Ever wonder what Aristotle would say about Scott Van Pelt's suspension? Here's my best guess.

The Suspension of SVP: Fair or Foul?


As the world‘s largest sports-reporting family of networks, ESPN’s anchors, analysts and commentators report and comment on nearly everything involving sports 24 hours per day and seven days per week. The proclaimed “worldwide leader of sports” offers broadcasts of sporting events, sports-related documentaries, highlight shows as well as forum-formatted shows. ESPN allows sarcastic, occasionally satirical, opinionated comments regarding sports players, team management, and even professional league rules during broadcasts. The commentary on ESPN’s flagship show, Sportscenter, is usually combined with hip catch-phrases, entertaining simile and metaphors or the latest pop culture references. Some of Sportscenter’s most popular anchors also write for ESPN The Magazine or lend their personalities on ESPNRadio.

Scott Van Pelt’s foray into radio began in September of 2007, six years after signing on with ESPN as a sportscaster. He started as a co-host on The Mike Tirico Show. Later, he acquired his own show, The Scott Van Pelt Show in 2008. In February of 2009 Scott Van Pelt (SVP) was suspended for comments he made during a broadcast of his afternoon radio show regarding the salary of Major League Baseball‘s commissioner, Bud Selig. Van Pelt stated “ I choked on my vomit. I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit” when learning that Commissioner Selig made $18 million during 2007. The Sports Business Journal reported earnings of $17.5 million. He further commented that Commissioner Selig’s appearance is rather slipshod like “a computer programmer, substitute teacher or government worker,” and likens him to a pimp, concluding that “he probably has a chalice with ‘B-U-D’ spelled out in jewels and diamonds. You drink from a chalice if you’re a pimp.”

For part of the segment, SVP compared Selig’s 2007 earnings to those of two other major sports commissioners: David Stern of the National Basketball Association and Roger Goodell of the National Football League. He mentioned the fact that Selig’s salary is nearly double the salaries of the other two more-effective commissioners. Van Pelt also mentioned Selig’s responsibility for pro baseball’s once-dire steroid issues. As the commissioner, Selig is responsible for the conduct of Major League Baseball’s employees, including its players. A large part of his job is to implement and enforce the rules and guidelines of the MLB. For a time, steroids and performance-enhancing drugs were not outlawed by the league, and this was wildly criticized by the public, the media and other sports that had rules and guidelines in place. This is a moral issue in and of itself. Can steroid use be categorized as cheating if there is no rule against it? Following these disparaging comments, ESPN would not confirm Van Pelt’s absence from the show as a suspension. Since Van Pelt is not on the show every day, his status was widely speculated early on. It was stated in a press release by a network spokesman that ESPN’s policy is to refrain from commenting on personnel matters. Through various anonymous sources, Van Pelt’s suspension was confirmed. It was initially reported that Selig heard Van Pelt’s comments first-hand while listening to the show, but sources confirmed later that he had not. Van Pelt took initiative by calling Commissioner Selig directly to apologize for the comments. Later, Van Pelt issued a statement to USA Today confirming that he’d reached out to Selig to apologize. He stated that the phone call lasted for about 20 minutes, and that Selig graciously accepted his apology.

It should be noted that in 2005 ESPN and Major League Baseball entered into an eight-year, $2.4 billion broadcast deal for Sunday night games to go along with the other multi-billion dollar MLB contracts ESPN held. The league and the network was preparing to announce another high-dollar contract granting fans access to live online streams of pro baseball content. It is also important to mention that Selig had close, personal relationships with some of ESPN’s top executives.

This sort of incident is not at all uncommon. There was a similar occurrence on a syndicated show that was aired in the St Louis affiliate for ESPNRadio last month when an ESPN analyst claimed that the St. Louis Rams “were not competing” on the football field and that the organization “was in shambles.” The analyst telephoned a Rams executive later that day to explain his comments and offer an apology. The analyst, Mark Schlereth, was not suspended nor did he receive any sort of punishment following the reactions to his statements. So what are the differences here? Does it matter that Scott Van Pelt is a full-time sportscaster on the network and popular personality while Mark Schlereth is only a seasonal football analyst? Since both men are representatives of ESPN during broadcasts, it seems unreasonable to think that one sports journalist would be held to a higher standard than the other. Then it must be that ESPN’s executives like the sport of baseball more than the sport of football! No. Here we have a case of 1st Amendment versus big business.

