Raiders coach Klint Kubiak’s remark on Tuesday that he will “be calling [Tom Brady] a lot” has sharpened scrutiny of Brady’s dual role as a Fox analyst and part-owner of the Las Vegas Raiders. The comment, made publicly to reporters, came amid already‑heightened concern about whether Brady’s broadcasting job could create competitive advantages for the team he partly owns. Images earlier this season of Brady sitting with Raiders coaches during a Monday night game against the Los Angeles Chargers intensified those worries. The exchange has revived debate over whether current NFL practice and ownership rules adequately prevent information flow that might affect roster or coaching decisions.
Key takeaways
- Tom Brady holds both a Fox broadcasting role and an ownership stake in the Raiders, creating overlapping professional duties that critics say can present conflicts of interest.
- Klint Kubiak told reporters on Tuesday he plans to call Brady frequently, a remark that underscored how personal access might translate into a practical advantage.
- Brady was seen on camera alongside Raiders coaches during a Monday night game vs. the Chargers, wearing a headset and viewing a tablet, which many observers said made the access visible and concrete.
- Former player‑turned‑broadcaster Adam Archuleta noted that broadcasters routinely speak with players and coaches week to week, giving owners with on‑air roles unique informal evaluation opportunities.
- Some dismiss critics by pointing to the Raiders’ poor performance to date — a point critics counter: objections will intensify if the Raiders become a contender.
- Potential remedies discussed publicly include asking Brady to choose between his Fox role and Raiders ownership if complaints grow or rulemakers act.
Background
The controversy rests on a simple tension: broadcasters gather information and cultivate relationships as part of their job, while owners are expected to protect competitive integrity. Historically, NFL owners, executives and coaches have been subject to tampering rules and restrictions on direct contact with personnel from other teams. Broadcasters, by contrast, commonly interview players and coaches and participate in production meetings and pregame work that can reveal impressions about personalities, schemes and staff dynamics.
Tom Brady’s move into team ownership while continuing a weekly national broadcasting role is unprecedented in modern NFL practice, and it forced observers and league officials to reassess how access can be managed. The debate intensified when Brady appeared in the Raiders’ coaching area during a nationally televised game, prompting optics concerns that go beyond abstract rule language. For opponents and rule watchers, the question is less whether Brady intends to act unethically than whether the combination of roles creates an unavoidable structural advantage.
Main event
On Tuesday, Klint Kubiak, the Raiders’ new head coach, joked to reporters that Brady had given him his cell number and that Kubiak planned to call “a lot.” The quip, while light in tone, put a spotlight on the informal channels of communication that could exist between a coach and a part‑owner who also spends significant time around league personnel as an analyst.
Observers point to day‑to‑day broadcasting work — production meetings, interviews, and pregame discussions — as routine opportunities to assess players’ leadership traits, coaching approaches and emerging tactical trends. Those impressions are often subjective, but they matter in personnel decisions such as free‑agent signings or coaching hires. The worry is that a broadcaster‑owner could parlay those impressions into recruiting or roster advantages.
Critics also referenced a recent televised moment when Brady sat with Raiders coaches during a Monday night matchup with the Los Angeles Chargers, wearing a headset and watching a tablet alongside staff. For many, those visuals made the potential conflict feel immediate rather than hypothetical. Defenders of Brady point to no concrete evidence of rules violations and note the Raiders’ lackluster results while he has held his media role.
Analysis & implications
At issue is the difference between access and misuse. Broadcasters routinely develop close, repeated contact with players and coaches; that access yields impressions about character, fit and new ideas. If an owner has the same access, even without explicit sharing of confidential play information, the owner could gain a recruiting or personnel scouting edge. The NFL’s current rules target active tampering and facility access, but they are less explicit about how media access should be treated when an analyst also holds an ownership stake.
The practical impact depends on several variables: whether Brady participates in or receives private team meetings, how often he speaks directly with coaches about football matters, and whether other teams believe any intelligence from those interactions has been used in roster construction. If the Raiders emerge as a competitive force, league rivals are more likely to lodge formal complaints and press for rule clarification or change — perhaps requiring a choice between an on‑air role and ownership.
From a governance perspective, the NFL will face a balancing act: preserving media access and broadcaster independence while preventing unfair competitive advantages tied to ownership. Solutions could range from internal clearances and firewalls to explicit prohibitions on owners maintaining national analyst roles. Any change would require stakeholder buy‑in and a practical way to define and monitor prohibited information flows.
Comparison & data
| Role | Typical access | Restrictions |
|---|---|---|
| Team owner | Front office meetings, franchise strategy, personnel hires | Tampering rules, limited access to other teams’ private meetings |
| National broadcaster/analyst | Interviews, production meetings, preseason access, game‑day interactions | Editorial independence, not party to team decisions |
| Combined owner + broadcaster | Both sets of access sequentially or concurrently, plus personal relationships | Ambiguous: existing tampering rules may not cover informal information flow |
The table illustrates why critics see a structural gap: the combination bundles access types that were previously separate. Even if no formal rule has been broken, the merged perspective — hands‑on ownership plus weekly insider exposure — creates novel oversight challenges.
Reactions & quotes
Raiders coach Klint Kubiak’s public line prompted immediate commentary about optics and access. Kubiak framed his remark as casual but unmistakable in signaling frequent contact.
“He made the mistake of giving me his cell phone number, so he might wish he never did that because I’m going to be calling him a lot.”
Klint Kubiak, Raiders head coach (comment to reporters)
Former NFL safety and current game analyst Adam Archuleta summarized why that kind of repeated contact can matter in practical personnel terms, pointing out that analysts often develop informed, subjective judgments through week‑to‑week interaction.
“Tom absolutely has an advantage that no other owner gets — it’s the access: talking ball with players and coaches week after week.”
Adam Archuleta, former NFL player and broadcaster
League insiders and competing clubs have so far responded cautiously; many say they are watching how the situation evolves rather than filing immediate grievances. That stance could change quickly if the Raiders’ performance or personnel moves spark suspicion.
Unconfirmed
- There is no public, verified evidence that Brady has passed confidential, play‑specific information from his Fox role to the Raiders.
- It is unconfirmed how frequently Brady speaks about football strategy with Raiders staff or whether Kubiak’s calls will involve substantive tactical discussion.
- There is no official league determination yet that Brady’s dual role violates NFL rules; any formal inquiry or policy change has not been announced.
Bottom line
Kubiak’s jocular promise to call Brady “a lot” crystallizes a longer‑running unease: a nationally prominent analyst who is also a team owner occupies a position that can blur information and relationship boundaries. For now, the concern is principally structural and reputational — visible actions and optics, rather than documented misconduct.
The practical consequences will hinge on two forces: the Raiders’ competitiveness and transparency about interactions between Brady and team staff. If Las Vegas begins to contend, rival teams and the league are likely to press for clearer guardrails or policy changes, potentially forcing a choice between a national media role and franchise ownership.