Few figures in sports media evoke as much simultaneous adoration and exasperation as Stephen A. Smith. On one hand, he’s an undeniable ratings machine—his exuberant delivery and larger‑than‑life presence on shows like First Take make him one of the most recognizable voices in the business. On the other hand, a growing chorus of viewers, athletes, and critics say they’ve had enough. This investigation will explore how Stephen A.’s rise turned into fatigue, why many believe his commentary is wearing thin, and what this says about sports media in 2025.

The Rise of a Sports Media Titan

Stephen A. began his sports‑media career as a columnist before transitioning into television, where his impassioned style found a perfect home. He became a co‑host on First Take in 2012 and steadily converted that platform into a dominant presence. In 2025, he inked a reported 5‑year deal with ESPN worth at least $100 million, cementing his place as one of the highest‑paid sports commentators in America. His brand is built around big takes, bold pronouncements, and a voice that refuses to whisper. That combination drove ratings, kept him in the spotlight, and positioned him as the go‑to figure whenever sports drama flared.

The Fatigue: Why Fans Are Getting Tired

Overexposure

Part of the backlash stems simply from ubiquity. Voices in online forums argue that Smith appearseverywhere—morning shows, afternoon segments, NBA specials—and that familiarity has bred irritation. One breaking piece put it bluntly:

ESPN Faces Criticism for Overloading Coverage with Stephen A. Smith … Maybe using him for every big moment dilutes the moment.” In simpler terms: if everything he does is the “Stephen A. segment,” then nothing feels special anymore.

Style Over Substance

Critics argue that Smith’s approach emphasises theatrics more than insight. On Reddit:

He just comes across as an argumentative asshole. He always has some sensationalist way of presenting rather obvious and not very interesting facts or opinions.”

And anotherHe’s been a loud sports entertainer for so long now I don’t even remember the era of him having serious takes.”In a landscape where many viewers crave deeper analysis, this style can feel shallow.

Questionable Takes and Credibility

Even major athletes and coaches have pushed back. For example, superstar Kevin Durant called Smith “a clown” after Smith questioned Durant’s leadership on‑air. And when Smith suggested Stephen Curry’s leadership was in doubt, coach Steve Kerr responded:

For anybody to question Steph Curry’s leadership, it’s actually kind of sickening to me.”Then there’s the incident involving Shohei Ohtani — Smith referred to him as “the dude that needs an interpreter” in the U.S., a comment that prompted wide backlash and a public apology. These examples amplify a narrative: the man who is so good at being seen may be less effective at being respected.

Persona vs. Audience Reality

Smith’s brand leans into confrontation, volume and certainty. But as one redditor put it:

It’s obvious how uncomfortable he makes everyone around him.Many viewers feel that his persona overshadows the sport, making commentary feel more like a soap‑opera than intelligent analysis. One petition aimed at removing him as a representative voice for fans of the New York Knicks stated plainlyHis narrative does not reflect the true sentiments of those of us who remain loyal … We want real fans … to be the voices that resonate.” That kind of frustration speaks to a disconnect between the personality and parts of the audience.

So What’s the Impact?

On Sports Media

Smith’s prominence reflects a shift in sports media: from in‑depth journalism to personality‑driven programming. His success proves that engagement often trumps analysis. But the growing weariness hints at a saturation point. When every segment becomes a Stephen A. moment, the uniqueness of big events erodes; viewers may begin to tune out not just him, but the format.

On Viewer Experience

For viewers who want thoughtful discussion, the exaggerated delivery and hyperbole can feel exhausting. Reddit users and petitions alike describe a reflexive avoidance: changing channel, switching off debates altogether, or skipping analyses they deem “just drama.”

I just actively avoid him… His points are just so overly exaggerated … I last about 20 seconds before I use my remote.”
This matters: if your lead commentator becomes a reason some viewers stop watching, that’s bad for public engagement in sport.

On the Athletes and the Subjects

When Smith’s commentary is perceived as unfair, uninformed, or sensationalist, it risks undermining the subjects—athletes, teams, coaches—who are more than just media fodder. The tensions with Durant and Coach Kerr show how the debate can become adversarial, not constructive. That dynamic can harden relationships and create defensive cycles rather than open dialogue.

Why the Fatigue Now?

Several factors converge to explain why the irritation is rising in 2025:

Media Saturation: The sheer volume of his presence means novelty has worn off.

Audience Maturation: Viewers are more critical of pundits and want depth, not constant shouting.

Cultural Sensitivity: In an era of heightened awareness around language, identity and representation, missteps (like the Ohtani comment) carry amplified consequences.

Business Pressure: As ESPN leans heavily on Smith for marquee faces, the risk of “over‑branding” grows — if everything special is Stephen A., then nothing is special.

Contrast with Other Voices: Newer voices in sports media emphasise analytics, insider knowledge and quieter presentation, making the loud‑mouth style feel increasingly relic‑like.

What Could Change?

The question is whether Smith himself or the networks that feature him adjust. Some possibilities:

Refined Delivery: If Smith dialled back some of the theatrics and focused more on nuance, his voice might regain freshness.

Selective Engagement: Limiting his appearances to high‑impact segments might restore ‘specialness’.

Differentiated Roles: Positioning him as a personality rather than a primary analyst could reduce fatigue for those seeking serious sports discussion.

Audience Segmentation: Recognising that he appeals to a certain demographic and offering other formats for alternate viewers could reduce backlash.

Improved Substance: Deepening analysis, reducing sensationalism, and ensuring commentary about players/teams is well‑informed and fair could rebuild credibility.

Conclusion

Stephen A. Smith is a paradox: enormously successful yet increasingly polarising. He has carved a niche in sports media that few have reached. But success comes with a cost — when ubiquity and style overshadow substance, even the biggest voices can wear out their welcome.The frustration voiced by fans, critics, athletes, and even coaches is not just about one man shouting on TV: it’s a reflection of how sports commentary is changing — and how audience expectations are evolving. Smith thrives in an environment that values boldness and clicks; but as viewers demand more thoughtful and respectful discourse, that environment may be shifting.