As is so often the case with modern college football, it seems like the decision to move to a 24-team College Football Playoff was made without thinking through potential long-term side effects.
While the endless search for more money throughout the sport is justifiable, given the increasing costs of fielding a competitive coaching staff and roster, the conferences that pushed the 24-team format through may not have fully considered the obvious implications. One of which is the necessary end of conference championship games.
In decades past, winning the Big Ten, ACC or SEC meant something. Both for the teams and their fanbases, and for poll voters who helped determine bowl selections. But in this new era, with a massive tournament field, if conference championships are meaningless, it raises a number of other questions. Namely, why should conferences even exist?
Theoretically, conferences are designed to create regional groupings, making travel and scheduling easier. In reality, as the modern ACC and Big Ten have demonstrated, they now exist mostly to make negotiating group media rights easier. There's no reason for UCLA and Rutgers to be in the same conference, other than a collective desire to increase their media value. Or Stanford and the Miami Hurricanes.
But with the 24-team playoff in place, a whole new world of possibilities could now be available. Chief among them, independence and the advantages that it offers. Why share television revenue with other schools? Why essentially give away your flexibility with scheduling? Notre Dame has more flexibility than anyone, and their schedule in 2026 gives them a tremendous leg up in the race for a 12-team playoff over, say, SEC teams playing much tougher opponents week in and week out.
In a new interview with Yahoo Sports!and Ross Dellenger, University of Miami president Joe Echevarria was very forthcoming about his interest in leaving the ACC and the potential opportunity to go independent.
"We are proud members of the ACC," he told Dellenger. "If the economics were even, we wouldn't be having any of these conversations. Thing is, we sit in the second tier. It's a reason we don't get a vote on the 24-team playoff and the Big Ten and SEC do."
One provision in the endlessly shifting Protect College Sports Act would prevent teams from switching conferences without going independent for several years. Echevarria strongly prefers that provision removed, to put it mildly, "You cannot lock us into a conference," he explained.
The Big Ten and SEC already shell out around $25 million more per team than the ACC does, which could increase significantly in just a few years when those conferences are able to negotiate new deals. If the ACC continues to fall behind, it could put Miami at a major competitive disadvantage relative to peer institutions. So would the Hurricanes go independent? Echevarria didn't shy away from the possibility, through brought up that it presents challenges for other, non-football sports.
"If we have to go independent, I like our chances because we are a national brand," he said. "I wouldn't like to do that because scheduling [other sports] is really tough. It's great for football but what about track, volleyball and the golf team?"
Still, as we've seen, conferences have been willing to figure out scheduling challenges in other sports. USC plays Penn State in other, non-football sports, even though it makes little sense and comes with immense travel difficulties. Miami now has a conference rivalry with the Cal Bears. If streaming services, television networks, or other sports broadcasters are willing to shell out more money for television rights for independent programs, and conference championships are now meaningless, what's to stop big brands from Miami from following Notre Dame's example?
And if they start the trend, how many others will follow?
Would programs like Alabama, Georgia and Texas bolt as opposed to sentencing themselves to the rigors of an SEC schedule for little reward? Or Ohio State and Michigan? Or USC?
As always, once conference realignment started, it seemed inevitable that the future would some sort of breakaway college football league. 64 teams, or whatever the number is, of the top programs competing against each other, ensuring that most games would pair a relatively big name against another. Which would mean a smaller playoff again, a far more popular configuration with fans anyway, and the potential for even more media revenue thanks to higher-profile matchups. With Group of Six teams left behind.
Once again, the desire to push relentlessly ahead toward more revenue might backfire for the major conferences, as teams like Miami question the need to remain in the ACC. Though it would be ironic if the 24-team playoff winds up being the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to maintaining the conference structure.
Buffalo Bills safety C.J. Gardner-Johnson's one-game suspension for spitting at an opponent was upheld, the NFL announced Thursday.
The Bills have a bye in Week 7, so Gardner-Johnson will miss the team’s Week 8 game against the Baltimore Ravens. Appeals hearing officer Jordy Nelson heard the appeal.
Bills head coach Joe Brady called Gardner-Johnson's actions inexcusable.
"It’s hard enough to win enough in this league with 48 guys, much less 47. He knows that that can’t happen, it’s inexcusable, that’s not the standard that we’re going to have and play with. He’s addressed it, it’s been addressed," Brady told reporters on Monday.
"Those are the things that can’t happen on a football field. We want to toe the line in everything we do but we can’t cross the line."
Brady said Gardner-Johnson would remain in the starting lineup when he returns in Week 9. The 28-year-old was ejected from the game after spitting toward Las Vegas Raiders center Tyler Linderbaum and tight end Brock Bowers just before halftime.
Gardner-Johnson told reporters he would accept the consequences and needed to better control his emotions.
The Bills also had safety Sam Franklin Jr. suspended for spitting toward a player during the team’s win Sunday. Franklin denied the allegations in a social media post.
"Not a dirty play what so ever! Will always defend myself though. Still won't spit on anyone," Franklin posted on his Instagram Story Wednesday.
The NFL is gearing up for the next international game on its annual slate, with the Pittsburgh Steelers and New Orleans Saints battling it out at Stade de France.
Of course, there has been some criticism of this plan, as France is experiencing some pretty nasty civil unrest at the moment, but the game will go ahead, with the Saints having been in the country for a few days already.
The Steelers? Well, people are already questioning their travel plans a little bit.
