Tensions ran high during MLB reporter Jon Heyman’s Friday night appearance on WFAN, as a seemingly lighthearted interview with host Keith McPherson quickly spiraled into a fiery confrontation.
Heyman, a veteran journalist for the New York Post, joined McPherson for an on-air discussion that took an unexpected turn when McPherson repeatedly referenced Heyman’s infamous 2022 “Arson Judge” typo.
The mistake, where Heyman mistakenly tweeted that Yankees star Aaron Judge was headed to the San Francisco Giants, only to later correct the report, has become a running joke among fans and media alike. McPherson’s callbacks to the error seemed to irk Heyman, setting the tone for an increasingly tense exchange.
The conversation boiled over when McPherson jokingly asked Heyman, “What percentage of Juan Soto’s contract are you going to get when you break the news of where he signs?” The remark implied that Heyman might have a financial stake in his reporting due to potential relationships with agents—a suggestion that Heyman did not take lightly.
Visibly annoyed, Heyman fired back, accusing McPherson of “questioning my integrity” and labeling the comment as “outrageous.” He went on to reject the insinuation that he might benefit financially from breaking news, describing it as a serious attack on his professionalism. “To imply I’m getting a cut because I have a relationship with an agent is beyond inappropriate,” Heyman said. Frustrated, he declared that he was “done with WFAN,” effectively cutting ties with the station on-air.
RELATED: Rob Manfred Says MLB Owners Are Showing Interest in ‘Golden At-Bat’ Rule
McPherson appeared to be aiming for humor throughout the interview, but his comments clearly struck a nerve. While fans and media often poke fun at Heyman for the “Arson Judge” mishap—an error that has remained a meme in the baseball community—Heyman’s reaction highlighted the fine line between playful ribbing and accusations that challenge a journalist’s credibility.
In hindsight, McPherson’s question about Soto’s contract crossed a boundary, as it implied unethical behavior on Heyman’s part. Questioning whether a journalist is being compensated by a party they report on is a serious charge and one that understandably provoked Heyman’s heated response.
While McPherson may have intended the interview to be lighthearted, the exchange serves as a reminder that even in a casual setting, certain jabs can have far-reaching consequences.
For Heyman, the interview was likely a tipping point, as the lingering “Arson Judge” jokes and perceived challenges to his ethics collided in a very public and uncomfortable way.
