The stated reason was, that the NBA schedule is not out yet, and there is a possibility that dad may have to play a game on Xmas day, per his contract with his employer (the NBA team). Note that it is unknown whether dad will actually have to play. And if dad has to play, then the kid will be in the care of dad's employees (the hired help, baby sitters, whoever) while dad is playing. And so, because there is a possibility that the kid might not be with dad for a few hours, then the whole three days over Xmas is unacceptable.
Dad counters that, yes, the schedule is not yet known, and it is also unknown whether there will be a game or not on Xmas day, and whether that alleged game will be at home or away. But in any event, there is no game either the day before or after Xmas, so at least two of the three days the kid will be with dad. Furthermore, dad says that, even if there is a game on Xmas, he will be home that evening, even if it is an away game. And what's more, the kid won't be alone, he will be with half-siblings, even if dad isn't there for a few hours one day.
That's the stated reason. The real reason is, power and money.
The judge didn't actually issue a ruling on the issue, but that was the only thing dad was asking for, no other issues were on the table. Sure, dad might be able to petition again later after the NBA schedule is out, but what are the chances of that?
What really pisses me off is, I have used exactly the same arguments in my own case as NBA mom. My x is constantly leaving my kid with sitters, when I am available to care for the kid. And I have never had any success with that argument at all.
Just more fuel for the fire, about blatant CP bias in court.
Doesn't really matter what the argument is, CP almost always prevails.
That's what's wrong, but we all knew that already.
Good Luck.