Unanswered
The summary report describes a lot of people, companies and payments without naming them. Some of that is almost certainly on purpose. The report itself says it sometimes uses vague descriptions to protect people who asked for confidentiality. Here are the biggest gaps we found, with the report’s own words next to each one.
Who was the other player?
When Erika Wardle Zucker first floated endorsement deals to Aspiration in October 2021, the report says she named two players as examples the company could partner with. One was Kawhi Leonard. The other is never named. The only other player named anywhere in the report is DeAndre Jordan, and that is a separate 2015 matter.
she used Mr. Leonard and another player as examples of players with whom Aspiration could partner.
Summary Report, p.23Who was the business agent?
The report says Zucker enlisted a business agent, already under a retention agreement with the Clippers, to help structure the Aspiration offer to Leonard. This person is only ever called "the business agent" or "the agent". They are not Mitch Frankel, who is named separately as Leonard’s own certified player agent.
a business agent who was then under a retention agreement with the Clippers.
Summary Report, p.23Which consulting deal was a "ruse", and who said so?
Late in the investigation, the report says a credible witness with direct knowledge described one company’s consulting agreement with the Clippers as a sham, built to pass money through to Leonard. Neither the company nor the witness is named, and the report flags the information as confidential.
a credible witness with direct knowledge told investigators that the consulting agreement one company signed with the Clippers was in fact a ruse, designed and intended to be a vehicle for the team to provide the company with funds to be paid to Mr. Leonard.
Summary Report, p.22Who was the former executive, and at which company?
A former executive of one of the three companies told investigators the consulting deal was highly unusual, in part because the company was not in the consulting business at all. The report identifies neither the executive nor which of the companies they came from.
A former executive of one of these companies told investigators that the consulting agreement entered into by the executive’s company and the Clippers was highly unusual.
Summary Report, p.19Which two companies did Zucker have personal ties at?
The report says Zucker had personal relationships at two of the three companies. At one, her husband chaired the board and she had a 30 year working history with the chief executive. At another, she was close with the president who signed the Leonard endorsement deal. It never says which two of the companies these were.
Ms. Zucker had personal relationships at two of the companies. At one, her husband was chair of the board of directors during the relevant time period, and she also had a 30-year working relationship with that company’s CEO. At another, Ms. Zucker had a longstanding relationship with the company’s president.
Summary Report, p.19Which companies got the $10 million payments, and which got $2 million?
The report says two of the three companies were paid almost their entire consulting fee up front, $10 million each, before signing anything with Leonard. The third got a $2 million fee one day after its first payment to Leonard. It never maps those amounts to a named company.
Two of the companies received almost the entirety of their consulting fees up front—in payments of $10 million each, delivered prior to these companies entering into endorsement agreements with Mr. Leonard. The third company received its first annual consulting fee of $2 million one day after making its first payment to Mr. Leonard.
Summary Report, p.19Who was the consultant behind the $28 million carbon figure?
Steve Ballmer and Zucker both said a $28 million payment to Aspiration was based on a team consultant’s study of what it would cost to offset the arena’s carbon emissions. Investigators say they spoke to that consultant, who told them the opposite, that the Clippers handed him the $28 million figure first. The consultant is never named.
investigators spoke directly with this consultant, who said that the Clippers had given him a $28 million budget with which to address the Forum’s emissions—not the other way around.
Summary Report, p.30Who was the 2015 sponsor in the DeAndre Jordan matter?
The report notes a similar 2015 episode, where the Clippers tried to line up an endorsement deal between DeAndre Jordan and an incoming team sponsor while chasing him in free agency. The league fined the team $250,000. That sponsor is never named.
the Clippers engaged in efforts to facilitate an endorsement agreement between DeAndre Jordan—a player the Clippers were then seeking to sign in free agency—and an incoming team sponsor.
Summary Report, p.10
Spotted a name the report actually does give, or new reporting that fills one of these in? Please tell us and we will check it against the source.