According to reports, the Steelers plan to take a red-eye to France that will depart on Thursday night.
Now, there are plenty of reasons why they might want to do this. It allows for more game prep at home; plus, with all the uncertainty around the game, there's a case to be made that it's less disruptive to players' sleep habits, and it makes some sense to hang around to make sure it's all going to happen.
We did get an example of why it might work better to go abroad earlier rather than later.
The Los Angeles Rams were goofed on for their decision to fly to Melbourne, Australia very close to game time, with some blaming it for their big loss to a San Francisco 49ers team that had been down under so long, they were starting to develop a taste for Vegemite.
Of course, in hindsight, the Rams aren't quite the worldbeaters we all thought before the season, but that travel schedule couldn't have helped matters.
While a red-eye to France isn't as brutal as a red-eye to Australia, travel is exhausting, and many people on social media were quick to point that out.
So who is going to end up being right on this one? The early-to-the-party Saints, or the fashionably late (compared to the Saints) Steelers?
Paul Finebaum says ESPN did, indeed, sideline him after an interview with OutKick last year.
Last September, Finebaum told Clay Travis during a podcast that he was considering leaving ESPN to run for U.S. Senate in Alabama as a Republican, revealing that he had also voted for President Donald Trump in 2024. A week later, Travis reported that ESPN had removed Finebaum from his scheduled television appearances because of the interview.
"Per sources: Disney/ESPN has removed @finebaum from appearing on @ESPN since his @outkick interview expressing interest in running as a Republican for senate in Alabama. ESPN has canceled all network appearances on all shows, including some that have occurred for a decade plus," Travis posted on X.
An ESPN public relations executive disputed the report, despite the obvious fact that Finebaum had disappeared from his usual ESPN television appearances, even following a weekend of major college football upsets.
"This is not true at all. The below is TOTALLY FALSE," ESPN's Bill Hofheimer wrote above Travis' report.
Finebaum sided with Travis' version of events this week.
"Of course, I was sidelined," Finebaum told Awful Announcing when asked about the story. "I’d done the same shows every day for 13 years, and the next thing you know, I’m not on there after a college football weekend."
OutKick asked ESPN for comment Thursday following Finebaum's remarks. The network sent the following statement:
"As we stated last year, Finebaum was never banned."
The dispute is largely a matter of semantics. Finebaum was not booked for his regular appearances on shows like SportsCenter and Get Up the week after his interview with OutKick. He did, however, continue hosting his eponymous show on SEC Network and ESPN Radio. He remained on some ESPN platforms.
The network can also claim it simply chose not to book him for certain television appearances and tried out other personalities in case Finebaum ultimately left the company to run for office. In fact, that is what we hear ESPN told people who inquired at the time.
As a matter of technicality, ESPN did not "ban" Finebaum. However, what is technically true is not always the same as what is obvious.
What appears obvious is that ESPN responded to Finebaum's interview by not booking him on the shows he has spent the past decade appearing on during the college football season.
Further, it would have been understandable for ESPN to take issue with Finebaum making national news about a potential political campaign while still employed by the company. We wouldn't have faulted ESPN for deciding not to use Finebaum on television while he was publicly flirting with a run for office, which he ultimately decided against.
Stephen A. Smith has spent years publicly discussing the possibility of running for president as a Democrat. ESPN did not respond by removing him from his regular television appearances or publicly preparing replacements in case he left the company to seek office.
That contrast makes ESPN's handling of Finebaum harder to dismiss as ordinary programming rotation.
Finally, there is the broader question of how much longer Finebaum will remain at ESPN.
Nearly every football season seems to bring another story about Finebaum potentially leaving the network, whether for political office or a media competitor. At some point, that recurring uncertainty begins to say something about the partnership.
This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
Shortly after Tennessee Titans head coach Robert Saleh came to the defense of a released player following a gun-related incident, the other person involved in the altercation did the same.
Offensive lineman JC Latham got into an altercation with Jordan Elliott, and afterward, Elliott retrieved a gun from his car in the parking lot.
Latham was mostly mum on the incident, saying it was "an unfortunate situation."
"Heat of the moment, s— happens," Latham told reporters on Wednesday.
Despite the wild moment, Latham is hoping for the best for his now-former teammate.
"There ain’t never been no bad blood between us two," Latham said. "We were here over the summer getting treatment. Before that, we hung out whenever we were in the same city together. We actually had never had an argument leading up to it."
Saleh described the incident as a possible cry for help, a notion Latham appeared to agree with.
"I do think mental health is extremely important. That's just one of those situations where you just pray for a guy like that, if you can, reach out to him, hope for the best for him. There's no bad blood. It's nothing personal on my end."
"I will stand on the table for Jordan's character. Unfortunately, rules are rules with regards to guns on property. And sometimes it's far greater than the knee-jerk reaction of kicking somebody when they're down," Saleh told reporters on Wednesday.
"My message to 31 other teams would be if you need a hell of a run stopping d-tackle that can help you on a playoff run, give me a call. I'll tell you everything you need to know about him. He's a good man. Had a terrible lapse in judgment that I recognized as a call for help more than a criminal act."
"The reason why I think the NFL and the organization did an outstanding job is because this is a man who is a father, a great husband, he's never committed a crime in his entire life, and he pulled a gun in the parking lot. And the first question that I think everyone forgets to ask is why would a great man, a great father, a man who shows up on time every day, works his a-- off every day, contributes the way he's supposed to contribute, is well-liked in the locker room, why did he go off the rails and grab a gun?" Saleh added.
