Full Show: Stephen A reacts to 5-year George Floyd Anniversary. Diddy Courtroom Drama. NBA recap.

Summary

The Stephen A. Smith Show – Episode Summary Release Date: May 23, 2025

---

1. Introduction and Gratitude Timestamp: [01:13]

Stephen A. Smith opens the show by expressing heartfelt gratitude to his listeners and subscribers. Celebrating over 1.22 million YouTube subscribers and millions of iHeartRadio downloads, Smith emphasizes the importance of his audience's support. He also promotes his New York Times bestselling book, Straight Shooter: A Memoir of Second Chances and First Takes.

"I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. I'm sincerely thankful."
— Stephen A. Smith [01:30]

2. Reflecting on the 5-Year George Floyd Anniversary Timestamp: [03:00 – 35:00]

Smith delves into the significance of the five-year anniversary of George Floyd's tragic death. He examines whether the widespread protests and movements initiated in 2020 have led to meaningful changes in racial equality and police reform.

• Poll Insights:
  In September 2020, 52% of U.S. adults believed that the increased focus on race would lead to improvements for Black Americans. By February 2025, this number had dropped to 28%, with 72% feeling no change occurred.

  "The share of Americans who express support for the Black Lives Matter movement stands at 52% today, a drop of 15% compared to what it was in June of 2020."
  — Stephen A. Smith [10:15]

• DEI Initiatives:
  Smith criticizes the decline in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, noting that companies have scaled back these initiatives, which he argues have disproportionately benefited white women.

  "White women have been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI... I get tired of Black folks being seen as beneficiaries to something someone white has benefited from."
  — Stephen A. Smith [15:40]

• Black Lives Matter Movement:
  He discusses internal issues within the Black Lives Matter movement, such as financial mismanagement, which he believes have tarnished its reputation and diluted its impact.

  "Those who were down for the course for all the right reasons... their voices were like whispering into the wind."
  — Stephen A. Smith [20:50]

• Call to Action for Professional Athletes:
  Smith expresses disappointment that professional athletes did not leverage their influence to effect legislative change, advocating for a more proactive approach rather than symbolic gestures like taking the knee.

  "Why don't you connect with folks on Capitol Hill?... But the professional athletes who had this cachet never took the bull by the horn."
  — Stephen A. Smith [25:30]

3. NBA Playoffs Recap Timestamp: [35:00 – 45:00]

Stephen A. provides an in-depth analysis of the ongoing NBA playoffs, focusing on key matchups and player performances.

• New York Knicks vs. Indiana Pacers:
  Reflecting on Game 1, the Pacers' dramatic comeback from a 17-point deficit, led by Aaron Neesmith's six three-pointers and Tyrese Halliburton's pivotal buzzer-beater that sent the game into overtime.

  "Aaron Neesmith hit six straight threes in the final quarter. He looked like the second coming of Steph Curry."
  — Stephen A. Smith [38:20]

• Oklahoma City Thunder vs. Minnesota Timberwolves:
  Discussing Anthony Edwards' struggles against MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and the Thunder's dominance, Smith speculates on the Timberwolves' chances of avoiding a sweep.

  "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander doesn't have that problem... It's bad. And I saw Ant man walking to the tunnel looking defeated."
  — Stephen A. Smith [42:00]

• Strategies for Upcoming Games:
  Emphasizing the Knicks' need to improve their defense and control the game's pace to dismantle Indiana's strategic play.

  "If the New York Knicks want to even this series, they’ve got to get back on defense. They got to defend the three."
  — Stephen A. Smith [40:45]

4. Interview with David Falk: LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan Timestamp: [45:00 – 66:39]

Guest: David Falk, renowned sports agent, former representative of Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, and Allen Iverson.

• LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan Debate: Falk critiques the notion of LeBron James being considered the "GOAT" over Michael Jordan, emphasizing Jordan's unparalleled impact on and off the court.

  "Michael individually broke down every barrier... he's the first NBA player to become a billionaire."
  — David Falk [30:55]

• Impact on the Game: Discussing how Jordan transformed player branding, marketing, and the overall dynamics of the NBA, fostering a new era of athlete endorsements and business ventures.

  "He made it unnecessary to have a great center... And I think Michael's impact is extremely broad and deep."
  — David Falk [32:00]

• Player Empowerment: Falk contrasts the empowerment of players in Jordan's era with today's generation, arguing that modern players may misuse their influence, hindering both personal and league growth.

  "Players today don't use their power as judiciously... they're impeding the ability to make more money by not focusing on winning."
  — David Falk [36:20]

• Historical Comparisons: He provides anecdotes highlighting Jordan's leadership and decision-making, such as his negotiation tactics and loyalty, which he believes set a standard unmatched by contemporary players.

  "Michael's respect... he worked for free and he took care of us."
  — David Falk [43:36]

• Future of Sports Agents: Falk laments the reduced role of agents in today's NBA due to stricter regulations, drawing parallels to other industries' regulatory impacts.

  "Approximately 70% of all the contracts in the NBA today are not negotiated at all."
  — David Falk [56:08]

  "If I were coming out of law school today... I definitely would not want to be an agent."
  — David Falk [56:08]

Notable Quotes:

• "Players today don't use their power as judiciously as they should if the goal is to make more money and grow the business."
  — David Falk [36:20]

• "There'll never be another Michael. They just won't."
  — David Falk [47:16]

5. Diddy Courtroom Drama with Ryan Smith Timestamp: [66:39 – 87:46]

Guest: Ryan Smith, Legal Analyst for ABC and ESPN.

• Overview of the Diddy Trial: Smith outlines the current state of Sean "Diddy" Combs' trial, where he's facing federal charges related to sex trafficking and racketeering. Key testimonies from Cassie Ventura's mother, former assistants, and Kid Cudi highlight allegations of coercion, abuse, and criminal enterprise.

  "They're just starting to put the puzzle together, but the puzzle is not complete."
  — Ryan Smith [81:05]

• Cassie Ventura's Testimony: Discussing Cassie's inability to leave the relationship due to Combs' control, Smith explains how the prosecution is building a case around coercion and an overarching criminal enterprise.

  "It's all about her and how the jury sees her... she is the main player in all of this."
  — Ryan Smith [70:02]

• Potential Evidence and Jury Perception: Smith speculates on the possible impact of video evidence of "freak offs" and how such material could sway the jury's perception of Combs as orchestrating criminal activities.

  "If you see giddy in a video with a bunch of people having sex with him, that's incredibly damaging."
  — Ryan Smith [79:15]

• Legal Strategy and Implications: He discusses the defense's potential arguments and the prosecution's efforts to present a comprehensive case, emphasizing the complexities of proving racketeering and sex trafficking.

  "If I'm sitting in that jury box, the question I have is, is he just an extremely bad person or is he a criminal?"
  — Ryan Smith [81:05]

• Harvard University Controversy: In a separate discussion, Smith analyzes the Trump administration's actions against Harvard University, highlighting constitutional challenges and potential Supreme Court involvement.

  "This has been a pattern of the government testing the limits of the law... It's been this idea of control over how we run our university."
  — Ryan Smith [85:55]

Notable Quotes:

• "Being a bad guy does not make you a criminal."
  — Ryan Smith [82:51]

• "It's the prosecution's job to ensure the jury not see her as a voluntary consensual partner, but rather someone who was coerced."
  — Ryan Smith [78:13]

6. Conclusion Timestamp: [87:46 – 88:38]

Stephen A. Smith wraps up the episode by thanking his guests and reaffirming his appreciation for his audience. He provides final promotional mentions for upcoming podcasts and encourages listeners to stay engaged.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Societal Impact: The five-year mark of George Floyd's death raises critical reflections on progress in racial equality and police reform, with a noticeable decline in public support for movements like Black Lives Matter.
• NBA Analysis: Current playoff dynamics highlight the importance of defensive strategies and player performances, with Stephen A. offering strategic insights into upcoming games.
• Sports Legacy Debate: The interview with David Falk underscores the enduring debate over the greatest basketball players, emphasizing Michael Jordan's transformative influence on the sport and player branding.
• Legal Proceedings: Ryan Smith provides a comprehensive overview of the high-profile Diddy trial, discussing the complexities of proving racketeering and sex trafficking, and the potential legal battles ahead involving Harvard University's challenges against federal regulations.

This episode of The Stephen A. Smith Show navigates through significant societal issues, sports dynamics, legendary sports debates, and high-stakes legal drama, offering listeners a multifaceted exploration of contemporary topics.

Transcript

[Stephen A. Smith]

You're listening to an iHeart podcast at&t has a new guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed in a world where nothing is guaranteed AT and T is bringing something new to the table AT and T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity you can depend on your deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn [e-mail] guarantee@&t connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.com guarantee for details. How to have fun anytime, anywhere Step.

[Ryan Smith]

1 Go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it. Step 2 Collect your welcome bonus.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Come to papa.

[Ryan Smith]

Welcome bonus.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Step Step 3 Play hundreds of casino.

[Ryan Smith]

Style games for free. That's a lot of games all for free.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Step 4 Unleash your excitement. Woohoo. Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome bonus now.

