Defending Jake Paul may seem controversial to some. He’s polarizing, unconventional, and unapologetically disruptive—qualities that often provoke strong reactions, especially in a sport steeped in tradition like boxing. But I’ve spent the better part of my life standing up for those who are misunderstood or dismissed simply because they challenge the status quo. My support for Jake Paul isn’t rooted in popularity—it’s rooted in principle. That’s why it’s worth examining the public stance of two prominent British commentators—Piers Morgan and Simon Jordan—both of whom have recently criticized Jake Paul. Yet, both have also shown, in other contexts, the very empathy and openness they now withhold from him.
Piers Morgan: From Boyle to Backlash
Piers Morgan famously became one of Susan Boyle’s fiercest defenders after the singer's unforgettable “Britain’s Got Talent” audition. Though initially skeptical, Morgan urged the public and media to stop mocking her appearance and give her the respect her voice deserved. He recognized a truth many missed: talent doesn’t always wear the clothes we expect. Morgan later stood his ground on the right to free expression during the fallout from his comments on Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah. Despite receiving over 40,000 complaints and resigning from Good Morning Britain, Morgan refused to back down, stating: “freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on.”
He defended his right to question powerful institutions and to challenge media narratives, even in the face of overwhelming criticism. Ironically, while he doubted Markle's story, his defense rested on the idea that even unpopular opinions deserve to be heard. That same principle—the willingness to defend those whose voices don’t fit neatly into the mainstream—should apply equally to Jake Paul.
Simon Jordan: A Voice for the Unconventional
Simon Jordan, a sharp and respected voice in sports media, has also publicly defended those on the receiving end of harsh or unfair criticism. He’s criticized the media’s portrayal of England football fans, calling it distorted and classist. Most recently, he defended Jude Bellingham, one of England’s brightest young stars, from critics questioning his passion and maturity. Jordan reminded audiences that individuality and emotional expression should not be weaponized against athletes who don't conform. He has also consistently taken aim at media narratives that mischaracterize people based on shallow optics—whether fans, athletes, or personalities who don’t follow the script.
So Why Not Jake?
If Morgan and Jordan can defend the likes of Susan Boyle, Meghan Markle, Jude Bellingham, or even their own right to challenge dominant narratives, why can't they take the same approach to Jake Paul? It should be clear by now that he is not just a novelty act. He has taken fights under sanctioned rules, invested heavily in training, and gone beyond the gimmick. He brings younger audiences to boxing, elevates underrepresented fighters (notably women), and reinvigorates public interest in the sport. His offense is that he doesn’t fit the mold. But isn’t that exactly the kind of figure Morgan and Jordan once claimed to stand up for?
This is the heart of the matter: Jake Paul is being dismissed not because of his record, but because of who he is perceived to be. That’s exactly the kind of prejudice these commentators have rightly challenged in the past. And it’s why their criticism now rings hollow.
Judge by Merit, Not Mold
The sport of boxing cannot grow if it clings only to the familiar. Disruptors, when they bring value and prove their merit, deserve recognition—not scorn. Jake Paul has delivered results, sparked global attention, and invested in the sport’s future. If Morgan and Jordan once stood for fairness, free thought, and the dignity of those misjudged—then they, too, should recognize that Jake Paul has earned more than just criticism. He’s earned a fair shot. So when Morgan says, “freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on,” one has to ask—does that freedom extend only to voices we agree with? Or does it also apply to those like Jake Paul, who speak, fight, and succeed outside the approved script?
If Morgan truly believes in defending those who challenge orthodoxy… If Jordan truly believes in protecting passion, individuality, and media misrepresentation… Then Jake Paul deserves not their mockery, but their consistency. Because if freedom, fairness, and merit matter—then standing up for Jake Paul isn't just reasonable. It’s the very hill they once said they’d die on.
As I gaze upon this so-called hill, it appears strangely barren—no epitaphs, no convictions, just silence where principle once stood. So let me offer one for the missing tombstones: “Here lie Piers Morgan and Simon Jordan—fallen not for freedom, fairness, or merit, but for abandoning the very hill they once said they’d die on.”
Because in the end, words matter. And so does the courage to stand by them.
