Adam Minter: ESPN is gambling with its credibility

Nicole Noren spent 24 years at ESPN, much of that time producing award-winning investigative journalism on difficult topics, including human trafficking, sexual abuse, and concussions. But as ESPN embraced sports betting, Noren, in a new interview with Columbia Journalism Review, says the network repeatedly rejected her proposals to investigate gambling companies and addiction. The issue was personal: her grandfather, father, and a brother had all struggled with gambling addiction. So when ESPN licensed its name to a sports betting app in 2023, (1) she’d reached her limit. She quit in 2024.

Sports fans had better pay attention. As leagues, broadcasters and gambling companies become more tightly entwined, sports coverage is becoming a means to draw fans into betting. The same outlets that owe fans scrutiny of the gambling industry now have financial stakes in turning them into its customers.

The transformation of major sports media into gambling partners has been quick. As recently as 2019, then-Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors in the company, which owns ESPN, that he didn’t foresee “facilitating gambling in any way” in the short term. Now DraftKings ads and odds are woven through the network’s programming, website and app. During this year’s March Madness, fans could even link their ESPN bracket to DraftKings for personalized betting options.

The entanglements go well beyond gambling partnerships. In January, the National Football League acquired a 10% stake in ESPN. The league, as it happens, is already partnered with DraftKings and other gambling-related businesses. Talk about an extraordinary arrangement. The league now owns part of a company that pays billions to broadcast its games while operating an influential newsroom staffed by reporters who cover the league itself.

ESPN isn’t alone in having a deep business relationship with gambling. Gannett, the publisher of USA Today and hundreds of local media outlets, has followed a similar path through a partnership with BetMGM. Click on an NFL game at USA Today, and you’ll find four tabs: “Summary,” “Stats,” “News” and “Odds.” Its sports coverage also incorporates betting information and “Bet Now” links.

It’s worth remembering the business being promoted by these partnerships. According to the American Gaming Association, people wagered $167 billion at legal sportsbooks in 2025, up 11% over 2024, and sportsbooks took in almost $17 billion in revenue, up 23%. That growth comes with a price. One recent study found that online sports betting reduces household savings, with the biggest impacts on frequent bettors and households with little savings.

That should be an investigative opportunity for a newsroom. Sports gambling is a major business story about who profits from fandom. Research on household savings raises questions about who bears the costs. But journalists chasing those stories may find themselves investigating an industry their employers profit from promoting. The conflict puts journalism’s commitment to the public interest at risk.

ESPN has faced questions about that kind of pressure before. In 2013, the network was paying more than $1 billion annually to broadcast Monday Night Football when it withdrew its name from a collaboration with PBS’s Frontline investigating player concussions. The New York Times reported that the decision followed a contentious lunch with NFL officials, including Commissioner Roger Goodell. The NFL denied pressuring ESPN, while the network cited concerns over editorial control.

Whether ESPN rejected Noren’s gambling pitches because of its business relationships remains unknown. But like the Frontline controversy of 2013, her account raises fresh questions about the independence and credibility of its journalism — optics that any reputable news organization should want to avoid.

In response to Noren’s CJR interview, ESPN said its editorial decisions are guided by “news judgment and journalistic integrity.” The statement did not address her rejected pitches. Meanwhile, ESPN gambling correspondent David Purdum pushed back on X: “Neutered betting/gambling coverage is not something I’ve experienced.” In August, Purdum and Elizabeth Merrill published an excellent profile of a college-aged gambler.

Asked about that story, Noren told CJR she respected Merrill and then turned to her concern about “what is not being said” because of “the disconnect at the ESPN executive level between making money and caring about the human impact of constantly bombarding fans with betting odds and talk.”

She recounted how, after she left ESPN, a former colleague sent her a link to an ESPN primer on how to gamble, complete with bright, friendly animations. For Noren, the primer illustrated what she had called “the normalization of betting and ESPN’s complete acceptance of that.” The network, in her eyes, was using its reach and credibility to make betting a routine part of following sports.

Of course, media outlets have always made money from fandom; subscriptions and advertising pay the bills. Now they’re using credibility earned through journalism to encourage fans to take financial risks.

Long-term, that deal could erode the trust that journalism requires. Fans need to be assured that outlets encouraging them to bet will also investigate the companies taking their money — and examine their own role in delivering customers to sportsbooks.

As ESPN and other sports media outlets leverage credibility to promote betting, fans have reason to wonder where the journalism ends and the sales pitch begins.

____

(1) This was a deal with Penn Entertainment that created ESPN Bet, which dissolved in 2025 after it failed and DraftKings took over as the official sportsbook for ESPN.

____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of sports. He is the author, most recently, of “Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale."