Why Sporting KC’s new front-office addition is tough to stomach
Seventy-five seconds into an opening statement about what should be a newsworthy Sporting Kansas City hire — for the first time, veteran manager Peter Vermes is passing off oversight of the roster — we arrived at the actual reason we’re here.
An apology.
You see, this particular hire — adding former Portland general manager Gavin Wilkinson to the front office — requests that you get comfortable with the uncomfortable. Requests that you do what Wilkinson once did but now notably serves as the basis for his regret: Forget about the past and move on.
If only it were that easy.
Wilkinson was fired in late 2022 from the job he held in Portland, overseeing the rosters for both the Timbers and the National Women’s Soccer League’s Thorns, when an investigation commissioned by U.S. Soccer concluded he vouched for a coach he’d recently fired due to a player’s allegation of sexual misconduct.
On Thursday, speaking publicly for the first time in the 15 months since his dismissal from Portland, Wilkinson denied vouching for coach Paul Riley when he was up for another coaching job in the NWSL. He not once but twice refuted references in the Sally Yates report as “hearsay.”
But Wilkinson did acknowledge a failure to dissuade the Western New York Flash team from hiring Riley after Thorns player Mana Shim accused him of sexual harassment in September 2015.
“I should have done more in my previous role to protect and empower female athletes and not hide behind legal advice,” he said.
Wouldn’t it be ideal if a new addition in leadership — the one Sporting thought was so important they paid a search firm for assistance — didn’t require an apology to women in an introductory news conference? Too much to ask?
Over 25 minutes Thursday, virtually every question thrown toward Wilkinson, who sat alongside Vermes at the table, revolved around the past, not the intrigue of a new future. He took them all, appearing regretful.
But he denied the most serious accusations against him in the investigation conducted by Sally Yates — those that said he told Western New York he would “hire Riley in a heartbeat,” and that Riley was “put in a bad position by the player.”
“That did not happen,” he said.
Which leaves his apology for one action: refraining from telling the Western New York Flash that they might want to look in another direction for their next head coach. The Flash went on to hire Riley in 2016, and they say they did so absent the knowledge that just months earlier Shim had sent Wilkinson and other Portland leadership an email detailing her accusations against Riley.
After Wilkinson’s first action was to fire Riley, each of his subsequent actions enabled Riley to land on his feet and remain upright.
“This incident is obviously a concern,” Wilkinson said. “There was an error in judgment, and I should’ve done more.”
Incident.
An error.
It’s just not that tidy.
Wilkinson had multiple opportunities to tell everyone — anyone — what he knew about Paul Riley. He made a decision every single day to remain quiet. Made a decision to keep the accusation out of his conversations with another team. Made a decision not to call them a day later and say, hey, you know what, you might want to know about this.
The error is not a heat-of-the-moment headbutt on the field. It is a single mission that necessitated Wilkinson to make the same error time and time again. That’s an important distinction.
By his own account, he for six years knew of Shim’s allegation against Riley. All the while, Riley continued to hold one of just 10 head coaching positions in the premier women’s soccer league in the country. And for six years, Wilkinson sat back and said nothing to change that.
On Thursday, he said he learned of the full scope of Riley’s behavior, which included allegations from more players, through a journalistic investigation by The Athletic. He called it “shocking.” But he’s to blame for his own surprise. He not only had an opportunity to learn the full scope of Riley’s actions, but an email invitation begging him to do so.
“I should have done a deeper dive. I should have found out more,” Wilkinson said. “I should have asked more questions. I’ve tried to reach out to a player that I do owe an apology to. At that stage, I did not do enough. And in reflection, it’s easy to see that.”
Wilkinson did inform Riley he was firing him in September 2015 because “while our investigation did not reveal any unlawful conduct by anyone, we did confirm that, on occasion, you exercised poor judgment in your interaction with one one or more players,” according to the Yates report. But then Wilkinson publicly told the media Riley’s dismissal was results-based.
Why conceal the truth? I asked him that Thursday.
“Under legal advice,” he said. “And I think it was noted that there was a fear of litigation at that time.”
He protected the team, along with the man who least deserved any protection — all while leaving exposed those who needed the protection most.
We make our own decisions. It was a lawyer’s instruction. It was Wilkinson’s decision to adhere to that instruction.
He says he agrees with that now, by the way. When I asked how he would handle that today, he replied, “I think I stand on my own two feet and do what’s right — and that’s to prevent the future hiring of the individual involved.”
Sporting KC reviewed all of this and determined Wilkinson, among the 14 candidates recommended by a search firm, is the right man to make personnel decisions in their building. I’ve covered this organization long enough to know they don’t make rash decisions. They do their homework. They had better discovered all they believe they have.
Wilkinson, in his last role, is one of the key figures responsible for a culture in Portland that sprouted multiple allegations. And now, by identifying potential targets and having a weighted opinion on the construction of the roster, he will have a significant influence on Sporting’s culture.
The backlash from the club’s fan base was foreseeable. The extent to which Sporting KC will feel the effects of that remains to be seen. But make no mistake — the organization itself is not absolved from the risk here.
They are offering Wilkinson a second chance, at the expense of an attractive job that could’ve offered an up-and-comer a first chance. And while simultaneously knowing Wilkinson’s background and expressing their comfort in the hire, there’s no mistaking who’s vouching for whom now.
It’s on them if they’re wrong.