One of the more unexpected outcomes of the highly publicized equity deal between ESPN and the NFL has been a sports media beef between investigative reporter Don Van Natta Jr. and former SportsCenter star Dan Patrick.
At the start of Thursday’s episode of The Dan Patrick Show, the show’s host addressed Van Natta’s pointed response to the ex-ESPN host’s concerns about the network’s newfound conflict of interest.
Patrick didn’t backtrack, nor did he necessarily double down; his response could best be described as measured. He began by addressing Van Natta’s criticism that he was unaware of ESPN’s reporting on the NFLPA leadership saga by admitting that he doesn’t regularly visit ESPN.com before questioning why the network didn’t do more to promote his work.
“Don Van Natta took it personally that I don’t go to ESPN.com and read his articles. I don’t go to ESPN.com, OK? I don’t… I did it out of principle when I left ESPN,” Patrick said. “So I missed that Don was doing an exposé on the NFL Players Association. And by all accounts, did a great job. Now, I did know that Mike Florio and Pablo Torre were doing things, and they added to the collusion story. They sent the stories to us. We had them on. We had JC Tretter on, who was second in command at the NFLPA.
“It’s not a story that we were staying away from. But Don Van Natta said that he was embarrassed for me because I didn’t know that he is the one who had the story initially. I don’t know if they promoted you correctly, Don. To be honest with you, I don’t know if you were on First Take, I don’t know if you’re on NFL Live, I don’t know if you’re on Get Up. I know that Pablo Torre and Mike Florio were there front and center promoting this and got a lot of attention here. So I apologize for that.
Dan addresses the criticism he received over his coverage of ESPN’s acquisition of the NFL Network. pic.twitter.com/bwEBxaXXJb
— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) August 7, 2025
While Patrick apologized for being unaware of Van Natta’s reporting on the story, he also noted that there’s a difference between reporting on the NFL and reporting on its players’ union. And the 69-year-old stands by his belief that the NFL owning a 10 percent stake in ESPN presents an inevitable conflict of interest for the network’s coverage of the league.
Patrick continued by admitting that he erred in stating that ESPN no longer has an investigative journalism department, but also noted that it has been scaled down. He also said that regardless of what work Van Natta has done in his storied journalism career, he’ll ultimately be evaluated on what he does with the ESPN and NFL partnership now in place.
“I hope you continue to fight the good fight, Don,” said Patrick. “But now is when you’re judged. From here on out is when you’re judged covering the NFL. Not what you did before. It’d be like me saying, ‘I’m not any good at this, but man, was I good at SportsCenter.’ No one cares. It’s about today and tomorrow and the next day. Covering the NFL Players Association is a whole lot different than covering the NFL.
“And you have to admit, which you didn’t, it’s a conflict of interest. That the perception is a conflict of interest. And that was the point that I was trying to make there. I wish you well. But if you want to have a conversation on the show or privately, I’d love to. I have nothing against you. You’re the one that made it personal.”
It’s understandable that Van Natta took issue with Patrick’s comments, as the ex-ESPNer had specifically questioned the network’s lack of reporting on a story he broke key aspects of. Dan Patrick is right that reporting on the NFL and the NFLPA are two different categories, but he was the one who first referenced the story, and it’s not a surprise that Van Natta took offense.
Conversely, Patrick raises a valid point about ESPN’s lack of promotion regarding the story. And while one could certainly question whether it already existed, the reality is that the network’s conflict of interest with the league — real or imagined — has never been under a brighter spotlight.
Ultimately, Van Natta’s issues with Patrick’s comments are valid, but Patrick also deserves credit for owning up to the mistakes he made while standing his ground. This may qualify as a sports media beef, but it’s also one in which the involved parties are acting like adults.
What a concept.