Despite Dianna Russini’s recent resignation from The Athletic, the company continues to review her reporting in the aftermath of the photos with Patriots coach Mike Vrabel that emerged twelve days ago. Since 2022, the year before she joined The Athletic, Russini has had one of the 50 ballots for the annual Associated Press/NFL awards and the All-Pro team.
Here’s a question we’ve gotten from multiple members of the media: Is the Associated Press reviewing her ballots as a result of recent developments?
The AP has not responded to two emails from PFT asking that specific question.
Previously, after three tries via email, the AP declined to release her full 2025 ballot.
That speaks to another odd quirk as it relates to the AP awards. In 2024, the AP did not tell the panel that the ballots would be released. After the 2024 awards were announced, all ballots were released. After the 2025 awards were announced, the AP did not release the ballots.
There’s obvious reason for curiosity as to Russini’s coach of the year ballot. Vrabel won the award, with 302 points and 19 first-place votes. Jaguars coach Liam Coen finished second, with 239 points and 16 first-place votes. Seahawks coach Mike Macdonald finished third, Bears coach Ben Johnson landed in fourth place, and 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan was fifth.
Given the apparent relationship with Vrabel, based solely on the photos, there is clear interest in seeing Russini’s ballot. And it goes beyond whether she gave her first-place vote to Vrabel; if so, 18 others did. The question is where the other perceived candidates landed. For example, was Coen second? Was he fifth? Was he omitted from the ballot entirely?
It’s a basic, and fair, question. These are the official NFL awards. People wager money on them (for some reason). The process of voting requires a full commitment to set aside any relationship with the candidates (whatever the relationship may be) and make decisions detached from bias or agenda.
It’s possible there are no irregularities, especially since the AP released all ballots for the 2024 awards without telling the voters the ballots would be released. Russini complained about the 2024 disclosure in an appearance on Pardon My Take.
“I was out to dinner and my phone was blowing up with people in football very angry that I voted for people that I voted for,” she said, via Awful Announcing. “That stunk. I wish I knew that because — it would not have changed my vote — but I love Josh Allen, and I am avoiding him for a really long time.”
It’s unclear why that would be the case. In 2024, I voted for Lamar Jackson as the MVP, with Allen in second place. I got no pushback from any “people in football” for that decision, or any of the other votes on my ballot. And Allen later appeared on PFT Live.
Regardless, if The Athletic is reviewing her reporting, the AP arguably should be reviewing her ballots. And the NFL, which has made the AP awards the NFL’s official awards for the annual NFL Honors event, arguably should want that to happen. (The league did not respond to an email regarding this point.)
At a time when there has been much debate and discussion about various other aspects and ramifications of the original New York Post report, it’s appropriate to be curious about the specific contents of her awards ballots from 2022 through 2025. It’s arguably necessary for the entity that selects the panel of voters to act on that feeling.
Patriots Clips
The World Cup is coming soon. And it’s quickly becoming a pain in the posterior for the 13 teams playing in stadiums that will be commandeered for intercontinental soccer.
Ben Fischer of Sports Business Journal recently reviewed some of the practical impacts of FIFA bigfooting the various venues where fútbol will be played. This week, for example, the Jets and Giants will move their annual draft parties away from MetLife Stadium to Manhattan.
In all, 13 teams are impacted by the World Cup: the Cowboys, Jets, Giants, Falcons, Chiefs, Texans, 49ers, Chargers, Rams, Eagles, Seahawks, Patriots, and Dolphins.
For the teams that have employees at the stadiums hosting World Cup games, many will be moved. Those who are staying put will be subject to FIFA credentialing to get into their workplaces. And the Giants will start training camp in West Virginia, since MetLife Stadium will be hosting the final match on July 19 on a grass field that will need to be removed and replaced with one of the worst artificial surfaces in the entire league.
That last part still has to be the most galling for NFL players. Owners with stadiums that don’t have grass have bent over backwards to do whatever had to be done to placate FIFA. Their regular employees, however, will still be stuck with a lesser (and far cheaper) playing surface.
The various sacrifices involuntarily made by the players and other team employees should prompt FIFA to give them all a phony, made-up award. Especially since FIFA has already done that, for far less.
One of the basic questions regarding the aftermath of the publication of photos of Patriots coach Mike Vrabel and former Athletic reporter Dianna Russini at an adults-only resort in Sedona, Arizona was whether a double standard applies to Vrabel and Russini. Her resignation pending an internal investigation highlights the fact that the consequences have been very different for the two people involved.
