In a moment that has sent shockwaves across the sports and current affairs landscape, Stephen A. Smith—the undisputed heavyweight champion of hot takes—has executed a stunning, career-defining reversal on his most notorious public stance: his relentless condemnation of Kyrie Irving’s refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine. This isn’t just a retraction; it is a profound cultural moment, marking a definitive crack in the monolithic narrative that dominated the pandemic era and offering retroactive vindication to the athlete who sacrificed more than $17 million to stand on principle.

Appearing in October 2025 on Carmelo Anthony’s 700 p.m. in Brooklyn podcast, the famously fiery analyst did the unthinkable. The same man who once bellowed, “The hell with you” to anyone who couldn’t take the vaccine, who spent an entire season pushing for Irving to be traded, confessed with a newfound, almost subdued gravity: “Now obviously in hindsight the brother right.” He proceeded to tie this shocking admission to a shifting public perspective on the controversy, directly referencing the emergence of “all the conspiracy theories that come out” and the pervasive feeling that “the government was imposing all of that on us.” The moment immediately went viral, viewed millions of times in 48 hours, igniting a bonfire of debate across social media that centered not just on Smith’s hypocrisy, but on the true costs of personal liberty during a period of global crisis.

The Vicious Contrast: From Obliteration to Absolution

To fully grasp the magnitude of Smith’s 180, one must recall the sheer ferocity of his original position. Throughout the 2021-2022 NBA season, Stephen A. Smith was not just a critic; he was the primary amplifier of the campaign to paint Kyrie Irving as a selfish, anti-science pariah who was single-handedly destroying the Brooklyn Nets’ championship aspirations. This wasn’t subtle disagreement; it was an absolute platform-fueled annihilation.

Smith used his considerable influence to paint Irving as a self-aggrandizing egoist, asserting he was putting his own beliefs ahead of his teammates, the fans, and public health. On his program, he relentlessly urged the Nets organization to “Trade him if he ain’t gonna take the vaccine and can’t play half your home games.” He doubled down even after contracting a mild case of COVID-19, continuing to imply that unvaccinated players posed an unacceptable risk to the vaccinated. The media pressure on Irving, spearheaded by voices like Smith, was relentless and unified, a coordinated campaign that offered no quarter to a player attempting to articulate a stance on bodily autonomy amidst an unprecedented public health mandate.

Yet, in his 2025 appearance, Smith’s tone was entirely different—conversational, passionate, and authentic, admitting that his previous frustration stemmed from missing Irving’s electrifying talent on the court, not just a disagreement on health policy. By conceding that Kyrie was correct in hindsight, Smith has effectively become a participant in what historians may later call the great reframing of the COVID-19 vaccine debate, signaling to a massive audience that questioning the established narrative is no longer taboo.

The Cost of Principle: Financial Ruin and Reputational Damage

The controversy surrounding Kyrie Irving was never an academic debate; it was a professional and financial devastation. When the New York City mandate required proof of vaccination for entry to indoor venues like the Barclays Center, Irving was faced with an impossible choice: compromise his deeply held principles or sacrifice his career and guaranteed financial future. He chose the latter.

The costs were staggering and immediate. Irving forfeited approximately $17 million in salary, missing 53% of the team’s games, including all home games and practices. More significantly, he turned down a massive four-year extension worth over $100 million before the season started, viewing it as an “ultimatum tied to vaccination.” He later revealed that his refusal to be coerced into a medical decision by holding his financial future hostage was a non-negotiable matter of principle. “It’s not about the money, baby,” he stated in an Instagram Live, “it’s about choosing what’s best for you.”

This stand turned a unifying champion into a polarizing figure. Basketball legends like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar condemned him as a “bad teammate,” accusing him of contributing to deaths in Black communities by setting a bad example. Charles Barkley praised the Nets for suspending him, framing vaccination as a moral obligation. Even his own team, the Nets, fractured, with James Harden ultimately demanding a trade, citing frustration with the “chaos” and “circus atmosphere” created by the ongoing situation. The Nets, a purported super team, imploded, finishing a disappointing season and getting swept in the first round of the playoffs, a failure directly accelerated by Irving’s absence.

The reputational damage was equally severe, cementing a perception of Kyrie as unreliable, anti-authoritarian, and impossible to build a franchise around—a narrative Stephen A. Smith was instrumental in constructing. This historical context makes Smith’s 2025 retraction all the more explosive, as it retrospectively validates the integrity of a man who was vilified for a stand that cost him dearly.

The Great Reframing: A Cultural Shift Years in the Making

Stephen A. Smith’s about-face is not an isolated event; it is a barometer reading a tectonic cultural shift. The transcript highlights how the consensus around vaccine mandates has dramatically eroded since 2021. US vaccine confidence fell from about 70% in 2021 to under 50% by 2025 in some polling. This decline wasn’t solely due to effectiveness, but to the backlash created by the implementation of mandates, pressure campaigns, and the blanket dismissal of legitimate concerns.

The debate has moved from the simple, binary position of “vaccines good, hesitancy bad” to a more nuanced public reckoning. New York City’s vaccine mandate policy was, in fact, partially overturned in 2023, validating the core concern Kyrie raised about government overreach. Furthermore, questions about rare side effects like myocarditis, the appropriateness of universal mandates for young, low-risk individuals, and whether the societal division caused by mandates justified the public health benefits, are now “genuine policy debates” happening in mainstream spaces, not just the realm of “conspiracy theories.”

While the transcript notes the various outlandish theories circulating in 2021 (microchips, DNA alteration), it crucially points out that Irving’s public position was centered on the defense of mandates and bodily autonomy, not on making medical claims about the vaccines. By focusing on the “imposing” nature of the government’s actions, Smith is finally acknowledging the validity of Kyrie’s anti-mandate stance—a distinction that was lost in the heat of the controversy. This reframing is a powerful statement about the power of individual resistance against institutional pressure.

Vindication and the Redemption Arc

Despite the setbacks, the final chapter of Kyrie Irving’s journey has provided the ultimate validation. After being traded to the Dallas Mavericks in 2023, Irving paired with Luka Dončić and entered a powerful redemption arc. With mandates lifted and the controversy receding, Irving thrived, proving he could be a reliable and essential contributor to a contender. The Mavericks reached the NBA Finals in 2024, demonstrating that a team could, in fact, achieve elite success with Irving as a key component.

By July 2025, Irving secured a three-year, $119 million extension with Dallas, finally achieving the long-term financial security that he had sacrificed years earlier in Brooklyn. The controversy, which threatened to permanently derail a Hall of Fame career, has now faded into a powerful footnote—a moment where principle ultimately prevailed over immense pressure.

Stephen A. Smith’s dramatic confession is more than just personal accountability; it is a symbol of a broader cultural shift that is finally grappling with the complicated legacy of the pandemic era. It vindicates not only Kyrie Irving but everyone who felt their voice and principles were suppressed during a period of intense public conformity. The cost to Irving was immense, but his unwavering stand now appears less like petulance and more like an act of prescient courage, positioning him not just as an NBA champion, but as a pivotal figure in the complex history of individual liberty.