In case you’re living under a rock and unaware, Joel Embiid pushed Marcus Hayes following an argument in the Sixers locker room on Saturday night. Reporters explained it as a hand on the shoulder, something in the push/shove/stiff arm family of upper body actions, and the Inquirer described it this way in a Sunday morning writeup from Sixers beat writer Gina Mizell:

Joel Embiid struck and shoved Inquirer columnist Marcus Hayes during a profanity-laced altercation in the 76ers’ locker room following Saturday’s home loss to the Memphis Grizzlies.

Embiid, whose open hand made contact with Hayes’ neck and collarbone area, was angry about the columnist’s recent work criticizing him for missing the start of the 2024-25 season due to a knee condition following surgery last February.

…

In a statement, Inquirer editor and senior vice president Gabriel Escobar said, “Marcus is an experienced and accomplished columnist who offers sharp and illuminating commentary grounded in his observations. You are free to disagree with what he says, but a physical assault is unwarranted and untenable and we are taking this matter very seriously.”

This thing has been litigated to death over the past 72 hours. The original column that upset Embiid included lines about his son and deceased brother, and Hayes apologized after the Inquirer removed the original passage and replaced it with a new lede. It seems like the majority of people out there agree that Embiid was justified in feeling the way he did, but that the push/shove/stiff arm was the wrong thing to do because it will lead to a suspension and/or fine.

“Advancing the story,” as they say, the Inquirer response is somewhat of an eye roller. They’re the only ones describing the incident with the combination of “struck and shoved.” Kyle Neubeck called it a shove. Kevin Cooney said Embiid “pushed Hayes on the shoulder” and Adam Aaronson said that Embiid “became physical with Hayes, putting his hands in the area of Hayes’ shoulders.” The Inquirer’s Keith Pompey originally called it a punch and used the word “assaulted” before changing his wording to “shoved.” Reading everything that was written about this, I didn’t see the word “strike” or “struck” used by any non-Inquirer media, so interpret that how you will.

What’s interesting is to think about what the Inquirer thinks about this. For starters, editors should have never allowed that story to go to publication with the original lede. The column itself was straightforward Marcus stuff, and totally fair, but any editor paying half attention over there should have flagged those first two paragraphs immediately. Just leave the son and the deceased brother out of it, a general “best practice” when deciding what’s good for print and what’s not. Reminder, this is the same newspaper that created a messy employee revolt as a result of the “Buildings Matter, Too,” headline, which resulted in a wave of old white guy buyouts and a seismic DEI pivot after an audit from Temple University. You’d think leadership would be extra cautious because of how the last half-decade has gone over there.

RE: Marcus himself, Gabe Escobar writes that Hayes “offers sharp and illuminating commentary grounded in his observations,” which I guess is how he describes provocateur column writing. Marcus is basically 94 WIP in written form, and sometimes literal form when he’s on their airwaves. That’s not me being a dickhead, it’s a statement of truth. Hayes is to print what Angelo Cataldi was to the radio, or what any talking head is to the hot take television shows. You take hard stances and critique players and teams, which results in pointed reactions from both sides while generating engagement at the same time. A few years ago, someone told me that Marcus columns do pretty well for the Inquirer, at least compared to the more straightforward beat writing, so if they have something that people click on, which generates pageviews and moves the needle, then yeah, they’re probably going to stick with it, and they’re going to defend their employee when things like this happen.


You just wonder if it’s worth it in 2024. Marcus has been called out by A.J. Brown and Joel Embiid this year alone. The latter culminated with a physical altercation. If Pagan or one of our freelancers got into it with a player, I’d be embarrassed and would consider resigning, because a dispute advancing to that point would indicate an editorial failure on my part. So if you’re the Inquirer, at what point does this stuff begin to influence your approach? How many hate clicks and how much engagement is required to offset the backlash you get every time a Marcus column angers an athlete and/or fans? I’m genuinely curious. If I had Inquirer leadership in front of me, I’d ask them “is this worth it? is this a net positive?” Holding players accountable is important, and Marcus is great at what he does, but is this the way we’re gonna operate in 2024? You tell me.