Sports
‘The Basketball 100’ GOAT Points: A new way to look at the greatest (players) of all time
“The Basketball 100” is the definitive ranking of the 100 greatest NBA players of all time from The Athletic’s team of award-winning writers and analysts, including veteran columnists David Aldridge and John Hollinger. This excerpt is reprinted from the book, which also features a foreword by Hall of Famer Charles Barkley.
“The Basketball 100” is available today. Read David Aldridge’s introduction and all of the excerpts here.
How do you rank the greatest players in history?
With great difficulty, would be my answer. Attempting to rank the best players in history from one to 100 for this book was impossible, especially when asked to compare between different roles, different positions, and different eras. How the heck are we supposed to split hairs between Ricky Barry and Dwyane Wade, the 26th- and 27th-ranked players on The Athletic’s list?
Well, that’s where data can help us. Or at least, if we use it well, it can help refine and improve our thought process for making the list. There is no ultimate truth here, no one correct and final answer. But for a sport that has been uniquely awful at preserving and discussing its history, it seems that developing a framework for the discussion might be a good place to start.
So how do we make a list of the best players of all time? There are some questions that I think should guide this. That perhaps, if pondered more deeply, might produce a bit less of the reflexive leaning toward secondary players on great teams that has plagued most “best-of” historical lists I’ve seen, including those by the league.
Let’s start here: If we’re covering more than 75 years worth of players, more or less, and only naming 100, that’s basically only one player a year. I get that most good players play for 10 to 20 years, but still, their prime seasons don’t encompass that whole span. (Except LeBron, you freak.) Only three players in history have been First Team All-NBA more than 10 times; only 20 did it more than five times.
The story of the greatest players in NBA history. In 100 riveting profiles, top basketball writers justify their selections and uncover the history of the NBA in the process.
The story of the greatest plays in NBA history.
Buy
Do the math: split 100 half-decade-long “peak primes” across 75 years and you get fewer than seven players a year; do the same with a decade-long prime and you get three. Any way you slice it, the bar for this list is pretty darned high.
Work backward, and one of the first gates for considering somebody for the top-100 list is: was this guy ever considered one of the 10 best players in the league?
That’s just the cover charge to get in the door. To really crack the list, you probably want to answer yes to the next question. Was this guy ever considered one of the five best players? It’s amazing how many players made the NBA’s list for whom those questions are, at best, iffy.
Or look at it another way: through the 2022–23 season, 72 players had made First Team All-NBA at least twice. That includes virtually all of the shoo-in types on the top 100, as well as some great players who didn’t quite make the list (it also includes Max Zaslofsky and Bob Feerick, but I digress).
Those two questions above are not the only valid ones, of course. There are a lot of related questions that should be part of the discussion, especially if we’re ranking players from one to 100.
In particular, if we’re talking about the cream of the cream, I would propose the following outline of important questions. (This cribs heavily from Bill James’s work in the 1985 Baseball Abstract, a dog-eared copy of which still lines my office bookshelf.)
- Was he the best player in the league? Did anyone, at any point, suggest that he might be the best player in the league?
- Did he win MVP? Did he factor heavily in MVP races?
- Was he the best player in the league at his position?
- Was he ever voted First Team All-NBA?
What about Second Team?
- How many All-NBA–caliber seasons did he have?
- Was he the best player on his team?
- If he wasn’t the best player on his team, was he at least the second-best player on a team with a clear all-time great as the best player?
- Was he ever the best player on a champion? Is it likely that this player could be the best player on a championship team?
- Did he have a major impact on the postseason, beyond just lucking into being on the same team as Magic Johnson or LeBron James? Did he have a greater impact on games played at the highest level?
- Was he good enough to be an impact player past his prime or was his career over at 30?
- How many All-Star–caliber seasons did he have?
- Was he a fixture on the All-Star team? And, um, not because of fan voting?
- Do players with similar advanced stats get consideration in the top 100?
- Is there any evidence that he was significantly better or worse than his stats?
