Not really. If you do not want to spend hours on the commute each day you usually HAVE to sign onto an HOA or COA. If you are renting then you have those regulations as well (but that is more to be expected since you are NOT an owner)
IT is exactly the same with the pro sports associations. If I win several hundred million $$ in the lotto next week I cannot just go out and buy a team or a part of a team. I have to be vetted by the association and agree to their rules. Rules that have never been thru the process of representative legislation. And that seems to me to be a violation of free trade.
It's absolutely an abridgement of free enterprise. It's collusion. But here's the thing... when employees of a number of businesses form a union together for the purpose of bargaining collectively, then the owners and management of those same businesses are specifically, legally, allowed to collude, for the purpose of bargaining collectively with them.
This whole scenario has much more to do with the players who are unionized than any particular owner. The process of collectively bargaining never really
stops, even when a CBA is reached. It is the players in particular who want Sterling out as owner. And, as a collective formed and able to bargain with and against the colluded owners, they can bargain for anything they want, including the ouster of one of the owners from the Association of owners.
And that's what's going on here. The owner's association (the NBA), is caving to the demands of the player's association (the NBPA) in the bargaining process. They could stand with Sterling if they wanted to and say, "there is nothing illegal," if they wanted to. They could say, "go pound salt" or lock the players out if they wanted to.
But, because Sterling has, for the most part, been a complete thorn in the sides of everyone, including his fellow owners, and because, frankly, they want him out as well, they will cave to the player's association.
Now, they can't legally force him to sell, or dictate who he sells to. But they can
exclude him from the association, in which case exactly how much use is the basketball franchise? Not a lot, since it wouldn't be able to schedule games, or have any kind of worthy competition to play against. And what players will play for him? Since the "franchise" would no longer be franchised, it would be outside of the CBA, and contracts negotiated under that CBA would be invalid.