And, yes, the application of two standards arises from the reality that the two jobs are very different. Still, there are potential policies that could justify scrutiny by the team or the league of Vrabel.
In the recent article from Ben Strauss of ESPN regarding the reaction to the emergence of the photos, Strauss points out that the NFL says it’s “not reviewing Vrabel’s behavior” under the Personal Conduct Policy.
As explained last Saturday, the policy’s list of prohibited conduct ends with a catch-all provision applicable to “[c]onduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.”
Rules that can be applied so broadly give employers the ultimate discretion to make case-by-case decisions as to what does and doesn’t run afoul of the relevant standard. All too often, those rules can be invoked against employees the employer doesn’t “like,” with the employer not using them as to employees with whom the employer has no pre-existing beef.
Case in point: Raiders coach Jon Gruden was pushed out swiftly after emails from a decade earlier (sent while he was employed not by an NFL team but by ESPN) emerged in October 2021. Nine years earlier, Saints coach Sean Payton was suspended for a full year based on defensive coordinator Gregg Williams’s utilization of a locker-room bounty habit that was later deemed by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to have been a cultural issue throughout the league. (Indeed, the NFL ignored once the Saints bounty scandal emerged evidence that Williams had done the same thing at multiple prior stops in his career.)
The point isn’t to relitigate those two cases (litigation remains pending as to Gruden’s claim that supposedly confidential emails from an investigation regarding the Washington franchise were deliberately leaked to force him out). The outcomes as to Gruden and Payton are relevant to the reality that the NFL picks and chooses who will and won’t be investigated aggressively.
And so, at a time when The Athletic is reviewing Russini’s reporting (ESPN arguably should be doing so as well), the NFL isn’t considering whether any issues may have arisen from the possibility that Vrabel was leveraging the relationship (whatever it may have been) to advance strategic interests (plenty of Eagles fans remain curious about the possibility of tampering as to A.J. Brown) and/or to leak non-public information. There’s also the hypothetical possibility of a potential violation of the league’s and/or the team’s sexual harassment policies. (The photos are not proof of that, but they could easily be the starting point for taking a closer look at the situation.)
Again, the editorial standards at The Athletic and its parent company, The New York Times, provide a much more clear and obvious vehicle for scrutinizing the reporter. That doesn’t mean there’s no rule or regulation that the coach may have violated.
The Strauss article includes new reporting that Russini immediately consulted with a “crisis communications expert” and coordinated with Vrabel as to their response to the story. For some employers, that would be enough to trigger the basic question of whether it makes sense to learn more about what exactly was going on.
The league nevertheless doesn’t seem to be inclined to ask any questions about whatever it was that was going on, beyond the photos and facts reported by the New York Post. And the Patriots, who believe they’ve found the post-Belichick coach who can lead the franchise back to consistent contention for championships, have no reason to do anything other than circle the wagons and hunker down — as evidenced by the fact that Patriots radio analyst Scott Zolak won’t even touch the story on his weekday radio show.
Our guess is that the league and the Patriots will continue to do nothing unless and until something emerges that makes them believe they must. Whether that comes from new reporting, from the outcome of the ongoing internal investigation of Russini, or some other source remains to be seen.
Despite being the biggest story in the NFL for 10 days and counting, the photos of Patriots coach Mike Vrabel with former Athletic reporter Dianna Russini have been ignored by most mainstream media outlets.
That changed on Friday, with a deep dive from Ben Strauss of ESPN, the company that previously employed Russini before she was hired by The Athletic.
Among other things, Strauss reports that Russini “coordinated with Vrabel about how to respond” to the initial story from the New York Post, which posted photos of the two of them together at an adults-only resort in Sedona, Arizona on April 7.
That alone could be viewed by The Athletic and its parent, The New York Times, as a potential violation of the very high bar the publications apply to reporters, when it comes to avoiding conflicts of interest. Asking a source who is also a subject of ongoing coverage for, essentially, assistance when it comes to navigating a delicate employment situation arguably creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Times and, by extension, The Athletic arguably prohibit such conduct. As Strauss points out, the companies’ ethics policy states that "[r]elationships with sources require sound judgment to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. . . . It is essential we preserve a detachment, free of any whiff of bias.”
Working with Vrabel to coordinate their stories arguably creates a “whiff of bias,” at a minimum.
Russini, per Strauss, argued to her employers that the photos amounted to a “sexist attack on a female reporter in a male-dominated field,” and Russini offered to allow her employers to speak to Vrabel. The company declined, per Strauss.