- Is there evidence that he was significantly better or worse than contemporaries voted in awards?
As a 16th item, I’ll note that we should value the opinion of the contemporaries who were watching these players in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, when most of us couldn’t . . . either because we weren’t alive yet or because the games were only televised locally, if at all. Additionally, the statistical record from this era just isn’t nearly as complete. Like it or not, the eye test matters quite a bit for that era.
You might look at these questions and think, know what would be great? It would be cool if someone had a formula to weigh these accomplishments and rank players by where they stood. Well, funny you should ask. In the process of making my own list for The Athletic’s Basketball 100 project, I developed a formula to help guide my process.
That formula is called GOAT points, which stands for . . . Greatest Of All Time, duh. I don’t have some funky alternative abbreviation, sorry, nor have I found an obscure backup center to name this after. (Someday I will create a formula called “SMREK.” Someday . . . )
Again, we’re trying to divine the players who succeeded at the highest levels and separate them from the ones who were merely very good players for a long time. Because of that, the highest-value achievements are orders of magnitude more important than more common accomplishments (like making the All-Star team or Third Team All-NBA) that in any other company might be very impressive.
GOAT points is a cumulative points system that adds up all the “quality” from a player’s career. In that way, it rewards longevity, but not at the expense of excellence. Bill Walton’s 1976–77 and 1977–78 seasons are worth more than a lot of players’ entire careers.
Here’s the system:
MVP vote shares: 50 points for each 1.0
Basketball-reference.com has a system for determining a player’s share of the MVP vote, which is a more precise metric than a binary first-second-third and even allows us to distinguish among near-unanimous awards from more contested votes.
For example, Bill Walton had 0.117 MVP vote shares in 1977 (when he finished second) and 0.403 MVP vote shares in 1978 (when he won). He goes in the books with 0.52 career vote shares. The all-time leader here through 2022–23 is LeBron James, with 8.8.
One note here: There are eight players (Julius Erving, Rick Barry, Billy Cunningham, Spencer Haywood, Artis Gilmore, Connie Hawkins, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels) who factor at least somewhat into the top-100 discussion and received significant ABA MVP vote shares; I took these at one-third of their value. This feels like a fair adjustment: first, because the ABA had half as many teams as the NBA for nearly the entirety of its existence and, second, while it was close to the NBA in quality, I don’t think anyone thought it achieved full parity.
Additionally, I had to go back in time and give an estimated 3.5 MVP vote shares to George Mikan; the league didn’t give out the award until 1955–56, when Mikan’s prime years had passed. If you’re scoring at home, I also gave 1.0 to Joe Fulks and 0.5 to Paul Arizin.
- First Team All-NBA: 10 points each
- Second Team All-NBA: 3 points each
- Third Team All-NBA: 1 point each
- First Team All-ABA: 5 points each
Roughly tripling the value between First and Second Team, and again between second and third, keeps the emphasis on the highest-order achievements. Note that even First Team All-NBA is just one-fifth as valuable as a full MVP vote share. Consistent with the treatment above, I also halved the reward for achieving ABA First Team and didn’t acknowledge the second team.
Finals MVP: 10 points
Note that for those who played before the advent of the award in 1969, I had to “award” a Finals MVP based on who likely would have won it that year. I handed out seven to Bill Russell, four to George Mikan, one more to Wilt Chamberlain, and one each to Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy, Paul Arizin, Bob Davies, Sam Jones, and Dolph Schayes. Hopefully you agree with my voting.
All-Star team: 1 point
In the context of comparing all-time greats, making the All-Star team is just not that big a deal; it’s the floor, not the ceiling.
Every player in the GOAT points top 100 was named to at least five All-Star teams except the players from before the ’50s, who didn’t have an All-Star Game to play in. (I “selected” those players for the years they were first-team all-league and didn’t have a game to play in.)
I did not acknowledge making an ABA All-Star team; in conferences with five and six teams, respectively, the bar was just too low.