"And to me, those are small signs of a cry of help if you in terms of obviously there's something greater happening. And I thought the team in the NFL did an outstanding job in regard to pausing and asking those questions and checking every single box with regards to getting him the help that he needs."
Did everyone involved in the Arch Manning story create an edgier monster this week ahead of the Longhorns' showdown against Ole Miss on Saturday night?
In the middle of a season that has warranted a lot of questions pertaining to this Texas offense, the story of offensive woes from this Steve Sarkisian-led football team has created more drama than one could have foreseen before the first game in September.
Should it come as a surprise that Texas is currently feeling the pressure as it pertains to making the college football playoffs?
Absolutely not. The expectations around Austin are to put themselves in a position that could lead to a postseason run.
The problem centers around the fact that this offense has not produced enough with Arch Manning up to this point that would keep them from losing to consecutive unranked opponents.
Outside of a fourth quarter comeback against Ohio State, there has not been a moment where we looked at this football team and thought that they were living up to expectations.
Making it past the CFP quarterfinals and having a shot at competing for a national title with four other teams.
Those aren’t the goals from within the media, but more so centered around the fact that Steve Sarkisian made it abundantly clear that the semifinals were no longer good enough for this Texas football program.
Did we in the media create a monster in Arch Manning? Guess we'll find out ...
Did we in the media, along with the coaches at Texas, turn this whole ordeal into a massive storyline around Manning?
Did we imply that Arch had taken on the persona of the family legacy that came before him?
I don't know. But what I do know is that the Texas quarterback has looked pretty timid in the pocket for a majority of this season, though it obviously doesn’t fall on just Manning. This is a Sarkisian problem as well, for his interesting and inept play-calling through this point in the season.
So, has the demeanor of Arch changed this week as the volume continues to get louder in Austin?
"I would use the word edgy, and I like it. He’s edgy right now," Steve Sarkisian noted. "And I think that somebody texted me today that we lost the ‘Aw Shucks’ kid and we created something else. I don’t know if we lost him. We created this. We did. All of us. Y’all included. Me. The whole thing, right. Everybody on ESPN, we’ve created this. And so we’ll see what comes out of it.
"But he’s edgy right now. And honestly, I appreciate that about him. At some point, he’s gotta fight back. And the best way for him to fight back is going out and playing really good football with his teammates and enjoy playing football with his teammates. And so I’m looking forward to watching him compete Saturday night."
Will we get the quarterback who looks to play timid at times, or will we see Arch just "let it rip" as he proclaimed this week after the loss to Florida?
I think we all know which passer Texas fans want to see against Ole Miss.
That type of quarterback has essentially been buried deep within the body of Manning over the past two months. But we have all seen the fierce side of Arch before, dating back to last season on multiple occasions.
We have also seen it against Ohio State, with a quarterback that was playing with an aggression on the field that circumvents throughout this football team.
I guess we're about to find out if we created a monster or not, even if that means Steve Sarkisian can use the outside noise to entice his quarterback into playing with more aggression.
Who would have thought a "Wet & Wild" show put on by a touring group by the name of UK Pleasure Boys would get out of hand? Not the English soccer team who allowed the 18-plus show to take place at their clubhouse last weekend.
Banbury United FC was as surprised as anyone when footage of the event hosted at The Spencer Clubhouse started popping up on social media. Now they're reviewing how this could have ever taken place.
The clips of the event that surfaced show male dancers in cowboy hats dancing and stripping on stage, reports the Daily Mail. The dancers then go into the audience where they appear to "perform sex acts on members of a raucous crowd."
It sounds wet and wild to me, but I have no idea what they thought they were signing up for. The apology they ended up issuing after the event indicates that they were expecting a much tamer wet and wild.
"I've worked in hospitality for a long time. Whenever these events happen the women just go nuts - particularly the mums," a source told the Daily Mail. "I guess if it is your one night out in God knows how long, you are going to need to let off some steam."
That's one way to look at it. Banbury United FC had a different way of looking at it. One that required an apology to be issued.
"We are aware of video clips circulating online from the UK Pleasure Boys' 'Wet & Wild' show held at The Spencer Clubhouse on Saturday, October 17. This was a ticketed, 18+ event," they said in a statement.
"The images suggest that part of the performance towards the end went beyond what we find acceptable at our venue. We apologise to anyone in attendance who was offended. The venue was booked for that evening by an external promoter as part of a UK-wide tour," the statement continued.
"We are reviewing what happened and will revise our hire and conduct terms for performance events as a result."
This should be a simple fix. If the UK Pleasure Boys are coming to town for a "Wet & Wild" show, believe that they're going to deliver said show.
If a wet and wild show by a group calling themselves pleasure boys is out of your comfort zone, don't allow them to book it. Problem solved and, at the end of the day, that's all I'm trying to do is help solve problems.
A friend and teammate of Tiger Woods revealed the 50-year-old wants to get back to golf early next year following his arrest on charges of driving under the influence.
Woods completed a rehab stint in Switzerland after he was arrested on charges of driving under the influence as well as two other misdemeanors in Florida. He entered a plea deal in September where his charges were reduced.
Now home, Woods appears like he’s ready to golf once again, as fellow PGA Tour Pro Jason Kisner alluded to him being back with his TGL squad, Jupiter Links.
