What is a conflict of interest anymore when it comes to play-by-play broadcasting? Last year, this was one of the more debated topics in sports media. Now, it has new life. Friday, the NFL announced that the “Tom Brady Rules” will also apply to ESPN Monday Night Football analyst Troy Aikman.
Tom Brady is a minority owner of the Las Vegas Raiders. He also is the lead analyst for FOX Sports NFL coverage. The rules, at first, were simple. He couldn’t enter another team’s facility or observe its practices. He also couldn’t publicly criticize officials or other teams, and he couldn’t attend broadcast production meetings either in person or virtually. Last year, good behavior by Brady — and likely some pressure from FOX Sports — relaxed the rules on Brady. This year, the rules extend to Troy Aikman.
But the NFL’s explanation for why the extension to Aikman makes me wonder who these rules protect in the first place.
This past offseason, Aikman assisted the Miami Dolphins with hiring a new general manager and head coach. During a podcast episode featuring former WFAA sports anchor Dale Hansen, Aikman said his role with the Dolphins was approved by Commissioner Roger Goodell. He has also stated that he sees a day when he could be working for an NFL franchise in some capacity.
A Shift In Focus
The two situations are different. Brady owns a minority stake, so he’s financially invested in the success of a franchise. Aikman loaned his services but doesn’t have a financial stake in the Miami Dolphins’ success.
But in both cases, NFL broadcasters assisted NFL teams in some capacity. Therefore, the league couldn’t place restrictions on Brady without doing the same for Aikman. However, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy’s explanation for the rule focuses the pressure on NFL team personnel, not those the rules are being placed on.
“There have been no issues with Tom over the last two seasons,” McCarthy told to Front Office Sports. “It is up to the coaches and clubs what they share with him. If they share information they shouldn’t, then that’s on them. The same parameters that pertained to Tom last season will continue this year and also will apply to Troy.”
Read that line again. If they [team coaches and club personnel] share information they shouldn’t, then that’s on them.
Wasn’t that the whole point of why these rules were instituted in the first place? To prevent people with ties to competing organizations from gaining access to information through their exclusively granted access as employees of an NFL media partner?
Now, the NFL is saying it’s the team’s fault if it provides information it shouldn’t? Because Aikman and Brady have ties to other teams, and the league knows that.
What are we doing here?
Admitting Conflict
After a year of people downplaying the level of information shared in these exclusive meetings, the larger point continues to be missed. Without FOX Sports, Tom Brady doesn’t have these meetings. Without ESPN, Troy Aikman doesn’t have these meetings. That matters.
Both Brady and Aikman have some level of ties to NFL teams outside of their broadcasting responsibilities. That doesn’t mean either broadcaster has done anything wrong. It doesn’t mean either has used information improperly. It does, however, create the appearance of a conflict when their employment by an NFL broadcasting partner gives them access to team personnel and information they wouldn’t otherwise have.
That’s precisely the issue the league created these rules to address.
Instead of preventing that potential conflict, however, the NFL is now pointing the finger at the teams and making them responsible for determining what information is appropriate to share.
“Where’s the conflict,” questioned NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to CNBC last year. “He’s not hanging around in the [team practice] facilities. We don’t allow that.”
A Suggestion….
It makes me wonder why the NFL allows these meetings at all moving forward.
There’s an obvious complication when Brady and Aikman receive exclusive access they wouldn’t receive without employment by a league broadcasting partner. If the information shared in those meetings is insignificant, as some have suggested, then why maintain a system that requires the league to create special rules around who can attend and how they do?
And if the information is valuable, then telling teams to police themselves over what they reveal to broadcasters with potential ties to other NFL organizations makes even less sense.
The NFL cannot have it both ways.
It cannot create rules designed to address a perceived conflict of interest and then shift responsibility to the teams when that conflict becomes uncomfortable. If the league believes these relationships create a legitimate concern, remove the circumstance that creates the concern in the first place.
End the production meetings.
The league created these production sessions to give broadcasters access and insight that can make their coverage better. That makes sense when the people sitting across the table have no other relationship with the teams involved. But once those same broadcasters have acknowledged ties to NFL teams, the arrangement becomes unnecessarily complicated.
If the information shared in those rooms is truly insignificant, there is little reason to keep the meetings. Right? If the information is valuable, then asking teams to determine what they can safely share with broadcasters who have potential conflicts makes even less sense.
There is a simpler solution.
Let broadcasters prepare through the same channels available to every other member of the media has. Level the playing field. Give them access to the same public information, interviews and press conferences. Allow them to do their jobs without creating a separate access system that requires the league to determine which broadcasters can enter the room and what teams can tell them once they get there.
That would eliminate the need for a “Tom Brady Rule,” a “Troy Aikman Rule” or whatever version comes next. Because, more than likely, there will be a next.
More importantly, it would put the responsibility where it belongs — on the league to eliminate the potential conflict, rather than on its teams to avoid creating one.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
John Mamola is Barrett Media’s sports editor and daily sports columnist. He brings over two decades of experience (Chicago, Tampa/St Petersburg) in the broadcast industry with expertise in brand management, sales, promotions, producing, imaging, hosting, talent coaching, talent development, web development, social media strategy and design, video production, creative writing, partnership building, communication/networking with a long track record of growth and success. He is a five-time recognized top 20 program director in a major market via Barrett Medi’s Top 20 series and has been honored internally multiple times as station/brand of the year (Tampa, FL) and employee of the month (Tampa, FL) by iHeartMedia. Connect with John by email at John@BarrettMedia.com.