Are Grant Hill’s Conflicts of Interest Different from Tom Brady’s?

It always felt like a cruel joke that Shaquille O’Neal had a stake in the Sacramento Kings. This transaction highlighted what had been true throughout his time in Los Angeles, as his Lakers teams dominated the Kings. O’Neal purchasing an actual stake in the team was just a twist of the knife. In 2022, he sold his share of the Kings after nine years as a limited partner alongside team governor Vivek Ranadive. O’Neal, always a savvy businessman, capitalized on new NBA regulations allowing venture capital firms to invest in teams. He sold high, much like Mark Cuban and several other owners did in the late 2010s and early 2020s. The decision to move on from his “Shaq-ramento” era was influenced by these factors, but the primary reason was to partner with WynnBett, as league rules prohibited him from engaging with a sports gambling operator while being an active owner.

It’s hardly surprising that team officials are barred from betting deals. The more intriguing aspect of O’Neal’s career during this time isn’t the part-time gig he sacrificed for that sportsbook connection but the one he retained. He joined Inside the NBA as a panelist two years after acquiring his stake in the Kings, working there throughout his tenure as a Sacramento part-owner. In contrast, Tom Brady’s investment in the Las Vegas Raiders has been scrutinized as a conflict of interest because he also serves as a game analyst at Fox. O’Neal, however, received full support from his bosses at TNT in a similar situation for nearly a decade.

Then we have Grant Hill, the No. 3 analyst for TNT, who is also a busy man. He’s calling his 11th NCAA tournament companioned by Bill Raftery, managing director of the U.S. men’s national basketball team, and a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks since 2015. Hill showcased his widespread impact in basketball during an appearance on Puck’s The Varsity podcast over the weekend, which largely bypassed his media career. Aside from his work with TNT and CBS, Hill is reportedly a candidate to join ESPN’s roster next season when TNT loses NBA rights; he might even end up on ESPN’s top team depending on when the NBA media carousel stops spinning.

So, what sets Hill apart from Brady? On the surface, not much. While Hill isn’t calling the Super Bowl as Brady recently did, he also doesn’t possess the same level of fame. During The Varsity, Hill mentioned he carries limited responsibilities in Atlanta, similarly to what Brady might say. However, Hill does hold influence at USA Basketball, working alongside the biggest stars in the sport from junior levels to the Olympics. Notably, as Hill prepares to call the Final Four, he’ll have access to top young players, including a trio of Duke freshmen expected to be drafted in the NBA’s top 10, led by Cooper Flagg. Being a fellow Dukie, Hill will have tremendous access to these players in production meetings, aiding Atlanta in recruiting or selecting for the 2027 FIBA World Cup or the 2028 Olympics.

Working as a broadcaster assists Hill in his roles as an owner and USA executive similarly to how it benefitted Brady among Detroit’s Ben Johnson prior to the NFC divisional round. In fact, Hill may have an even greater advantage than Brady, as he seems not to face the same league-imposed restrictions. Defenders of Brady asserted throughout the season that these conflicts of interest were overstated, arguing that any potential advantage he gained from one role did not warrant Fox’s hesitation in hiring him or the NFL’s owners denying his ownership stake. Critics argue that such conflicts are rampant in media, and everyone has their agenda.

Nevertheless, reactions from Fox leadership to the NFL commissioner suggested concern over perceived compromises. This ignited a significant debate across media; even Dale Earnhardt Jr. faced backlash. NFL reporter Mike Florio emphasized he wouldn’t foresee NBC agreeing to a similar arrangement with Brady. Yet, between TNT and ESPN, we see two basketball broadcasters—Hill and O’Neal—moving forward without issues regarding their conflicts. Fox continues to support Brady, and Earnhardt is rising as a media star.

The media consensus acknowledges these conflicts, with many believing Brady and Fox need to address them to avoid similar situations in the future. So why have Hill and O’Neal managed to evade scrutiny? They have likely skirted these concerns for the same reason: their teams aren’t competitive. When Brady’s predecessor at Fox, Troy Aikman, recently defended Brady, he mentioned Fox’s sole concern before he joined a bidding group on an NFL team was this: if his owned team ever reached the Super Bowl, he would likely be barred from commentating the game. Aikman’s point intended to defend both Fox and Brady but also highlighted a critical distinction—perhaps it’s less about having a conflict of interest than where that conflict lies. Ownership would be more contentious had Brady owned the Eagles or Hill the Celtics.

They are permitted to be part-owners of teams that aren’t currently relevant. During O’Neal’s ownership in the Kings, how often did Sacramento genuinely feature on Inside the NBA? It simply didn’t matter. However, if either Brady or Hill can revitalize the Raiders or Hawks, management might come into play. Until then, they remain influential figures in major networks, utilizing their platforms and access as they continue their careers.