1 hour ago
3
ARTICLE AD BOX
Ryan Clark once again accused ESPN of leaking the news of his firing to OutKick to embarrass him. This time, he said so during an appearance on the influential Black radio show "The Breakfast Club."
"Everybody that got laid off got told on Tuesday. Only one person got told on Monday on set. Me. That’s the distinction," Clark told the hosts Tuesday. "It was also purposeful. It was also meant, in my opinion, to humiliate. In leaking it to OutKick, you now know if anybody is going to curry favor for you in this decision, it’s going to be them because it’s me."
ESPN informed Clark of his firing during a commercial break of the July 22 edition of "NFL Live." He did not return to the program.
THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!
He continued, "There’s so many reputable sports publications. Whether it’s you know Sports Illustrated, the New York Times, The Athletic. If this is going to be as big a news as it turned out to be, why not give it to them? Because you knew who you were giving it to. You knew the small amount of people within that building that knew it. Then the humiliation that you at least purposed it to come along with me being laid off."
"I do feel like it was about that humiliation, and he wanted to save me from that. It was already going to be enough written. It was already going to be enough laughs, enough jokes that I worked that day anyway. So I appreciated him."
This is not the first time Clark has made that claim. Nor is it the first time listeners of "The Breakfast Club" have heard it.
The day after OutKick reported the news, one of the show’s hosts claimed a source told them ESPN executive Burke Magnus leaked the information to OutKick to spite Clark. It is possible the source was someone who spoke with Clark — or Clark himself.
The version of events Clark and the show’s hosts are presenting, however, is not accurate. I would know. I am one of three people who know how OutKick obtained the information and why ESPN informed Clark of his firing during a live program.
So let’s go step by step.
TOMI LAHREN DEFENDS OUTKICK'S ESPN SCOOP, TORCHES JEMELE HILL, BACKS SOPHIE CUNNINGHAM
We must first return to Super Bowl week in February. Although the game aired on NBC, agents, executives, and on-air talent from various networks routinely descend on the host city for meetings and negotiations. One of the most notable pieces of information to emerge that week was that Clark’s standing at ESPN had deteriorated ahead of the network’s first Super Bowl broadcast in 2027.
Sources told us Clark was unlikely to remain part of ESPN’s "Monday Night Countdown," which was scheduled to serve as the network’s Super Bowl pregame and halftime show. They also questioned whether he would remain with ESPN at all.
The rumblings were not entirely surprising.
Despite what Clark says, he was not universally loved inside ESPN. He had supporters, including Stephen A. Smith, ESPN NFL studio executive Seth Markman, and Mina Kimes. But he also had plenty of detractors.
Complaints about Clark included his handling of previous contract negotiations, including videos and regular updates; demeaning comments about Robert Griffin III for marrying a white woman; an on-air and behind-the-scenes blowup with Peter Schrager; reckless comments about Louisiana police; and multiple headlines that had little to do with sports.
ESPN would not fire Clark over any single incident. The network tends to tread carefully when dismissing Black talent because of the risk of false accusations of racism, accusations Clark eventually made anyway.
Waiting for a broader layoff period made sense.
Those rumblings continued throughout the spring and summer, especially after ESPN omitted Clark from its upcoming Super Bowl plans during the network’s May upfront presentation.
Before July, OutKick also reported several times that Clark’s future with ESPN was uncertain.
RYAN CLARK MADE IT TOO DIFFICULT FOR ESPN TO JUSTIFY KEEPING HIM AFTER YEARS OF CONTROVERSY
Now let’s jump to July.
On Friday, July 17, a friendly media ally told me they had heard ESPN planned to let go of Clark the following week, when the network was expected to announce layoffs. For context, this person was not a source. Everything we discuss is private and off the record. They did not give me the information for publication, and I had no plans to report it.
Two days later, on Monday, others in the industry began asking whether I had heard about the layoffs, who was on the list, and whether Clark was among those who'd be dismissed. That afternoon, I learned that my OutKick colleague Dan Zakhsheske had also heard that ESPN planned to lay off Clark on Tuesday.
Zakhsheske and I then gathered the information and confirmed it with two additional sources. We typically avoid reporting transactional media news, but Clark had become a significant figure in the broader sports conversation because of his racial and political commentary.
We decided the story was substantial enough to report.
Around 4 p.m. ET that day, in accordance with our standard editorial policy, we informed ESPN’s public-relations department that we planned to report Clark’s firing. ESPN PR said it would get back to us. Around 4:48 p.m., the network responded that it had no comment.
We published our story, only to learn that The Athletic had reported a bare-bones version at approximately the same time.
We later learned that ESPN informed Clark of his firing during the commercial break, right around 4:48 p.m. — before sending us its response.
The timeline makes clear that ESPN did not work with OutKick. No one high up at the company leaked the information to us or intended, as Clark put it, to "humiliate" him.
So why did ESPN handle it this way?
ESPN has told multiple people who inquired about the situation that management did not think OutKick would hold the news until after "NFL Live." The network feared Clark would learn about his firing from our report.
The executive who informed Clark — and told him OutKick knew about it — was Seth Markman, one of Clark’s allies. It appears Markman made that decision because he believed Clark was better off hearing the news directly from him.
In our view, Markman handled the situation poorly and helped create the secondary storyline surrounding Clark’s firing: the OutKick angle.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE
ESPN also deserves blame for assuming OutKick would not hold the story until it addressed the layoff with Clark. The fact that we reached out to the network indicated that we would wait. The network then added to the circus by tipping off The Athletic that we had the story.
As for why Clark’s firing was announced a day before the rest of the layoffs, the answer is simple: He was the only person whose name moved the needle.
Cam Newton was the second-biggest name laid off. OutKick reported his termination the following morning.
For all the drama, headlines, and accusations, OutKick did not contribute to the situation beyond reporting the news.
We heard about a story from sources and reported it after seeking comment from ESPN. Every other subplot was the product of ESPN’s poor handling of the situation and Clark accusing us of conspiring with his former bosses. To avoid another situation like this, ESPN should stop assuming our intentions are poor and do a better job keeping sensitive information concealed.
SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY OUTKICK NEWSLETTER
Perhaps unbeknownst to ESPN management and Clark, his impending firing was relatively well known in and around ESPN. People talk. And OutKick has never needed an intentional leak to learn what is happening inside ESPN.
English (US) ·