Ryan Clark's mid-show layoff from ESPN shows how not to handle staff cuts

Welcome back to Bucholtz Sports Media. This post is free for everyone thanks to our premium subscribers, who you can join here. Now, on to the piece...

Ryan Clark exits 'NFL Live' mid-show after learning news he was laid off as part of wider Disney/ESPN cuts

There have been countless rounds of layoffs at media companies over the years, and those are far from ideal even if handled as well as possible. But something regularly surprising to me there is that many companies seemingly haven't learned from how the handling of how past layoffs from them and others has been perceived. There's clear evidence that layoffs are a story that spreads much wider if the method and timing of communicating those layoffs is questionable. And the latest example of that comes from Ryan Clark departing ESPN's NFL Live mid-show on Monday.

That move came after Clark found out he was set to be included in a wider range of ESPN/Disney cuts. That perhaps was at least partly about Fox-owned OutKick publishing a story that Clark was out at 5:04 p.m. ET, just four minutes after NFL Live went on the air. As per Awful Announcing's Sam Neumann, the decision for Clark to not finish the program was "mutual" (and if it wasn't, Clark certainly has high-profile platforms he can use to tell his own side of the story, from his The Pivot Podcast with Fred Taylor and Channing Crowder to his well-followed social media accounts). Here's more on the timing of Clark's exit from Andrew Marchand of The Athletic:

Oddly enough, as of 9 p.m. ET Monday night, a clip from that final NFL Live featuring Clark was the latest post from the NFL on ESPN X account. Here's one of the last things Clark said on ESPN's platforms:

NFL on ESPN @ESPNNFL "He can have a young Travis Kelce effect for this New York Giants offense." —@Realrclark25 on Isaiah Likely possibly becoming a key component for the Giants 👀 9:12 PM • Jul 20, 2026 77 Retweets 1551 Likes Read 205 replies

​

Parting ways with Clark is one thing. While I generally like his work on NFL-focused shows in particular (the takes he drops on more take-focused shows such as First Take and Get Up can be debated more), he has caused some controversies, with Marchand spotlighting one from September where he said "That's the non-player in you" to criticize an opinion from colleague Peter Schrager. And he makes a high salary (reportedly more than $2 million annually as per Marchand), and he had plenty of public drama with ESPN ahead of a three-year extension he signed in 2024. So it's not impossible to imagine why network executives might have selected him as someone to include in this particular round of cost-cutting.

Whether Disney and ESPN need to do these kinds of layoffs given their success and market position is another debate. And there's also a big case for the value Clark has brought to ESPN over the years, regularly showing up across shows and understanding the assignment based on where he is. While I may not personally enjoy First Take or Get Up at all, there's clearly an audience for those debate-focused shows, and Clark has proven able to deliver the takes that sell on those shows while also providing more credible and nuanced analysis on the likes of SportsCenter and NFL Live (which is perhaps where he'll be most missed; a key part of what's made that show so successful is the chemistry amongst the regulars of Clark, Laura Rutledge, Dan Orlovsky, Mina Kimes, and Marcus Spears, the last two of whom I've spoken to about that).

Clark will definitely be missed at ESPN, by both colleagues and viewers. And the thought here is the company should not have laid him off, but also, that much of this whole round of cost-cutting is spectacularly unnecessary for them. There's maybe a business case for some layoffs as part of the integration of NFL Network with ESPN's wider business. But ESPN and Disney beyond that have both been doing just fine in the current era, are poised for even more success, and don't need to be in heavy cost-cutting mode.

But regardless of where you stand on Clark's specific future value or lack thereof to ESPN, the company's handling of this seems clumsy at best. Marchand noted on X that ESPN had planned on informing Clark of his layoff tomorrow along with other affected employees, only making the decision to tell him mid-show Monday "due to media inquiries about his departure":

Yes, having someone find out they're being let go from media reports is bad. And it's perhaps even worse than telling them yourself mid-show. However, there are countless ways to avoid that. The first and foremost is not to schedule someone you're planning to letting go Tuesday for multiple shifts Monday; this is bad practice even at a non-public-facing job, but it's worse when those shifts are high-profile national TV appearances, when there is a lot of reporting on and public interest in who gets those spots, and when it's very likely that that reporting will appear at a time that isn't perfectly in line with what you'd like internally. And ESPN has been quite willing to pay people not to work in the past, including paying some past laid-off employees simply not to report for 18 months (although with insufficient carve-outs to stop them from reporting on their social media platforms). That's perhaps swinging too far the other way, but not scheduling someone who's likely to be a focus of media attention around layoffs to work the day before those layoffs seems like common sense here.

In fact, it might have been much smarter for ESPN to communicate this news to Clark this weekend, and then let it leak shortly afterwards. This weekend happened to have many massive sports events to divert attention, including soccer's FIFA World Cup Final and golf's (British) Open Championship. And separating Clark's layoff from the wider layoff story probably would have been beneficial for them. As someone who has exhaustively covered ESPN layoffs in the past, there have been dramatically-different levels of interest from readers when those layoffs have hit front-facing people like Clark versus when they've focused on behind-the-scenes personnel, even with similar numbers of lost jobs. That's unfortunate and perhaps unfair, as those of us who cover sports media regularly know how critical those behind-the-scenes figures can be (and mass behind-the-scenes layoffs can be just as important on multiple bottom-line fronts), but "ESPN layoffs" are of much less interest to the wider public than "ESPN layoffs, including Ryan Clark." And the timing of this move means the wider layoffs are a key part of the Clark layoff story, and references there will fly both ways, whereas an earlier parting of the ways with him would have separated those stories more cleanly and drawn less attention to the broader layoffs.

The point of this piece isn't particularly to argue whether ESPN was right or wrong in letting Clark go, or in conducting layoffs at all. Both of those aspects can be debated. But what's less disputable is that the way this played out Monday, with Clark finding out about his impending layoff mid-show and then "mutually" exiting before the end of the show, was far from ideal for the company. And it seemingly could have been avoided if they'd thought a little more about how far in advance to inform high-profile figures, and planned their TV schedules accordingly.

Have thoughts on this story? Feedback is always welcome, either via email at andrew@andrewbucholtz.com or on Bluesky or X.