[Ryan Smith]

And live the chumba life. Visit chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary VGW Group.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions apply what's up everybody? Welcome to this latest edition of the Stephen A. Smith show. Coming at you as I love to do at the very least three times a week over the digital airwaves of YouTube and of course, iHeartRadio. As always, I'd like to take a moment to thank and show my level of gratitude. My sincere gratitude to my listeners, my followers, my subscribers, courtesy of the millions of downloads we received over iHeartRadio over the last few months. Not to mention our YouTube subscriber base having eclipsed 1.22 million subscribers. That couldn't happen without your love and support. Please know that I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. I'm sincerely thankful. Keep the love coming, as I always say, and I will keep on coming to continue to like and follow the show. Just click the bell to get notified by all of our newest content and you too shall be considered the latest member of the Stephen A. Smith show family. And while you're doing that, make sure to pick up a copy of my New York Times best selling book Straight Shooter, A memoir of Second Chances and First Takes, now in paperback. Just go to straightshooterbook.com to get yourself a copy. Once again, that's straightshooterbook.com to get yourself a copy. Or if you notice, you'll see over my left shoulder most of the time. Or my right shoulder rather. It says Straight Shooter Media. My production company. My media company is named after the title of my book, Straight Shooter. So again, thank you so much. Couldn't happen without y' all. Couldn't happen without y' all. There's a lot to get into today. Primarily an interview with David Falk who made news the former super agent that's now essentially retired from the business in some respects anyway, but still universally recognized as one of, if not the greatest agent to have ever lived, represented Michael Jordan for many, many years, practically his entire career. Obviously represented Patrick Yuen, Alonzo Mourning, Allen Iverson and many, many, many others. Is considered absolutely brilliant and the standard bearer in the industry. He recently spoke about LeBron James and the comparisons that one would surmise warrants LeBron James being compared to Michael Jordan and he pooh pooh, that whole nonsense. And David Falk is coming on here to speak about that along with a bevy of other issues that I think you'll find pertinent. Of course, Ryan Smith, who's been all over the P. Diddy trial. He was coming on with us to give us the latest nuggets of intel involving the P. Diddy trial and how much better or worse it is looking for him and. But that's going to come later on in the show. What we need to do first is talk about what this Sunday entails, what it marks. It marks the five year anniversary since George Floyd was murdered. If you remember, George Floyd, an unarmed black man was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 2020, May 25, 2020 to be exact. The officer Derek Chauvin was, would eventually be found guilty on charges of murder and manslaughter and sentenced to more than 20 years in prison. I think that on a day like today, a subject that needs to be broached is not about George Floyd specifically because we know he was murdered. Anytime an officer keeps his knee on an individual's neck for more than nine minutes, that's murder. We're not debating that, no matter how much the Ben Shapiro's of the world and others who have talked to me about it and I respect their opinions, but we'd have to respectfully disagree. That was murder. That's the way that I look at it, plain and simple. And I'm not deviating from that thought process one iota. Having said that, that's not the subject that I think today's show should warrant. I think that the question that should be asked is if you're an adult in the United States of America, considering the increased focus that existed in 2020 on issues of race and racial inequality, and whether or not that was really, really going to lead to changes that would improve the lives of black Americans in this country. Has that happened? Has that happened? Because if you recall, in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing, there were riots in the streets. Just remember that Floyd's murder occurred just months after the killings of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor, which sparked nationwide protest. Millions of Americans marched in communities across the country, drawing attention to issues of racial inequality, including the treatment of black folks by some police officers. I don't engage in black in saying police brutality. I say brutality on the part of some police officers because I believe, by and large, police officers who have vowed and took an oath to protect and serve do just that. A few rogue individuals should not castigate and stigmatize an entire entity that is law enforcement. I'm not doing that. But with that being said, I still think that it's important to at least broach the subject as to whether or not real change has occurred. Because according to recent polls, 52% of U.S. adults said the increased focus on issues of race and racial inequality would lead to changes that would improve the lives of Black Americans. 46% said it would not. That was in September of 2020. If we look at it now, in February of 2025, according to polls that I'm looking at, 72% said it didn't lead to changes at all. Didn't lead to changes at all. And when we look at that, 72%, they say the increased focus on race and racial inequality after George Floyd's killing didn't lead to improvement of the improvement of lives of black Americans in this country. The share of Americans who express support for the Black Lives Matter movement stands at 52% today, a drop of 15% compared to what it was in June of 2020. This is according to the Pew Research Center. Commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion has also declined. Companies have pulled back on DEI initiatives and workers view them and workers views of them rather have grown to be more negative. We see that particularly since the Trump administration came into play. Now, me personally, I've been one who has been diametrically opposed to DEI being associated with black Americans in this country, considering the fact that white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of dei, according to numerous statistics, just. Just as was the case with white women being the biggest benefactors or the beneficiaries, rather, of affirmative action. I get tired of black folks being seen as beneficiaries to something someone white has benefited from. More so I thought it was important to point that out. But nevertheless, the negative connotations still get associated and connotated with black people. And so that's something that we have to look at moving forward. 49% expressed doubt that black people will ever have equal rights with white Americans, even though that's up from 39%. I said that is up from 39% in 2020. So in 30, in 2020, 39% doubted that Blacks would ever have equal rights compared to white folks. And now that number has increased to 49% again, according to the Pew Research Center. So all of these things are things to pay attention to. And the thing that alarms me personally is that Black Lives Matter certainly has brought some scrutiny. The leaders of the movement itself brought some scrutiny upon themselves in terms of how they were handling finances and things of that nature. We don't need to that today. And they gave folks on the right an opportunity to come at them, to really question their validity, their intent, their agenda. And those who were down for the course for all the right reasons, essentially their voices, it was like whispering into the wind. No one really, really heard them. Because the few who appeared to be corrupt, whose agendas and intent appeared to be a bit insidious, were the ones that ended up being the face of the movement. And to some degree it diluted its impact and potency. There is no way around that. And one of the things that I lamented when all of this stuff was going on and when we saw players taking a knee, whether it was on NBA courts during the bubble, whether it was on a football field where even Jerry Jones ended up taking a knee, when then President Donald Trump insulted NFL players and stuff like that, I found myself saying with the collective value monetarily that professional athletes possessed. Why don't you connect with folks on Capitol Hill? Why don't you serve the role of being a modern day lobbyist and making sure that you funnel money into the coffers of whatever organization you choose to influence individuals on Capitol Hill to support your cause, since that's what everybody else is doing. But the professional athletes who had this cachet, who had this power, who appeared to be committed to making this kind of difference, never took the bull by the horn and, and did that. And so now here we are five years later, and the question is a legitimate one. What do the riots, what do the protest, what do these kind of things have to show for its efforts? What indeed has been accomplished? I don't know the answer to this question. I just know it's a pretty damn Good one. A majority of U.S. adults say relationships between black people and the police hasn't changed since George Floyd's killing. How true is that? We don't know. We just know what's being said. And to me, that matters. Black Lives Matter painted in the streets of Washington, D.C. that was erased. We all know that minute Trump got into office, that was going to be erased. But I'm not tripping over that personally, because I need more than symbols. When we look at dei, when we look at affirmative action, when we look at the positions that are being taken, when we see some of the things that have transpired. And I'm not blaming everything on Trump, and I'm not blaming everything on his administration, because I do think that things got a bit excessive. And I do think that there were people out there that used causes that were legit, those the kind of things that were being protested in the streets of America to empower themselves to get whatever they could out of it instead of contributing legitimately to the cause. I don't need to belabor this point. I just need you to know what kind of things I'm thinking about as we explore what's really come of George Floyd's killing, what our aspirations were compared to what we truly have legitimately accomplished or have failed to accomplish. Because the fact remains that as we look at our society right now, you would think that we wouldn't have the complaints about the goings ons that's taking place in today's society if those changes were indeed made. But they weren't made. It shows that it was a bunch of lip service. Because the real change that needed to be made involved our laws, involved participation in issues that participate, pertain to the American public, and to make sure that our voices were heard in a resounding fashion so people would know never to let these kind of things happen again. That's not what's happened. As things have changed, some would say they've remained the same. Others would say times have gotten worse. That's just the way it is right now. Which means that as we move forward, maybe a little less talking and more acting, more action is necessary. I'll say it one last time, if you got that kind of financial cachet, considering lobbyists all across America and how they influence our politicians on Capitol Hill, professional athletes, Hollywood and everybody in between had an opportunity to do this in 2020. Folks didn't do it. Instead, they gave lip service. They protested. Biden got in office, Trump was out. And as a result, they turned their attention towards stuff like cancer culture and woke politics. And the other side paid their attention to denigrating the left for focusing on those things and highlighting how it would hurt the fabric of America and the issues that existed in 2020 still exist today. Go figure. Coming up, NBA playoffs are something that I can't escape talking to and I certainly can't escape talking to the one and only David Falk. Super agent extraordinaire for many, many years made news recently talking about LeBron James and how there's no way in hell he should be considered the goat over Michael Jordan. That is not a conversation you will want to miss. Yours truly with the one and only David Falk up next right here on the Stephen A. Smith show over the digital airwaves of YouTube and of course, iHeartRadio. Back with more in a minute. All right, folks, I need you all to stop what you're doing and listen up. You know I love this time of year, right? The NBA playoffs are in full effect and with all this action jumping off, the Stephen A. Smith show wants to make sure you take advantage of it all. That's why we've partnered with Prize Picks, the best place to win cash while watching sports. The app is easy to use. Just pick more or less on a few player stats and you can win up to 2000 times your cash on a single lineup. Best of all, Prize picks will give you 50 when you play your first five dollar lineup. Win or lose, you'll get 50 bucks for playing. Use promo code SAS and download the app now. Again, download the app and use code SAS to get 50 instantly after your first five dollar lineup prize picks. Hey, hey. Run your game. The Indiana Paces came in the Madison Square Garden and took game one from my beloved New York Knicks. We all know this. They cannot lift their foot off the gas tonight. So let me get to my picks for tonight's game. First up, will Jalen Brunson score more or less than 29 and a half points? Desperate times call for desperate measures. He's the closer, the clutch player of the year. I'm going with more for this one. Next up will call Anthony Town score more or less than 23 and a half points? I'm going to say yes because of the game he had last game. Do it again, damn it. Next up, will Tyrese Halliburton score more or less than 20 and a half points? I'mma go with more with him too. Why? Because he's been that dude. And why would I think otherwise in a series of this magnitude, 20 and a half points ain't much for Tyrese Halliburton to put up, particularly with the horses he's got around him. Last but not least, and finally, will Aaron Neesmith score more or less than 13 points? The brothers just hit 16, just hit six three pointers in one quarter. As in the fourth quarter, three in the last minute, I think it's safe that he'll score more than 14, 13 points or 14 points in this game. I'm going with more on this. All right, so let's revisit. That's more for Jalen Brunson, more for Carla Anthony Towns, more for Tyrese Haliburton, and more for Aaron Neesmith. Okay? That's how it goes. Flow with your brother. Flow with me. Go to prospects app and check out the Stephen A. Smith show Community play. It's boosted 25%. Check it out.

