I was always just a bit suspicious: Dikembe Mutombo of Zaire, Toni Kukoc of Croatia, Georghes Muresan of who-knows-where (not to mention Anthony Mason of Miami) all standing sternly, introspectively, for a tired old song they hear night after night? As the national anthem strikes up before every National Basketball Association game, the trash-talking, the rivalries and the sneaker contracts all fade into the background as the players appear to become consumed, if only for a moment, by their national pride. Television cameras--on the rare occasions when the anthem is televised-- zoom in for tight close-ups of the young men, evoking images of battle-weary soldiers going back out into the field. These guys look like good, no, great Americans.

As cynical as I am, I would never have guessed that my heroes stand "in a dignified posture" during the national anthem under threat of fine or suspension.

The recent controversy involving basketball star Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf imploded before it became a central national concern. But it's almost unfortunate in light of the legal, religious and moral issues it raised: Was the NBA's action consistent with American ideals of freedom of speech and expression? Was the suspension legal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Does Abdul-Rauf have legitimate religious grounds for his action? Does that have bearing on the soundness of his position?

While these questions and others only received sparse airing--the issue never received enough prominence for the Buchanan campaign to snatch it up as a new theme--the deeper implications of the controversy went largely unnoticed.

Last Tuesday, Denver Nuggets guard Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was suspended without pay by the NBA for refusing to stand during the national anthem. Abdul-Rauf, an American citizen, converted to Islam in 1991. For the entire season he has remained in the locker room, sat and stretched, or turned away from the flag during the playing of "The Star Spangled Banner."

In recent weeks the Nuggets alerted the NBA of Abdul-Rauf's behavior, and the NBA asked the Nuggets to solve the problem quietly. But with the relocation of the Oklahoma City bombing trial to Denver, patriotism has become a major focus of the local press and talk radio programs. Once they got word of Abdul-Rauf's nightly disappearing act just prior to the playing of the anthem, the issue became increasingly public.

The media attention reached a head when Abdul-Rauf finally confronted reporters on Tuesday, telling them that standing for the anthem violated his religious beliefs and that, "This country has a long history of [oppression]...I look at the Caucasian-Americans and I look at the African-Americans being oppressed in this country and I won't stand for that." He was suspended for that evening's game against Orlando.

Last Thursday night Abdul-Rauf acceded to NBA demands to stand with his teammates for the national anthem. But during the brief suspension statements of solidarity and condemnation amassed with great speed. The ACLU readied its forces, the American Legion cried "treason" and columnists flocked to both sides of the debate. The New York Times entered the fray on Thursday, late, but with force, rebuking the NBA for having "damaged core democratic ideals" by suspending Abdul-Rauf.

While I'd argue that the Times is right--there is something self-contradictory about a mandatory patriotic gesture in a country founded on the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty--it misses the real lesson of the controversy.

The most disturbing aspect of this entire affair is not the attempt of the NBA to stifle free expression--the "core democratic values" the Times discusses have been under attack for as long as there have been democracies. Rather, we should be shocked that the NBA is so concerned with a patriotic observance in the first place. It's hard to believe that something so tangential to a basketball game would be the subject of NBA legislation.

But should we be so surprised?

Of course not--such a rule makes perfect sense within the context of the NBA's meteoric rise in popularity over the last ten years. After all, attention to detail has been the hallmark of Commissioner David Stern's extended tenure.

What the Abdul-Rauf affair has taught us is that the national anthem is just one of the details, part of a carefully-designed package the NBA has been selling to sell-out crowds around the nation. Just like the mandatory post-game interviews and the locker room press access, standing at attention during the anthem is a facet of the public image Stern and his colleagues have carved out for the "Professional Basketball Player."

So when the NBA responds to Abdul-Rauf by arguing that the rule about the anthem does not contain the seeds of a religious or free speech objection--that it is just a rule like any other and must be followed accordingly--they should not be interpreted as making a narrow rhetorical point. To them, the issue is one of profits and image, of catering to the appetites of the public. When they say that standing is simply one of the many duties of NBA players, they mean it in the way that it's the duty of the actress to say all her lines. They see his objection as analogous to the professional wrestler's moral reservation about body-slamming the referee. A show is just a show.

It should upset us that the NBA looks towards the anthem as just an aspect of the entertainment. It should disturb us that the NBA is so concerned with image that the appearance of pride can be raised to the level of a duty integral to the professionalism of a professional athlete. Such concern for the superficial can only be seen as a denigration of the anthem itself--false observances of patriotism are far more damaging to our national pride and unity than any refusal to observe could possibly be.

Of course Stern and his colleagues have little interest in the status of Abdul-Rauf's sense of national pride. He can sing Islamic hymns or curse the flag for all they care. But stand, damn it, stand.

This is what I suspect Stern told Abdul-Rauf when they met on Wednesday, a meeting after which the player decided to stand for the anthem and return to the Nuggets' active roster. The only inexplicable aspect of the entire affair is that the NBA let the issue get out of hand at all. With an incredible record for resolving potential work-stoppages, contract disputes and controversies of all kinds, it's amazing that the NBA allowed the Abdul-Rauf's affair to evolve, if only briefly, into a scandal.

Perhaps Stern and company haven't been satisfied with the ratings in response to the recent Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson revivals. It couldn't hurt their image to come down on the side of patriotism. Nor could it hurt ticket sales. One of the few things sports fans appreciate as much as a good game is an elaborate show of national pride.