Sportswriter Jeff Pearlman Accused of Plagiarism

Jeff Pearlman is one of the most controversial figures in sports journalism.

Though he’s respected both for his lengthy history in the field, which includes writing for Sports Illustrated, he’s become equally well known for his tendency to take swipes at other journalists that he doesn’t feel are living up to his standards.

His work as a sports biographer is probably his most well-known and most respected. His channel, Press Box Chronicles, features over 60 biographies of famous athletes, coaches and other sports figures.

However, one of those recent videos, a biography of former New York Yankees player Ruben Rivera, has become the center of a plagiarism controversy.

Though it appears the issue was not his fault directly, his handling of the situation was not ideal and this story teaches a difficult lesson about the nature of plagiarism and who inevitably takes the blame when it happens.

It’s a story that every celebrity should pay attention to, in particular those working on YouTube or other video platforms.

The Story So Far

In March 2021, YouTuber Velodus, published a video entitled Ruben Rivera: The Player Who Stole from Derek Jeter. Velodus’ channel is relatively small (compared to Pearlman’s), with just over 5,500 subscribers and the video has received over 11,000 views.

Earlier this month, Pearlman published his own video about Rivera. However, about a week after the video went live, Velodus noticed similarities between the two videos and reached out to Pearlman via direct message on BlueSky.

According to a video posted by Pearlman on TikTok, that encounter was very contentious and ended with Pearlman being very dismissive of Velodus and his claims.

However, Velodus published an unlisted video on his channel highlighting the similarities. It became clear that the two videos were not only similar in subject matter, but that Pearlman’s video had used the same images and clips that he chose, including taking screenshots directly from his video.

Velodus’ Comparison Video

According to Pearlman, he watched that video and, though initially dismissive of the allegations, he eventually agreed that the optics were bad and that he needed to remove his video. He also praised Velodus for his work on the topic.

That said, Pearlman also made it clear that he personally had never seen Velodus’ video and that any plagiarism was the fault of his production team. However, he did say that he would be moving forward with that team and work to “do better” in the future.

While this ending is largely a positive one, Pearlman’s handling of the situation ultimately made a bad situation much worse and highlights many of the issues that can arise when relying on third parties to create content under your name.

The Lessons To Be Learned

One of the most interesting aspects of Pearlman’s video was that he realized that, since his name was attached to the video in question, he ultimately bore the brunt of the criticism, even if he had nothing to do with the actual plagiarism.

@jeffpearlmanauthor On a Ruben Rivera video, plagiarism accusations, YouTube shows and confusing landscapes. #rubenrivera #velodus #youtube #pbc ♬ original sound – Jeff Pearlman

To be clear, I believe Pearlman when he says that the issue was with his production team. That makes a great deal of sense and is a very common practice on YouTube.

But that doesn’t mean that Pearlman is completely off the hook. I’m willing to give him some slack for his initial reaction to Velodus’ messages. He was blindsided by the allegations and, if he’s being honest, he had no idea who Velodus was and had never seen his video.

But, in his video, Pearlman conflates two separate issues. The first is the copyright issue of using content from third parties without permission. The second is the copying of Velodus’ work.

Pearlman is correct that Velodus does not own much of the material that appears in his video. That material includes stock images, video clips and news clippings. While I don’t know if Velodus licensed that content, it is very likely that he didn’t.

But the issue isn’t that Pearlman’s video used the same or similar content, it’s that those clips and images were taken directly from Velodus’ video rather than from the original source. This means that all the work that Velodus did to find, edit and prepare that content for a video was just copied by whoever made Pearlman’s video.

In all honesty, there are serious questions about copyright and licensing in Velodus’ video if he did not license the content. But that doesn’t change the fact that he put in the work to find and edit that content and that effort was exploited by Pearlman’s team without attribution, payment or permission.

But I think the biggest criticism I can give Pearlman directly is that he is not parting ways with his production team or taking any other action to prevent this in the future other than “doing better.”

While I understand that he is overall happy with his production team, this is a significant infraction and, as he noted, he’s the one taking the heat for it. Even in the Cinemassacre case from October 2021, another example that most people felt was poorly handled, the alleged plagiarist was eventually let go. Concrete action always beats vague promises.

Bottom Line

In the end, watching Pearlman’s response video was interesting. It was fascinating to watch someone realize that they would bear the brunt of the criticism for a plagiarism issue, even if they had nothing to do with it. If your name is on work, you gain both the benefits and the burdens that come with it.

Other celebrities such as Jane Goodall, David Agus and James Rolfe (see above) have all learned this lesson the hard way. It doesn’t matter if you plagiarized or not, it matters if there is plagiarism and your name is on the cover.

But while I think he understands that particular issue, I don’t think he understands why this is a serious problem. The copyright questions about licensing the images and clips are not important, it’s about copying the work of others, in particular, from a much smaller creator.

In short, everything about this case works against Pearlman. He has a history of criticizing other journalists, the video his team copied from is a much smaller creator, and, even if he does not intend to, he presents himself as as the sole face of his channel.

While I am glad that he has removed the video and recognized the seriousness of the situation, I would feel better if he had taken more concrete action to prevent this from happening in the future.

When it’s all said and done, this will likely be, at most, a minor blip on Pearlman’s career. Still, it will be something that other journalists can throw back at him when he criticizes them. He’s lost the moral high ground that he had claimed in the past.

That will likely be the biggest ongoing consequence of this situation.