Sports Illustrated defends editorial standards after accusations of plagiarism and use of artificial intelligence
Sports Illustrated once again found itself under public scrutiny after a disputed text about the Kalshi prediction market was removed from its online edition, along with the author profile of the journalist to whom the text had been attributed. According to reports by Futurism and Awful Announcing, the case was opened after Sportico editor Dan Bernstein publicly accused Sports Illustrated of taking data and analysis from an article published by Sportico on May 13, 2026, without proper attribution. The dispute intensified further because Bernstein stated in a post on the X platform that it seemed to him that artificial intelligence may have been used in the creation of the text. Sports Illustrated then removed the article and the author profile of Parker Loverich, and in a statement provided to Awful Announcing said that this was a violation of guidelines connected with the use of artificial intelligence.
According to the available information, the disputed text was published on May 15, 2026, under a headline referring to the question of who actually wins on Kalshi parlay bets, that is, combined positions on prediction markets. Two days earlier, Sportico published an analysis of user losses on Kalshi products similar to parlay bets, with data on the amounts of money wagered, user losses and the fees earned by the platform. Futurism states that the Sports Illustrated text contained the same key figures and conclusions, but without clear attribution of Sportico as the source of the analysis. In the Sports Illustrated text, according to the same report, Sportico was mentioned only in the context of an older quote from a previously published article, and not as the source of the current data.
What Sports Illustrated published after removing the text
In a statement reported by Awful Announcing, Sports Illustrated said that Parker Loverich was a real reporter and that the On SI vertical dedicated to prediction markets was run by an independent publisher. The same statement said that this publisher was expected to respect Sports Illustrated's editorial guidelines. The company added that, after learning of a violation of rules connected with the use of artificial intelligence, it immediately took internal steps, including ending cooperation with the publisher.
That wording is important because Sports Illustrated did not describe the case merely as an editorial mistake or an attribution failure, but connected it with rules on the use of artificial intelligence. According to available reports, the disputed post did not remain isolated to just one removed article. Parker Loverich's profile and his archive of articles were removed from the site, and Awful Announcing stated that a large part of the newer content from Sports Illustrated's prediction vertical was removed or made unavailable. This prompted additional questions about what kind of oversight existed over external publishers, authors and content published under the Sports Illustrated brand.
Sports Illustrated editor-in-chief Steve Cannella, on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, according to Yahoo Sports, further defended the newsroom's position and its standards. The Yahoo Sports article states that Cannella offered an explanation of the events and of the steps the publication is taking after the dispute. Since the details of the internal investigation have not been publicly released in full, it is currently not possible to independently confirm how systematic the use of artificial intelligence was in the disputed vertical, nor whether the problem was limited to one text or to a broader series of posts. Sports Illustrated's public response is so far based on the claim that a violation of guidelines was identified and that cooperation with the external publisher was terminated.
The accusations began with data about Kalshi
The disputed article dealt with Kalshi, an American platform for trading event contracts, that is, markets on which users can take positions on the outcomes of real events. At the center of the dispute were data on parlay or combined positions, a product that by structure resembles sports parlay bets because it combines multiple outcomes into one transaction. According to an article by Casino.org, which refers to Sportico's analysis of publicly available data, Kalshi users lost 116.8 million dollars on sports contracts grouped into individual positions during 2026 through the end of April. The same source states that Kalshi earned at least 35 million dollars in related fees.
These data explain why the story gained broader significance beyond the question of plagiarism itself. Kalshi and similar platforms sit on the boundary between financial markets, prediction markets and sports betting, so regulatory and public debates are taking place around them. Sportico, according to reports by other media, analyzed publicly available transaction data and concluded that parlay products had become an important source of activity and revenue. When similar figures appeared in the Sports Illustrated text without clear attribution of the original work, the accusations were not only a matter of style or editorial discipline, but also of appropriating someone else's data analysis.
According to the Awful Announcing report, on May 17, 2026, Bernstein publicly accused Sports Illustrated of taking entire stories without giving credit to authors, stating that this is especially obvious when data originally collected or published by someone else are taken. Futurism reported that Bernstein described the case as frustrating because the plagiarized version, when published by a highly visited brand, can appear in search engines above the original or be cited instead of the original text. Such a remark points to one of the key problems of digital journalism: the visibility and authority of a large media brand can amplify the damage when unattributed content appropriation occurs.
Why the reaction is especially sensitive for Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated has a long history as one of the best-known American sports media brands, but in recent years it has gone through complex ownership, business and editorial changes. According to a March 2024 statement by Minute Media and Authentic Brands Group, Minute Media took over the publishing rights for Sports Illustrated through a long-term partnership with Authentic Brands Group, the owner of the brand. The agreement stated that Minute Media would run editorial operations for Sports Illustrated, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit and Sports Illustrated Kids.
The change of publisher took place after a turbulent period in which The Arena Group lost the publishing license for Sports Illustrated. The Associated Press reported in March 2024 that Authentic Brands Group had previously revoked The Arena Group's license because of a missed payment, and that Minute Media then became the new publishing partner. Such context is important for understanding the current case because it shows that Sports Illustrated had already been trying to distance itself from earlier business and editorial problems and to rebuild trust in the brand.
Additional weight is given to the case by the previous scandal from 2023. PBS NewsHour then reported that Sports Illustrated had been accused of publishing texts with alleged authors who did not exist and with profile photos claimed to have been generated by artificial intelligence. Sports Illustrated then, according to PBS, stated that the disputed articles were licensed content from a third-party company, AdVon Commerce, which claimed that the texts had been written and edited by people. The company at the time condemned the use of pseudonyms and removed the disputed content while an internal review was under way.