Career win shares above 100: 1 point
To balance some of the emphasis on peak value versus career value, and to reward more general team accomplishment and durability, I added a bonus for players who achieved at least 100 career win shares on basketball-reference.com. This is a fairly simplistic measurement, yes, but it has the advantage of being available back to the beginning of the NBA.
Conveniently, 96 players in NBA history had at least 100 career win shares through 2022–23, and received extra points this way. Most got scraps, however; only 24 players in league annals have cleared 150 win shares. Setting a bar at 100 strikes a balance between rewarding quality longevity without overly rewarding “hanging around” years or overly punishing players with brief peaks.
Note that I did not count ABA win shares here; there are some totals from the early years of that league especially that are just batty; suffice to say it produced results that I do not think I could defend.
Career BPM above 2.0: 7.5 points per point
Finally, we have a contribution from the advanced stats, somewhat. Basketball-reference.com only has BPM dating to 1974, and uses some tricks to fill in gaps for everything prior to 1985, so it’s definitely more valuable for modern players than for old-timers. I included it here to help weigh the modern players in particular; I think it’s hard for us to answer the question “How great is Paul George?” while his career is going on, and this helps provide a historical guidepost.
The limitation here is that I had to make crude estimates for pre-1974 players, generally giving them the benefit of the doubt and rating them comparable to historical peers from later eras. Because of this, I had to make BPM’s contribution relatively minor; doubling my estimate for Elgin Baylor, for instance, would only move him up three spots in the GOAT point standings.
So what do GOAT points give us? Still a lot of questions about comparing eras and roles, of course. What do we do with Mikan, for example? GOAT points tells us something we already know — he dominated the early 1950s — but tells us nothing about the relative strength of the league then versus in 1972, let alone 1992 or 2022.
For that matter, GOAT points doesn’t really know what to do with Dennis Rodman, either, or how to handle cases of extreme longevity (Karl Malone, John Stockton), or what to do about Michael Jordan skipping two years of his prime and then retiring at 35.* It can’t tell you whether Walt Frazier was better than Isiah Thomas, or if Clyde Drexler was better than Dwyane Wade, or if 1.75 God-level seasons from Bill Walton is better than 15 years of Robert Parish being the third-best center in the East.
* (Those Wizards years didn’t happen.)
What it can do, at least, is set the stage for the discussion. Maybe I weighted some stuff too highly and other things not highly enough; surely there are ways this can be improved in the coming years, especially if we get better historical advanced stats.
That said, it also brings some important debate questions to light, particularly regarding a few players who were excluded from this list or, perhaps, vaulted too prominently in it.
OK, enough of my yapping. It’s time for the envelopes. Here’s what the GOAT points formula spits out for the top 100 players in pro basketball history:
GOAT Points: “The Basketball 100”
| RANK | PLAYER | GOAT POINTS |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
LeBron James |
857.3 |
|
2 |
Michael Jordan |
750.2 |
|
3 |
