Judge dismisses Brett Favre’s defamation lawsuit against Shannon Sharpe

A federal judge recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former NFL quarterback Brett Favre against ESPN personality Shannon Sharpe. The lawsuit was related to alleged involvement of Favre in an ongoing welfare fraud case in Mississippi.

In September 2022, Favre accused Sharpe of making false statements about him during an episode of the Fox Sports 1 talk show “Skip and Shannon: Undisputed.” However, U.S. District Court Judge Keith Starrett ruled that Sharpe’s comments were protected as constitutionally protected rhetorical hyperbole, and therefore did not support a defamation claim.

It is worth noting that Sharpe explicitly stated during the show that Favre had not faced any criminal charges, which the judge highlighted in his ruling. Over a year later, there are still no criminal charges against Favre.

Favre is among many defendants named in a civil lawsuit in Mississippi that aims to recover misspent funds from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, amounting to at least $77 million. According to a state audit from 2020, eight individuals have been indicted in the case, with six already pleading guilty. In April, a judge ruled that Favre would remain a defendant in the civil suit, and he has since requested a jury trial.

According to the state audit and civil lawsuit, Favre received $1.1 million in TANF funds for speaking engagements that he did not actually fulfill. While Favre eventually returned the money, the state auditor also demanded an additional $228,000 in interest. Additionally, the athletic foundation at Favre’s alma mater, the University of Southern Mississippi, received $5 million in TANF funds, and there is evidence of Favre advocating for funding for a new volleyball facility while his daughter was on the team. Furthermore, two concussion drug companies supported by Favre received over $2.1 million in TANF funds, as stated in the civil lawsuit.

Favre has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case, but Judge Starrett’s dismissal acknowledged the perception that funds obtained by Favre and the university may have originated from welfare funds intended for impoverished families, rather than being used for the construction of a college volleyball facility.

A representative for Favre expressed disagreement with the court’s decision and stated that Sharpe’s statements were false and defamatory. They are currently assessing their options. On the other hand, a representative for Sharpe declined to comment.