"Obviously, I’m not on the team anymore," Kisner told the "Fore Play" podcast, where he serves as co-host. "I had a two-year contract with Jupiter Links. …Tiger wants to play and then they wanted to sign Keith Mitchell, which is totally fine with me. It gives me a chance to hang out in January and February instead of flying back and forth to Palm Beach every Monday."
Kisner said that he spoke with Rob McNamara, Woods’ longtime friend and business partner, via text, where he explained what the 15-time major winner has planned for the 2027 TGL schedule.
"[Rob] texted me a long text last week, I think. Just telling me what they did on their decisions, how they were moving around and what players were going to do and that Tiger wanted to play a full schedule. I mean, we talked about it at the end of the season obviously."
Kisner also believes that Woods will play in regular tournaments: the Hero World Challenge, which is the annual tournament hosted by Woods to benefit his TGR Foundation, and the PNC Championship, a family-focused event where he’s played with his son, Charlie, in past years.
If all goes well, Kisner could even see Woods back playing at The Masters in 2027.
"The way he was swinging and moving on the range, I mean, the guy loves to compete," Kisner added. "Come back, get your feet wet at the Hero, play with Charlie in the father-son, play some TGL [and] get ready for Augusta."
It was just three days prior to his arrest on charges of driving under the influence where Woods returned to the TGL to play with Jupiter Links following back and Achilles rehab. Woods, then, was in a car crash on Jupiter Island, flipping his Land Rover.
Woods performed a breathalyzer test that found no alcohol in his system, but he refused to take a urine test following the crash. He was found with two hydrocodone pills on his person during a search at the scene.
Levi Kitchen is on top of the SuperMotocross world. But getting there required more than recovering from a serious injury. He had to learn to trust himself again.
The 25-year-old Monster Energy Pro Circuit Kawasaki rider captured the 2026 Monster Energy SMX 250 Class World Championship in September 2026, securing his first professional title and ending a seven-year championship drought for his team.
It was a career-defining moment for Kitchen, who had spent years coming close to winning a championship while battling injuries and setbacks along the way.
"It was unreal," Kitchen told OutKick OutDoors in an exclusive interview. "I've had some heartbreaks, obviously been close, but it felt really good."
"It was pretty emotional for me just because it had taken a while to win anything of that caliber," he added.
But the road to that championship was anything but smooth.
The long road back from Daytona
In March 2025, Kitchen suffered a violent crash during the Daytona Supercross that left him with a broken collarbone and fractures in his upper back. The injuries sidelined him for the remainder of the Supercross season.
And while he eventually healed enough to return to racing, Kitchen said the mental recovery was a different battle entirely.
"Oh yeah, big time," he said when asked whether it was difficult to regain his confidence after the crash.
"If I look back at that season, even when I came back on the bike, in 2025, I was maybe a top-five guy outdoors. And then at least was able to compete for the championship this year."
Watch Levi Kitchen's entire interview with OutKick OutDoors here:
That progression didn't happen overnight.
"Slowly but surely, I've made really good progress, and I have all my confidence back," Kitchen said. "It just goes to show, I think fans, or just anybody, don't realize how much injuries can really affect everything."
"It can be a real pain in the butt to build yourself back up."
For fans watching from the sidelines, a rider's return to competition might signal that the recovery process is complete. But as Kitchen explained, getting back on the bike doesn't necessarily mean getting back to the same level of confidence and performance.
It took time, patience and a different approach to racing.
Learning when to back off
Looking back on everything he's experienced, Kitchen believes one of his biggest improvements has come from learning to trust his abilities while also recognizing his limits.
"The biggest thing I would say is just finally the belief," he said. "The belief side of it is super important. And I think on any given day, if I show up with the belief that I can get something done, normally I can get it done."
Kitchen also had to develop a little more restraint — something that doesn't always come naturally in a sport where riders are constantly pushing the limits of speed and control.
"Just maturity of racing," he explained. "Now, if I don't really have it on a day, I try to be as smart as I can. Where before, I would probably still try and then end up on the ground or something."
It's a lesson learned the hard way, but one Kitchen believes will serve him well beyond a single championship season.
"I want to race for a lot more years to come and can't be too stupid," he said.
That shift in mentality paid off in September when Kitchen secured the 250SMX World Championship at Thunder Ridge Nature Arena in Ridgedale, Mo.
And the victory meant something special beyond his own accomplishments.
Kitchen's title ended a seven-year championship drought for Monster Energy Pro Circuit Kawasaki, one of the most decorated organizations in 250-class racing.
"Mitch has done so much for me," Kitchen said, referring to team owner Mitch Payton. "Me and Mitch have gotten close over the years, and he's been a great boss and friend of mine now. So it was super special."
One championship down, but plenty more to chase
Despite finally capturing that elusive first title, Kitchen insists he isn't suddenly feeling satisfied.
In fact, winning the championship has only strengthened his belief in what he's capable of accomplishing.
"It didn't really take any pressure off," he said. "The only thing it did was help me with the belief side of things. Just being able to execute."
Kitchen has his sights set on both a Supercross and a Pro Motocross championship in 2027, and he plans to remain in the 250 class for at least another season.
"The Supercross Championship has been a major goal of mine, so that's my first goal," he said. "But overall, just maybe be a little better than I was this year."
And while the first championship was certainly worth celebrating, Kitchen knows there's no guarantee the next one will come any easier.
"I don't think you'll ever be satisfied, really, which is a tough thing," he said.
