Alright — here’s the
Jon Gruden Leak Motive Matrix.
I’ve ranked suspects by
Access (A),
Motive (M), and
Risk Tolerance (R) on a 1–5 scale.
5 = high/strong, 1 = low/weak.
1. Roger Goodell — NFL Commissioner
- A: 5 — Full, unrestricted access to Wilkinson findings.
- M: 5 — Personal target in Gruden’s emails; opportunity to eliminate a critic and signal league “values.”
- R: 3 — Publicly leaking is risky for the league’s image if traced back, but plausible deniability exists via media channels.
- Overall: Very high suspect; has both motive and means.
2. Jeff Pash — NFL General Counsel
- A: 5 — Direct custodian of documents once at NFL HQ.
- M: 4 — Close ally of Goodell; leaking deflects attention from his own friendly exchanges with Bruce Allen.
- R: 2 — Risk-averse lawyer; would likely act through a proxy if involved.
- Overall: Strong suspect, but more likely to authorize than personally execute a leak.
3. Lisa Friel — Special Counsel for Investigations
- A: 4 — Legal oversight role; had email review summaries.
- M: 3 — Possible desire to set public precedent for accountability.
- R: 2 — Career investigator; typically avoids direct media leaks.
- Overall: Medium suspect — access and moral high ground, but less direct motive against Gruden.
4. Wilkinson Law Firm Staff
- A: 3 — Saw emails during review phase.
- M: 2 — Little personal stake in Gruden; focus was WFT harassment culture.
- R: 1 — NDAs + high career risk = very unlikely to leak.
- Overall: Low probability; wrong target for their investigative goal.
5. NFL Executive Staffer (Unnamed)
- A: 4 — Works under legal or communications branch.
- M: 4 — Could curry favor with Goodell or exec team; use leak to control narrative.
- R: 4 — Career built on backchanneling; might see risk as part of the job.
- Overall: Very plausible if acting as intermediary to WSJ/NYT.
Likeliest Leak Path (Probability Chain)
Goodell/Pash circle (motive + access) → trusted NFL staffer or PR contact (risk-tolerant) → WSJ, then NYT.
If you want, I can also
map the timeline of these leaks against other NFL scandals in 2021 — that really makes it look like a strategic distraction from the Washington investigation itself.
No mention of the DeMaurice Smith vote as a potential motivation? Seems like the potential financial impact to the league could greatly exceed all the motivations given.
So how would DeMaurice Smith impact that? Are you implying that a new head of the NFLPA would have encouraged players to take more of an economic stand or cultural stand against the owners? That's an interesting angle. Is that what you're getting at? The timing sure is interesting.
That was pretty much the reporting at the time, yes.
New York Times:
The email surfaced just hours before the player representatives for the 32 teams voted to give Smith a fifth term as the union’s leader, this time without having to hold a general election. Smith was not endorsed by the union’s selection committee earlier this week, a sign that he was facing unusually stiff opposition within his own ranks. Some players have accused Smith of being too conciliatory to the league.
There is reason to believe the league’s owners prefer that he stay, and such an inflammatory email, first
reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by The New York Times, complicated the vote for players who opposed Smith.
While Smith has been combative with the N.F.L. at times, he is viewed favorably by many owners who worked closely with him last season to get the players back on the field during the pandemic.
As I understand it, the other emails came out after the release of that first one with comments towards Smith. If D. Smith was viewed by ownership as being more willing to work with the league... I mean a single CBA provision can probably be worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars if it goes your way.
And while I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, the timing of releasing a single mail specific to D. Smith right before the vote, and then releasing more later, seems kind of odd if the motivation is something like Goodell being upset he got trashed in the email. If that's it, why not just release them all at once? But If the intent was to help Smith get elected, it might make more sense. They release the one, and then seeing the media was already raising the possibility of the impact on the vote, a further release would probably reset the news cycle away from that narrative. Plus the other motivations you mentioned could also have encouraged a larger release.
I mean it is only a theory, but it explains the oddness of the single email release and the timing better.
