Chicago Sky Owner Explains Enes Kanter Freedom Ejection

Incident at Wintrust Arena

Michael Alter, the primary owner of Chicago Sky, spoke about the decision to eject and ban Enes Kanter Freedom from Wintrust Arena. Alter addressed concerns about why Freedom was not given a warning by making an analogy. He stated that someone firing a gun would not receive a warning before facing consequences.

Freedom Deemed a Threat

The decision to ban Freedom came after the team concluded he was a potential threat following actions taken during a game against the Indiana Fever. Alter explained that Freedom became a potential threat when he moved towards the court, sparking a swift response from league security and Chicago Police. The quick decision was supported by video showing Freedom’s actions were seen as stepping towards the court.

Freedom’s Perspective

Enes Kanter Freedom contested the lack of a warning before his ejection. The WNBA fan code does not guarantee warnings before ejections. Alter cited that under certain circumstances, threats do not warrant warnings, akin to severe actions like firing a weapon.

Confrontation with Natasha Cloud

The incident escalated after Freedom allegedly engaged in verbal taunting of Natasha Cloud during the game. Alter revealed that security did not intervene at first since the comments seemed within the realm of basketball trash talk. However, the situation soon evolved into a heated exchange, characterized by gestures and shouting.

Witness Accounts

Alter did not provide audio evidence or specify the words attributed to Freedom. Conversely, a spectator in Fever apparel claimed not to hear any previous taunting from Freedom towards Cloud. Alter noted the challenges in reconciling differing accounts without clear audio evidence.

Disciplinary Decisions

Alter did not disclose plans to discipline Cloud despite acknowledging her involvement in the encounter. Cloud’s actions did not alter expectations for Freedom’s conduct as a fan, Alter insisted. He maintained that individuals are responsible for their actions regardless of provocation.

Advance Notice and Ticket Purchase

Prior notification of Freedom’s attendance raised questions among Sky management. Freedom’s manager informed the Sky three hours before the game that they would attend. Alter interpreted the message as an expectation of possible disturbance, though it was framed as a heads up.

The method of purchasing the ticket outside standard channels led Alter to conclude a deliberate intention to control the timing of disclosure. Despite this, the organization allowed Freedom to attend without initially preventing entry.

Security and Player Communication

Security personnel were informed of Freedom’s presence, but the players were not notified, a decision Alter later regretted. Alter concluded that earlier notice might have prompted the organization to better prepare for Freedom’s attendance.

Conclusion

Alter defended the responses based on interpretations of the advance notice and assessed actions taken during the event. Both sides present differing narratives, each only weakly substantiated by the evidence available.