[Ryan Smith]

It is Ryan here and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win? Like, are you a fist pumper? A woohoo? A hand clapper? A high fiver? If you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumba Casino. Choose from hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly, plus free daily bonuses.

[Stephen A. Smith]

So don't wait.

[Ryan Smith]

Start having the most Fun [e-mail] no purchase necessary.

[Stephen A. Smith]

VGW Group void.

[David Falk]

We're prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions apply.

[Bom Han]

Yo, Kiba fans. It's your boy Bom Han, and I'm bringing you something epic.

[Ryan Smith]

Epic.

[Bom Han]

Introducing the K Factor, the podcast that takes you straight into the heart of K pop. We're talking music reviews, exclusive interviews, and deep dives into the industry like never before. From producers and choreographers to idols and trainees, we're bringing you the real stories behind the music that you love. And yeah, we're keeping it hunted, discussing everything from comebacks and concepts to the mental health side of the business. Because K Pop isn't just a genre. It's a whole world. And we're exploring every corner of it. And here's the best part. Fans get to call in, drop opinions, and even join us live at events. You never know where we might pop up next. So listen to the K factor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. This isn't just a podcast. It's a movement.

[Ryan Smith]

Are you ready?

[Bom Han]

Let's go.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Let's.

[David Falk]

Foreign.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Welcome back to the show. We got to start off this NBA segment with the New York Knicks who will face off with the Indiana paces tonight in a massive Game two at Madison Square Garden. In case you missed it, the pace is made in the story come back in game one. Fueled by six straight threes from Aaron Neesmith and a dramatic buzzer beater by Tyrese Halliburton that went sky high off the back of the rim before dropping in the tie the game and sending it into overtime. The Pacers went on to win the game 138, 135 in overtime. To give you some context on the comeback or collapse, teams leading by at least 14 points in the final 245 of the fourth quarter had been 994 and 0 in the postseason since detailed play by play began being kept in 1997, 1998 season. To make it even worse, consider this. Teams trailing by nine plus points in the final minute of the fourth quarter overtime were oh and 1,414 during that span. That same span. Game to us tonight when Jalen Brunson and the Knicks will have to show they can come back from the type of devastating defeat that Milwaukee and Cleveland couldn't in the first two rounds. Bottom line is this. You up 17 with over six minutes. 16 with just over six minutes left. You have 14 with 251 left. Yup. Nine with 52 seconds left and you lost the damn game. Tyrese Halliburton did his thing short, but N.E. smith hit six six threes in the final quarter. One was from 30ft, another two was from 27ft. Three of them were in the last minute of the regulation. And this brother looked like the second coming of Steph Curry. Can't happen. So here's the bottom line. If the New York Knicks want to even this series and have a chance to win this series, they got to get back on defense. They got to defend the three. They can't miss 12 free throws like they did in game one. Okay. And they got to find a way to control the pace because Indiana has seven dudes, I'm sorry, 11 dudes that were averaging at least 15 minutes a game during the regular season. See, that's a championship. Coach of Rick Carlisle right there. He knows what he's aiming for. Since January 1st, the record is like 43 and 16. They're number one seed. These brothers are no joke. Yeah, I figure out a way to stop him. So hopefully the New York Knicks will figure it out because they ain't winning this series if they go down.02. Not in my estimation. Meanwhile, here in Oklahoma City, which is where I'm at. Anthony Edwards and the Timberwolves are in trouble after falling behind 02 with a 118103 loss to the Thunder last night. Shay Gill's just Alexander, who received his MVP trophy, league MVP trophy before the game and then proceeded to get the better of Ant man as the Thunder rolled. The Wolves now face a big uphill battle as they head home for Game 3 on Saturday. Teams leading the best of seven series in the NBA playoffs go on to win 92% of the time. Ladies and gentlemen, I came into this series thinking that Minnesota could be okc, that even if OKC was the favorites, it would take seven games. I am now scared Minnesota's gonna get swept because let me tell you what I've noticed, just so we all understand one another. Minnesota, outside of Ant man, outside, can't shoot off the dribble. They've been getting out on Nazi, you know, on Nas Reid. They've been getting out on Dante DiVincenzo. They've been getting out on Jaden McDaniels. They've been getting out out on the kill Alexander Walker. Here's the bottom line. Minnesota's got a bunch of set shooters. They don't have a bunch of sharpshooters, snipers. That's the problem. They got set shooters. But if you get out on, get out on them the way Oklahoma's defense, the top rated defense in the NBA, may be one of the best defenses we've seen in decades, they can get out on shooters. So they're getting out on shooters. They're forcing Minnesota to put the ball on the floor. And Minnesota can't buy a basketball. Needless to say, Shay, Gil, just Alexander don't have that problem, Jamal. You know, Jalen Williams, he don't have that problem. Chet Holmgren scoring on fast breaks. Hardenstein's catching alley oop dunks. This is bad. And I saw Ant man walking to the tunnel after the game. He looks completely defeated. He looks like he knows he doesn't have enough help, enough horses to knock these brothers off. That's how he looks. It looks like nobody could beat Oklahoma City, y' all. It really, really does. Anyway, moving on because I'll get into NBA action a little bit later on next week or so after this weekend. But right now I gotta go to break before I talk to my next guest, because my next guest made news over the last couple of days because of comments he made about LeBron James and how asinine and silly it is to even think that he is the goat. His name is David Falk, the former agent of Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, along with a host of others throughout the years, universally recognized as one of the greatest agents, if not the greatest agent in the history of sports. He's up next with yours truly right here on the Stephen A. Smith Show. Back in a minute after I pay these bills. All right, everybody, listen up. With all the big time sports action that's happening each and every day, the Stephen A. Smith show wants to make sure you are taking advantage of it all. That's why we partnered with Prize Picks, the best place to win cash while watching sports. The app is really easy to use to make a lineup. All you have to do is pick more or less on a few player stats. Choose from any of your favorite players, Jalen Brunson, Tyrese Haliburton, and Anthony Edwards, the Ant man himself, all in the same entry. Then sit back and watch. The list is endless. You can play prospects in over 40 states, including California and Texas. Best of all, Prize Picks will give you fifty dollars when you play your first five dollar lineup. Win or lose, you'll get fifty bucks. Just use promo code SAS and download Prize Picks now. Again, download the app and use code SAS to get 50 instantly after your first five dollar lineup. Prize picks, run your game.

[Bom Han]

Yo, K Pop fans. It's your boy Bom Han. And I'm bringing you something epic. Introducing the K Factor, the podcast that takes you straight into the heart of K Pop. We're talking music reviews, exclus interviews and deep dives into the industry like never before. From producers and choreographers to idols and trainees, we're bringing you the real stories behind the music that you love. And yeah, we're keeping it 100, discussing everything from comebacks and concepts to the mental health side of the business. Because K Pop isn't just a genre, it's a whole world. And we're exploring every corner of it. And here's the best part. Fans get to come, call in, drop opinions, and even join us live at events. You never know where we might pop up next. So listen to the K factor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. This isn't just a podcast. It's a movement.

[Ryan Smith]

Are you ready?

[Bom Han]

Let's go.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Let's go.

[David Falk]

Amy Robach and TJ Holmes.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Here, Diddy's former protege, television personality, platinum.

[Ryan Smith]

Selling artist Danity King alumni Aubrey o'.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Day joins us to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated.

[Ryan Smith]

The Attention of the nation.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Aubrey Oday is sitting next to us. Here you are. As we sit here, right up the street from where the trial is taking place. Some people saw that you were going to be in New York and they immediately started jumping to conclusions. So can you clear that up? First of all, are you here to testify in the Diddy trial? Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise based on her firsthand knowledge from her days on making the band as she emerged as the breakout star. The truth of the situation would be opposite of the glitz and glamour. It wasn't all bad, but I don't know that any of the good was real.

[Ryan Smith]

I went through things there.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Listen to Amy and TJ presents Aubrey.