For now, though, Kitchen can take some satisfaction in knowing how far he's come.
A year ago, he was still working to rebuild his confidence after a frightening crash. Now, he's a world champion.
In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The TodayShow's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."
Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)
What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.
Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)
Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.
Rent
In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."
Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."
"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.
Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.
When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."
I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.
Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."
This one belonged in the trash.
Sports Betting
In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."
I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.
The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.
If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.
Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.
Homelessness
In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.
"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."
The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.
In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.
Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.
Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.
Ethanol
Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.
"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."
What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.
The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.
Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.
SWAT Raids
In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.
So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.
The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.
Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."
Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.
When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.
I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.
Tipping
In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."
Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.
It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.
Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.
To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.
Paul George’s first night in green was memorable for all the right reasons, except for the final score. The nine-time All-Star delivered a record-setting performance during Tuesday's NBA opener, despite the Boston Celtics falling 121-113 to the Detroit Pistons.
George scored 38 points in 31 minutes during his Celtics debut, the most ever by a player in his first game with the franchise.
While the loss dampened George’s performance, it did give Boston an encouraging glimpse of what he can provide after injury-plagued stints with his previous teams.
George said the last time he felt this healthy was toward the end of his tenure with the Los Angeles Clippers, and admitted an injury lingered during his run with the 76ers.
"My stint in LA. I was pretty healthy to finish my last year there, and then, honestly, going to Philly, I just had a bad hyperextension that really set me back, and I couldn’t quite shake that one — it was an ongoing thing of my leg, my knee not feeling strong, and it was rough, right?" the 36-year-old said.
"Because I was trying to rest, but I was also trying to be available for the team, and just couldn’t quite find the time to let it all come together."
Injury setbacks and load management arguably became a theme of George's stints with the Clippers and Sixers. He's managed to play at least 57 games during the regular season just once since taking the court for 77 contests in the 2018-19 campaign. That year also marked his last season with Oklahoma City.
The Celtics visit New York City on Friday night to face the defending champion Knicks. Both teams are seeking their first win of the 2026-27 season after losing their openers.
President Donald Trump has been a part of many Team USA golf events recently, making appearances at the 2025 Ryder Cup in New York and this September's Presidents Cup in Illinois. On Wednesday, you could say Team USA returned the favor.
The President held a rally on the campus of Clemson University in South Carolina, and among the guest speakers was Jacob Bridgeman, the two-time PGA Tour winner who made the Presidents Cup clinching putt for the Americans in September.
Bridgeman, a South Carolina native who played collegiately at Clemson, was sure to join in on one of the Tigers' fight songs before sharing supportive remarks for President Trump.
"I just thank President Donald Trump for having me here. It has been great to get to know him and to have him, as he mentioned, at the Presidents Cup, watching us have a pretty historic comeback on Sunday.
"And thank you to my captain, Brandt Snedeker, he had some good remarks for us after the round at the tournament for our President here, so thank you to him. Just glad to be here with you guys and proud to represent one of the best states in the country. I travel a lot, I travel 25 to 30 weeks a year, and every time I come home it feels like at home and there is no place I would rather be.
"Thank you for everyone who lives in this great state, and thank you for making it what it is, and thank you to the President for having me."
Bridgeman, making his Presidents Cup debut, went 1-2-0 in the biennial event, with his win coming during Sunday's singles matches against Min Woo Lee. The Americans faced a three-point deficit heading into the final day, but ultimately came away with a 17-13 victory.
As the former Clemson standout alluded to, Team USA captain Brandt Snedeker had some glowing remarks for President Trump after the team managed to pull off the comeback.
"One last shoutout: Donald Trump. President Trump. He told me, 'I [am] going to bring energy today for you. You guys need it,'" Snedeker said on Sunday evening. "I told him if we did this, he gets all the credit. So, thank you, President Trump."
President Trump, an honorary chairman for the event, briefly addressed the crowd from the first tee before play began.
"You know, the fake news media will say I get a very bad reception," Trump said as the crowd laughed. "But we get a good reception.
"[PGA Tour CEO] Brian [Rolapp] said, 'Could you make a short speech?' I said, 'No, I don't have the courage to make a speech. These people wanna see golf. They don't wanna hear speeches.' I'll only say this: Our country is doing great, better than ever before."
Since the event's inception in 1994, the Americans have fallen to the International team just once in the Presidents Cup.
There are reports of some serious drama in the"Monday Night Football" booth between play-by-play announcer Joe Buck and commentator Troy Aikman, and now broadcaster and NBA legend Charles Barkley is weighing in.
This comes after Buck signed a big extension with ESPN, while Aikman is still in talks with the network, which will broadcast its first Super Bowl next February with the duo in the booth.
Many folks have given their take on the matter, and now we can add the Round Mound of Rebound to the list.
Barkley joined "Unfiltered" on Philadelphia sports station 97.5 The Fanatic on Wednesday, and he didn't hide where he was placing the blame.
"I'm very disappointed in Troy Aikman, honestly," he said, per Awful Announcing. "It's not Joe Buck's job to get him a deal. Like, he can’t tell them to give him a deal. Now, if he wants to talk to Joe privately, that's fine. But why are you mad? They gave Joe a deal. It looks like they don't want to give you a deal, which they don’t have to give you a deal.
"But you don't have to drag Joe Buck into it. Like, it ain't his job."
Buck and Aikman have become thought of as a duo, but they're not joined at the hip.
