Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay is threatening to sue ESPN for comments made on their show “First Take” about his 2014 arrest.
In response to Irsay saying on record his arrest was because of his rich, white billionaire status, the First Take panel said the following about Irsay:
- “Usually, when people think about prejudice, [they] certainly don’t look at [rich, white billionaires], but for [Irsay] to articulate that, it just shows how detached he is.” -Stephen A. Smith
- “It’s going down … as one of the most ignorant things I’ve heard come out of anybody’s mouth in the history of sports.” -Stephen A. Smith
- “I don’t look at him as a legitimate owner, anyway, I look at him as a lucky owner.” -Chris “Mad Dog” Russo
- “He’s an entitled, old brat.” -Stephen A. Smith
On one hand, it’s most likely that Jim Irsay does not sue ESPN and may pretend it never happened a month from now. That is the most likely outcome, but it is not because of Irsay being too scared to sue. Irsay suing ESPN would accomplish nothing but drying up a small portion of his wallet. Here is why Irsay would lose, with a brief history lesson, too.
What’s the precedent?
One case that comes to mind regarding disparaging comments in the realm of sport, Stepien comes to mind. In that case, Ted Stepien, former president of the Cleveland Cavaliers, sued Cleveland radio personality Peter Franklin over comments made about him. Franklin called him, among other things, “a cancer”, “scum”, and a “pathological liar.” It was determined that Stepien, as an owner of a sports franchise, was a public figure. Public figures are far less protected than private figures (you, the person reading this) in defamation suits and the like.
This precedent is bad news for Jim Irsay, but it may not matter if he is able to prove all prongs of defamation. Here are those prongs:
- Is the statement false?
- Is the statement one of fact?
- Was the statement made in a public forum?
- Is the statement damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation?
- Was the statement made with reckless disregard for the truth? (Otherwise known as actual malice)
Can Jim Irsay prove ESPN defamed him?
For this hypothetical’s sake, let’s use Stephen A. Smith’s “entitled, old brat” quote. First, this statement cannot be proven as true or false. Since the statement was not proven as true, we move on to the second prong.
Is saying someone is “an entitled, old brat” a statement of fact or opinion? A statement of fact is something that is objective, as opposed to a statement of opinion, which is subjective. For example, if LeBron James were to accuse Steve Kerr of conspiring with the referees to rig games, that is something that can be proven. It is a statement of fact.
A statement of opinion would be one that cannot be proven. In this instance, can it be proven whether someone is or is not a “brat?” This case would be before a jury, so it would be up to them to determine whether it is. In this case, let’s say ESPN makes the critical mistake of taking on Jim Irsay in an Indiana court. The jury will say calling someone a brat is something that is of fact, that can be proven.
Stephen A. Smith made this statement in a public forum, that is undisputable. What Jim Irsay will have to prove is the statements made on ESPN broadcasting are damaging to his reputation. Simply put, no. Not only is it true he was arrested, but Irsay is saying “entitled, old brat” is damaging to his reputation. It may be damaging to a first grader’s reputation on the playground, but to an NFL owner, it is nothing.
Conclusion
Irsay will have a hard time proving the damage done to his reputation. Therefore, ESPN would win the case since Jim Irsay could not prove all prongs of defamation. It would be a waste of time and money for Irsay to do so.
Click here for more NFL coverage!
Follow Fantom Sports on Instagram.
Follow Fantom Sports on Twitter.