Bob Iger, set to buy the Lakers, has long been a Clippers fan, a stance he once framed as “not in my DNA”

Bob Iger is about to step into one of sports’ most scrutinized roles: co-owner of the Los Angeles Lakers. The announcement comes with an unusual spotlight on Iger’s personal allegiance, after reporting noted he is a Clippers fan, and that he previously told JJ Redick that rooting for the Lakers was “not in my DNA.” For Lakers supporters, the question is not whether a fan can be a credible owner, but whether Iger can translate decades of perspective and loyalty into the Lakers’ culture and expectations on a team that measures itself against a championship standard.

According to Yahoo Sports, Iger and business partner Josh Kushner agreed on Wednesday to purchase the Lakers for $12.5 billion from controlling owner Mark Walter. If the deal proceeds as described, Iger’s path from media executive to NBA decision-maker will be watched both on basketball matters and on matters of symbolism, because ownership in Los Angeles is never only administrative. It is a story fans tell themselves about what the franchise is, who it serves, and how it interprets its own history.

The particular friction point, as described in the report, is that Iger’s stated rooting interest has been aligned with the Clippers rather than the Lakers. Redick, a former NBA guard and an increasingly visible basketball media voice, is cited in the reporting as having heard Iger’s earlier stance about not rooting for the Lakers. The phrasing matters less as a literal claim and more as a marker of identity, which is exactly what most organizations in sports work hard to reshape once a person is entrusted with governance.

There is also a broader context to why this story has staying power. The Lakers’ fan base includes residents who grew up during eras defined by franchise dominance, but it also includes younger supporters who came of age through a league-wide shift toward player empowerment and modern team-building. In that climate, the owner’s background and worldview can be interpreted as a report for whether the front office will prioritize continuity, brand management, or a more aggressive basketball-first approach.

At the same time, fans should recognize the limits of what fandom can predict. Many major sports owners have personal loyalties that do not match the teams they ultimately lead, and corporate stewardship is not the same as childhood fandom. What tends to determine results is how ownership structures authority, how it hires executives and coaches, and how it supports long-term roster planning. Still, the owner-fan mismatch can become a credibility issue if it is paired with operational missteps, because it gives detractors an easy narrative hook.

For Iger, the likely task is straightforward even if the execution is delicate: establish that his identity as a Lakers owner will be defined by the franchise’s mission, not by past preference. He will be expected to show up publicly in a way that indicates respect for Lakers history and seriousness about winning. Whether fans forgive the Clippers connection will depend largely on what the Lakers do next after a transition in control, and how quickly the new leadership group clarifies priorities for the roster-building cycle.

The coming months should therefore focus less on the personal detail and more on the managerial implications. Fans will watch for how the new co-ownership group approaches basketball decision-making, how it communicates with the franchise’s public-facing partners, and whether it articulates a coherent plan for the team’s path back toward contention. The initial question will be uncomfortable, but the answer can still be earned quickly if ownership’s actions match the Lakers standard.