It wasn’t that long ago that Robert Griffin III appeared to be one of ESPN’s rising stars.
So when the company fired the Heisman Trophy winner in August 2024, it felt like a shock. At the time, we even wrote that it was a big mistake for the Worldwide Leader to let such a talent go.
In the months following, there were rumors and rumblings. Some felt he’d often rubbed people like Paul Finebaum the wrong way. There were rumors that ESPN saw his social media accounts as liabilities. Others noted that his announcing style didn’t quite fit what the company was looking for.
While Griffin has dabbled in broadcasting work since, most notably for Netflix’s Christmas Day NFL studio show, most of the time, if you hear about him, it’s because of something he said or did on social media.
These days, he mostly reemerges on one’s timeline as an engagement baiter, offering up a “safe space” on his X account for people to discuss major stories and political issues, like LeBron confronting Stephen A. Smith or Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE operation.
On Thursday, the former NFL quarterback reinserted himself into the mainstream conversation by posting on X that “sports shows on TV should be about sports not politics.”
Sports shows on TV should be about sports not politics.
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) March 20, 2025
RGIII didn’t note what this was a reference to, but given what had been discussed on ESPN that day, the timing was hard not to notice.
During Thursday’s First Take, Jay Williams said that Duke star Cooper Flagg could rally the “America first” crowd, while Stephen A. Smith challenged Donald Trump to a debate on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) after the Department of Defense temporarily deactivated an article about Jackie Robinson’s military career. That article was reinstated after ESPN talent such as Jeff Passan and Mina Kimes spoke on Robinson’s importance on the network’s airwaves.
RGIII’s whole schtick has become a kind of “I’m just asking questions” facilitator who doesn’t take sides but reaps the engagement rewards. In this instance, that didn’t work for many people, and he was forced to explain further, saying that his post was “not about Jackie Robinson” before adding, “Breaking the color barrier in baseball in itself is not political.”
As you might imagine, that didn’t sit well with some people.
With all due respect, this doesn’t make any sense.
Breaking the color barrier in baseball it itself wasn’t political? Segregation was LAW. Making it political.
It feels like you’re working way too hard to prove something here. https://t.co/GCvrcUZvrP
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) March 21, 2025
“Breaking the color barrier in baseball in itself is not political.”
why was the color barrier in place? IF JOHNNY HAS TWO APPLES… https://t.co/Z4UDT7wkU0
— David Dennis Jr. (@DavidDTSS) March 21, 2025
“Civil Rights are not political” remains one of the funniest takes in the history of the world and that includes people from all over the political spectrum saying it but especially RGIII right here lmfao https://t.co/OjSjXyVTDZ
— Arif Hasan, but NFL 🏈 (@ArifHasanNFL) March 21, 2025
It was a political agenda that got the webpage deleted in the 1st place. The press release they put out changing the DEI acronym to Discriminatory Equity Ideology is a political agenda being pushed not just on the military or the rest of the government…private industries too https://t.co/IM25TnW8MC
— Roy Bellamy (@roybelly) March 21, 2025
RGIII’s responses to Hill and Dennis were similar. He said that the Dodgers signed Robinson because he was good at baseball, not as a political statement.
The problem with that response is that it’s well-documented that Dodgers owner Branch Rickey wanted to break Major League Baseball’s color barrier first and foremost. In seeking out the player he thought would be the best fit for the job, he found Robinson. You couldn’t ask for a more overtly political act in 1947, 17 years before the Civil Rights Act.
Here is Branch Rickey explaining why he wanted to break the color barrier in a 1956 speech. And yes, it was a political decision. And yes, he chose Jackie Robinson for reasons BESIDES him being a great player https://t.co/h1snpfow1x
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) March 21, 2025
While the debate will rage on, there’s no such thing as sports without politics, especially when politics intrudes on the sports world. You can pretend that the two don’t coexist, but saying that you can’t discuss politics during sports programming puts your head in the sand, especially in 2025.
What’s RGIII’s end goal here? Is he, as some suggested, “playing both sides” so that he can remain attractive to certain people he might want to be friendly with or have on his podcast? Is it simply an engagement tactic? If so, it’s working in an “all publicity is good publicity” way.
Whatever the reason, we have to imagine the ESPN suits are breathing a big sigh of relief knowing this isn’t their problem.
