Getting back to the Kyrie NBA boycott thing, imagine two scenarios:
1. Kyrie leads a push to boycott the remainder of the season.
The entire continuation of the 20-21 season is cancelled due to the players wanting to advance the BLM movement.
Other players are unhappy, and make it well known that they thought the best approach was to play out the season. But the number of players boycotting with Kyrie made it impractical to continue, so the NBA has no chance but to cancel.
2. The 20-21 season continues. The NBA finals is a massive hit for sports starved fans. The basketball storyline is Lebron continuing his quest for comparison with MJ. Many top players use their voice to continually talk about BLM in the media throughout the playoffs. Some put prominent messages on their uniforms or sneakers. Others publicly pledge to donate their salaries to BLM associated organisations.
In both scenarios:
Moving forward into a shortened offseason, with a US election in November and the re-scheduled Olympics next year, many top players continue talking about BLM at every opportunity, bringing their message across America and the Globe.
What would happen in each scenario?
Here's some thoughts
Under the cancellation model, there would be an initial media frenzy as the public realised "Wow! The season has been cancelled", but after a week or two, this initial frenzy would die down, and the boost to BLM might prove to be short-term.
Under the cancellation model, Fox News and conservative figures use this as an opportunity to extend the culture war nature of the debate. Of course, this would happen anyway, but the debate would become particularly vitriolic and divisive once the season was cancelled. Some NBA players comments- like Lebron, who wants the season to continue - would be used to fuel a debate and create a storyline about division amongst the NBA's stars. The public would become even more divided.
The continuation model has a better chance of getting the entire public on board and getting widespread support for BLM. Of course the debate would remain divisive, but to me, it seems continuing creates a better opportunity for a non-partison, uniting groundswell of support for a critical society-wide analysis of issues around law enforcement and racial inequality generally.