You can understand why Aikman would be frustrated, but you also can't fault Buck for signing on the dotted line when they slid a contract worth over $100 million under his nose.
"But I don't understand why you would be mad at Joe Buck. He ain’t negotiating the contract," he continued. "When he went there first, you didn't negotiate with him. Remember? He left the network first."
Get ready because this week's True Romance is filled to the brim. I'm talking so full it looks like it's actually slightly over the top of the side of the cup.
We're going to do some learning today. We're going to learn about an influencer and professional golfer moving in with one another.
We're going to learn about what happens when a couple invites the babysitter to go swinging. And we're going to learn about women who cheat with married men.
Even with all this learning that is taking place, we're never going to unlock the mystery of Billy Ray Cyrus. At 65, he's engaged for the fourth time.
This time he somehow convinced Elizabeth Hurley to say yes. Congratulations. While confusing, I'm not going to lower myself in order to trash romance.
Let's get back to why we're here this week. That's, of course, to learn. Let's learn about manscaping from influencer Emily Tanner. She and her boyfriend, Wyndham Clark, have moved in with each other.
That opened the golfer up to having his girlfriend riffle through his belongings in order to make content for social media. She shared a video this week from his bathroom for those who want to be boyfriend/husband material.
Here's Emily's list of bathroom green flags. I don't know if they're ranked in any particular order, but first to be mentioned was having a good smelling candle. Next on the list is a good grooming tool for manscaping.
You have to keep it under control, fellas. After that came fluffy soft white towels, a good hand soap, lotion, mouthwash and cleaning up after those manscaping sessions all ended up as her green flags.
There you go. Now you're all set to take that next step and have your girlfriend move in with you. The bottom line is; keep it clean and stay groomed all over.
What happens when the babysitter is invited to go swinging?
It's a question that many have asked themselves. Thanks to one babysitter who received an invitation from a couple she was babysitting for, we're getting a glimpse into the possible outcome.
Katy Orah told The Sun that the couple she had been babysitting for sat her down one day and left her stunned by what they asked her. She said the question was, "Do you want to go to a swingers' party with us?"
She was blindsided by the question. She said, "I assumed it was going to be something about the kids. But they told me they both fancied me and asked if I wanted to go to a swingers' party with them."
That was the beginning of the journey. She surprised herself as much as she surprised them when she accepted. A few weeks later, she was with the couple at a swingers club.
"The wife had explained what would happen and made it clear there was absolutely no pressure to do anything," Katy said.
She learned the terminology, then found herself on the dance floor making out with the couple. A natural next step after walking into a swingers club for the first time.
"I was incredibly innocent," she said. "I was their babysitter, but this didn’t feel weird."
And why would it? What's weird about it? They eventually moved into a private room and the rest is history. But that's not where this ends. She went on to meet her husband at the club.
They kept the party going for a while until the marriage ended. It didn’t work out for them, but following the divorce they remained friends. She then moved to a Thai island to start a new life.
A new life where she would open a School of Sensuality. The invitation to the swingers club by the couple she was babysitting for opened up a whole new world for her. She had been given a gift.
It was time to start helping "thousands of people online and face-to-face to improve their sex lives, embrace their sexuality and reconnect with their partners."
The more selfish among us would keep it all to themselves. That's not who Katy is. She's a giver.
"I have replaced shame with loving myself and now help thousands of people do the same," she added.
And that's what happens when the babysitter is invited to go swinging.
The power of love: man wants to remarry ex-wife who cut his junk off
Be prepared to be blown away by the undeniable power of love. In 2023, reports Yahoo! News, Daiane dos Santos Farias found out on her birthday that her husband, Gilberto Nogueria de Oliveira, had cheated on her.
That isn’t a birthday present that most people want to receive. To get revenge on her husband, she reportedly seduced him, tied his hands up while they were in bed together, then grabbed a razor and cut off his penis with it.
She then flushed what had been severed down the toilet. Gilberto was rushed to the hospital for treatment. While there, he consented to having his mutilated penis photographed for medical purposes.
Daiane turned herself in. She was then sentenced to more than four years in prison after pleading guilty to the crime. The couple, understandably, got divorced. But that didn't keep Gilberto from visiting his ex-wife while behind bars.
In November 2025, when she was released early from prison, he reached out hoping to rekindle their romance. Now, almost a year later, he plans to marry his ex-wife who cut off his penis and flushed it down the toilet for a second time.
His missing member will help pay for the wedding, although it won't cover the entire cost. Those photographs that were taken for medical purposes ended up on social media and the hospital responsible paid him $20,000 in compensation.
Gilberto is seeking more money for the leaked photos. While that part of the saga is still ongoing, the rest of it is behind him.
"I really want to get back together with her. I love her," he said. "It never crossed my mind to do anything bad to her, and it still doesn't."
If these two can make it there truly is hope for everyone else.
Women who had an affair with a married man: why did you do it?
I told you we would be learning a lot today, which is a good thing.
Manscaping is important. Figuring out what happens when the babysitter is invited to go swinging is important. Understanding the power of love is important too.
So is getting to know the reason why some women have affairs with married men. Some put the blame on their age at the time or selfishness. Others don't think they're doing anything wrong.
He didn't tell me he was married and I found out about his wife when he died and I googled him and a news article mentioned a wife (and his real age).
