It’s a Monday morning in February, and the sports world is buzzing. The Kansas City Chiefs have just come off a tough Super Bowl loss, and the debate on Patrick Mahomes’s legacy is hotter than ever. But this time, the chatter isn’t just about touchdowns or interceptions—it’s about dollars, cents, and what it means to be a superstar in the modern NFL.
At the center of the storm stands Stephen A. Smith, ESPN’s most theatrical critic, never shy about stirring the pot. For years, he’s questioned Mahomes’s “GOAT status,” picking apart his performances and, more recently, his financial decisions. Now, with the NFL’s biggest stage still cooling from the confetti, Smith has found fresh ammunition.
“Patrick Mahomes may be the greatest quarterback we’ve ever seen,” Smith says, voice booming through millions of screens. “But it’s the first time in his career I’ve seen him embarrass himself. And let me tell you, his finances? He’s one bad investment away from losing it all!”
The claim is as bold as it is headline-grabbing. But is there any truth to the idea that Mahomes, the $450 million man, is actually at risk of going broke?
The Rise of Mahomes—and the Critics
The story begins in January 2021, when Mahomes was riding high after his first Super Bowl win and prepping for a legendary showdown with Tom Brady. Even then, Stephen A. was skeptical. “Mahomes is great, but so is Josh Allen, so is Lamar Jackson, so is Joe Burrow,” he declared on First Take. “Why does Mahomes win? It’s not just him, it’s the team around him.”
It was the start of a pattern: praise, then a punch. As Mahomes’s star rose, so did the scrutiny. After the Chiefs’ crushing Super Bowl LV loss to the Buccaneers—where Mahomes threw two interceptions and no touchdowns—Smith was merciless. “No more talks about Mahomes being the GOAT,” he tweeted, sending shockwaves through NFL fandom.
The pattern continued. Every big loss, every emotional outburst, every time Mahomes slammed his helmet or questioned a call, Smith was there to pounce. “It’s the first time I’ve seen him embarrass himself,” Smith said after a December 2023 loss to the Bills, dissecting every on-field gesture and post-game comment.
The Money Question
But this year, the focus shifted. Now, Stephen A. wasn’t just questioning Mahomes’s play—he was questioning his bank account.
The logic, at first glance, seems baffling. Mahomes signed the richest contract in sports history in 2020: a ten-year, $450 million extension, with $63 million guaranteed at signing and nearly $150 million in guarantees overall. By 2025, he’d restructured his deal to secure $210 million over four years, the most guaranteed money in NFL history at the time.
Yet, as new contracts ballooned—Joe Burrow, Justin Herbert, and others leapfrogging Mahomes in annual value—Smith and other critics began to ask: is Mahomes, the face of the league, actually underpaid? Is he letting the Chiefs take advantage of his team-first mentality? And could his willingness to sacrifice salary for “legacy” actually backfire?
The Empire Off the Field
Off the field, Mahomes’s financial empire is the stuff of legend. He’s earned more than $180 million from NFL contracts alone, with projections putting him on pace to surpass even Tom Brady in career earnings by 2030. Endorsements with Adidas, State Farm, Oakley, and more bring in another $20 million per year.
He’s invested in sports franchises—the Kansas City Royals, Sporting KC, the NWSL’s Kansas City Current, and even a stake in the Alpine F1 team. He’s opened Whataburger franchises, backed tech companies, and built a real estate portfolio that includes a Texas mansion with its own golf hole and soccer field.
For any normal person, this would be more than enough. But in the court of public opinion, and in the hot takes of Stephen A. Smith, it’s never enough.
The Criticism and the Reality
Smith’s critique isn’t just about numbers—it’s about narrative. He frames Mahomes as a potential cautionary tale: the superstar who gave up too much, got too comfortable, and let others cash in on his talent. “He’s one bad investment away from losing it all!” Smith warns, his words echoing through social media.
Fans are divided. Some see Mahomes as a selfless leader, putting team success and dynasty-building above personal gain. “I worry about legacy and winning rings more than making money,” Mahomes has said, echoing the approach of Tom Brady before him.
Others, though, worry Mahomes is leaving money on the table. “He’s being used,” says one critic on X. “He should be resetting the market every year, not helping the Chiefs save money!”
Even some analysts wonder if Mahomes’s loyalty could cost him in the long run, as the salary cap rises and other quarterbacks cash in.
The Mahomes Response
Through it all, Mahomes remains calm. He’s never lashed out at the Chiefs, never publicly complained about his contract. In interviews, he says he’s satisfied with his deal and trusts the team to build a winner around him.
“Legacy lasts longer than money,” he told ESPN in July 2024. “I want to be remembered as a winner, as a guy who brought championships to Kansas City.”
His approach, analysts say, is strategic. By keeping his salary manageable, the Chiefs can sign more talent, keep the core together, and chase more rings. It’s a bet on himself—and on the future.
The Verdict
So, is Patrick Mahomes really “going broke”? The evidence says no. He’s one of the best-paid athletes in the world, with a diversified portfolio and a brand that will outlast his playing days. His “losses” are mostly opportunity costs: missed bonuses from Super Bowl defeats, or the difference between his deal and the latest record-breaker.
But in the world of Stephen A. Smith, even the King isn’t safe. Every loss, every contract, every sideline outburst is fuel for the fire.
As Mahomes’s career continues, the debate will rage on. Is he the GOAT? Is he too loyal? Is he risking his fortune for legacy? Only time—and a few more Super Bowls—will tell.
For now, Patrick Mahomes remains at the center of the sports universe: a champion, a leader, and, despite the noise, a man in full control of his destiny—on the field, and in the bank.