Strauss also reports that “executives asked for more evidence from Russini such as text messages about an airport pickup, screenshots of planning the trip or photos from a hike” with friends. Russini reportedly never provided sufficient evidence to The Athletic.
Russini eventually resigned before the internal investigation concluded. The Athletic has informed staffers that the review will nevertheless continue.
Nick Foles is a beloved figure in Philly. He led the team to its first Super Bowl win. And he hardly has a reputation for being a guy who says controversial things for the sake of attention.
As to the question of the offseason for the Eagles — will they trade receiver A.J. Brown? — Foles has some information. He recently shared it on The SZN with Nick Foles & Evan Moore.
“They have a first-year coordinator in Sean Mannion,” Foles said. “You don’t want to deal with, you know, what they dealt with last year with A.J. Now, A.J. had merit looking back. Like, why was he frustrated? Well, it was the concepts of the offense and how it was [run] with Kevin Patullo. Looking back, that’s maybe what the frustration was. Was it with Jalen Hurts? I don’t know. I’m not in the facility. No idea. But because of those things and different people I know around the league that know A.J. a little bit . . .what I’ve gathered is, [he] wants to be traded, but I also think like he wants to be traded to specific places.
“I think New England would make a lot of sense because of his history [with coach Mike] Vrabel. I think that’s obvious, right? And I think he even said he grew up a Patriots fan, if I’m correct. So that would be like two-fold situation. But really because [G.M. Howie Roseman’s] not shutting it down. That’s a big thing. And he’s gonna have a lot of strategy behind it. He’s gonna get something he wants by — I think it’s going to come to a point where he realized last year was very difficult. This is Howie. And he doesn’t want to do that again with a first-year coordinator. If A.J. Brown’s not happy, which seems like he’s not super happy in Philly, but he’s got to give the lip service to say he is. They’re gonna try to find a way to hopefully make it right for him and make it right for the Eagles. And I’d imagine that Howie really respects A.J. And hopefully A.J. respects Howie to where they try to do right by each other and figure out a way that where A.J.'s happy and the Eagles are happy sort of thing.”
Foles added that, a couple of weeks ago, he thought there was an 80-percent chance Brown would not be traded. Foles said he’s not at “50-50" as to a trade occurring. Based on what Foles said after that, it sounds as if he’s at least at 51-49: “I do think he’ll get traded before the start of the season. Not sure when. I do think the New England Patriots make a lot of sense.”
June 1 continues to be the key date. After June 1, the Eagles would not take a cap acceleration in 2026; any dead money for 2027 and beyond would hit the salary cap in 2027.
And it’s possible that the Eagles already have a wink-nod deal in place with a specific team, perhaps the Patriots, after June 1. If so, there’s no reason for either side to blurt it out before the draft. The Eagles should let other teams think they may not be thinking about taking a receiver with any of their various picks, and the Patriots should let other teams think they could.
After the draft, it can then be announced that, come June 2, Brown will be a Patriot. Pending a physical, as we learned last month.
The 10-day-old story that continues to generate news has created a delicate situation for plenty of people in sports media, and some of those who ostensibly cover sports media. And while true “friends” of hosts and analysts would arguably refrain from doing anything that would put their friends in a tough spot, more than a few people with platforms have decided not to give the topic any oxygen at all.
One member of the sports media occupies a unique position. He’s a radio host during the week on the team’s flagship station. He’s also employed by the Patriots as their game-day radio analyst.
Via Matt Yoder of Awful Announcing, Scott Zolak has had not a thing to say about the situation.
“I’m not going to comment on it,” Zolak said, in the clip from his show on 98.5 The Sports Hub posted by Boston Sports Media critic account on Twitter. “During the football season, multiple times in the offseason, I do things with Mike. And I know Mike. And Mike and I have a good back-and-forth working relationship. I know Mike’s wife, she’s been in some of the meetings. I know Mike’s two sons. I’ve met them, I’ve hung out with them during the football season. I know Dianna Russini. I know the people involved. And I’m in no position to comment on anything that happened between these two. It does me no good. . . .
“I like my jobs. I like working here. I like working with the Patriots. I like doing games. I like doing TV with them. I like being with the team. For me to sit there and cast stones at this guy would not do me great things. So there’s your answer in a nutshell. It’s pretty much like the beat reporters.”
While that’s true on the surface, the deeper reality is that Zolak is the only front-facing Patriots employee with regular access to a microphone. What he says, or doesn’t say, about any given situation involving the franchise can be interpreted as a reflection of the organization’s overall attitude and approach. If so, Zolak’s silence reflects his belief that the team wants it.