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar |
660.1 |
|
4 |
Tim Duncan |
504.2 |
|
5 |
Karl Malone |
503.6 |
|
6 |
Wilt Chamberlain |
499.0 |
|
7 |
Larry Bird |
487.7 |
|
8 |
Magic Johnson |
486.6 |
|
9 |
Bill Russell |
471.5 |
|
10 |
Shaquille O’Neal |
459.6 |
|
11 |
Kobe Bryant |
457.1 |
|
12 |
Kevin Durant |
373.7 |
|
13 |
James Harden |
356.2 |
|
14 |
Oscar Robertson |
344.5 |
|
15 |
David Robinson |
335.1 |
|
16 |
Kevin Garnett |
324.1 |
|
17 |
George Mikan |
320.0 |
|
18 |
Bob Pettit |
317.5 |
|
19 |
Hakeem Olajuwon |
316.0 |
|
20 |
Jerry West |
315.5 |
|
21 |
Nikola Jokić |
307.9 |
|
22 |
Giannis Antetokounmpo |
307.1 |
|
23 |
Chris Paul |
305.2 |
|
24 |
Charles Barkley |
305.0 |
|
25 |
Dirk Nowitzki |
297.1 |
|
26 |
Moses Malone |
286.0 |
|
27 |
Steph Curry |
268.0 |
|
28 |
Julius Erving |
230.5 |
|
29 |
Steve Nash |
218.7 |
|
30 |
John Stockton |
204.2 |
|
31 |
Elgin Baylor |
202.5 |
|
32 |
Bob Cousy |
196.5 |
|
33 |
Dolph Schayes |
184.5 |
|
34 |
Joel Embiid |
181.5 |
|
35 |
Dwight Howard |
161.0 |
|
36 |
Kawhi Leonard |
160.3 |
|
37 |
Jason Kidd |
159.6 |
|
38 |
Rick Barry |
152.8 |
|
39 |
Russell Westbrook |
150.9 |
|
40 |
Patrick Ewing |
141.8 |
|
41 |
Gary Payton |
140.5 |
|
42 |
Allen Iverson |
140.0 |
|
43 |
John Havlicek |
138.5 |
|
44 |
Dwyane Wade |
138.4 |
|
45 |
Luka Dončić |
133.5 |
|
46 |
Clyde Drexler |
129.7 |
|
47 |
Anthony Davis |
129.1 |
|
48 |
George Gervin |
123.8 |
|
49 |
Scottie Pippen |
120.7 |
|
50 |
Tracy McGrady |
107.0 |
|
51 |
Willis Reed |
106.5 |
|
52 |
Elvin Hayes |
102.0 |
|
53 |
Dominique Wilkins |
99.4 |
|
54 |
Joe Fulks |
98.0 |
|
55 |
Bob McAdoo |
94.2 |
|
56 |
Paul Pierce |
93.6 |
|
57 |
Reggie Miller |
93.3 |
|
58 |
Dave Cowens |
89.0 |
|
59 |
Paul Arizin |
87.0 |
|
60 |
Walt Frazier |
83.5 |
|
61 |
Damian Lillard |
83.1 |
|
62 |
Hal Greer |
82.0 |
|
63 |
Wes Unseld |
76.8 |
|
64 |
Robert Parish |
75.0 |
|
65 |
Isiah Thomas |
74.8 |
|
66 |
Sidney Moncrief |
74.5 |
|
67 |
Billy Cunningham |
73.0 |
|
68 |
Alonzo Mourning |
71.5 |
|
69 |
Connie Hawkins |
71.1 |
|
70 |
Ray Allen |
70.9 |
|
71 |
Chauncey Billups |
70.0 |
|
72 |
Pau Gasol |
70.0 |
|
73 |
Bill Sharman |
69.5 |
|
74 |
Bob Lanier |
68.6 |
|
75 |
Bill Walton |
67.3 |
|
76 |
Tiny Archibald |
67.0 |
|
77 |
Mel Daniels |
66.6 |
|
78 |
Chris Webber |
65.7 |
|
79 |
Artis Gilmore |
65.4 |
|
80 |
Adrian Dantley |
64.3 |
|
81 |
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander |
64.3 |
|
82 |
Jayson Tatum |
63.0 |
|
83 |
Spencer Haywood |
62.0 |
|
84 |
Grant Hill |
61.5 |
|
85 |
Derrick Rose |
59.5 |
|
86 |
Paul George |
59.3 |
|
87 |
Bernard King |
58.0 |
|
88 |
Tony Parker |
57.0 |
|
89 |
Bob Davies |
57.0 |
|
90 |
Jimmy Butler |
50.5 |
|
91 |
Carmelo Anthony |
50.0 |
|
92 |
Dave Bing |
50.0 |
|
93 |
Vince Carter |
49.5 |
|
94 |
Neil Johnston |
49.0 |
|
95 |
Kevin McHale |
48.8 |
|
96 |
Tim Hardaway Sr. |
48.3 |
|
97 |
Jerry Lucas |
48.0 |
|
98 |
Blake Griffin |
48.0 |
|
99 |
Paul Westphal |
44.0 |
|
100 |
Penny Hardaway |
43.8 |
Excerpted from “The Basketball 100” published by William Morrow. Copyright © 2024 by The Athletic Media Company. Reprinted courtesy of HarperCollins Publishers
(Illustration: Kelsea Petersen / The Athletic; Photo: Jesse D. Garrabrant / NBAE via Getty Images)
Sports
With U.S. at war with Iran, political upheaval could engulf World Cup
Twelve days ago the U.S., a World Cup host country, launched a full-scale bombing campaign against Iran, a country that has qualified to play in the tournament. That’s never happened before.