[David Falk]

O' Day covering the Diddy trial on.

[Stephen A. Smith]

The iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever.

[David Falk]

You get your podcasts.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Staying in the NBA but moving off the court. Michael Jordan's longtime agent extraordinaire, Mr. David Falk, weighed in on the goat debate this week. Not surprisingly, Falk backed his former client, but he took it a step further. Speaking with the Sports Business Journal, Falk had this to say, quote, I really, really like LeBron, but I think if Jordan had cherry picked what teams he wanted to be on and two other superstars, he would have won 15 championships, end quote. This prompted a response from none other than LeBron James agent himself, Mr. Rich Paul. Take a listen. We can't have revisionist history and we all want to just determine who's the goat and who's the best and so on and so forth. But I just thought that was a little beneath David to say that Michael never had to leave. They, you know, Michael's never been the underdog in any finals, not one time. Michael Never had a 24 hour, 365 news cycle. He never had shows built strictly to criticize him. People made millions of dollars criticizing LeBron James. That was their entire job. Michael played for Dean Smith, Michael played for Phil Jackson, and Michael had Jerry Kraus. I'm the biggest Michael Jordan fan ever. Love Michael Jordan, and I don't think Michael Jordan would have used the term cherry pick. So I'm not up here to discredit Michael Jordan. I think Michael Jordan transcended our game to a level that we all benefited from. What the hell do you mean, Rich Paul, when you say Michael Never had a 24 hour, 365 news cycle. He never had shows built strictly to criticize him. What shows are built strictly to criticize LeBron James? See, this is the B.S. this is the B.S. we covered the sport. It's a 24 hours news cycle. There are plenty of positive things that are said about LeBron James on every show. Every show. This is where the whining and moaning accusations come from. From him and his camp. What 24 hour, 365 news cycle has shows built strictly to criticize them. So in other words, the shows that criticize him never ever, ever give him credit, huh? Ever. Look, man, I ain't got time. I'm not even gonna waste my time with this. I'm gonna get to my next guest. I'm gonna get to my next guest right now. I'd like to welcome to the show none other than Mr. David Falk himself. Long time, buddy. How you doing, David? How's everything?

[David Falk]

You know what? I'm delighted to be with this evening.

[Stephen A. Smith]

You said what you said. You've had an opportunity to reflect on what you had to say about LeBron James in comparison to Michael Jordan. The floor is yours. What would you like to say?

[David Falk]

Now, let me say at the outset, clearly LeBron James is a great player in any era. You'd be foolish to suggest otherwise. His longevity, his statistics are amazing. I think what makes Michael go goes way beyond the court. I think on the court, Michael obviated the center position. Prior to Jordan, you needed the Elijah wants, the Ewings, the Kareems, the Bob Laniers. And the way Michael played, he. He made it unnecessary to have a great center. Look who he won the champions, Bill Weddington, Dickie Simpkins, Bill Cartwright. And I think that had a huge impact on the game. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, I think Michael individually broke down every barrier that existed for professional basketball players and in particular African American professional basketball players to become national marketing brand ambassadors. So the whole generation of LeBron's and Kobe's and Steph Curry's having their own shoes and being in commercials did not exist before Michael came in the game. Magic didn't have it, Bird didn't have it, Dr. J didn't have it, Kareem didn't have it. And I think that's a preponderant impact. I think. Third, I believe he's the first NBA player to become a billionaire. I believe he's the first NBA player to become a majority owner of an NBA team. And finally, he had, you know, tremendous impact on fashion. He changed the look. Look at the way the players play with the long shorts he made. Bald is beautiful. And so I think beyond comparing statistics, who have more points, who average more even who had more championships, I think Michael's impact is extremely broad and deep in what he did to change the game. I don't think any other player in history had kind of an impact.

[Stephen A. Smith]

What do you make of people who would look. And I'm going to. I want to get far beyond those two individuals that we're talking about for the moment. But I got this one question ask you. What do you make of folks and their assertions that the times that we're living in now, the advent of social media, the digital stratosphere, the microscope that is on players in today's game like never before, the impression is given that even the great Michael Jordan, with his, you know, unparalleled popularity, I compare him to no one. The only person I've ever compared him to was Michael Jackson, for crying out loud. That's how popular Michael Jordan was. When you listen to people talk today, they talk about the climate, the environment, the society that we're living in today. And they say it's far more invasive than it has ever been, which makes the road tougher for a guy like LeBron James compared to what Jordan had to endure during his complaint, his playing career. You've been around a long time. You know this business like the back of your hand. What do you make of that, of those assertions?

[David Falk]

Clearly, social media has brought the fans closer to the players. Everyone can express their opinion. You don't have to work for a newspaper or a television station to have an opinion. But I think it's the natural tendency when you're the best at anything, there's a human tendency to try to tear people down. And certainly Michael had that because of his immense popularity. People criticize him, for example, for not being political enough, not expressing his desire for certain candidates. And so, sure, I think that the social media has changed the game. I also think if you want to be objective, the game has changed itself. I had this discussion about a month ago with Ron Thorne, who's a very dear friend of mine who drafted Michael Jordan. And he said to me, which I didn't know, he said, do you realize today that the average NBA team takes one third more shots than they did in Jordan? Zero. So when Jordan averaged 38 points a game, if you. If you increase that by a third, that means he would average 52. Now, I think Michael could have averaged. And Michael took 1.7 threes per game. That's all he took. I think he could have averaged almost anything he wanted if it. If that was what was required to win. That's all he cared about, was winning. And I think his record of 6 out of 6 is the greatest in the history of the NBA. Never lost, never lost the championship.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Oh, don't forget, he also never allowed a championship series to get to a seventh game. He took you out in six or less every single time. That's the Michael Jordan that we're talking about here, David. Expanding beyond Michael Jordan and LeBron James. When we think about the age that we're living in. One of the discussions your comments prompted was player empowerment and the kind of things that have taken place in today's NBA and in today's sports world. As an, as an agent looking at the state of affairs that exist not just in the NBA, but professional sports as it pertains to sovereignty involving players, player empowerment, et cetera, et cetera. What are the kind of thoughts that come to your mind as to what we're witnessing today and whether or not it's good or it's bad for the world of sports in this day and age?

[David Falk]

Great question. So, number one, I believe that players, great players, have always been empowered. I think the biggest difference between today's generation of players and, if you will, Jordan's generation, the Magic's generation, is how the players exercise the power. Now, if you understand that in 1982, that was a long time ago, the NBA ushered in a salary cap and for the last 43 years the players have essentially owned 50% of the revenues. So they're 50, 50 partners with the league. The only way players can make more money is to grow the business of the NBA. Now, I believe that when players exercise their power poorly and they make statements that denigrate the game, I think that they're impeding the ability of themselves to make more money, which is foolish. So I'll give you a couple of examples. You want to talk about player empowerment. In 1984 and 1985, there were two players in the history of the game that opted out of the group licensing program. One was named Michael Jordan, one was named Patrick Ewing. They did not allow the league to use them in group licensing. And I opted about both of them. You're not allowed to do that today. In 1985, Patrick became the first player in history to have an early termination option in his contract. He signed a 10 year deal to three times more money than Magic made the year before as a veteran. And he had the option to opt out after six years if market conditions change. That is empowerment. Michael Jordan was the first player to have a love of the game clause that did not require him to. That allowed him to practice at North Carolina in the summer, which came to be code as the love of the game clause. Darnell Valentine in 1980 became the first player to challenge the league's ability to under paragraph 13B, to prevent players from doing endorsements or interviews without permission of the team. That's in every contract. Now, Valentine versus the Portland Trailblazers. So I can give you a hundred examples of player empowerment. Patrick Ewing became the first rookie in history to be the highest paid player in the league. He made 55% more money than Kareem, who's the highest paid veteran of all time. I believe that that's empowerment. Danny Ferry did the same thing in 1990 and he clearly was not one of the great players in the history of league. So I believe that players in every sport have always had tremendous power, but I think that today I don't think they use it as judiciously as they should if the goal is to make more money and grow the business.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Well, let me ask you this, David. Give me an example if you can. If it's compromising, please don't bother. But if you can give me an example of players that have exercised influence and exercised power, but you don't believe it's necessarily for their good or for the good of the game, could you highlight an example that wouldn't be good to illustrate your point?

[David Falk]

Well, so the simplest one I would say is, is traders. Okay? Now, I personally, personally probably made 10 or 15 major trades. I made the Patrick Ewing trade to Seattle. I didn't want to make it, I didn't believe in it. But he and the Knicks agreed it would be best to have a change of scenery. It was a 13 player trainer. I traded stuff on Marbury Jersey in the 13 player trade with Sam Cassell. I did that behind the scenes. The minute you announced publicly as a player that you're not going to play anymore, Harden as an example, you know, it makes it so much harder to make the trade for the exact reason that Rich Paul indicated. It's hard for LeBron because you're shining the spotlight on the player. And the other teams around the league know that the player is demanding a trade. He doesn't want to be there, it's going to be a problem. And so they're not going to offer fair value. And so the very goal the player has of moving he frustrates makes more difficult by, you know, by publicly announcing it. Now the opposite of that, interestingly to me, and I'm a big Nico Harrison fan, is the fact that Dallas only talked to one team to trade Luca. You know, Luka's one of the top five players in the league and there wasn't competitive bidding. I know they had their reasons for it. I don't understand all the dynamics, so I'm not here to criticize it. But it surprised me that if you're going to. If you're going to sell one of the most valuable assets in the league, that you wouldn't want to have the highest level of competitive bidder. But the trade is the easiest example I could give you, Stephen, or I'll give you an example on the agent side. Okay. I believe that every time an agent comes out publicly and says any of the following, my players not getting enough playing time, not getting enough shots, not making enough money, the team is taking advantage of them. They are advertising that they've done a really lousy job of being an agent because if they were doing a good job, none of those things would be happening. And if they were happening, then the answer is to sit down with the owner or the general manager behind the scenes and try to figure out a way to improve. I'm going to tell you a funny story, okay? In 2000, I signed my only high school player in my 50 year career, a guy named Darius Miles. He was the third pick in the draft. And yes, I went to a game one night in LA to see Elton Brand. Our company at that time represented eight of the players on the Clippers.

