silver’s Brexit comments and verbal embrace of Mexico City means that the league has reordered its international priorities. But it’s difficult to take the quotes in whole without suspecting that the league is cooler on London than it had been a year ago. (Part of this may also be that Silver is more skeptical of European expansion than was David Stern.)

The more nebulous, but important, reason Silver’s Brexit comments are so interesting is that Britain’s inward turn did not happen in a vacuum. Brexit happened due to the votes of older, less educated Britons in more rural, less diverse communities. Donald Trump was elected President of the United States largely due to the votes of older, less educated Americans in more rural, less diverse communities.

Trump promises some of the policies that fueled Brexit: stricter immigration policy (including potential deportations and a physical wall), isolationist economic policy, and a move away from globalism. Trump, of course, also once dubbed himself, “Mr. Brexit.”

Silver said that the NBA is “very focused on principles and values. That includes inclusion and diversity and respect for others.” Silver was talking about Britain, but he very easily could have been talking about America’s current moment.

Given the NBA’s strong response to North Carolina’s HB2 and the relative youth, diverse, and metropolitan flavor of the NBA’s fan base, you can see where the league would clash with Trump’s stated vision for the United States on principle. He proposes the opposite of what the NBA seeks. Is it possible for Silver to continue the NBA’s progressive push in this environment?

Sixteen of the league’s 28 domestic, non-D.C. teams are found in states that voted for Trump. Granted, these are all in Democrat-voting enclaves within those red states (with the exception of Oklahoma City). Shelby County, Tenn. — home of Memphis — went 62-35 for Hillary Clinton while the state as a whole went 61-35 for Trump. Orleans Parish, La. -- home of New Orleans — went 81-15 for Clinton while the state went 58-38 for Trump. Indianapolis’ Marion County went 59-36 for Clinton; Indiana as a whole went 57-38 for Trump.

American’s biggest cities almost universally voted against Trump’s policies, and the NBA does business primarily in those large cities. Yet those cities are subject to state law that may clash with the NBA’s principles and values. (See: Charlotte and HB2.)

Silver has the benefit of picking his battles. With HB2, there was a clear objective (get an odious law repealed) and clear path to participate in meaningful protest (pull All-Star Weekend out of North Carolina). Had the 2017 All-Star Game not been scheduled for Charlotte, what could the NBA and Michael Jordan’s Hornets have done to properly register its dissent?

The Hornets aren’t moving to Delaware because of a pro-discrimination state law. But because the NBA had a discreet financial pot of gold to threaten, it did so. Now the All-Star Game will be in Louisiana, a state that could very well pass an HB2 of its own.

How far will Silver go to defend the NBA’s principles and values in its markets? Who will push the NBA to be proactive as issues pop up — players, fans, the media? More importantly, how far will Silver’s franchise owners allow him to go? He serves at their pleasure, and he’s smart enough to defer to the feelings of the Board of Governors.

While the NBA is seen as a sports league that largely supports Democrat candidates, the Board is not politically homogeneous. Spurs CEO Julianna Holt donated a quarter of a million dollars to a Trump political action committee, and hundreds of thousands more to Republican causes. Magic owner Rich DeVos is a major Republican donor, and his daughter-in-law has been nominated as Trump’s education secretary. Knicks CEO James Dolan donated to Trump and sent $10,000 to the North Carolina GOP, who had jammed HB2 through the legislature.

That’s the tightrope Silver walks any time he talks. That’s why deliberate action — as the NBA took with HB2, outlining steps and taking its time before pulling the plug on a Charlotte All-Star Game — is key. Silver has proven smart enough to avoid standing on trap doors. But pitfalls could open up at a rapid pace as the Party of Trump takes full control of the federal levers of power and even more states. The NBA has proven to be a socially aware and socially active enterprise under Silver. Will that hold in a more risky environment?