No, Dan Le Batard, NBA Media Rejects Nikola Jokic More For His Whiteness Than Nationality: Bobby Burack

Nikola Jokic is the best player in basketball. Should he win a championship during these Finals, there should be a debate no further.

He's Tim Duncan with a three-point shot, Magic Johnson's vision for the court, and LeBron James' passing skills.

Though unlike previous players to hold the title of the best, Jokic is hardly a rockstar. He's not a top 10 most famous player in the NBA today. If it weren't for his unusual body mass, sports fans wouldn't recognize his face in public.

How can such a dominant player resonate so little with society at large?

Former ESPN host Dan Le Batard blames Jokic's Serbian background. Le Batard says America "hates" Jokic because he's not American. And that if he were, we'd celebrate him as a white dude who can hoop:

https://twitter.com/LeBatardShow/status/1666440437073080324?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1666440437073080324%7Ctwgr%5E74ab1cfaba190ee7632ba79281a46dccb14c959e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthespun.com%2Fmore%2Ftop-stories%2Fdan-le-batard-nikola-jokic-would-be-bigger-star-if-he-was-american

"You've got a player who's foreign who, if he were American, good god would he be a star! Good god! Same personality. Same exact personality. Holy s-t! A white dude dominating the NBA? 'Yeah it's a white dude but we don't know or understand him. Where does he come from? Oh s-t. What's his past? His brother is what? What is all that?' All that is rugged beyond all of your belief...

"He's Magic and Bird and America hates him. What?"

Le Batard blended two separate discussions: 1. Why isn't Jokic a bigger star? 2. Why is Jokic, to use Le Batard's term, "hated"?

We will take them in order.

There is no one reason Jokic doesn't ooze the same stardom as previous top players in the NBA. The reasons are multiple.

Jokic's throwback, unglamorous, layup-over-dunk style is not jaw-dropping. He's not a viral sensation. Jokic's game doesn't translate to The House of Highlights-ization of the NBA, in which younger viewers consume the game via social media highlights.

There are nods to Tim Duncan in Jokic's repertoire. Duncan is a top 10 player in history. He's not top 40 in the category of celebrity status.

Jokic is also foreign, as Le Batard notes. Foreign players do not resonate as swiftly as American-born. Perhaps the best example is Shohei Ohtani. Baseball nerds declare Ohtani the best combination of hitting and pitching since Babe Ruth -- if not superior. Yet the general public hardly knows his name.

A transcendent star has to drip stardom both in their craft and on the mic. Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Magic Johnson were as interesting off the court as on. Foreign players not fluent in English struggle to excel in the latter prereq.

Jokic is perhaps a greater player than Steph Curry. Yet his style of play, (lack of) personality, and off-court presence are not.

Although that only explains why Jokic fails to captivate mainstream interest. It doesn't explain the vitriol spewed his way.

See, it's not the NBA fans who root against or -- as Le Batard put it -- "hate" Jokic. Rather, it's the media.

Le Batard suggests there's a demand for a "white player" to star in the NBA. Firstly, there's no proof of that. Notice he didn't steer us toward any studies that say that is the case. Secondly, it's quite clear Jokic's skin color is why certain media members dislike him.

Despite false allegations that the NBA media is 90 percent white, the vast majority of NBA television personalities are black -- and thus have far greater influence than any number of beat reporters, who are typically white.

Of the two NBA pregame shows, on TNT and ESPN, all six analysts are black. The leading NBA commentators are as well: from Stephen A. Smith to Charles Barkley to Michael Wilbon (all of whom are elite, by the way).

And because some 70 percent of NBA players are black and ESPN rarely hires white people, nearly all the former players currently contributing to game coverage are also black.

So, if pundits can accuse white football commentators of cold-shouldering black quarterbacks, it's fair to wonder aloud if black basketball commentators do the same to white players, a minority group in the league.

And unlike the case of the NFL media, there is evidence to suggest the abhorrence of Jokic is related to race.

Kendrick Perkins admitted on ESPN and Twitter that his critiques of Jokic are due to his white skin color. Perkins accused Jokic of benefiting from so-called "white privilege" and fabricated statistics to make the case.

Perkins set a narrative that Jokic won two MVPs on the basis of racism. Said narrative cost Jokic the MVP award this past year. It forced white writers to criticize him more to prove they aren't racist. Black commentators like Domonique Foxworth also capitalized on the virality of the discussion and racialized Jokic's success.

Kendrick Perkins doesn't like Jokic. (Well, he didn't. He says he does now.) His rejection of the player has nothing to do with nationality. Instead, Perkins is territorial about a white player infringing on his majority-black league.

ESPN pays Mark Jones to be a neutral voice as a play-by-play commentator. Though he's hardly neutral in the case of Jokic. Jones has long tweeted out-of-context posts to degrade Jokic.

Last weekend, a tweet from Jones went viral in which he took personal defense to a random Twitter account praising Jokic. Hundreds of tweets have since accused Jones of having an issue with the success of a white player.

Given Jones' past -- well, racist -- tweets, it's hard to argue otherwise.

Mark Jones' personal gripes with Jokic have nothing to do with his birth in Serbian or his lack of fluent English.

Jones bemoans the success of Jokic because, for the first time in the broadcaster's career, a white player is the best the NBA has to offer.

OutKick's Dan Dakich elaborated on Jones and Jokic Wednesday morning:

So well said.

Perhaps Jalen Rose's use of "tokenism" when speaking of white basketball players also contributed to the "hate" of which Le Batard speaks.

The sports media portrays Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson as an underdog who won an MVP and wrecked the league, but still faces unjust criticism on account of his skin color.

Of course, none of that's true. Other than winning the MVP. In fact, there is no player more praised than Jackson.

Yet that very narrative the press uses to depict Jackson is true of Jokic.

Nikola Jokic is an underdog. The Nuggets drafted him in the second round.

He won the MVP award twice and was heavily favored to win a third until Perkins challenged voters to prove they are not racist.

Jokic is the best player in the NBA. And yet the leading sports network, ESPN, employs commentators who blatantly and personally disrespect him.

"' is a big tub of lard," said Stephen A. Smith Tuesday.

Dan Le Batard's commentary is partly correct. It's true Jokic would be more popular among fans were he American-born. However, his nationality is not at play in terms of the "hate" he receives.

Le Batard says the fans want to see a white dude succeed in the NBA. Hmm. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the NBA media certainly does not. 

Written by
Bobby Burack is a writer for OutKick where he reports and analyzes the latest topics in media, culture, sports, and politics.. Burack has become a prominent voice in media and has been featured on several shows across OutKick and industry related podcasts and radio stations.