I was 19 or 20. He was approaching 40. I was very naive and fell for his act. He made it sound like they were getting a divorce and not living together, said she was evil and cold, etc. The usual. I genuinely loved him, but when he cheated on me with another coworker, I realized that he wasn't a victim at all, he was a selfish a------. I felt so stupid for falling for it. I learned that him and his wife were not going through a divorce. She had no idea he was cheating, and it made me feel absolutely horrible. I learned a lot from that experience, it helped me to grow up. I still feel really guilty to this day.
I was 19, he was 45, and no one had ever paid attention to me before.
I knew he was married. I was 25 and he was 44 at that time. I worked with him but he lived 1500 miles away from me. It started innocently just flirting when we worked together. He was sent to our office on business and that's where it started physically. I was naive & I was enamored with him, he was smart & funny & adored me. It was a lot of fun, but I knew it wasn't going anywhere and ended it. To my knowledge his wife never found out & they are still married today. That was the only time I was ever knowingly involved w a married man. I wouldn't do it again.
I doubt anyone will admit it here but from being (ex) friends with women who did this, they clearly loved the feeling of being chosen over the wife. Especially if the wife was obviously more beautiful or accomplished or had a seemingly better home life where she was being taken care of.
I knew a girl in college who had no issue sleeping with married guys. I think she had 5 of them over a couple of years. When I asked her about it she said "If they don’t respect the relationship why should I?"
Young and dumb. Insecure. Had no morals. Did what I wanted to do because all I wanted to do was to please me me me. Pure selfishness.
My friend (in her 60s) freely admits to sleeping with married men in her 20s and 30s and she sees nothing wrong with it to this day. She said they were the cheaters, not her.
I was 23 and he was 47. I was a very naive stupid kid who thought at the time, I wasn’t the one cheating so therefore, I wasn’t doing anything wrong.
My ex-friend slept with her best friends husband. He convinced her that he wasn't getting what he wanted from his marriage and that he "loved" my friend. She thought he was going to leave his wife for her. She had been lonely for a long time and he said all the right things. Once the wife found out, he went crawling back.
That is it for today and for the month of October. I'll be in Florida next week, and I'm not taking my laptop with me. True Romance will return on the first Thursday in November, which is insane to think that it's going to be November already.
We had a solid finish to the month. A nice song selection to wrap it up. Keep the song of the week suggestions coming, even while I'm out. I'll sift through them when I return.
Also, feel free to send anything else my way. You can reach me, anonymously if you prefer, at sean.joseph@outkick.com. Go follow along on Twitter and Facebook.
LeBron James is officially back in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump over his performative antics during the national anthem during his debut with the Philadelphia 76ers this week.
James, who has turned into something of a golf addict, was spotted taking some practice swings in his new 76ers gear as the rest of the team stood respecting the anthem during Tuesday's game against the defending NBA champions.
"While listening to our National Anthem, LeBron James disrespects our Country! I said right from the beginning that he’s no good, a TOTAL DISGRACE. LeBron James should apologize to all of those Great American Warriors and Heroes who died for the American Flag, and all that our Country stands for!" the President wrote Thursday in a Truth Social post.
This isn't the first time James has pulled this stunt. Last year, on Christmas Day, while playing for the Los Angeles Lakers, he went through the same golf swing routine.
It's no secret that Trump isn't a fan of James. Earlier this year, the president said why he believes Michael Jordan was better than James.
"Michael Jordan is a guy that's a friend of mine, play golf with him. He's a really good guy. And I think LeBron is, maybe he's a racist, but maybe he doesn't like Trump, I don't know. But I only like people that like me. So, I would say Michael Jordan all the way," the president said.
LeBron's history of anthem antics
In October 2019, as James was embroiled in drama surrounding his loving support of China, he pulled this stunt during the anthem. "LeBron is READY," the NBA on ESPN Twitter account proudly tweeted as if it was Game 7 of the NBA Finals.
Do you want more instances of LeBron disrespecting the anthem? Let's fast-forward to 2023 at a USC basketball game featuring his son, Bronny James. That's the drama queen arriving to his seats during the anthem and taking a seat as the rest of the arena shows respect.
Aside from Team Europe dominating the Americans over the course of the first two days of the 2025 Ryder Cup, one of the wilder moments from the biennial event involved comedian Heather McMahan and chants of "f- - - you Rory" ringing out across the first tee at Bethpage Black.
Now, a year removed from helping lead the vulgar chants, McMahan is claiming that if she were a man, the consequences that followed never would have happened.
Ahead of Saturday's foursomes matches, McMahan, who was hired as an MC for the event, attempted to fire up the crowd on Long Island. While it's an admittedly awkward job for anyone to start chanting things into a microphone at sunrise in front of tens of thousands of rowdy golf fans screaming their own obscenities, McMahan made a mistake that immediately cost her.
As fans in the stands started a ‘f you Rory’ chant for Team Europe leader Rory McIlroy, McMahan joined in and started shouting the chant into her microphone. The following day, the PGA of America issued a statement explaining that McMahan had extended an apology to McIlroy and had stepped down from her role. McMahan recently told Oona McCaughan of Barstool Sports that she was "immediately fired" after joining in on the chants.
During a recent sit-down with The Hollywood Reporter, McMahan reflected on nearly being "cancelled" after the incident while pinning the blame on golf not knowing its identity, whatever that means.
"The Ryder Cup has always been known to be heavily competitive between Europe and America," McMahan told the outlet. "But it's always been in good fun? I think [having it in Long Island], the already the weird animosity that America was having to outsiders, I don't think they were set up for success that year. And, I'll fall on the sword. I did not help the cause. It's just really wild.