[Ryan Smith]

Eight.

[David Falk]

I didn't represent them all myself. I only had Elton. I walk into the locker room to see Elton and he motions me to talk to Darius. Apparently, on the way from the locker room, from the court, into the locker room, Darius hadn't played a minute. He cursed out the coach, Alva Gentry, who I've known since he was the assistant coach of Larry Brown at Camps. Great guy. So I go over to Alvin. I say, alvin, what's the problem? He said, david, I love. I love Darius, but he's not working hard enough. So, okay. So I told Darius to come to my hotel room the next day. And I said to him, son, do you want to play or do you want to sit on the bench? He said, of course I want to play, Mr. Falk. That's why I'm unhappy. I said, well, I don't think you want to play. And he said, why would you say that? I said, because if you want to play, you have to show the coach that you want to play. And the way you show them is by working harder. He doesn't feel you Work hard enough and I promise you that if you work harder, he will play you more. That was on a Thursday. The next night they played the Houston rockets. Darius played 30 minutes and had 21:9. I went to congratulate him after the game, couldn't find him. Where do you think he was? He was in the weight room, probably in coaches after the game.

[Stephen A. Smith]

He's in the weight room now.

[David Falk]

I went up to coach Gentry, who I really like, and said, Alvin is this complicated. You want him to play, you want him to work and he wants to play. Now. Most coaches in the NBA today are reluctant to tell their players they're not working hard enough. Now I'm not talking about the Popoviches or the Pat Riley's. I'm talking about the younger coaches because they're afraid they're going to lose the relationship with the players. The players are so macho. They don't want to tell a coach that is bothering them that they're not playing. They don't think that's cool. And I think you need to communicate. So my job is to talk to a guy like Alvin and tell him that. And it solved the problem. And so I think that, I think on both sides this is a thing that should be done behind the scenes privately. My mom, who's a very highly educated woman, my life mentor, she taught me when I was very young, never hang your dirty logging out publicly. And so I think demanding trades, complaining about how much you're making those things are not productive to achieving the result that you want to achieve. And on top of it, I think it demeans the game. And I think one of the great differences between Jordan's era and today is I think the players had a much greater as a whole. Not saying every single player had a much greater respect for the game as a whole. I will tell you a great story you've never heard. When Michael Jordan.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Okay, please.

[David Falk]

Was recruited by Ted Leonsis, the current owner of the Washington Wizards to come to Washington be the president the day he was going to get final approval from a Poland Wes uncended GM of the team and the face of the franchise for many years from 1967, this was 1999. He called me up at esper set up a meeting for him with Michael. I didn't attend the meeting, but apparently at the meeting Wes told Michael he was going to leave when Michael came. And Michael told him, if you leave, I will not come. I respect you. You paid the path to young players like myself, what's the problem? And West Said, have nothing to do with you, Abe. Poland runs around telling everyone else that he's like my father and I'm the lowest paid general manager in the entire NBA. He's, he's disrespecting me and I'm quitting. And Michael said to him, don't, please don't quit. I will take care of this. So went to Poland's house and Poland says to him, I'm ready to hire him. Very excited to hire you. What should I pay you? And Michael, who's a very, very intelligent man and a very savvy businessman, said, pay me what you think is fair. And Poland said to him, well, I understand the range of salaries for a president team is between 1 million and 2 million, so I'd love to pay you $1 million. And I think Ted probably had a heart attack when he heard that because he figured all that work was over. And Jordan come to Paul and said, I have a suggestion. Why don't you pay me 2 million, give 1 of my 2 million to Wes and I'm going to give the other million to charity. He worked for free and he took care of us. So Michael had a tremendous respect, the players that paved the path before him. Now, one of the things that he's done is he, he's allowed the whole generations that came after him for the past 40 years to enjoy incredible commercial success off the board. And again, that's one of the reasons I think he's the goat. But he always expressed a tremendous. Whatever differences he might have had with Jerry Krause. And if you saw the Last Dance, there were many.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Of course I did.

[David Falk]

Of course I kept it private. Now I was muse when Rich Paul, who I really like, said that Michael had the advantage of having Jerry Krause. And I don't want to say anything negative about Jerry Krause because he died. And I'm good friends at Reinsdorf. But if you ask me what I put when I put him in my top 25 GMs over the last 50 years, I would not. I would not. If you made a lot of very imprudent decisions. He drafted Charles Oakley over Karl Malone. He drafted Brad Sellers over Johnny Dawkins, the national player there. I think he made a lot of terrible decisions, but they won. And that's all, that's all that matters.

[Stephen A. Smith]

David, I want to know. I'm very, I've always been very interested in asking you this question. When Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came into the league, obviously they deserve an immense credit for building the popularity of The NBA brand. Most would argue Jordan took it to another level, but he did so because his individual greatness was so supreme, so, so, so awesome that, you know, he took the game in a different direction, but it also individualized the game more. And as a result, people view that as hurting the game. I look at LeBron and not that he decided to depart from Cleveland to Miami, but how he handled it. As you talk about respecting the game, respecting the league, respecting the owner, etc. And the fact that he was willing to be so publicly defiant, or dare I say dismissive of Dan Gilbert at that time, I thought it served to compromise player empowerment to some degree because collective bargaining negotiations took place thereafter. Remember, there was a Chris Paul trade to the Lakers that was ultimately nixed once Dan Gilbert erased holy hell by writing a public letter letter to the league. Etc. When you think about the damage that has been done to the league, which obviously is flourishing, and so we got to be careful with that word, damaging. But if there's a negative, is it veering away from team with Bird and Magic in Boston and LA to the individual greatness of a Michael Jordan, or is it along the lines of player and power, empowerment and sovereignty exercised by the likes of LeBron James that clearly has appeared to have a residual impact? What is your thought about that question?

[David Falk]

Well, first of all, when LeBron went to Miami, he was a free agent. He had the right to pick any team in the league that he thought would best. I have no. I think the mistake he made, in my opinion, was the PR mistake was when he did the show, the decision with Jim Gray, and he said, I'm going to win not one, not two, not three, but eight titles, which he still hasn't won. I think if I were LeBron's man, and I love Maverick Carter, I'm very good friends with Maverick Carter, who's LeBron's marketing guy. I would have told him, do the interview. And the day you win your first ring, the first, not eight, have a show, hold up the ring and say, this is why I came to Miami. This is, I couldn't achieve this in Cleveland. Now, interestingly, if I can give you a contrast, and I'm not saying one is right, one's wrong, it's just personal preference. I asked Michael once, would you ever like to play with Birdie Magic? Sort of like to recreate the Dream Team Olympic Burns? And he said, are you nuts? I would never want to play with Bird Magic. I wanted to beat their butts every night on a one on one competitive Level and just different personalities. That doesn't make LeBron's choice wrong. And I want to be crystal clear. I have great respect for LeBron as a player. I think his longevity, his impact, He's a great athlete. I think probably could have played other sports. And clearly, when they asked me, do I think he's in the top 10, of course I think he's in the top 10. Now, I had an interesting discussion over dinner with President Obama about this very subject, like, who's number one, who's number two? I would say to you publicly, what difference does it make who's number two? Only thing that makes a difference is who's number one. You know, who runs around four years. I say, God, don't you think that the team that lost that super bowl was a great team? No, they didn't win the super bowl, either one or you're not. And clearly, LeBron will be in the pantheon of great players for a lot of years. Now, you could say arguably that the greatest player was Bill Russell because he won most championships 11 out of 13. You could say Oscar Robertson was the greatest player because he averaged a triple double. When Michael was asked in Cleveland, when they presented the top 75 players of all time, who do you think is the greatest player of all time? Without hesitating, he said, oscar Robertson. When they asked LeBron who's the greatest player of all time, without hesitating, he said, lebron James. Now, if someone asked me, who do you think is the greatest agent ever of all time? I'd say Larry Fleischer. He was the head of the union. He created the rules that allowed free agency, all the things he did. Now, if someone thought that I was the greatest, I would let them say that. I would let you say that. I would never say that myself. I just don't think it's appropriate for you to have to make that comment. But. But I want to be crystal clear nationally, I would never want to offend LeBron James. I like him. I think we have a good relationship. I think I have a pretty good relationship with Rich and Maverick, and. And I admire LeBron for his commitment to the game, his longevity, and I think he's a completely different kind of a player than Michael. Most people that I respect in basketball, if you were comparing Kobe and LeBron, say Kobe's more like Michael and LeBron's more like Magic. I'm in an. I can make an argument that Magic Johnson is one of the greatest players of all time. Now think about this, Stephen. Okay? In 1970, nine in the NCAA final, magic squared off against Bird. At the time, it was the highest rated game in the history of basketball at any level. Magic one, one year later, the Lakers are playing Philly in your home, the NBA finals and in game, Kareem gets her Magic play center. I don't know the exact. I think he had 37 and 14, had the baby hook to win the game.

