The reporter claims the ref effectively promised a coach to “make it up to him” for a bad call. The implication is that he was promising to make a bad call in the coach’s favor at some point. This goes straight to the heart of the integrity of the game–refs calling things consistently and honestly based on what actually happens. This calls the integrity of the referee into question. It is irrelevant whether the alleged libel took place on Twitter, in the New York Times or the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or even whether the ref had to “go find it”. IF the report is wrong, then the ref was libeled and is entitled to compensation for the damage done to his reputation. I happen to believe the reporter is likely telling the truth, but even if the reporter prevails, it doesn’t mean the suit is frivolous.

This is classic he said/he said. It may be very difficult for either side to prove its case. It will boil down to who a jury believes.