Olwethu Makhanya hasn’t returned to the Union yet, overshadowing Ryan Richter’s debut as manager 77%

By Jonathan Tannenwald22%

7/20/2026, 8:16:28 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 20.1% saturation with 133 hits. Analysis detected 1,245 faulty-reasoning hits from 663 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.8% and a BS Rank of 77% (5,031 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.00% of the article peer group.

When the Union resume their season Wednesday night at Subaru Park against Red Bull New York (7:30 p.m., Apple TV), the spotlight should be on two stories: the many young American prospects who will be on the field, and interim manager Ryan Richter’s debut on the first team bench. 
For now, though, those items are overshadowed by a potential upheaval of the team’s defense. 
Key centerback Olwethu Makhanya hasn’t returned to the team yet after going to the World Cup with South Africa. 
Multiple sources have told The Inquirer that it’s a personal matter, but there seems to be more to it. 
The Union received an offer from Belgium’s Genk of around $4 million, and there’s been interest (though apparently not a formal offer yet) from Scotland’s Rangers. 
The sources also signaled there was an agreement of some kind that the club would sell him if an offer came. 
But there were different portrayals of how ironclad that agreement was, and whether the Union could hold firm on demanding a presumably higher fee. 
Unsurprisingly, Makhanya isn’t happy about the situation, as the Athletic first reported Monday morning. 
There’s been plenty of communication between his side and the Union front office, but it isn’t clear right now when he’ll be back on the field. 
What is clear is that Richter will be without one of his best defenders for his first game in charge, and possibly more than that. 
“I worked with Olwethu when he first joined the club, and we have a good personal relationship,” he said. 
“But right now, his situation, he’s away from the club for personal reasons, and I think we’re going to leave it like that for now with him.” 
Makhanya’s departure isn’t the only one on the table. 
A source who knows confirmed a report by the Courier of Dundee, Scotland, that the Union are in talks with Scottish Premiership club Dundee United to loan outside back Philippe Ndinga there for the European season that starts July 31. 
If the move gets done and Ndinga doesn’t play again for the Union before it, the player who was supposed to be Kai Wagner’s successor will leave with eight games played, four starts, and 310 minutes on the field. 
It will be hard to see that as anything other than a punt. 
When Scheer met with the media over the weekend, he tried to not portray it that way. 
But in the end, he couldn’t quite keep his cards hidden. 
“He’s a young player, he’s got a lot of athletic tools,” Scheer said. 
“We need more production from the left fullback spot. 
But it doesn’t mean that Philippe doesn’t have talent and a skill set that he can offer ourselves, or any other club.” 
The good news for Wednesday is that Wagner is expected to be ready to play his first game back with the Union. 
“He’s fit, he’s ready to play, and it’s not only Kai and the fans that want him out there  it’s the coaching staff and it’s his teammates that also want him out there,” Richter said. 
“We [will] see exactly how he is for the 90 minutes in the match, but he’s in a really good spot, and I think he’s ready. 
And I don’t know if he would let me keep him out from this game.” 
Quinn Sullivan might also be ready for his first game minutes since tearing an ACL last September. 
“It’s not going to be that he’s just available 90 minutes from the start, but he will be available for the match,” Richter said. 
The bench might also include Neil Pierre, the promising 18-year-old centerback who spent the first six months of this year on loan at Danish club Lyngby  part-owned by the Union. 
He’s been dealing with an injury that Richter called “something that’s minor,” but the indication was that Pierre should be available. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Jonathan Tannenwald: 2.6%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Jonathan Tannenwald: 3.2%Inquirer.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 4.7%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.5%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.8%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.4%Inquirer.com: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias6.0%This article: 20.1%Jonathan Tannenwald: 9.2%Inquirer.com: 5.0%Framing Effect20.1%This article: 5.9%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.9%This article: 4.1%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.3%Jonathan Tannenwald: 3.7%Inquirer.com: 2.7%Optimism Bias16.3%This article: 9.4%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.8%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Pessimism Bias9.4%This article: 16.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 6.4%Inquirer.com: 5.7%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.0%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.6%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.8%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 5.4%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.7%Inquirer.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 6.8%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Halo Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.3%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.2%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Jonathan Tannenwald: 2.6%Inquirer.com: 2.3%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 2.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 1.1%False Dilemma2.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 3.0%Inquirer.com: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.2%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.7%Jonathan Tannenwald: 2.0%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.9%Jonathan Tannenwald: 2.9%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.2%Jonathan Tannenwald: 2.9%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote15.2%This article: 2.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 13.4%Jonathan Tannenwald: 13.5%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice13.4%This article: 7.4%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Tannenwald: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

663 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers34%attributed speech439writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageThe Inquirer • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageThe Athletic • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Richter • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Richter • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageScheer • 13 words • 100.0% coverageScheer • 9 words • 0.0% coverageScheer • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Richter • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Richter • 26 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Richter • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Richter • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Inquirer

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words8.5% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+81.3 ptsWriter: 18.7%The Inquirer: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.1 ptsWriter: 17.1%The Inquirer: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%The Inquirer: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.