"What does golf want to be? Is it all buttoned up like The Masters? Is it trying to be Happy Gilmore? I do think golf needed to like shake off the cobwebs, quit being as stuffy, but it doesn't know where it wants to go."
After explaining that she's only planning on attending LPGA events from now on, McMahan claimed that her being a woman played a role in the backlash and firing.
"I went to the Masters and got to see him win again. I'm still a huge fan," McMahan said, referring to McIlroy winning the green jacket in April. "It's not the players. They're doing their thing. It's just this kind of weird environment with some of the male fans these days. And again, I apologized, but I do think, had a male comedian been in my shoes, we would have never had this conversation. They wouldn't have given a s - - t. Dudes being dudes. Set it on fire, man."
It's extremely hard to find a modicum of truth in what McMahan is implying.
If anyone who is hired to MC one of the largest events in golf grabs a microphone and joins in on ‘f you’ chants directed at a player in the event you're being paid to be a part of, that person is undoubtedly being fired, regardless of gender.
When it comes to the idea that McMahan should have been cancelled for the chant, that's equally as absurd.
The 2025 Ryder Cup was three full days of American fans shouting obscenities at every European player, but fans aren't held to the same standard as a paid employee of the event, as McMahan was presumed to be.
Hal Steinbrenner was not fond of answering questions about Major League Baseball's labor negotiations with the players' association, but he came as close as possible to answering a very important one.
When asked at the New York Yankees' postmortem presser if he was in favor of a salary cap, the team's owner said he "support[s]" the owners' proposals - all of which include a cap.
"I've said before - let me put it this way as a member of the labor policy committee - I helped craft, one of many, the proposals that we have given at the bargaining table. And I support those proposals in their entirety. That's absolutely the case, so that should answer your question," Steinbrenner told reporters.
"What I will say is as a member of the labor policy committee is that we are working hard on our end. We are completely focused on the task ahead of us, on the negotiating. And I'm optimistic we're gonna get a deal done, and we''e gonna get a deal done that's favorable for both sides."
Players have adamantly opposed a salary cap and said it is non-negotiable. The owners are expected to lock out the players on Dec. 1, when the current collective bargaining agreement expires.
The Yankees' $336 million payroll was the third-largest in baseball during the 2026 season, behind the Los Angeles Dodgers ($422 million) and New York Mets ($338 million).
Arguments skew both ways, but a constant has remained in that the highest payrolls continue to go up, while the lowest payrolls remain at a stall. The Marlins' payroll is actually roughly half of what it used to be in 2017, despite a sale of the team and everyone in the league making more money than ever. Meanwhile, the Dodgers have already committed more money in 2030 than 12 teams have this season.
MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has said that owners are simply "listening to our fans" regarding a salary cap and said it "defies human experience... to think that the bottom end of that [payroll] gap has the same opportunity to win the top end." It should be noted, though, that the National League-winning Milwaukee Brewers swept the Dodgers with the 11th-smallest payroll, and they will be facing the Tampa Bay Rays, who have the league's third-smallest payroll. They defeated the Cleveland Guardians, who rank 29th in payroll, in the American League Division Series.
Major League Baseball has never had a salary cap.
"Salary cap is the ultimate excuse not to compete. It's the ultimate excuse for an owner to say, ‘Gee, I would like to make the team better, but you know I can’t,'" interim MLBPA executive director Bruce Meyer said during the All-Star break. "Salary caps are bad for fans. Salary caps prevent teams from doing the things that they believe are in their interest to make the team better."
The NFL has insisted multiple times this week that Sunday's game in France will be safe to play and safe for fans to attend amid civil unrest in Paris, but the Pittsburgh Steelers showed a different side to that confidence on Thursday by canceling one of their fan events.
The club confirmed to OutKick that it has canceled a Steelers House fan event scheduled for this week.
"Following recent events in the Bastille neighborhood and after careful consideration, we felt it appropriate not to move forward with the planned Steelers House fan event in Paris," the club announced.
This isn't the lone crack in the "all is well" armor the NFL has put on about this event. Earlier this week, Dani Watt, the wife of Steelers defensive end TJ Watt, questioned publicly why the game has not been moved.
This is an obvious break from the the league's narrative that the civil unrest in Paris and other parts of France will not hinder it from playing its game and, indeed, holding a fan event of its own.
The NFL on Thursday told OutKick that its own NFL Fan House event scheduled for Friday and Saturday remains as scheduled.
"It's happening," a league spokesman said.
So what we have is the NFL taking another bold step in virtually guaranteeing the safety of its players and fans during the game, but also doing the same for a fan event over a two-day span at 46 Rue Cambon in Paris.
And this is where you should know it's not only the NFL that seems confident about the safety of Americans tied to the game in France.
On Wednesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said he's going to the game and he spoke with United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the event in recent days about moving forward with the game.
Rubio told OutKick that the American embassy in France believes the game "will be fine."
So the NFL is moving ahead, including with its own fan event at which multiple thousand French and American football fans are expected in the days prior to the game.
"There's nothing more important from our standpoint than the teams' security, the fans' security, everybody involved with this game," NFL executive vice president Peter O'Reilly said at the League Fall Meeting this week.
"Again, we've made all the preparations," Goodell said. "We've been in touch with all the appropriate authorities."
Login
