For more than 20 years, the NFL owned and operated NFL Network. It was an obvious conflict of interest for those paid by the NFL to cover the NFL.
While the mere mention of that obvious dynamic continues to trigger some reporters whose paychecks are signed by Roger Goodell, former NFL Network reporter Michael Silver confirmed the practical impact of the relationship in 2021.
“Imagine you work for Procter & Gamble and you’re going on Procter & Gamble Live from Procter & Gamble Studios and talking about a scandal that could take down the entire operation,” Silver said at the time, in reference to the Ray Rice fiasco of 2014. “It would be a little awkward.”
Added Silver regarding the discretion he exercised when working for the NFL: “If someone came to me and said, ‘I’ve got an exposé on player safety and how the NFL is covering up concussions,’ my response would have been, ‘I’m not your guy on this.’”
Pending regulatory approval, the NFL will own 10 percent of ESPN. It’s fair to ask whether that same dynamic will apply to the things said by ESPN reporters and analysts about the NFL, its owners, and/or its Commissioner.
On Wednesday, former ESPN host Dan Patrick opined that the ship sailed long before the league took partial ownership of the mothership.
“The journalist in me . . . would point out the conflict of interest,” Patrick said, via Brendon Kleen of AwfulAnnouncing.com. “But ESPN can’t be any further in bed with the NFL when it comes to their coverage. Are they going to look the other way with whatever negative story comes up? They’ve probably already done that.”
ESPN reporter Don Van Natta Jr. took aggressive issue with that take, pointing to the reporting that he and Kalyn Kahler did regarding the various recent scandals involving the NFL Players Association. But there’s a GIGANTIC difference between reporting on scandals involving the NFL and scandals involving the NFLPA.
The reality is that, yes, potential conflicts exist well beyond those reporters who work directly for the league. We all need a certain degree of access to do the job properly. Some reporters will always avoid any report and/or topic that would impact their access in a negative way.
Then there’s the fact that, yes, the NFL will reserve the right to complain to broadcast partners when their reporters/analysts say something the NFL doesn’t like. It absolutely happens.
And it causes some people to tread lightly. For months, we wrote about and talked about the hidden ruling in the collusion grievance against the NFL. No one else in the business said or did jack diddly shit about it. Then, when Pablo Torre unearthed the secret 61-page document and he and I broke down the finding that the NFL urged teams to collude and the evidence that (notwithstanding the ruling) the teams did indeed collude, nearly everyone who covers the drip-drip-drip of pro football plunged their heads into the NFL’s bath water.
Those pressures and potential conflicts exist for employees of broadcast partners when the league doesn’t own a piece of the company for which the reporter/analyst works. When the current ESPN-NFL Media deal is finalized, the league will own 10 percent of ESPN. That will change things.
How can’t it?
That’s when folks like Van Natta and/or Kahler and/or anyone else at ESPN who reports not the things that eventually will be announced but the far more valuable stuff they don’t want us to know will find out whether the pursuit and publication of inconvenient NFL truths will prompt phone calls from the league office to their bosses. Or to their bosses’ bosses.
Previously, the license to squeeze broadcast partners came from the fact that pro football is the rare business where the seller, not the customer, is always right. Once the NFL officially owns a piece of ESPN, the league becomes both the seller and the customer.
And any employee of this unprecedented amalgamation who doesn’t act accordingly will be looking for work elsewhere, sooner or later.