Not long ago, Robert Griffin III was seen as one of ESPN’s rising stars. Thus, when the company fired the Heisman Trophy winner in August 2024, it came as a shock. We even stated at the time that it was a big mistake for the Worldwide Leader to let go of such talent.
Afterward, there were rumors swirling around. Some believed he’d often rubbed people like Paul Finebaum the wrong way, and others speculated that ESPN viewed his social media presence as a liability. Additionally, discussions arose around the notion that his announcing style didn’t align with the company’s expectations.
Since then, Griffin has taken on some broadcasting roles, most notably appearing on Netflix’s Christmas Day NFL studio show. However, he mainly resurfaces in headlines due to his social media activities. These days, he often reappears on timelines as a source of “engagement bait,” creating a “safe space” on his X account for discussions around significant stories and political issues, such as LeBron confronting Stephen A. Smith or Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE operation.
Recently, RGIII reinserted himself into mainstream discussion by posting on X that “sports shows on TV should be about sports, not politics.” In this instance, the lack of context was notable, especially considering the discussions taking place on ESPN that day.
Sports shows on TV should be about sports not politics.
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) March 20, 2025
On Thursday’s First Take, Jay Williams mentioned 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 following backlash from ESPN talent such as Jeff Passan and Mina Kimes on Robinson’s significance within the network.
RGIII’s approach has transformed into a kind of “I’m just asking questions” facilitator who avoids taking sides while capitalizing on the engagement. In this instance, however, many were unsatisfied with his remarks, prompting him to clarify his position. He stated that his post was “not about Jackie Robinson,” and added, “Breaking the color barrier in baseball in itself is not political.” This perspective, unsurprisingly, did not resonate well with numerous individuals.
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 contended that the Dodgers signed Robinson for his baseball skills, not as a political statement. However, this response overlooks the fact that Dodgers owner Branch Rickey had a clear intention to break Major League Baseball’s color barrier. In doing so, he made a statement that resonated deeply within the political context of 1947, long before the Civil Rights Act was enacted.
https://embeds.beehiiv.com/a79076af-c414-47ef-96e6-0322628bcaaf" data-test-id="beehiiv-embed" width="480" height="320" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 2px solid #e5e7eb; margin: 0; background-color: transparent;
“Jackie Robinson wasn’t the best Black player available,” noted Jemele Hill Thursday in response to an X user arguing against the notion of it being a political stunt. “Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson because he needed someone who could play, but also withstand the scrutiny and intense racism that was sure to follow.” She draws parallels to why MLK Jr. chose Rosa Parks over Claudette Colvin, who faced arrest prior to Parks for the same act of defiance but was deemed less suitable by the movement due to her personal circumstances.
While this discussion may continue, it is vital to recognize that sports and politics are inherently intertwined, particularly when political matters influence the sports landscape. Ignoring this relationship only reflects an unwillingness to engage with the complexities surrounding sports discussions, especially in the current climate of 2025.
What is RGIII’s ultimate objective in this dialogue? Is he attempting to “play both sides” to maintain favor with various audiences or leverage this for engagement? If so, he is succeeding in creating buzz around his persona, indicative of the adage that “all publicity is good publicity.” Regardless of his intentions, it’s likely that ESPN executives are relieved this situation is no longer their concern.
