Big deal. The union bought their services from suppliers where Hunter's relatives worked. Every team owner buys from his friends. No one criticizes owners for nepotism. What matters is, would the union have saved a material amount of money by employing other service suppliers. The audit did not conclude that. It just said that someone might construe it as bad for appearance. So Hunter's moves didn't cost players one penny.
Hunter landed the .......owners a sweet deal with this new CBA. I don't blame the players for their anger towards him.
Your example is flawed. Owners use their own money to buy from their friends. Hunter is using players money. Maybe it didn't cost the players anything but then again maybe it cost them a lot. We do know Hunters family and friends benefited, was it a mutually beneficial arrangement or more one sided? Either way Hunter made poor choices that would've had him removed in most other professions. I'm surprised the players took this long to fire him.
How did they benefit? They held real, not fake, jobs in which they worked hard, and for which they were fully qualified. For example, his lawyer kid would have worked for a law firm, whether or not that firm had the union as one of its thousands of clients. I have seen no accusation that she was assigned to any work involving the union. No conflict of interest. The only accusation is about appearances.
