Sports

As athletes have more and more avenues for speaking to the world on their own terms, it's important to remember that there are longstanding means of communication that have yet to be dismantled by their employers.

Years ago, the NFL decided that the interests of the business compelled a certain amount of transparency from players. The rule is, and for decades has been, that players must be available to reporters: (1) after each game; and (2) once during the week before each game, either at a podium or in the locker room.

Liberties routinely are taken, without incident. Players sometimes quickly leave the locker room without speaking. Sometimes, it becomes a big deal. Marshawn Lynch, for example, was fined repeatedly for not complying with the contractual obligation to speak to the media. Eventually, he opted to show up and to say, repeatedly, "I'm just here so I won't be fined."

Far more often, reporters accept a short-term diss in order to not create longer-lasting friction. This year, the Giants refused on multiple occasions to make Jaxson Dart or Jameis Winston available to reporters, in direct defiance of the NFL's rules. The Cardinals shielded quarterback Kyler Murray from reporters, for weeks. Most recently, Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce hasn't been talking to reporters. (He recently took a break from the low-key boycott.)

The only exception to the rule requiring media availablility applies to players in the concussion protocol.

In New York, quarterback Justin Fields remains subject to the league's media requirements, even though he has been benched. Brian Costello of the New York Post tweeted this on Friday: "Approached Justin Fields at his locker. He said he was going to get a massage and did not have time to talk. I asked his reaction to move. 'There’s no reaction. That’s life. Shit happens.'"

Jets running back Breece Hall took issue with Costello's post. "Pathetic move by you tbh," Hall tweeted. "Wish some of yall would grow up and stop acting like little kids nagging somebody till they get mad lol."

Hall is missing the point. The NFL, which employs Hall and every other player, has mandated all players will be available. Asking Fields during an open locker-room availability for his reaction to being benched isn't "nagging." It's called "reporters doing their job."

That's what the reporters are paid to do. The NFL requires the players to be available, and the various publications with credentials to cover each team require their reporters to harness that availability for content that, as to the NFL and its teams, becomes free publicity for the product that pro football is selling.

It's the business calculation the NFL has made. There's less of a need to advertise the game when multiple media outlets will advertise the game in the best way possible — not as an ad but as the stuff that the media outlets are selling to their audiences.

Players may not like it, but that's part of the job. It's no different from showing up for meetings, practices, games. Media availability is one of the obligations the players endure in return for the compensation they receive.

It shouldn't be controversial. And it shouldn't surprise anyone. Costello was doing his job in asking the question. Fields was doing his job in answering it. He could have said, "I'm just here so I won't be fined." He could have said anything. He opted to say, "There's no reaction. That's life. Shit happens."

If you haven't noticed, we're one of the few media outlets that tries to get the audience to understand and respect the various issues and challenges players face, especially when the 32 teams view them as interchangeable parts in a football machine that has been running long before they arrived, and that will keep running long after they're gone.

Unless and until the league decides it's no longer useful to the broader business to require players to be available to the media twice per week, standing before reporters is no different than lining up against an opponent. It's part of the job. It's the business they've chosen.

Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow returned this week to 11-on-11 drills at practice. He won't be returning to 11-on-11 game action on Sunday.

Via Adam Schefter of ESPN.com, the Bengals won’t activate Burrow from injured reserve before Saturday's 4:00 p.m. ET deadline for making pre-game roster moves.

Burrow suffered a toe injury in Week 2. Reports at the time indicated he would be out until the middle of December, at the earliest.

Currently, Burrow seems to be on track to play on Thursday night, when the Bengals visit the Ravens to cap the trio of Thanksgiving games.

Joe Flacco, who continues to play through an injury to his throwing shoulder will get the start against New England. A loss would drop the Bengals to 3-8, making it even harder to pull an inside straight on a division title.

Even if the Bengals can upend the Pats on Sunday, Cincinnati faces a stiff challenge. But with a 2-1 record in the division, two games to be played against Baltimore, and two Ravens-Steelers games still on the docket, the Bengals could finagle a two- or three-way tie atop the AFC North when the dust settles on Week 18. And a potential 5-1 record in division games could be the thing that ultimately makes the difference.

Step one is to beat the Patriots on Sunday. That's the toughest test left on the Cincinnati schedule, given that the Pats have won eight in a row — and that they had three extra days to rest and prepare. Throw in the fact that Burrow won't be back and receiver Ja'Marr Chase's spit-fueled suspension, Cincinnati beating New England on Sunday would be every bit as stunning as New England's win over Cincinnati in Week 1 a year ago.

We've tried in recent weeks to ignore much of the noise surrounding North Carolina coach Bill Belichick, especially when its comes to his personal life. (Even though he has deliberately intermingled his personal life with his professional life.)

We didn't post about Belichick's disrespectful (even by his usual standards) post-game diss of Wake Forest coach Jeff Dickert. We didn't post about former Patriots cornerback Asante Samuel calling Belichick a "hypocrite" for allowing himself to become a distraction to his team. We took a pass on this week's Onion-esque account of Belichick showing up as a spectator at his girlfriend's adult cheer competition. (Did anyone even know adult cheer competitions were a thing?)

The New York Post ignored none of those. The New York Post has been relentless in its coverage of Belichick and Jordon Hudson. And while the Post is far from alone (for example, VICE TV announced this week a two-hour deep dive into the duo, which will debut next month), the New YorkPost has been at the leading edge of all things Belichick and Hudson.

On Friday, for instance, the New YorkPost reported (as an "exclusive") that Belichick's daughter-in-law "unleashed a nearly hour-long profanity-laced tirade" two weeks ago against Hudson, in Belichick's office after the Tar Heels beat Stanford. Jen Belichick, the wife of defensive coordinator (and Bill's son) Steve Belichick, reportedly said (among other things) that all Hudson “does is control shit.” Jen Belichick also reportedly called Hudson "batshit crazy," and Jen Belichick reportedly accused Hudson of "fucking twisting" Bill's brain.

Here's the point, as someone in a position to understand the dynamics explained it to PFT a week ago. The ongoing coverage of Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson by the New York Post is one of the many reasons for the Giants' complete lack of interest in the possibility of hiring Bill Belichick to coach the team. While the Giants hiring Belichick likely wouldn't have happened anyway, the Giants have no interest in hiring a coach who has become a lightning rod for relentless coverage due to his relationship with Hudson.

Some will continue to insist that nothing related to Belichick and Hudson is worthy of coverage, especially since Belichick isn't (and probably will never be) an NFL coach again. But everything about this situation is unprecedented. One of the greatest coaches of all times obliterated the lines between business and personal, and the person with whom the lines has been blurred has been, by all appearances, attempting to parlay the situation into a vehicle for advancing her own short- and long-term professional objectives, whatever they may be.

Starting with the reports regarding her role in derailing the Hard Knocks series and culminating in the disastrous CBS interview from early May, a pot that had been simmering for months (we heard as early as October 2024 murmurs of Hudson asserting herself aggressively within the offices of NFL Films) went straight to a boil that has been continuing to bubble over. Beyond every other factor that would make any NFL team disinclined to consider hiring Belichick, the Hudson angle clinches it.

Especially for a team in the market the New York Post primarily serves.