In Van Pelt’s instance, he is simply holding true to form, giving a sarcastic yet honest opinion while employing a phrase “I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit,“ which was popularized by a mainstream movie previously. The salaries of professional sports figures are wildly contested on a near-daily basis in sports media, so his comments on this topic, while slightly dramatic, were not out-of-bounds or off-limits. Mildly poking fun at someone’s appearance or style of dress isn’t necessarily grounds for a suspension either, considering the fact that the man’s multi-million dollar salary was disclosed moments before. His commentary on some of the commissioner’s rule changes and rulings during his tenure and the pimp comparison was evidently the straw that broke the camel’s back. While his comments may have been “a little too personal” as one ESPN executive described it, Van Pelt was not malicious or overly aggressive during his commentary.

Something to be considered of the timing of SVP’s comments are that ESPN and MLB had just entered into yet another multi-billion dollar agreement where its fans pay for access to the sport which has endured a decade-long steroid scandal and declining ratings during its all-star game and playoffs, as well as smaller crowds during an economic tailspin. The players are earning more and more money each year, yet here you have a commissioner who is overseeing (perhaps enabling) pro baseball’s decline while earning $17.5 million in a year, which is more than all but four of his sport’s athletes. Despite Van Pelt’s observations of the state of Major League Baseball and its commissioner, and despite the fact that SVP’s comments might have been the truth and shared the feelings of most listeners of his show, ESPN and MLB have to generate revenue… and they need each other’s help. Having one of your most-popular sportscasters bash a business partner is, well, bad for business. To maximize profit, the two sports entities must maximize the fans’ support, enthusiasm and belief that pro baseball has cleaned up its act following its recent history. In ESPN’s eyes, fans didn’t need to be reminded that the commissioner was highly criticized and viewed as inept for allowing the 2002 All Star Game to end in a tie. ESPN needs people to watch the broadcasts, listen on the radio, listen online, listen to podcasts, follow scores and statistics online and to fall in love with the sport again. Major League Baseball needed to see the millions of dollars promoting its union with ESPN to be valid. It needs total support from the whole staff at ESPN for these endeavors to be successful. Aside from that, Bud Selig is friends with some the upper-level management at the network.

So here is the moral dilemma ESPN faced: could management allow such an attack on a business partner and friend while stifling the freedom and creativity of one its employees? Aristotle and John Stuart Mill would obviously take different paths during their assessments of this case, but it wouldn’t be too surprising if they were to reach the same conclusion. Now at bat: Aristotle.

According to Aristotle, virtue is critical to a person’s (thing’s) characteristic function. A person’s function or characteristic task is called “ergon.“ Virtues are stable positive characteristics or traits that people possess. This action leads to the blessed and flourishing life Aristotle identified as eudaimonia. To have this life, according to Aristotle, one must repeatedly display evidence of upstanding moral (ethical) virtue, which also leads to wisdom. Aristotle taught that a person is what he or she does. In other words, in order to do something well, a person consciously develops the character virtues required to do the activity. By deliberate repetition, these virtues develop and become more prevalent in a person’s overall character. This is also known as habit. Aristotle expands on this concept by stating that one must go beyond habit, because habit is not indicative of character. Having the right habits will in turn give way to the right character. He notes that humans behave with an ultimate goal in mind, an end that is positive. This goal or end, while it may be personally motivated, has a positive effect on society.

Being virtuous is not as simple as doing something well. One must be doing a good thing well (it is possible to perform a bad thing well… this is not good nor virtuous). There are certain emotions or actions that are always wrong because the situation or condition isn’t conducive to a flourishing society, so the intensity of the emotion or quality of the action is irrelevant. The alternative to virtue is vice. A vice can be described as an immoral habit or a flawed character. In a treatise written by Aristotle, the Nichomachean Ethics, he reasons for the importance of finding the middle-ground between the maximum and minimum of a situation or condition.

As an example from this case, Van Pelt states that Selig earned more money than all but four of the professional athletes in the league. At the time, this statement was true. So Van Pelt was not too afraid to state the truth. However, SVP took it to the other extreme of being too confident by metaphorically comparing this fact to Selig’s “pimp” status.

One could conclude that Aristotle would lean toward defending Scott Van Pelt versus ESPN. ESPN, as the world’s largest sports broadcasting network, has a very broad reach purely as a media vessel. The commentators and analysts are the ones that deliver the topics and messages to the public, ultimately making them responsible for any societal impact.

Based on the aforementioned example, one might jump to the conclusion that Van Pelt is not virtuous and therefore a bad journalist because his pimp comparison was so negative. There is the slim possibility that Major League Baseball could lose followers based on listeners’ loyalty to SVP and his brand of sports journalism over Selig’s brand of pro baseball. However, a key role of journalism is to report the truth. Van Pelt did so, even when he added that Selig was the fifth-highest paid individual in professional baseball. The manner and style which SVP chose to deliver the information combined with his professional opinion had a significant impact on the story. Considering the way Van Pelt broke down some of Selig’s previous rulings regarding pro baseball despite ESPN’s alliance with pro baseball proves that he was unbiased. This is further support that SVP could be viewed as a virtuous journalist.