[Stephen A. Smith]

He had 42. He had 42. He had forty two. Yep.

[David Falk]

42 and 17. Right. Huge rebounds. He, he won the game, was the finals MVP and rookie of the year. Now if he had a one year career, and I'm here to give my props to Magic Johnson from the time he won the NCAA to the top, he'd be in the hall of Fame just for that one year. That was one of the greatest impacts in basketball, college and pro in one year. On top of that, you know, as popular as Michael is, I think if Magic had the proper representation as a rookie and we try to sign, we actually thought we're going to represent Magic. I think Magic could have done a lot of the things that Michael did at 84 in 1979, but he didn't have an agent that had the marketing background or savvy to understand the impact that Magic made in the number one media market, entertainment market in the United States.

[Stephen A. Smith]

David, before I let you get on out of here, I'd be remiss in neglecting to ask you this question. You and I go back many years, many decades and we've known each other since 1995, for crying out loud. You know, rough around the edges at the beginning because I was ignorant and didn't know any better and didn't appreciate your brilliance until later on when you took me under your wing and taught me so many things over the years. I can't even express my level of gratitude to you. And we're friends to this day. I wonder, and I want to end this interview by asking you being, I'll say it, arguably the greatest agent ever in any sport, considering what you know, what you've negotiated, the connections that you have had, the inroads you have made along the way to influence the game, to influence sports overall, what are your thoughts about today's business as it pertains to agents in today's business compared to what it was when you were doing it. I'll give you the floor. That's my very last question to you. Take the floor and answer that question, please.

[David Falk]

It's a great question. So number one, I think that the principal role of an agent in business, whether you're a Hollywood agent or sports agent, is to negotiate contracts. And something. Approximately 70% of all the contracts in the NBA today are not negotiated at all. If you're the, if you're Wembayama and you're coming in the league as the number one pick or Cooper Flag, there's no negotiations. There's a weight scale. If you're a great player like LeBron or Curry or Kevin Durant, Luka Doncic, there's no negotiations. There's a maximum. If you're an average player, most of the teams are pretty well capped. There are mid level exceptions, biannual exceptions, there are minimums. And so the role of an agent has been dramatically curtailed by the rules. It's very hard to make an impact. If I could give you an example. So in my career, as I mentioned, I had two rookies who are the highest paid players of all time. I negotiated the first ever $100 million contract, Alonzo Mourning in 1995 for $116 million for 13 years. And I made him turn it down. One year later he signed for 105 for seven. He would have played six years for free. And he thought I'd lost my mind. When I told him to turn it down, that was dramatically higher. I negotiated a contract the same year for Juwan Howard, who's a great friend and a great player. He made 70% more money than Chris Weber on the same team, playing the same position. They went to the same college. I couldn't do that. Today I remember you can't do. So the ability to separate, like in football, a great receiver separates himself. That's how he catches the ball. In today's NBA an agent can't separate himself. And that frustrates me. It takes away a lot of your creativity. A lot of the things that I did that enabled me. Now I want to return the favor to my friend Rich Paul. I was disappointed that Rich Paul mistakenly compared my combat about cherry picking, which means that you are, you are picking where you want to go, which what your players every right to do as a free agent to the fact that three of the greatest coaches in the history of college basketball, Dean Smith, John Thompson and Coach K, recommended me to their players. And the reason he recommended me wasn't because they liked me. It's because our track record with the rookies was so superior to anyone else in the business that it was an easy decision for them. Now if I can give you and your listeners an analogy. To answer your very specific question, Stephen I think the greatest investor in the history of the United States was Warren Buffett, and he's also one of the richest men. Now, if, if the securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates investments, passed a rule and said no investment manager can get more than a 6% return. You know, it's illegal to get more than 6%, he would turn Warren Buffett into a first year kid out of business school. I'll give you another example, okay? And I use this frequently. I'm going to take LeBron back to his days in Cleveland, okay? Early days, the NBA passes the rule. They say no player can score more than 12 points a game. It's like fouling out once you hit 12. You got to sit down. Now, a guy like LeBron James would score 12 points in the first three minutes of the game. He could literally go to a movie, come back and meet with his teammates, you know, after the game. So the season ends and he goes out to lunch with his teammate Matthew Dalavidovo, and he says, dalley, what kind of year did you have? And Dallas is averaged 41 minutes and 12 points a game. And how'd you do LeBron? LeBron's will average 3 minutes and 12 points a game. And Daly says, well, I guess we're both the same kind of players. Because the rules have homogenized LeBron's ability to be LeBron. And that's what the agent business, in my opinion, has become. So I was intrigued when the current mvp, Sheik Gilgames Alexander decided to represent himself. And while I think that there are many reasons that Che Gielgis Alexander needs an agent, he may want to get traded, he may be having problems with the team. And there's a famous expression, Stephen, that a lawyer who represents himself has a full for client. And so it's very difficult to walk in and say, I should be, you know, I don't want to be here. That's why you need third party people. But I think that the, I think that a lot of great players are going to do what Kevin Durant did with Rich Kleinman a little bit, what LeBron did with Maverick Carter, and have one person as sort of like their business manager, because the role of the negotiations has declined. Now the other part that's critically important is marketing. And, you know, I think that, you know, I'm startling with Aaron Goodwin. I think Aaron at one point had LeBron, Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant and Horford. He did an amazing job for those guys in marketing. He got LeBron $100 million deal with Nike as A rookie got a big deal for Dwight Howard. Royalties, I think. You know, I think he's. And I think there's a very, very important role for the star players to have someone off the court. But as I said at the conference, if I were coming out of law school today, based on the state of the union and the sports world, I would definitely want to be in sports, but I probably would not want to be an agent. I almost definitely would not want to be an agent. And that's why this spring, when my last client, Otto Porter Jr. Retired, I. I've let it run out. I don't want to sign any more players. I love basketball, love what it's done for me. I am humbled by the fact that some 14 hall of Fame players have entrusted their careers to me, including the goat. Everyone knows, you know, how important that relationship has been in my life. I would expand that. Include Patrick. Coach Thompson, who's the number one John Thompson in my book. So you don't know if you read my book. The Ball Truth. John Thompson was the most influential man in my life. Not the most influential coach.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Yeah.

[David Falk]

Not the most influential client. The most influential. I learned so much from John that.

[Stephen A. Smith]

He should have been great man, my great man.

[David Falk]

And so I've been privileged to work for the best of the brightest, privileged to meet people who are great, their profession, like you. I admire what you've done in your career since we've known each other from the time you Cub report in Philly. And I want to end by saying this is not last thing I want to say in the day. Magic, Isaiah, Mark McGuire, Herb Williams, who I really like, represented by a guy in Charlie Tucker, who's a fun guy. I like Charlie. And our guys, they were more urban guys. Our guys all came, as Rich pointed out, from Carolina, Duke, Georgetown, Kansas, you know, and the coaches basically gave us the players. They didn't do it to do us a favor. They didn't do it because they had any benefit. They did it because they wanted their players to make the most money that they could. And there was sort of like. It was like the Bloods of the Crips. There was sort of a little competition during the all star game in 85. I won't name names. Some of the players from that group try to recruit Michael to leave us and go with Charlie Tucker. And Michael was really offended because he's such an incredibly loyal person. And. And so it's not a battle between Michael and LeBron. I think they're two of the greatest players in History, not necessarily the two greatest players, two of the greatest players in history. LeBron's earned my respect, you know, a long time ago. And if I say anything that offended him, I would publicly apologize. Not my intent. I think. I think it, as Michael correctly points out, maybe it's a good way to end the discussion. It is almost impossible to compare players from different eras. When Bill Russell won 11 titles, there were only eight teams in the league. When UCLA won all those championships in a row, There was only 16 teams in the, in the, in the NCAA tournament. It's a lot easier. You start out in the Sweet 16 today. Getting to the Sweet 16 is a pretty good accomplishment for a lot of teams. But what I think separates Michael from every other player is not how many games he won or how many points he scored. It's the impact that he made on the game in so many different areas. As I mentioned earlier, being the first player to be a majority owner, the, the, the opportunities that he personally and individually created. You know, there was a whole right bunch of people, Stephen, after Jordan came in the league, it's like the search for the fountain of youth. They want to know, was Harold Miner, nicknamed Baby Jordan? Was he going to be the next guy? Was Penny Hardaway going to be the last guy? At one point, it was going to be Ron Harper was going to be the next guy. And the truth is, there'll never be another Michael. They just won't. He came from an incredible family, two pin family, you know, incredible coach. And so let's leave it that, you know, let's leave it to.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Well, listen, we'll leave it that way. I mean, Michael Jordan is my goat as well, but that's no disrespect to LeBron James. There's no disrespect to being perceived as one of the top two players in the history of basketball or anything like that. But the bottom line is this. No matter how grateful we all are to have seen great players and have witnessed the greatness of guys like them, I've also been great, very, very grateful and very lucky to witness the greatness of you, my man. We go back decades, and I appreciate all you've done to edify me and help me along the way in my career. And I'm honored to have had this conversation with you, David Falk. You're one of the best ever. So I really, really appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to sit down with me and talk with me about this subject. All right? You take care of yourself, okay? We'll Talk soon.

