Kyrie Irving has never been one to bite his tongue. And in his latest comments, the eight-time NBA All-Star turned the tables on one of his loudest critics — ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith.
In a pointed response to recent remarks made by Smith about his NBA contract, Irving didn’t hold back.
“I’m going to discuss his contract. I’m going to discuss Stephen A’s contract and I’mma say: ‘I don’t think you’re worth it,’” Irving said.
That statement was in direct response to Stephen A. Smith’s critique of the Dallas Mavericks guard’s recent deal — a three-year, $119 million contract signed this summer and which averages just under $40 million annually.
Smith, during a recent segment on ESPN expressed that Irving was “lowballed,” arguing that he deserved more in today’s NBA salary climate.
“In today’s economy where you got cats getting paid $55, $60 million plus, you couldn’t give this guy at least $43 to $45 million a year? Remember, he was supposed to be getting a player option that would have given him $43 million. So, to me, at $119 million, that is a fraction less than $40 million per. Kyrie Irving deserves more than that,” said Smith.
“And so it has me looking at ownership because I’m saying, ‘Okay, if this were Mark Cuban, he would’ve had more.’ No question about it. He would’ve made that investment.”
The critique, while actually a compliment toward Irving’s talent, didn’t sit well with the NBA champion — perhaps due to years of media scrutiny from Smith and others. Rather than accept the nod, Kyrie took the opportunity to scrutinize Smith’s own deal — a five-year, $100 million contract extension signed with ESPN in March of this year.
Irving’s rebuttal essentially flipped the narrative: if Smith feels entitled to comment on players’ paychecks, then players should feel empowered to do the same about media salaries.
Smith’s new contract makes him the highest-paid on-air personality in ESPN history — a benchmark many in the industry celebrated, but that Irving clearly questioned.
The moment underscores a longstanding tension between some athletes and the media members who cover them. Irving, who has had a complicated relationship with sports media throughout his career, seems increasingly willing to speak his mind — not just about basketball, but about the broader power dynamics in sports and media.
What makes this clash particularly compelling is the mutual respect — and mutual tension — underlying it. Smith wasn’t slandering Irving’s value; in fact, he was defending it. But Irving, aware of Smith’s frequent criticism in years past, seemed more focused on the messenger than the message.
In a media era where TV personalities command massive salaries while simultaneously critiquing athletes for their own, Irving’s comments strike a chord. For Kyrie, it’s not just about who’s getting paid — it’s about who gets to decide what “worth” really means.
And in this case, Kyrie decided to return the favor.
