Sports commentators who lack legitimate backgrounds but like to express their opinions on legal issues can take comfort in Shannon Sharpe’s victory over Brett Favre’s slander lawsuit at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s victory next week.
Favre v. Sharpe indicates that the commentator is legally sound as long as they rely on published reports information, even if those critics use false and reputation-damaging words and phrases.
Sharpe relied heavily on a Mississippi Today article that was published in 2022, which was important to his success. The article described the Mississippi Department of Human Services ‘ lawsuit against Favre and several others for crime and other alleged unlawful payment. Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ( TANF ) funds were allegedly used by the defendants for illegal purposes. Favre’s text messages regarding money for a new tennis center at his alma university, the University of Southern Mississippi, were included in the post.

Favre denied knowing the money came from TANF and he repaid$ 1.1 million, while did n’t recover the attention. Favre’s efforts to USM and various encouraging details that Sharpe did not mention were also acknowledged in the content.
During FS1’s Skip and Shannon: Unquestioned with Bayless, Sharpe referenced the content and said:
·” Brett Favre is taking from the underrepresented”.
·” ]Favre ] stole money from people that really needed that money”.
·” The difficulty that I have with this condition, you’ve got to get a guilty mofo to steal from the lowest of the low”.
Sharpe’s use of the words” steal” and” stole” offended Favre, who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime and who denies breaking any laws. Favre contends that a typical Undisputed listener would have understood Sharpe’s assertions that the Hall of Fame quarterback, whose net worth is thought to be in the neighborhood of$ 100 million, is a criminal whose victims were the underprivileged.
As Favre’s prosecutors have argued,” take” is often used in the framework of a crime, such as theft, burglary or embezzlement. And though Undisputed was an entertainment show, where hyperbole and understatement were used to hold viewers ‘ curiosity, the category at issue reportedly had a” serious” voice. Favre also points out that Sharpe made it seem more like he was relaying information as a media reporter than as an ex-jock turned number. Further, as the Fifth Circuit noted, Sharpe erred by indicating Favre had n’t repaid the$ 1.1 million. Sharpe’s co-host, Skip Bayless, corrected him and pointed out Favre had n’t been criminally charged.
In sports media, Sharpe frequently uses inaccurate information and, possibly, distorting facts about the rules.
As a long-time counsel and teacher who writes about athletics legal issues and has represented clients in sports legal cases, I frequently notice errors made by hosts, broadcasters, and yet reporters when referring to the law. That is n’t surprising since legal topics —including antitrust, labor, intellectual property and others that regularly surface in sports —and their associated procedures are complex, nuanced and ill-suited for hot takes. There’s a reason why laws class lasts three years, and why experienced lawyers frequently have an enormous benefit over novice lawyers. It takes a while to master the rules well enough to effectively express it.

Typically, media mistakes concerning the law are n’t of the type that would risk defamation litigation. They frequently have unclear attention or voice, inadequate analyses, or they reflect the reporter misinterpreting what an prosecutor told them or even being misled by an unscrupulous lawyer. A story that accepts allegations as being more or less true or that demonstrates the writer’s ignorance of the ( very significant ) differences between a motion for summary judgment may provoke criticism and counterclaim, but it wo n’t likely become the subject of legal argument.
Sharpe’s notes were unique and more difficult because they asserted Favre engaged in illegal, and perhaps, criminal acts. Without a jury’s verdict, Favre was not held accountable or innocent for making those remarks.
Undisputed, however, was critical to Sharpe’s Fifth Circuit victory by letting viewers know that Sharpe was delivering what he had read in Mississippi Today and no presenting his own conclusions. From that glass, practical errors in Sharpe’s representation of Favre would have been in the resource material.
Favre was, of course, refute Favre’s claim that Sharpe’s portrayal of the Mississippi Today tale was erroneous and distorted in a way that vilified him. According to Favre, Sharpe acted as a newscaster by giving the audience false information. However, where the information came from inevitably mattered to the court.
Hope Favre v. Sharpe to receive notice and perhaps even a warm take the next time a journalist, columnist, or social media influencer is accused of libel after relying on published materials.