Because of that history, the new accusation has a greater impact than it would have had if it involved a media outlet without earlier controversies connected with automated or externally produced content. Futurism in the current report explicitly linked the new case with the 2023 scandal, emphasizing that the earlier incident involved fake author profiles and allegations of the use of artificial intelligence in content production. Sports Illustrated now faces the question of how effective its editorial controls are when content is published through external partners and specialized verticals, rather than directly through the traditional newsroom structure.
Editorial standards under pressure from artificial intelligence
The Sports Illustrated case fits into a broader discussion about how media companies use artificial intelligence, especially in fast digital formats, SEO texts, sports analyses and data-based content. The use of artificial intelligence in journalism is not necessarily disputed if it is transparent, editorially supervised and if it does not lead to fabricated facts, plagiarism or concealed authorship. The problem arises when readers cannot know who actually collected the data, who wrote the text and how the claims published under a recognizable media brand were checked.
In this case, the key questions concern attribution, fact-checking and responsibility for external publishers. If a text uses data collected by another media outlet, professional standards require clear attribution of the source, especially when original analysis is being taken, not merely a generally known fact. If artificial intelligence was used in the creation of the text, the editorial organization is expected to have clear rules on what is permitted, how accuracy is checked and who bears responsibility for the final publication. Sports Illustrated claims in its statement that such rules existed and that they were violated.
Media organizations are increasingly trying to combine traditional journalism with automated tools for data processing, summary generation or adapting content for search engines. But cases like this show that speed of publication and scaling of content cannot be separated from the basic rules of the profession. To readers, it makes no difference whether a text comes from the main newsroom, a licensed vertical or an external publisher if it is published under the same brand. That is why responsibility for accuracy, attribution and transparency is generally attributed in public to the media outlet whose name appears at the top of the page.
Kalshi, prediction markets and sports betting
The context of Kalshi is additionally relevant because it is a platform that in the United States sits at the center of a debate about the difference between regulated event contract markets and sports betting. Kalshi presents itself as a prediction market, while critics and some regulators warn that sports products on such platforms can function very similarly to classic bets. Casino.org states that Kalshi does not always operate like a traditional sportsbook because its standard contracts are based on a trading model between users, but parlay products and sports contracts have further opened the question of regulatory treatment.
That is precisely why the analysis of data on user losses is important. If, according to reports that refer to Sportico's analysis, users lost more than 100 million dollars on related sports positions in the first four months of 2026, then these products are not a marginal novelty but a significant market segment. According to Casino.org, parlay or combined positions are especially profitable because they encourage users to link multiple outcomes with a higher potential return, but also a greater probability of loss. In that light, accurate and transparent reporting on data becomes important not only for media ethics but also for public understanding of risk.
Sports Illustrated's prediction vertical was clearly aimed precisely at such content: market prices, sports outcomes, Kalshi, Polymarket and other platforms that increasingly attract an audience interested in sports, data and financial risk. Such content can be useful if it clearly distinguishes analysis, commentary, data and recommendations, but it can become problematic if it does not cite sources or if automated tools produce texts that sound convincing but do not provide a transparent trail of verification. For that reason, the case goes beyond one removed text and opens the question of editorial oversight over an entire genre of data-driven sports content.
What remains unclear after the removal of the article
Despite Sports Illustrated's statements, several important questions remain open. It has not been officially confirmed exactly how many texts were produced or edited by the independent publisher with which cooperation was terminated. It is also unclear whether Sports Illustrated conducted a broader review of all posts from the prediction vertical or only removed content connected with the author who ended up at the center of the accusations. It has also not been disclosed what internal procedures were in force before the publication of the disputed text, who approved the article and whether the use of artificial intelligence was permitted in any form.
According to the available information, Parker Loverich has not publicly given a detailed explanation of the case. Futurism stated that the author did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while related profiles on social and professional networks soon after the dispute broke out became unavailable. Sports Illustrated, on the other hand, explicitly stated that Loverich is a real person, thereby trying to respond to suspicions prompted by the earlier scandal involving allegedly invented authors. But the claim that the author is real does not resolve the question of attribution, editorial responsibility and the possible use of artificial intelligence in the specific text.
For Sports Illustrated, the most important challenge now is not only the removal of the disputed article, but rebuilding trust in the process by which content is published under its name. Removing the text can stop the spread of the problematic post, but by itself it does not answer the question of how the text passed editorial review. If it turns out that the problem was limited to one external publisher, the consequences could remain internal. If, however, it turns out that similar patterns existed elsewhere as well, the case could further increase pressure on media companies to publicly release clearer rules on artificial intelligence, attribution and partner oversight.
Sources:
- Futurism – report on the removal of the article and author profile after accusations of AI plagiarism (link)
- Awful Announcing – report on accusations of plagiarism, Sports Illustrated's statement and the termination of cooperation with an independent publisher (link)
- Yahoo Sports – report on the reaction of editor Steve Cannella after the controversy (link)
- Minute Media – statement on taking over the publishing rights for Sports Illustrated in partnership with Authentic Brands Group (link)
- PBS NewsHour – report on the 2023 scandal connected with alleged AI authors and licensed third-party content (link)
- Associated Press – report on Sports Illustrated continuing operations after the agreement between Minute Media and Authentic Brands Group (link)
- Casino.org – report on Kalshi's parlay products, user losses and fees according to an analysis of publicly available data (link)