[David Falk]

Thank you for your time. I'm very grateful.

[Stephen A. Smith]

All right, my man. Take care. The one and only David Falk right here on the Stephen A. Smith show of the Digital Airways of YouTube and of course, iHeartRadio. Welcome back to Stephen A. Smith Show. Now onto the latest in the Sean Diddy Combs trial where Diddy is facing five federal charges involving sex trafficking and racketeering. The trial is wrapping up a second full week of testimony. This week we heard testimony from Combs former personal assistant David James, who testified he told Cassie Ventura, Combs former girlfriend, that she needed to, quote, get out, end quote. Ben Ventura claimed she couldn't because Combs controlled so much of her life. On Tuesday we heard testimony from Regina Ventura, the mother of Cassie Ventura, who told jurors that she was, quote, scared for my daughter's safety, end quote. And that she documented the physical abuse Cassie suffered at the hands of Combs who prosecutors claimed coerced the younger Ventura and others into participating in drug fueled sex shows. And yesterday, jurors heard testimony from musician and actor Kid Cudi. He told the court that he briefly dated Cassie Ventura and he believes the rap mogul, in a fit of rage and jealousy, broke into his home and coordinated the firebombing of his high end sports car. He said the pair dated only briefly, but yet it was marked by violent threats from Combs that prompted him and Ventura to stop seeing one another. Well, we know that's bad. We know that's bad and I got a lot of stuff to say about that. But not at the expense of taking time away from my next guest who is a legal analyst for abc, obviously a sports center anchor for espn, does an outstanding job for the Disney family. The one and only Ryan Smith, legal analyst extraordinaire, right here with Stephen A. How you doing, Ryan? How's everything?

[Ryan Smith]

Yeah, man, I'm good. How are you doing?

[Stephen A. Smith]

I'm doing all right. So you heard that intro and is there anything there that you believe is ultra damaging to Diddy considering the charge is sex trafficking and racketeering? I mean, we know it doesn't look good for him. Domestic violence and how people feared for their lives. We get that part. But I'm still waiting to hear about sex trafficking and racketeering. Is there anything that you've heard over the last week or so that would indicate such a, such a charge is valid?

[Ryan Smith]

Yeah, absolutely. But I think the way people have to look at it is they have to look at it as a very broad puzzle that's being put Together. I think when people look at cases like this, Stephen, they look for that smoking gun. Oh, this is the thing that proves that Diddy ran a criminal enterprise and he had all these people involved to facilitate this criminal activity over a period of years. That's essentially the racketeering part. But you have to put it together methodically. So what you have is Cassie talking about what happened to her, other people talking about what they experienced. You have people coming in, talking about being flown in, doing freak offs in different states. That gives it a federal aspect. And then you have assistants talking about cleaning up, people telling Cassie different things. But she's feeling coerced to stay into relationships. That's part of the sex trafficking case. Sex trafficking case. So all of this, as hard as it might be for people to seem, all of this are pieces of a puzzle that are slowly coming together to prove the case the prosecution's offering.

[Stephen A. Smith]

I'm wondering how damaging her mother's testimony was to Diddy as opposed to herself. Herself. I mean, you're her mother. What do you mean? You was worried about your daughter's safety, but still, you know, you allowed the situation to continue for a lengthy period of time, spanning years. I don't know how believable the mom comes across when you suddenly say you were so worried about your daughter's safety. Nevertheless, we don't see. Was there any effort whatsoever to relieve your daughter from being in that situation.

[Ryan Smith]

You know, that's part of the defense's case right there. They're going to make the argument that, hey, she was voluntarily in a relationship and you didn't help get her out. But I like that you use the word allow because that's what the prosecution is really trying to hook onto. They're trying to hook onto the idea that there was no allowing because the tentacles were so deep into Cassie, the coercion was so strong, it was almost as if she wasn't able to get out. Now, I know people are going to hear that and say, look, she had free will. She was in this relationship for so long. There were many things she could have done. Absolutely. But I think part of what people are trying, what the prosecution is trying to show here with sex trafficking is the coercion can be so strong. The elements of bringing somebody in, having them used for a commercial sect act, and then force, using force, coercion, threats, things like that, to keep them in the activity makes it hard for the person to get out. You've heard people talk about how Cassie said, hey, everything I have is tied into this. In many ways, I'm paraphrasing, but when you have that kind of situation, the allowing part goes away. And for the prosecution, it's about proving it wasn't about allowing. She could not get out of this thing because of the criminal enterprise that existed.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Well, here's the interesting part, too, because David James, the former personal assistant, said that he had told Cassie to get out. Excuse me. But she said she couldn't get out. Why? Because she couldn't. Because Combs controlled so much of her life. So now we get into a tricky portion of it. Ryan. There's bosses. There's always. If you're in a subordinate role, there's always someone who could have some degree of control over your career. But that control is relatively subjective. Like certain situations you walk away from. Say, hell, no, I'm not dealing with that.

[David Falk]

Bye.

[Stephen A. Smith]

I'll walk out. I'll walk out. So one could easily argue, what do you mean, control? Because if he wasn't stopping you from walking out the door, if he wasn't stopping you from walking on with your. Walking on with your life, but you just may not have enjoyed the level of success that you're having right now. Yeah, that's not great. But in the same breath, a lot of people in America have to deal with circumstances. Not, obviously, the sex acts and all of that stuff. But I'm talking about the level of control individual with power may have over somebody's career. What do you say to that?

[Ryan Smith]

Yeah, I say that what you're talking about essentially is consent. You're talking about a situation where people can walk away. And I think that's a great point. But the flip side of that is, is she in a situation? And I'm not making the case for her, but I'm kind of coming from where the prosecution is coming from. It's so deep in some ways. And this is where things come in, like the drugging and the threats and the violence. It's so deep, the coercion and the control that the person feels like there is not a way out of the situation. Despite what assistants are saying, despite what the mother is talking about, people urging her to get out. That's part of the case they're trying to build. And that's how it broadens out to the commercial enterprise, to the criminal, to the RICO enterprise that they're alleging and the sex trafficking, that in many of these cases, people are in a situation, they're being engaged for this sex act. And that the coercion, the threats, all of that, the violence, it's so powerful. Hey, if you give an example here, hey, if you leave, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that. The drug aids. Cassie testified about how the drugging went on for a long period of time, as did the free cost that she's in this sort of fog and this haze, all of that stuff contributing to the fact that the aspect of control that some of us might feel like we have at, say, at a job where we're being mistreated and we want to leave and we just walk is different from this circumstance here. That's how they're trying to paint it.

[Stephen A. Smith]

So with that being said, I'm looking at Diddy right now and it doesn't look good for him. There's no way around that. However, I find myself asking Ryan, where are the other. Where are the other villains in all the of. Of this? Who are they? Because sex trafficking and racketeering, one man, one individual. I don't want to accuse the, you know, the district attorney of prosecutor, a grandstanding. But most people out here feel like we need to see more than just Diddy. If it's as comprehensive as they're trying to make this all seem. To that you say what?

[Ryan Smith]

Yeah, to that I say they're using assistance and other people, they're giving immunity. So you've heard people talk who have immunity in this case, who've said, hey, I was a part of this. I cleaned up certain things. I tried to get her out of there. I saw some of this stuff go down. And that's where the conspiracy aspect of this, that's where we start. Seeing as they see it, an enterprise being built operated by Diddy Diddy associated with it, to try to make these things happen over a period of years. That's where we see the freak off context come in. But you're talking about a different situation. You're talking about the bigger names, the people who might have been involved. They're not approaching that just yet. Is that a part of where they might go? In some ways, possibly. But I think for them it's easier to get the people who they know were involved based on all the evidence they secured and say, hey, we're gonna offer you an immunity if you tell us what happened. And I think for many people, this is gonna be interesting for the jury because the jury is hearing all this. And just remember, when you hear all of this, it's important for the prosecution that the jury not hear Diddy as a bad guy or a weird guy or a guy who does Crazy things, but not criminal things. The criminal part comes in when you start bringing in the associates who talk about all the different levels of things that happened. One person testified about carrying a bag of cash there. Another person talked about the payoff that was made to the hotel. All these different things to sustain the criminal enterprise. It's those people, those underlings, all those associates that he had with them that they want to get to try to build that enterprise. Not the big names that you might be thinking of.

[Stephen A. Smith]

What about the actual sex itself? And what I mean by that, Ryan, is this. If you were one of those individuals that engaged in the actual sexual activity, you are being somebody that was a participant. But isn't it possible that you may have had nothing to do with the actual sex trafficking and racketeering allegations? You were just a participant engaging in sexual activity?

[Ryan Smith]

That's right. And they had a couple. They had some people testify like that. They had a guy testify, his nickname is the Punisher, talked about how he was hired to have sex with Cassie. He's not somebody who's part of the enterprise. Who he is is somebody who was engaged to come in and have this sex trafficking activity with Cassie. The other reason why you bring in a guy like that is he talked about how freak offs happened in different states. Now you're seeing the federal aspect of this case, which is why it's a federal case and not a state case, which is why you can allege things like rico, which is why some of these charges which involve interstate commerce come into play. Because some of these activities they're alleging for the prosecution, they're saying Diddy had these things. He controlled his enterprise over multiple states and he brought people in to engage in this sex to continue the means of what he wanted to do. He used all these. This largesse, he had this power, this influence to create this criminal enterprise using these people.

