The recent Dianna Russini situation has prompted a conversation in some circles about the NFL insider game. And, yes, that world has many potential conflicts of interest.
Several years ago, a consistent storyline emerged on a somewhat sensitive subject for the team involved. Eventually, I got a phone call from a high-level employee of the team in question. The person asked me to stop writing and/or talking about the thing I’d been writing and/or talking about. As an enticement, the person offered to give me the team’s next significant scoop.
I said, “No thanks.” Then I said, “Thanks for confirming my suspicions about how others operate.”
Given recent developments, it makes sense to review the various ways that credibility and/or integrity are compromised, all in the name of securing an edge when it comes to getting news about a transaction before it’s announced.
There are several ways it happens. Here’s a list of some of them.
First, some insiders engage in trade-offs. In exchange for not writing or talking about something, the insider gets preferential treatment. Alternatively, if the insider says or writes too much about something, the insider can be frozen out, temporarily or for good.
Second, some insiders are employed by an entity owned by the team or the league. That became an issue with the launch of NFL Network. The league hired reporters to cover the league. Reporters began collecting paychecks from the entity they cover.
There were persistent suspicions that the league employees got information (especially on league matters) handed to them directly. As former NFLN employee Mike Silver has said, the price for getting paid by Big Shield sometimes means keeping their big mouths shut.
And while the league no longer directly owns NFL Network, the league owns 10 percent of ESPN. Every NFL Network and ESPN reporter covering the NFL is now 10-percent employed by the NFL.
Third, some insiders are represented by the same firm that represents players. Beyond positioning the insider to get scoops from agents at the firm they’ve hired, the insiders often must tread lightly on issues that impact agents working for the firm and/or their other clients.
Fourth, insiders can (and some do) use their platforms to promote their sources. It usually happens on social media, often in the form of a tweet that may seem confusing to the broader audience. Similarly, the platform can be used to push narratives that help sources and/or their clients. Or to characterize developments (like off-field issues) in an innocuous or even positive way.
Fifth, insiders and other reporters can (and on at least one situation did) give sources direct input on the product of their work.
Sixth, many insiders typically must take the information they get from a source (especially if the source sends it out via group text) and post it (usually on Twitter) without scrutinizing the accuracy of the information. This can result in the value of contracts being overstated. Likewise, the term “guarantee” is often used in a very broad sense, creating the impression that guarantees for injury only are actually full guarantees.
Seventh, reporters can in theory pay sources for information or offer them other things of value. For example, the Starbucks incident from the 2025 Scouting Combine included an allegation that Ian Rapoport of NFL Network had told others that Jordan Schultz was offering agents Uber stock in exchange for information. (There’s no evidence that he was.)
Obviously, different media companies have different standards. The Dianna Russini situation mushroomed in large part because The Athletic (via its parent company, The New York Times) has a very high standard when it comes to avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. In other shops, the producers and/or editors don’t care much if at all about the methods; they just want the information to be broken by their publication.
Some have asked whether, moving forward, closer attention will be paid to the insider game. But most viewers, listeners, readers, and/or Twitter followers don’t care how the information was harvested. They just want it.
Will anything change? Probably not. At most, the participants in the information flea market will be more careful about concealing the efforts used to get the thing that is their primary commodity — a heads-up on a looming move before it’s officially announced by the parties involved.
