Sports Illustrated's publisher terminates most of staff in mass layoff, union says

I did not know the magazine was in trouble? I hope they can save the magazine too?!! So much for print media?!!

The publication's staff received layoff notices on Friday, the union said.

Sports Illustrated employees were notified on Friday that a "significant number, if not all" of their jobs were set to be eliminated, according to a new statement from the publication's union.

The Sports Illustrated union posted on X: "This is another difficult day in what has been a difficult four years for Sports Illustrated under Arena Group (previously The Maven) stewardship. We are calling on ABG to ensure the continued publication of SI and allow it to serve our audience in the way it has for nearly 70 years."

Mitch Goldich, unit chair of the SI union and NFL editor, said in a statement that the union will continue to fight for the publication.

"We have fought together as a union to maintain the standard of this storied publication that we love, and to make sure our workers are treated fairly for the value they bring to this company. It is a fight we will continue," he said.

Sports Illustrated has been owned by Authentic Brands Group since 2019 but sold its publishing rights to The Arena Group. This week, The Arena Group also announced a significant reduction to its workforce of 100 employees.

In December 2023, Sports Illustrated CEO Ross Levinsohn was fired by The Arena Group's board to "improve the operational efficiency and revenue of the company," the company said at the time. Manoj Bhargava was named interim CEO.

Operations President and COO Andrew Kraft, media president Rob Barrett and corporate counsel Julie Fenster were also terminated late last year.

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for The Arena Group said, "Even though the publishing license has been revoked, we will continue to produce Sports Illustrated until this is resolved."

The spokesperson noted that the company is in "active discussions" with ABG but they "aren't the only ones."

"We hope to be the company to take SI forward but if not, we are confident that someone will. If it is another business, we will support with the transition so the legacy of Sports Illustrated doesn't suffer," the spokesperson said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/spo...rminates-staff-mass-layoff/story?id=106519272


I'll miss the swim suit issues?!!

 

I don't read SI, but how woke were they?

 

Considering their content, some of which was dedicated to exploiting women for the eyes of the desperate, I am guessing not very "woke".

 

Are you sure they were women?

 

Another victim of Brandons "great economy" lol

 

SI lost it's way a looooong time ago. I quit reading it long ago, the last time I picked up a copy was in a doctors office so long ago I can't remember when.

 

How is it exploiting women?

 

Really?

 

Why is that considered exploiting women?

 

he must think they were forced to pose without compensation and against their will

 

If SI is exploiting women, then what about beauty contests or even the WNBA? How about cheerleaders? Or maybe even all the pretty ladies we see in movies and commercials? Are sex workers being exploited? We know how much the left defends that particular industry. To me it seems both parties are getting what they want.

 

No, I'm well aware of how women are "exploited of their own free will for money"; it's been going on for all of human history. That doesn't make it right, or any less exploitation.

 

what is really disgusting are Karens and other busybodies who want to tell women who are willing ready and able to benefit from their looks, that they are being "exploited" and it's wrong. Where does it stop? Go to any Five star restaurant or exclusive country club=what do you see? a much higher proportion of very attractive women paired with rich guys. Turn on the TV news-what do you see? Lots of photogenic women doing everything from the news anchor to weather reporting. I used to date a bar manager at a TGIF. One of her friends got promoted to bar and asked my then GF why the other lady bartenders got tipped better (the newbie had a great personality). My GF noted the other bartenders wore makeup, short skirts etc and "Michelle" was wearing baggy black pants and no makeup. The next night "Michelle" showed up in a patent leather black skirt and make up and she noted her tips tripled. was she "exploited"?

 

This woke.

 

Who actually buys magazines anymore?

Must be a boomer thing.

 

Yes, seriously. We live in a world where women in little clothing was actually encouraged by feminists not to long ago. The world adapted around that. Now, its exploiting women?

So yes, please explain why its exploiting women.

 

Well thats the thing. If it has to be framed as "they are exploiting themselves" then it isn't really exploitation.

Again, women in little clothing is a feminist thing. Men didnt create that standard. Women did.

And its just interesting how this standard only applies to women. Men with amazing bodies are on the cover of magazines constantly. Yet there isn't any "men are being exploited" nonsense being pushed.

 

This is a joke, right? This is Photoshop at its finest, right? She has bigger upper arms and thighs than I do.

 

One thing I think people misunderstand is that physical fitness is partially a personal choice but is also a major financial choice as well.

If one is able to take time off to exercise, work somewhere which provides a gym, money to pay for personal trainers, afford healthy prepared foods or have the time to cook your own, etc, you will be more healthy.

There's a reason why the best athletes don't come from Rwanda and it has nothing to do with genetics.

At the same time rich people can also be lazy and fat.

 

Nope, they were that woke.

 

More like women exploiting men.

 

are you saying those younger generations-the ones who make fun of older folks-cannot read?

 

Yeah. It works both ways, women can exploit as well as be exploited. That's as old as history too. But, we weren't talking about the world in general. We were talking about SI and their Swimsuit Issue, which is exploitive. <-period And worked both ways too, women that were unknown became famous overnight.

SI, like all print media was going to face hard times with or without the Swimsuit Issue, you can't build a monthly magazine on one issue a year. And there's too much free **** on the net anyway. I remember when you had to have a fork lift to bring in the Sunday paper, now it's one section and a "magazine" ... if that.

 

No. I'm saying the younger generation has technology and their phones, tablets, etc.