Five days later, that same World Cup host began military operations inside the borders of Ecuador, another World Cup qualifier, half a world away. That’s never happened before either.
With the tournament scheduled to kick off in three months, those events have soccer scholar Jonathan Wilson questioning whether it’s wise for the World Cup to go on at all.
“It seems to me, for each passing day, it’s less and less likely that the World Cup can happen,” he said.
That take seems unduly alarmist said David Goldblatt, a British sportswriter and sociologist who is a visiting professor at Pitzer College in Claremont. Anything short of a full-scale war inside the U.S. would not be enough to pull the plug on the tournament now, he said. Especially with FIFA expecting revenues of as much as $11 billion.
“I mean, it’s not a good look,” Goldblatt conceded. “And certainly when set against FIFA’s official pronouncements on its role in encouraging world peace and cosmopolitan celebrations of a universal humanity, none of that sits terribly easily.
“But in terms of actually running the World Cup, I don’t think it’s going to make very much difference at all.”
However, with the Trump administration open to engaging in more international conflicts, there’s little doubt this World Cup, the largest and most complex in history, will also be the most political in history as well.
Complicating things further is the fact the current conflict in the Middle East hasn’t been limited to just the U.S. and Iran. Iranian missiles have hit both Qatar and Saudi Arabia, among other countries, and Jordan has fired on U.S. assets.
Those three countries are World Cup qualifiers as well.
The fate of a soccer tournament pales in importance to the death and destruction the conflagration in the Middle East has produced, of course. But the need for unity is the very reason there’s a World Cup in the first place.
When French soccer administrator Jules Rimet founded the tournament 96 years ago, he believed soccer could be a tool for international peace. And in the early years of the tournament, Rimet, FIFA’s longest-serving president and a talented diplomat, was able to limit the impact of geopolitics on the World Cup, watering down Mussolini’s influence on the 1934 World Cup, for example, and steering the 1938 tournament away from Hitler’s Germany.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has taken a far different approach, courting President Donald Trump’s support despite his growing number of global conflicts.
A week before bombs began falling on Iran, Infantino appeared at the inaugural meeting of Trump’s Board of Peace wearing a red cap with ‘USA’ on the front and the numbers ‘45-47’ — a reference to Trump’s non-consecutive presidencies. That act was so blatantly partisan, IOC president Kirsty Coventry said her organization would investigate whether Infantino, an IOC member, breached the terms of the group’s charter, which requires members to act independent of political interests.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino holds up a USA hat as he attends the inaugural meeting for the Board of Peace at the Institute of Peace in Washington on Feb. 19.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
“Infantino has absolutely breached every FIFA protocol on neutrality,” said Wilson, author of “The Power and Glory: The History of the World Cup.”
“Absolute neutrality is always impossible and not desirable, but it has clearly gone way, way, way beyond. The peace prize looked grotesque at the time. It looks even worse now. And I can’t see how the future will look kindly on Infantino. I think Infantino has to some extent legitimized Trump.”
This is hardly new behavior from Infantino, who had close relationships with Vladimir Putin ahead of the 2018 tournament played in Russia and Qatar’s leaders ahead of the 2022 tournament despite their well-known human rights violations.
The list of countries Infantino is asking to overlook poor relations with the country hosting the majority of World Cup games this summer is growing.
