In a shocking and somewhat baffling move that has left the sports world buzzing, ESPN has decided to remove Brittney Griner, one of the most dominant figures in women’s basketball, from their prestigious GOAT (Greatest of All Time) list. The reason? According to an anonymous source within the network, Griner was deemed “not a good person.”
The decision, which has been met with everything from outrage to disbelief, has sparked a flurry of reactions from fans, athletes, and commentators alike. After all, how often do you see an athlete’s off-court persona eclipse their undeniable on-court greatness?
The news broke early Monday morning, as ESPN quietly scrubbed Griner’s name from the list, which is typically reserved for athletes who have achieved unparalleled success in their respective sports. Griner, who has been a dominant force in women’s basketball since her college days at Baylor University, seemed like a shoo-in for the GOAT status. She’s an Olympic gold medalist, a WNBA champion, and one of the most recognizable faces in women’s sports.
Yet, it appears that ESPN has decided that Griner’s prowess on the court isn’t enough to secure her spot among the greatest. According to the network’s insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the decision was made after a long and heated discussion among ESPN executives.
“We’ve always celebrated athletes who excel not just in their sport, but also as role models,” the source explained. “It was determined that Griner’s off-court behavior and personal decisions were not in line with the values we wish to promote.”
The backlash was swift and fierce. Fans of Griner took to social media to express their outrage, flooding ESPN’s channels with comments questioning the decision.
“She’s a phenomenal athlete! Who cares about her personal life?” one Twitter user exclaimed. “GOAT status should be based on what happens on the court, not off it.”
Another fan wrote, “This is ridiculous. Brittney Griner has done more for women’s basketball than anyone else. ESPN is seriously out of touch.”
Even some of Griner’s fellow athletes weighed in. Former NBA star and current commentator Charles Barkley, never one to shy away from controversy, had this to say: “Man, ESPN has lost their minds. You don’t have to be a saint to be a GOAT. If that were the case, half the people on their lists would be gone.”
The decision to remove Griner from the GOAT list raises a much larger question: what exactly does it mean to be the greatest of all time? Is it purely about athletic achievement, or should an athlete’s character and personal life be taken into account?
For decades, the debate over what constitutes greatness has raged on. Some argue that an athlete’s impact on the sport is the only thing that should matter. Others believe that being a role model, someone who inspires and uplifts others, is just as important as winning titles and breaking records.
In Griner’s case, it appears that ESPN has decided to lean heavily on the latter criteria. But this move has also opened a Pandora’s box of questions about who gets to decide what makes someone a “good person” and whether or not personal morality should influence an athlete’s legacy.
Critics of ESPN’s decision are quick to point out that the network may have set a dangerous precedent. If off-court behavior can disqualify someone from being considered the greatest, then where does the line get drawn? Does this mean that other athletes with controversial pasts or questionable decisions might be next?
One sports journalist commented, “If we start removing people from GOAT lists because of their personal lives, then we’re going to have a very short list. There are plenty of athletes who have made mistakes or lived controversial lives, but that doesn’t take away from their achievements in their sport.”
Indeed, many athletes who are widely regarded as GOATs in their respective fields have faced their fair share of scandals. From Tiger Woods’ infamous personal life to Michael Jordan’s rumored gambling habits, greatness on the field or court has often coexisted with less-than-ideal behavior off of it.
As for Griner herself, she has remained mostly silent on the issue. However, sources close to the athlete have hinted that she was both surprised and disappointed by ESPN’s decision.
“She’s always put her heart and soul into the game,” said a close friend of Griner’s. “To see her accomplishments diminished because of subjective opinions about her personal life is really unfair. Brittney has always been true to herself, and she’s inspired countless people because of that.”
While Griner has not yet released an official statement, she did post a cryptic message on Instagram: a simple photo of her WNBA championship ring with the caption, “They can’t take this away from me.”
In a brief statement, ESPN attempted to justify their decision, though it did little to quell the backlash. “At ESPN, we believe that being a GOAT is about more than just on-court success. It’s about embodying the values that inspire others to greatness. We felt it was necessary to reflect on the qualities we want to highlight in our lists,” the statement read.
This explanation has done little to satisfy Griner’s supporters, many of whom believe that ESPN has overstepped its bounds. “Who made ESPN the morality police?” one commenter asked. “It’s not their job to decide who is and isn’t a good person.”
In the end, ESPN’s decision to remove Brittney Griner from their GOAT list may have revealed more about the network’s priorities than about Griner herself. While the move was intended to uphold certain values, it has instead sparked a debate about what those values should be and who gets to define them.
As the sports world continues to grapple with questions of legacy, morality, and greatness, one thing is certain: Brittney Griner’s impact on women’s basketball is undeniable, whether or not she’s on ESPN’s list.
For now, it seems that the only list that truly matters is the one Griner has already etched her name on through her countless achievements and contributions to the sport she loves.
And as for ESPN? Well, they might need to reconsider what being a GOAT really means—before they find themselves with a list that’s more about virtue signaling than celebrating true greatness.