Zolak has spoken on other potentially sensitive issues regarding the team. Last May, he talked openly about the possibility the Patriots would cut receiver Stefon Diggs before he ever plays a game for them. Zolak once made a comment about quarterback Cam Newton for which Zolak later apologized. Zolak also said, after quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo was traded to the 49ers, that he was “one of the worst practice quarterbacks we’ve had here.”
The point is this. Zolak has in the past said things that, technically, do him no good. His comments, or lack thereof, could fairly be viewed as his assessment of what will, or won’t, fly with those who employ him.
Regarding the current controversy, which has now claimed two jobs, Zolak seems to be doing what he thinks he needs to do in order to avoid joining the list. Even if there are fair comments that Zolak could make regarding the question all Patriots fans care about — whether and to what extent the situation could impact the team when the 2026 season commences.
The Mike Vrabel-Dianna Russini situation has now claimed two jobs.
Earlier this week, Russini resigned from The Athletic, a week after photos emerged of her and Vrabel and her employer (after unequivocally supporting her) launched an investigation. Crissy Froyd, a USA Today reporter, offered some comments of her own on Twitter, after Russini resigned.
Now, via the New York Post, USA Today has fired Froyd for her Twitter post about Russini.
“USA TODAY Sports has ended its contractor relationship with Crissy Froyd effective immediately,” the publication said. “Her recent statements do not reflect our commitment to professionalism or uphold our principles of ethical conduct.”
Froyd issued a statement regarding the decision to the Post.
“I want to say firstly that I do not regret anything that I said and that I stand behind the fact it is all indeed true,” Froyd said. “I want to thank USA TODAY SMG for the incredible run I had there for about half of my life. It is deeply, deeply emotional to me that this relationship has come to an end and that my contract has been terminated because of this. I would never say anything I didn’t stand behind because I know the potential consequences, even if a situation seems risky. Thank you to everyone who has supported me both before and after I released my statements.”
While we won’t post the content of Froyd’s remark about Russini here (they’re on Froyd’s Twitter page), it’s important to note that the things Froyd said have not been verified or officially reported by any entity.
Froyd posted on Twitter the email she received ending her relationship with USA Today. She also posted this: “I regret zero of what I said and stand beside it. If you want to talk, my messages are open. My email is operative, too.”
Without access to her contract with USA Today, it’s impossible to know whether statements made by Froyd on Twitter constitute grounds to terminate her contractual relationship. It’s also impossible to know whether USA Today had the ability to end the contract at any time, for any reason.
Still, it’s obvious that the reason for the termination wasn’t Froyd’s work product but her comments about Russini.
It’s a sensitive topic, clearly. There’s a line between objective facts and rumor/innuendo/gossip. It’s why I cautioned my PFT Live co-host to “stay on target” earlier this week — an admonition that some Twitter aggregators viewed as an effort by me to conceal some massive, unknown truth about the situation.
I got dragged for it by folks who know nothing about law, business, and/or basic journalistic standards. They wanted dirt. Something they could clip, post, and profit from.
Sorry, aggregators, but there’s a line. I was reminding my co-host and friend not to get too close to it. And I wasn’t reaching through the camera from 450 miles away to muzzle him. He can say whatever he wants to say, wherever he wants to say it. (As he said on Thursday’s PFT Live, he has already heard from Page Six, apparently in response to my effort to nudge him away from the possibility of saying something that could have caused a problem for him.)
As Froyd has learned, no one knows how a corporate entity is going to react to something that someone blurts out into a live microphone or posts on Twitter. Discretion and accuracy remain important, even if it keeps the aggregators from stealing someone else’s video content in the hopes of making money from it.
The NFL has announced the names of the current and former players that will take part in next week’s draft by announcing second-round picks.
The list includes players associated with all 32 teams, including Cardinals running back James Conner. Conner has strong ties to the Pittsburgh area after playing for the Steelers and attending Pitt, which likely made him an easy choice as the Cardinals’ representative.
Former Bears tackle Jimbo Covert, former Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett, former Chiefs defensive lineman Bill Maas, current Vikings tackle Brian O’Neill, former Jets running back Curtis Martin, and former 49ers punter Andy Lee are other Pitt alums who are set to take part.
The hometown team will be represented by four players. Former Steelers Jerome Bettis and John Stallworth will be joined by Joey Porter Sr. and Jr. next Friday.
