Login
Inside the Mind of a Billionaire Cheater: “At His Level of Wealth, Societal Ethics No Longer Register”
Almost exactly one year ago, investigative journalist Pablo Torre, host of the Pablo Torre Finds Out podcast, exposed alleged efforts by Los Angeles Clippers billionaire owner Steve Ballmer (a former Microsoft Executive) to circumvent the NBA’s collective bargaining agreement by funneling undisclosed millions of dollars to All-Star player Kawhi Leonard.
Now, the league’s year-long investigation has concluded, revealing even more violations than the Pulitzer Prize– and Edward R. Murrow Award-winning podcast series uncovered over more than a dozen episodes.
The investigation’s conclusion also saw league Commissioner Adam Silver levy drastic punishments, including the loss of five future draft picks and suspensions for Ballmer and others in upper management. The team also received a league-record $30 million fine.
As the fallout from the historic cheating scandal and threats of legal action from the team owner continue to make headlines, The Debrief asked experts to help explain the mindset and decision-making of people like Ballmer, who operate in the rare universe of someone reportedly worth over $140 billion.
Decision Making at the Top
To understand how such a wealthy and successful individual could break the rules as brazenly as the 35-page public report from investigating law firm Wachtel, Lipton, Rosen, and Katz lays out, The Debrief asked Patrick Vishy, a behavioral finance educator specializing in decision-making and risk perception for high-level investors and traders, to offer some insight.
“People at the $100 billion level like Steve don’t see risk the same way we do, because survival is no longer on the table,” Vishy explained. “It now becomes a scoreboard amongst his industry peers.”
The high finance educator also suggested that many of Balmer’s fellow owners likely “respected the creativity behind his rule-breaking.” However, Vishy noted, they were likely less enthusiastic about “how he allowed himself to get caught.”
Although the No Nonsense Courses finance educator does not have a psychology background, he did point to two well-documented ‘internal reasons’ why he believes that “Steve in particular is bending the rules the way he has and will probably continue to.”
Invincibility Bias
The first is a concept the educator called “Invincibility Bias.” A search of relevant psychological documentation found that this bias, which is more often referred to as an “invulnerability bias,” is typically associated with the normal teenage developmental idea of being immortal or invulnerable to danger.
In a November 2025 story for Psychology Today, Dr. Su Yeong Kim, Ph.D., described invulnerability bias in teens as “the quiet conviction that ‘nothing bad will happen to me.’”
“This mindset differs from confidence, which acknowledges risk but trusts in one’s ability to handle it,” Dr. Kim explained. “Invulnerability, by contrast, denies risk altogether.”
Although the Clippers owner is well past his teenage years, Vishy told The Debrief that it is not uncommon to encounter this mindset in extremely high-net-worth individuals like Ballmer.
“When somebody takes asymmetrical risks for decades and constantly wins, their brain internalizes the belief that standard rules are meant for others, not them, and they can engineer their way out of any consequence,” the finance educator explained.
The Level Playing Field Fallacy
The second mechanism Vishy suggested that may have affected Balmer’s decisions to cheat is called “The Level Playing Field Fallacy.” While most online citations say the concept originated in sports, its primary modern use appears to be in finance.
When explaining how it applies to this situation involving both worlds, Vishy told The Debrief that “Steve can reasonably assume rival team owners are bending the rules as well and does not want to put himself at such a voluntary disadvantage by being 100% clean.”
As a matter of fact, Vishy added, for someone at Ballmer’s level of success, “it would seem absurd even.”
“At his level of wealth, societal ethics no longer register as a meaningful constraint,” the finance educator explained. “His competitive drive won’t allow him to constantly play from behind like that.”
“These two things lead to ego-driven moral disengagement,” Vishy added. “When you’re used to being the smartest guy in the room, the inner monologue regarding internal ethics shifts from ‘Is this allowed?’ to ‘Is this necessary for my goal?’ plain and simple.”
Why Do Subordinates Go Along?
A thorough examination of the Wachtel report reveals more than a single, uber-wealthy individual deciding that the rules don’t apply to him and that everyone else is cheating, so why shouldn’t he? Instead, the year-long investigation uncovered several cases of fraud involving at least four outside companies and a handful of top Clippers executives all working in concert to facilitate the deception.
While the financial motivations for companies trying to win contracts or unscrupulous agents like Kawhi’s notorious “Uncle Dennis” (who the league has banned for five years as part of its ruling) seem relatively straightforward, the mindset of high-level Clippers employees is not as clear.
According to the investigation’s findings, several Clippers higher-ups, including the team’s President of Business Affairs, Gillian Zucker, and LA’s President of Basketball Operations, Lawrence Frank, not only repeatedly and blatantly violated the league’s salary cap circumvention rules, but also preemptively constructed a series of cover stories just in case a future investigation ever took place.
After a 12-month suspension for Zucker and a 6-month suspension for Frank, The Debrief contacted Giulia P. Davis, a 15-year management consulting veteran and former equity partner who works with Fortune 500 clients to understand the “go along” mindset that may have permeated the entire organization.
The People Involved Often Don’t Experience Themselves as Breaking the Rules
According to the Founder of Mycelia Therapy, the reasons people working under a Steve Ballmer-type go along with rule-breaking behaviors often go beyond a simple fear of losing their jobs. Instead, Davis explained without directly addressing the Clippers fiasco, “there’s a pattern I find interesting in situations like this.”
“The people involved often don’t experience themselves as breaking the rules,” the Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) told The Debrief. “They believe they’ve found a way to work within them.”
As an example, the veteran management consultant pointed to the language used by individuals who find themselves in these situations
“The defense is often not ‘we didn’t do this,’ but ‘what we did was legal,’ Davis explained.
How People Convince Themselves that They Are Not a Rule Breaker
When exploring potential motivations for high-level subordinates, Davis also told The Debrief that people who go along with bad behavior at these levels don’t always start out with improper intentions. Instead, the therapist noted, advisors, lawyers, and outside consultants “will sometimes come into an organization looking for solutions.”
“While saying no might not be their ultimate goal, they must determine whether something can work,” she explained.
The finance world veteran also noted that simple inertia and lack of consequences can lead to a more permissive mentality.
“When all of those people in the room are going to get paid regardless of what happens, it’s quite surprising how easily one can lose sight of a much larger issue,” Davis explained, adding, “that’s why I believe the primary issue might be systemic (i.e., structural), not solely due to the individual’s nature.”
For example, Davis said it is possible for someone in a leadership or ownership position like Ballmer to “develop a culture within which all individuals technically comply with their respective roles, yet no member of the organization will have sufficient separation or motivation to say, ‘I did my job, but in doing so, I defeated the intent of this policy.’”
“It is that point in the decision-making process where ego appears,” Davis said.
“In other words, once you see yourself as being a person who follows the rules, it is far easier for you to deny your own admission, as you are now defending a personal identity,” Davis concluded.
Christopher Plain has spent the last six years as Associate News Editor and Head Science Reporter at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his novels at plainfiction.com, or email him at christopher@thedebrief.org.
