NFL hopeful Michael Sam made news last night when he made it known that he was an “openly proud gay man.”

If selected in this upcoming May’s NFL draft, the admission would make Sam the first openly gay player to be drafted, and play, in the NFL.

The story has created a lot of buzz since being released, and since the interview was aired, with many things being written and many people posting about the admission on social media. Some players even got involved in the tweeting storm.

Carolina Panther halfback DeAngelo Williams:

Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith:

And even the controversial lineman Richie Incognito:

While the positive reaction among players is a good sign for Sam, what about the people in charge of making personnel decisions for teams? Sports Illustrated’s Peter King had piece last night in which he talked to some NFL scouts and GM’s about if Sam’s admission could cost him a chance at being drafted.

One GM on the admission:

“Should I really care?” the GM said. “Is it going to be that big a deal? Aren’t we beyond this?’

Another scout thought it was purely situational:

“It’ll totally depend on your leadership,” the scout said. “A team with strong leadership at coach and in the locker room, like New England, I would imagine would be okay. I could see Belichick say, ‘This is the way it is. There’s no story’. And guys would just accept him. There’d be no choice. But without saying that strong leadership, I could see it being divisive, and I could see a team saying, ‘We don’t need this.’”

And then there were those who didn’t think it could work:

“And I am sorry to say where we are this point in time, I think it’s going to affect most locker rooms. A lot of guys will be uncomfortable. Ten years form now, fine. But today, I think being openly gay is a factor in the locker room.”

These opinions collected by King, while varied, have one thing in common.

There is no attribution for any of them.

King said that his reason for keeping his sources anonymous was so that he could “get the best information possible.” He said that he “assumed all would either no-comment” him or “say something so sanitized it wouldn’t really be the truth.”

While, this may in fact be true, it may be a reflection of EXACTLY where the league stands on the issue, when nobody wants to put their name to their quote.

Jen Floyd Engel, of FOX Sports, said that by keeping these GMs and scouts anonymous you “provide a human shield for bigots and cowards under the guise of journalism.”

Engel goes on:

“It is time we stop pontificating and judging athletes on their courage or lack thereof while showing none ourselves,” Engel said. “On moral issues like equality and basic human decency you have to pick a side: Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution.”

Engel called for a pact upon her colleagues to make sure they could put a name from their sources about the Sam story, or not publish the quote at all. Her argument being that: Sam took the courage to come out; GMs and scouts should have courage to put a name behind their opinions.

While Engel thinks that not putting your name behind ridicule is unethical, the SPJ Code of Ethics only contains two statements on anonymous sources:

“Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability”

As well as:

“Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.”

It doesn’t appear that King violated either of these, as far as we know, and if it’s true that the only way that these people would give honest opinions is for anonymity, then it’s hard to question King’s tactics.

It would be nice for everyone to agree to Engel’s proposed pact. In fact it would probably be ethical to use the same courage that Sam did, but is doubtful that it will happen.

We always expect the athlete to be honest with us, it just seems right that we are honest to the athlete.