ESPN says it’s trying to fix a Jason Kelce broadcasting habit that’s driving football fans crazy
ESPN says it is trying to curb Jason Kelce’s habit of referring to the Philadelphia Eagles as “we” during broadcasts. The former Eagles player’s comments have drawn criticism from fans who say they make his coverage sound biased, raising questions about how he can remain neutral when calling games involving his old team.
Kelce played for Philadelphia for 13 seasons and used “we” during the Eagles’ loss to the Chicago Bears on 28 September, later apologising. He also used the term during the Eagles’ game against Jacksonville in London, despite promising Jaguars fans he would try to give their team proper credit. ESPN producer Jeff Dufine said the network had tried to get the habit out of him, while praising Kelce’s ability to read the game; his next assignment is Pittsburgh against New Orleans in France on 25 October.
- ESPN is trying to stop Kelce saying “we” about the Eagles.
- Fans criticised his perceived bias during the London game.
- His next broadcast is Steelers versus Saints in France.
New here? Start with this
Jason Kelce is a former American football player who spent 13 seasons with the Philadelphia Eagles, a team in the National Football League (NFL). After retiring, he began working as a television analyst, explaining matches and players’ decisions to viewers.
Sports broadcasters are expected to assess both teams fairly, including when covering a club they once played for. Kelce’s long career with Philadelphia gives him close ties to the Eagles, so his choice of words has raised questions about how former players can show impartiality in their new roles.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Using “we” when describing the Eagles can make Kelce’s commentary sound partial, especially when he is covering his former team. Viewers may reasonably expect broadcasters to distinguish their personal loyalties from their analysis, and ESPN has an interest in maintaining confidence that both teams are being judged fairly.
The case against
Kelce’s long playing career gives him valuable knowledge and perspective, and an occasional familiar “we” may be an ingrained slip rather than evidence that his analysis is unfair. His ability to read the game can benefit viewers, while his apology and ESPN’s efforts to address the wording may be enough to preserve trust without treating every verbal lapse as disqualifying.