Clearly, this is a multi-faceted case. The basis of Van Pelt’s commentary is about as virtuous as sports reporting can get. He stated factual information, and even provided factual support for comments he made against baseball’s head man. He is accountable for the statements he made, and he acted independently. Aside from the physical description SVP provided his listeners, the information he provided the public is virtuous. Let’s look at the color SVP used to paint this masterpiece. Was it virtuous or vicious to describe Commissioner Selig with the looks of “a computer programmer, substitute teacher or government worker?” The man does not look or give the impression of a millionaire. I don’t believe that this description could be categorized as vicious. How about the fact that he saddles Selig with a majority of responsibility for the negative feelings surrounding the Steroid Era? As the commissioner, Selig is responsible. The increased home runs in pro baseball due in great part to avoiding a ruling on performance-enhancing drugs, increased interest from fans and detractors alike. This man profited from the increased exposure by allowing players to skate by on a technicality. This as an important point in validating (or invalidating) Selig’s earnings. He earns a very handsome salary from the hard work of the players on the field. While the comparison is harsh, perhaps offensive to some, SVP’s claims of Selig’s panderer-like position are not totally inaccurate. Considering these instances, Van Pelt was virtuous. Despite his descriptions and supporting arguments, SVP accurately commented on a report and utilized truthful support for his claims.

Another role of journalism is to generate followers, ratings and revenue. The importance of doing so is evidenced by the way Van Pelt climbed from a golf analyst, to an ESPN analyst, to also co-hosting a radio show before getting his own show. It is safe to assume that SVP has increased his popularity and developed a group of followers. It is very doubtful that his group of followers, how ever loyal, generate the same amount of revenue as a multi-billion dollar agreement with Major League Baseball. In this situation, SVP displayed his loyalty to quality journalism and his listeners, as opposed to ESPN, which was more concerned with how Commissioner Selig and other pro baseball executives might react. Another consideration probably was fear of how fans might react to those provocative comments. As a media outlet, ESPN has an obligation to its body of supporters to not simply report on sports and sports-related topics, but also to be truthful and accurate. Most of the time, there is no question of the network’s integrity and most people don‘t perceive any bias in its reporting. However, this instance comes into question because of the timing. Had the new agreement not been set for launch during the timeframe of SVP’s comments, would it have been an issue? Despite the fact that ESPN had a broadcast agreement with Major League Baseball, ESPN didn’t transform into a 100% baseball outlet. ESPN could be perceived as less-virtuous in this case for disciplining one of its journalist’s honest reporting.

John Stuart Mill would approach his answer on this topic differently. Instead of comparing and contrasting the sides based on virtue and vice, Mill would consider “utility.” Utility is basically the overall measure of satisfaction or happiness resulting from an act or decision. Utilitarianism is commonly referred to as “the greatest happiness principle,” because the righteousness of an act is ultimately judged by how much happiness is produced. This way of thinking differs from Aristotelian Ethics primarily because it does not consider the person’s character. Instead, a person’s choices and actions are judged one by one. Utilitarianism as a is categorized as a “consequentialist’s view,” because one must consider ahead of time the potential results of an act or decision to determine the right choice to make. In utilitarianism, the right choice is the one that produces the highest amount of overall (net) happiness for everyone and everything affected by the decision. Seems easy, right? However, as humans, we know how difficult it can be to make a choice based on potential consequences. We base our choices on certain known variables. Unfortunately, there frequently seems to be a miscalculation or unconsidered variable when assessing the probable chain of events that lead to the desired outcome. That’s because much of the time, the desired result is imagined, thus relatively unpredictable.