[Stephen A. Smith]

But. But where are the other women other than Cassie who are alleged to have been participants in all of this?

[Ryan Smith]

I think they're going to start trying to weave some of those people in because it's not just about Cassie. There are other people I think the prosecution is going to try to bring into this case to say they were involved in this in some way. But Stephen A. For them, Cassie is the star witness. She is everything in this case. You have to believe Cassie and what she went through and believe that she is coerced.

[David Falk]

Why?

[Ryan Smith]

Because you have the video, which sticks out more than anything. When you talk about what juries see in a courtroom, you can hear testimony for days. That is harrowing. But when you see a videotape of somebody being abused, that is the one thing that sticks in your mind more than anything. More than that, also, it's the fact that she had this long standing relationship with Sean Diddy Combs. So she had a front row seat to the freak offs to everything that happened to everybody else. So she is the main player in all of this. There might be other people weaved in who were subject to this, who did it, coerced in some way, at least according to the prosecution, to try to facilitate this criminal enterprise. But it all comes down to her and how the jury sees her, which is why it's so important for the prosecution that they don't see her as a voluntary consensual partner, but rather someone who was coerced into being in this relationship and could not get out.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Are we going to see any videos of the freak offs? Because I know the media has been asking for access to that. Is that going to happen?

[Ryan Smith]

I think it's going to be debatable. I'm interested. You know, it's one of those issues where I'm just not sure. I know the defense is going to fight it tooth and nail and they have good reason. When you start seeing, as I said earlier, when you see a video that sticks with you more than anything else. So if you see giddy in a video with a bunch of people having sex for the defense, that's going to look to the jury like he's orchestrating the entire thing. Their whole point is these are parties, consensual parties. This is not anything more than that. So for them to have that video in the courtroom is extremely damaging. They're going to fight a tooth and nail and it's all going to come down to the judge. Is it the kind of evidence that's important to the prosecution's case to help prove the case and won't have the prejudicial value of disrupting the defense's case on the other side. The judge will have to decide that. But these videos, if they do come out in that courtroom, extremely damaging for Diddy because his mere presence in the video, while people are, and I'm just making, I don't know what's in them, but if people are presumably having sex with him being there, that's incredibly damaging because that's the very orchestration view that the prosecution is trying to get the jury to see.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Last question on this particular subject. And it's not necessarily a legal question. It's just your Level of expertise because of what you know about this business, about the law, about the impact on a jury, et cetera. Based on your expertise at this moment in time, even without the videos of freak offs being seen, just based strictly on Cassie Ventura's testimony, the cross examination she endured, witnesses and participants that came and testified already, including her mother. Not that she was a participant, but, you know, just having a relationship with her daughter. Does Diddy look the same, better or worse than when this trial first started?

[Ryan Smith]

Far worse. Far worse. Because we know all the details now. It's more than just what we might have read in the papers. It's more than just the scuttlebutt that people heard. Now we know the details of what went down from people who actually experienced it. And it's just from the perspective of the kind of person he was, how he treated Cassie, how she tried to get out of it. Kid Cudi talking about the threats. We had heard Kid Cudi talking about Diddy before this trial, but what he said about him being a marvel supervillain, allegations of firebombing his car, far worse. Far worse. Now. But here's the key. Being a bad guy does not make you a criminal. And so for me, this case is not fully put together yet. It's just beginning. They're just starting to put the puzzle together, but the puzzle is not complete. I think having the threat, say, for example, Kid Cudi shows things like obstruction. We're trying to threaten him to keep people silenced, to say, what's happening in this criminal enterprise. But do we clearly see the enterprise yet? Do we clearly see the sex trafficking yet? Are we clearly, as a jury, believing that this is an involuntary relationship and a consenting relationship? I think that remains to be seen. But no matter what, no matter how you come out of this, in no way does he look good. He looks far worse. And he looks like a person who is completely out of control to this jury. I think if I'm sitting in that jury box, the question I have, if I'm a juror, is, is he just an extremely bad person or is he a criminal?

[Stephen A. Smith]

Last question. I apologize. One thing you just said that made me think of this.

[Ryan Smith]

Yeah.

[Stephen A. Smith]

What if they don't know whether or not sex trafficking and racketeering has been proven, but they consider him so despicable and they consider his behavior criminal because of what he was seeing on video doing the Cassie and what have you that they convict him anyway? I mean, if they find him guilty, it's not as if a judge or defense attorney is going to be able to definitively say, you know, what your case, you know, sex trafficking and racketeering was not why you made this decision. You made this decision against him because of his acts of domestic violence. It's not like they're going to be able to prove that. If the jury comes back and says, we think your behind needs to go to jail, I mean, what can you do?

[Ryan Smith]

You're making a couple. You're making me think of a couple of things there. The first thing is, I think no matter what happens here, they're going to appeal. So they're going to appeal and they're going to argue that the case wasn't proven. The defense is just going to say they didn't prove the elements of the case, and they're going to try to get information to try to figure out what happened here. But more than that, they're going to say the elements of the case weren't proven. The other thing is, you're talking about, what if a jury looks at this and says, didn't rise to the level of RICO or sex trafficking, but it's something lesser. Sometimes juries get compromise verdicts. They look at the other charges and they say, well, I see the obstruction of justice, or I see elements of the conspiracy charges, the lesser charges, so let's convict them of that stuff. Stuff, and not the bigger stuff that I don't necessarily see, like rico. So that is something defense also wants to look out for and the prosecution doesn't want to happen. The prosecution wants them to see a full enterprise. They want to get as many years in prison as they can. And when you got an obstruction connection, that's not a lot of time. So the jury has a lot of ways they can go here, which is why it's so important for them to put the puzzle together fully if you're the prosecution. But there is always a risk when you're trying a case like this that a jury doesn't fully see what you're trying to explain. And they either compromise or they end up in a mistrial. Or for the prosecution, worst of all worlds, they say, not guilty.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Ryan, before I let you get on out of here, I need to switch subjects and I need your counsel on something here. Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University's ability to enroll international students in its escalating battle with the Ivy League school, saying thousands of current students must transfer to other schools or leave the United States of America. Just as an aside to our audience, before I ask you about this, the Department of Homeland Security says Harvard has created an unsafe campus environment by allowing, quote, anti American, pro terrorist agitators, end quote, to assault Jewish students on campus. It also accused Harvard of coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party, saying it hosted and trained members of a Chinese paramilitary group as recently as 2024. This morning, just this morning, Harvard challenged the decision, calling it unconstitutional retaliation for defying the White House's political demands. In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, Harvard said the government's actions violates the First Amendment and will have an immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders. And then hours later, federal judge temporary, temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out its plan. Your thoughts about this situation and how it will ultimately unfold based on your level of expertise, sir?

[Ryan Smith]

Yeah. First of all, Harvard is looking at this like a First Amendment issue. And they're seeing this really as the government trying to come in and determine what they teach, who teaches it and how they do it. And they're saying that violates their First Amendment rights. The government on the other side is saying, hey, you are facilitating on campus anti Semitism, things of that nature, and that's why we need to take certain action against you. But what this really is is an ongoing fight between these two sides. And from Harvard's perspective, it's the government trying to control how they run their university, which, if you're a university, you have to look at that and say, that cannot happen. That's a slippery slope for us. This day it's this thing, the next day it's the next thing, the third day, they're controlling exactly how we run our university, and that can't happen. So how this plays out, I think right now, as you said, the tro, it's been blocked, the order has been blocked. But this is, I think the government in many cases has done this recently. The government has been testing the limits of the law, testing what they can do to exercise control over what they see at certain campuses, over how they view those campuses should be run. So I see this eventually going to the higher courts, if not the Supreme Court, because this has been sort of the pattern of the government recently. It's been this idea of, hey, if it's not working the way we want it to work, or if we see something happening that we think is wrong, then we're going to try to put down a real heavy hammer on them, see if there's pushback, and then let it go to the courts and see how it plays out. I would not be surprised if this ends up in the Supreme Court at the end of the day.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Ryan Smith, legal analyst extraordinaire for ABC Sports, center, anchor for espn, and a host of other things the brothers gifted. Make no mistake about it. Honored to have him on the show. As always. Enjoy your weekend, my man. We will talk soon. You take care of yourself, all right? Thank you so much.

[Ryan Smith]

You too, man. Take care.

[Stephen A. Smith]

One and only Ryan Smith, right here on the Stephen A. Smith Show. That's it for this edition of the Stephen A. Smith Show. I've covered the whole gamut. I gave you everything. Now you got it. Enjoy your weekend, everybody. Thanks for joining the Stephen A. Smith Show. I'll holla at you on Monday. Until then, peace and love, everybody. Stephen A. Signing off.

[David Falk]

Why is a soap opera western like Yellowstone so wildly successful? The American west with Dan Flores is the latest show from the Meat Eater Podcast Network. So join me starting two Tuesday, May 6th, where we'll delve into stories of the west and come to understand how it helps inform the ways in which we experience the region today.

[Ryan Smith]

Listen to the American west with Dan Flores on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Stephen A. Smith]

I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lodd. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This is kind of star studded a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at the recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to it. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs Podcast Season 2 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast. You're listening to an iHeart podcast.