Consider that Denmark, which administers Greenland, an autonomous territory Trump has also threatened to invade, can qualify for the tournament in a European playoff that will take place later this month. Then there’s World Cup qualifiers Haiti, Ivory Coast and Senegal, who aren’t at war with the U.S. but whose citizens have been banned from entering the country to cheer for their teams. That completely contradicts a promise from Infantino, who said “everybody will be welcome” at the 2026 World Cup.
“If I had a crystal ball I could tell you now what is going to happen,” Heimo Schirgi, the World Cup chief operating officer for FIFA, said Monday. “But obviously the situation is developing. It’s changing day by day and we are monitoring closely. [But] the World Cup will go on right? The World Cup is too big and we hope that everyone can participate that has qualified.”
Goldblatt, the Pitzer professor, said Infantino’s action are understandable since he has few cards to play against Trump.
President Trump speaks as he receives the FIFA Peace Prize as FIFA president Gianni Infantino applauds on Dec. 5 the Kennedy Center in Washington.
(Patrick Smith / Getty Images)
“What’s Infantino going to do? What levers can you pull?” he asked. “You can threaten to take it away. That’s not happening. Moral admonishment? Who’s going to take that from FIFA? It is a farcical idea that anybody thinks that the president of FIFA has any kind of collective moral authority or any role as a spokesperson for the progressive part of the world.
“They may fantasize that this is the case. But it is morally and politically absurd that any of us should expect that of these people. So if you are Infantino and that is the case, you know what works with Trump? What works is flattery. So of course he’s gone down that path.”
The games, Goldblatt said, will go on even if bombs are still falling. And that may not be an entirely bad thing.
“Football’s a great distraction. That’s partly why it’s so popular,” he said. “It will be virtually impossible, if the war continues, for that not to be a central element of like, the meaning and the purpose of what we’re all doing here.
“How we’ll feel and what it will look like, I don’t know. It will be very strange. Football is unpredictable and extraordinary. Something will happen that will warm our souls.”
⚽ You have read the latest installment of On Soccer with Kevin Baxter. The weekly column takes you behind the scenes and shines a spotlight on unique stories. Listen to Baxter on this week’s episode of the “Corner of the Galaxy” podcast.
Sports
Australia grants asylum to 5 Iranian women’s soccer players amid Iran conflict
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Australia granted asylum to five players from the Iranian women’s soccer team who were visiting for a tournament when the U.S.-Israeli attacks against Iran began.
Australian federal police officers on Tuesday transported the five women from their hotel in Gold Coast, Australia, to a “safe location” after they made asylum requests to meet with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and to finalize the processing of their humanitarian visas.
“Last night I was able to tell five women from the Iranian Women’s Soccer team that they are welcome to stay in Australia, to be safe and have a home here,” Burke said on X.
The move comes after the team refused to sing the Iranian anthem before their first Women’s Asian Cup match early last week against South Korea, although they later sang and saluted the anthem in two subsequent matches, including ahead of their final match, when they were eliminated by the Philippines.
IRANIAN WOMEN’S SOCCER FANS SHOW SUPPORT FOR TRUMP AS TEAM APPEARS TO PIVOT ON NATIONAL ANTHEM STANCE
Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke poses with five Iranian women soccer players who have been granted asylum in Australia, Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (Australia Ministry of Home Affairs)
“I don’t want to begin to imagine how difficult that decision is for each of the individual women, but certainly last night it was joy, it was relief,” Burke told reporters after signing the documents. “People were very excited about embarking on a life in Australia.”
The five women said they were happy for their names and pictures to be published, according to Burke, who emphasized that the players wanted to make clear that they were not political activists.
The Iranian team arrived in Australia for the tournament before the war against Iran began on Feb. 28.
After the team was eliminated from the tournament over the weekend, they faced potentially returning to a country still under bombardment. The team’s head coach, Marziyeh Jafari, said on Sunday the players “want to come back to Iran as soon as we can.”
An official squad list named 26 players, as well as Jafari and other coaches.