The other players taking part and their team affiliations appear below:
Falcons: Michael Turner
Ravens: Mark Ingram
Bills: Shane Conlan
Panthers: Jake Delhomme
Bengals: Ken Anderson
Browns: Phil Dawson
Cowboys: Drew Pearson
Broncos: T.J. Ward
Lions: Calvin Johnson
Packers: John Kuhn
Texans: Billy Miller
Colts: Pat McAfee
Jaguars: Paul Posluszny
Raiders: Matt Millen
Chargers: Shawne Merriman
Rams: Tavon Austin
Dolphins: Dwight Stephenson
Patriots: Deion Branch
Saints: Marques Colston
Giants: Osi Umenyiora
Eagles: Brian Westbrook
Seahawks: Cliff Avril
Buccaneers: Ronde Barber
Titans: Jeffery Simmons
Commanders: Mark Rypien
One week ago, no one knew what would happen regarding the photos published by the New York Post of Patriots coach Mike Vrabel and The Athletic reporter Dianna Russini. Many didn’t even know what to make of the situation.
The photos were what they were. The statements from Vrabel, Russini, and The Athletic were what they were. And the general public concluded whatever it concluded regarding whether the photos meshed with the statements.
Now that Russini has resigned from The Athletic amid an investigation that will nevertheless continue in the form of a “standards review,” the attention may turn to the other person in the photos, who has emerged from the imbroglio unscathed for now.
Vrabel made one and only one comment about the photos. Based on his comment, he seems to be intent on making no further comment.
“These photos show a completely innocent interaction and any suggestion otherwise is laughable,” Vrabel told the Post. “This doesn’t deserve any further response.”
The mere fact that The Athletic launched an investigation shows its belief that “any suggestion otherwise” was not “laughable.” Which makes sense, given the high bar that The New York Times and, by extension, The Athletic apply to its reporters to “avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
No such standard applies to Vrabel in his job as an NFL football coach. There are other rules that potentially impact Vrabel based on the position he holds, but neither the league nor the Patriots seem to be inclined to explore whether the situation potentially implicates those less obvious and more nuanced standards.
When Vrabel next meets with reporters, he likely will be asked about the situation. Russini’s resignation opens the door for, at a minimum, a question regarding his reaction to the outcome as to her. And there’s a good chance, depending on the credentials issued by the Patriots to the upcoming press conferences, that reporters from non-sports outlets will be present and prepared to pepper Vrabel with that and other questions.
Then there’s the locker room. PFT Live Friday co-host Michael Holley recently explained on NBC Sports Boston that, while Vrabel may be able to stiff-arm the media, he’ll need to address the matter with players. At a minimum, Vrabel must maintain his own credibility when it comes to insisting that players not create unnecessary distractions for the team.
Although there’s no reason to think anything will happen as to Vrabel’s employment, it’s something that has the potential to linger unless and until Vrabel finds a way to end it. He can easily end it externally, because he can simply say to reporters, “I’ve said all I’m ever going to say about it.” He’ll need to say something more to the people he will expect to not create distractions moving forward, if only to get them to understand why they should continue to heed that message.
The full communication from The Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg to staff regarding the resignation of NFL insider Dianna Russini has emerged. Dylan Byers of Puck has posted the full message.
“I’m writing to let you know that Dianna Russini has submitted her resignation from The Athletic, effective immediately. While I can’t share the details of our investigation into Dianna’s conduct, I want to emphasize that the leadership of The Athletic has taken this matter seriously from the moment that we learned about it.
“Our coverage at The Athletic is deeply rooted in our integrity and our commitment to earning the trust of our audience. Our newsroom has thrived because of our core journalistic values, and we will always ensure they are protected.
“When this situation was brought to our attention last week, there were clear concerns, but we received a detailed explanation and it was our instinct to support and defend a colleague while we continued to review the matter. As additional information emerged, new questions were raised that became part of our investigation.
“While our investigation into Dianna’s conduct was ongoing, she chose to resign. We will continue a standards review of Dianna’s work that Mike Semel is leading.
“Amid all of this, I want to sincerely thank everyone for continuing to produce the best sports report in the business. I’m looking forward to focusing on our journalism and continuing our momentum.”
It was Ginsberg who provided the initial statement in response to the New York Post securing photos of Russini with Patriots coach Mike Vrabel. “These photos are misleading and lack essential context,” Ginsberg told the Post at the time. “These were public interactions in front of many people. Dianna is a premier journalist covering the NFL and we’re proud to have her at The Athletic.”
That initial comment from Ginsberg has become a problem for the publication. Russini’s resignation letter reminded Ginsberg that he supported her “unequivocally"; staffers reportedly have taken issue with his handling of the situation, calling it “unnecessarily messy,” “reckless,” “premature,” and “intentionally sneaky.”
