Skip Bayless said plenty about topics from Mike McCarthy’s status with the Cowboys to the NFL playoffs over the last week on social media and his YouTube channel. Joy Taylor appeared as usual on her FS1 show that covered a wide range of topics. Neither, however, has touched the elephant in the room: the blockbuster lawsuit that named Bayless, Taylor, Fox Sports EVP Charlie Dixon, FS1, Fox Sports, and Fox Corp. itself as defendants.
That doesn’t mean there haven’t been discussions behind closed doors at Fox about the series of allegations made in the lawsuit by former FS1 employee Noushin Faraji, who worked as a hairstylist at the network. The clock is ticking. Fox is poised to broadcast Super Bowl LIX on Feb. 9, and FS1 will have a large presence in New Orleans.
“The last thing they want is for this to become a distraction in New Orleans,” a source close to Fox told Front Office Sports.
Since FOS first reported the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court earlier this month, the public has been more interested in the claims involving defendants Bayless and Taylor. There’s been plenty of fodder around others mentioned in the lawsuit, including Shannon Sharpe and Emmanuel Acho, neither of whom appear as defendants in the lawsuit.
Again, these are allegations, nothing more, nothing less. But sources told FOS that Fox executives at the company’s Century City studios—where the allegations are centered—and New York, where Fox Corp. is headquartered, are trying to figure out how to respond to the lawsuit both in Los Angeles Superior Court and in the public square. Fox Sports’ only public response to the lawsuit came Jan. 5: “We take these allegations seriously and have no further comment at this time given this pending litigation,” the company said in a statement.
Chances of a Settlement
The chances of a settlement with Faraji before the Super Bowl are one of the many unknowns related to the litigation. Fox should “cut a deal” with Faraji and try to settle the suit before Super Bowl Sunday, says crisis PR consultant Mike Paul, CEO of Reputation Doctor. That would enable Fox executives and on-air talent to deflect questions about the suit during Super Bowl week.
“They can’t make it go away [on their own],” Paul told FOS. “But they can seek to minimize it by getting it done first. Then they can use the excuse, ‘We have confidentiality agreements; we can’t talk about it.’”
“But that’s not going to stop it from still heating up on social media. That’s not going to stop it from still being talked about by other networks—and other news organizations,” Paul added.
And minus some kind of resolution, there will be awkwardness as Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks likely takes the stage alongside broadcasters Kevin Burkhardt and Tom Brady for the annual pre–Super Bowl news conference. There’s little doubt reporters will ask about the litigation during the presser, pulling attention away from Fox Sports’ coverage of its latest Super Bowl broadcast.
Dixon’s bio remains up on the Fox Sports media site, and there are no indications he’s been suspended or terminated. In the lawsuit, Faraji accused Dixon of “grabbing her buttocks” in January 2017 and says Fox Sports human resources “failed to investigate Mr. Dixon.”
Shanks, unlike Dixon, isn’t a defendant, but Faraji’s lawyers (Rana Ayazi and Devin Abney) wrote in the complaint that Shanks and Fox Sports president and COO Mark Silverman “may become named defendants based upon discovery,” a process that is months from starting if the case survives expected motions to dismiss filed by the current defendants.
“Further, on information and belief, Mr. Silverman and Mr. Shanks, along with Fox’s legal team, worked hard to protect perpetrators by forcing individuals who were witnesses to or targets of misconduct and/or harassment to sign nondisclosure agreements upon separation from employment,” the lawsuit stated.
Faraji’s lawyers declined further comment before publication. The only statement on the case from Ayazi and Abney came last week: “Our client looks forward to being vindicated and hopes this will compel Fox to take meaningful and substantial steps to address and resolve the toxic workplace that has impacted her and many of her colleagues.” Faraji’s lawsuit, which seeks class-action status to include other current and former Fox Sports employees, does not include specified monetary damages. The complaint also seeks an injunction “directing Fox to take immediate and effective measures to prevent any current or future harassment or retaliation against its workers.”
Other Stakeholders Who Should Worry
The NFL declined to comment on the lawsuit. But Paul said there are other stakeholders that Fox and the NFL should worry about.
Fox Sports, FS1, and Fox Corp. are in a tough spot, he says. Not only from a legal perspective but also from a reputational and branding standpoint.
Start with the NFL, Fox’s most important business partner. Some employees have jokingly dubbed their network Fox “Sport,” since it’s so reliant on The Shield. The NFL could be dragged into the story during Super Bowl week. The last thing commissioner Roger Goodell wants is the media fixated on a salacious sex scandal at its Super Bowl broadcaster rather than the Big Game itself.
What if reporters sink their teeth into Shanks and Goodell at their official Super Bowl pressers—and won’t let go? It’s something, on a much smaller scale, that NFL Network had to face two years ago when Michael Irvin was suspended during Super Bowl week after an alleged incident at a Phoenix hotel. Irvin, who forcefully claimed he did nothing wrong from the start, was off NFL Network for about six months and his lawsuit against the hotel chain took the same amount of time to settle out of court.
Fox declined to renew Bayless’s contract in August, but Taylor could be a target for crass fans if she cohosts FS1’s Speak on location at an outdoor set, as Super Bowl media partners typically do with their studio shows.
Don’t forget the dozens of blue-chip advertisers who have spent $7 million per 30-second spot to promote their brands during Fox’s game telecast. CBS pocketed more than $650 million in ad dollars for its coverage of Super Bowl LVIII last February. Does Fox want family-friendly or female-focused brands to get cold feet? It’s unlikely, given last year’s Super Bowl drew 123.7 million TV viewers. But you never know.
Finally, there are the NFL’s legions of women in the NFL’s broad fan base, including those who have been brought into the fold as part of the Taylor Swift phenomenon. The league wants to keep that going. It doesn’t want women’s groups attacking its business relationship with Fox to distract from its marquee event.