While only five players were granted asylum, Burke said the offer was given to everyone on the team.
IRAN FLAG REMOVED FROM PARALYMPICS OPENING CEREMONY AFTER SOLE ATHLETE WITHDRAWS OVER TRAVEL SAFETY CONCERNS
Iran players during their national anthem ahead of the Women’s Asian Cup soccer match between Iran and the Philippines in Robina, Australia, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (Dave Hunt/AAPImage via AP)
“These women are tremendously popular in Australia, but we realize they are in a terribly difficult situation with the decisions that they’re making,” Burke said. “The opportunity will continue to be there for them to talk to Australian officials if they wish to.”
It remains unclear when the remaining players will leave Australia.
“Australians have been moved by the plight of these brave women,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters. “They’re safe here and they should feel at home here.”
“They then had to consider that and do it in a way that did not present any danger to them or to their families and friends back home in Iran,” he continued.
The asylum offer came after U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday called on Australia to grant asylum to any team member who wanted it.
Trump had blasted Australia on social media, saying Australia was “making a terrible humanitarian mistake” by allowing the team to be “forced back to Iran, where they will most likely be killed.”
Supporters react towards a bus transporting Iranian woman players following their Women’s Asian Cup soccer match against the Philippines on the Gold Coast, Australia, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (Dave Hunt/AAP Image via AP)
“The U.S. will take them if you won’t,” Trump said, despite his administration’s efforts to limit the number of immigrants in the U.S. who can receive asylum for political purposes.
Just hours later, Trump praised Albanese in another post.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“He’s on it! Five have already been taken care of, and the rest are on their way,” Trump wrote.
Albanese said Trump had called him for “a very positive conversation,” about the issue. The prime minister said he explained “the action that we’d undertaken over the previous 48 hours” to support the women.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Sports
Hawks’ strip club collab became a PR nightmare for the NBA. Now it’s been scrapped
The famed Magic City adult entertainment club won’t be featured at next week’s Atlanta Hawks promotional night, the NBA announced on Monday.
NBA commissioner Adam Silver acknowledged concerns from others in the league on Monday, saying that his decision to cancel the collaboration is in the best interests of the “broader NBA community.”
“While we appreciate the team’s perspective and their desire to move forward,” he said in a statement, “we have heard significant concerns from a broad array of league stakeholders, including fans, partners and employees.”
The Hawks announced its “Magic City Monday” promotion in late February, featuring a halftime performance by Atlanta-based artist T.I., a collaborative hoodie and the offering of some of the club’s popular wings, including the lemon-pepper variety named after former Hawks player Lou Williams.
Hawks principal owner Jami Gertz was a producer on “Magic City: An American Fantasy,” a docuseries that aired on Starz. Still, the team’s decision to collaborate with the Atlanta strip club ruffled some feathers in the NBA.
San Antonio Spurs center Luke Kornet asked the Hawks to cancel the promotional night in a post on Medium last week, saying that it would “reflect poorly on us as an NBA community, specifically in being complicit in the potential objectification and mistreatment of women in our society.”
Others had argued that Magic City is a big part of Atlanta culture and should be celebrated as such.
The Hawks wrote in a statement on Monday that it was disappointed with the NBA’s decision but would respect it.
Rapper T.I. will still perform at halftime, but the live recording of the Hawks AF Podcast featuring Gertz, T.I. and Magic City founder Michael Barney was canceled. Fans who pre-ordered the collaboration hoodie will still receive one, but the sweatshirts won’t be available for purchase at the game, the Hawks wrote on X.
“As a franchise, we remain committed to celebrating the best of Atlanta — with authenticity — in ways that continue to unite and bring us all together,” the Hawks wrote.
Times staff writer Chuck Schilken contributed to this report
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Pennsylvania5 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Sports6 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Virginia6 days agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia
-
Politics1 week agoMamdani’s response to Trump’s Iran strike sparks conservative backlash: ‘Rooting for the ayatollah’