To illustrate, the fact that Commissioner Selig only had four pro baseball employees earn higher salaries than he in 2007 prompted Van Pelt to compare Selig’s duties as commissioner to those of a pimp during a broadcast of The Scott Van Pelt Show in February of 2009. It is safe to assume that there was plenty of happiness generated for many of his listeners in the form of laughter and amusement by his comments, some network and baseball executives presumably had equal but opposite reactions. Assuming that there are more listeners than combined bosses at the offices of ESPN and Major League Baseball, Van Pelt was justified in his comments because he created higher net utility by stating his opinion. Let’s look at the inverse to demonstrate one of the drawbacks of utilitarianism. Let’s imagine SVP knew he would get suspended as a result of the comments he made on his show prior to making them. With this knowledge, he decided to fashion his commentary without the same color and pizzazz to avoid being suspended by the network. Comparatively, this might result in lower utility but SVP ends up happier in the end because he avoided discipline by the network. This instance is called “ethical egoism,” because he made the choice that produced the highest benefit for himself. Now after a few practice swings, John Stuart Mill steps to the plate…

Key to evaluating this case through the eyes of a utilitarian, is to keep in mind that it is not an evaluation of character. It is fair to assume that even the marginal sports fan that was listening that day was happier following the segment than before it. To avoid the sweeping generalization of all sports fans enjoying the segment, let’s remember that all radio personalities have two sets of followers: those who enjoy the broadcast and those who do not. The group that enjoys the program listens because they like the format, the subject matter, the host and the cast, or perhaps some other reason. Opposite of that, there are the listeners who dislike the host and are listening in order to gather more fuel to add to the fire of their disdain. So it is quite possible that the positive utility of Van Pelt’s comments did not outweigh the negative utility by an overwhelming margin. Also important to note is that utility is not a constant. Utility is circumstantial and tangible, yet difficult to quantify. Utility can fluctuate based on the situation, subject, object or condition. Despite the knowledge of each individual listener’s natural affinity for grading the show’s quality on their own scale, the sheer volume of listeners would still produce higher net utility than if SVP had edited his use of simile and metaphor and avoided suspension.

It is clear that utility on that day following the broadcast was pretty low at ESPN headquarters. It is much more difficult to speculate on ESPN’s side regarding the decision to suspend SVP. Obviously, the decision-makers weren’t so unhappy with his comments that they felt Van Pelt needed to be terminated, but were displeased enough to give SVP an extended suspension.

Clearly, executives at ESPN employed a utilitarian view of this situation. From their consequentialist viewpoint, the greatest happiness for the organization would be to soften any hard feelings from Major League Baseball and maintain the broadcast agreements. They were proactive in disciplining Van Pelt in an effort to keep peace with MLB and not put the agreements at risk. It hasn’t been documented that MLB issued any public statements, sought any retribution, or amendment to the broadcast agreements. One could conclude that ESPN didn’t have to display any extra loyalty to its business partner because the commissioner was a topic of discussion on an afternoon radio show.

This situation could have been handled much differently and achieved the same outcome. ESPN could have expressed concern for the comments made on the show by holding a private meeting with SVP. They could have requested that he issue an apology during the next broadcast for any offense he may have previously caused his listeners. This way, ESPN maintains some integrity and reduces some of the negativity that resulted from SVP’s suspension. This plan of action could have possibly resulted in a higher net utility inside the organization.

After listening to re-broadcasts of the show in question, I can state that I got a lot of enjoyment from SVP’s take on Selig’s salary-worthiness. I can’t imagine that any other avid sports fan did not receive as much, if not more, enjoyment than me. Based on this, I believe the two ethicists would side with Van Pelt. While Aristotle and Mill employ different criteria, one critical idea is similar: the knowledge that humans behave with an inherent desire to achieve a positive end. Whether the motivation is to be virtuous and just or simply to be a source of entertainment and joy, SVP displayed more of what these ethicists hypothesize than ESPN in the decision to suspend the sportscaster. Following the dissection of this case under two competing ethical viewpoints, I believe that the Aristotelian view is best-equipped to help a person base an opinion. Despite the fact that this view does take a swing-and-miss on the topic of the disparaging comments made by Van Pelt regarding Selig’s appearance. Simply focusing on the entertainment aspect of the comments, one could justify the value of SVP’s statements during the show. However, did heckling the commissioner’s appearance have any real benefit to society aside from a few laughs? Van Pelt stated plenty of other factual, supportive information for his stance. The less-than-edifying comments could have been totally omitted from the day’s show, and it is very doubtful that quality of the show is reduced at all.

As previously stated, there are many facets to consider and the utilitarian view just seems too broad and general to provide accurate guidance toward a conclusion for this case. The measurement of utility is skewed by the fact SVP’s fan base greatly outnumbers the amount of higher-ups that felt disciplinary action was necessary.

Van Pelt wanted to present a quality product. He wanted to report honestly on a topic that held some public interest. He wanted to provide an insightful critique and entertain his followers at the same time. He wanted to provoke thought. And guess what? That’s what ESPN hired him to do. They wanted him to step up to the plate every afternoon, make contact with the pitches of current sports events, and hit home runs with his listeners. He did that day after day, but in the end, ESPN decided that they needed a pinch-hitter for a while.