By the time I checked out ESPN.com, the sentence had been changed a bit, making it slightly more comprehensible.
Why has Cam Newton being upset he lost received more attention than Peyton Manning being named in a lawsuit against Tennessee alleging the school fostered a hostile work environment for women?
Why has Cam Newton's behavior after losing gotten more attention than Peyton Manning being named in a lawsuit against Tennessee alleging the school fostered a hostile work environment for women?
The original version is a bumpier ride along the garden path, as the opening Why has Cam Newton may encourage readers to construe Cam Newton as the subject of the sentence (which displays the subject-auxiliary inversion typical of English questions). Then when you look for a past participle to go with the auxiliary has, you're confronted with being upset he lost before arriving at the intended main verb, received. After finally piecing together has received, you then have to go back and read Cam Newton being upset he lost as the intended subject.
Sticklers for the old "possessive with gerund" prescriptive rule would argue that the subject ought to be Cam Newton's being upset he lost. While that might help the reader identify the subject here, such a change would strike a formal register a bit out of place on the ESPN home page. Better to recast the whole subject to avoid the awkward phrasing. The revised version, Cam Newton's behavior after losing is indeed more readily parsed as a noun phrase interposed between the auxiliary has and the main verb. Replacing received with gotten may also represent an improvement (at least for American readers), since gotten is clearly a past participle of the V-en form and easier to match up with has.
But even if you get through all of that, you still have to tackle the super-heavy noun phrase after than: Peyton Manning being named in a lawsuit against Tennessee alleging the school fostered a hostile work environment for women. Though the basic sentence structure is simple enough —
Why has NP1 received/gotten more attention than NP2?
— loading up those two NPs with so much journalistic detail makes the whole thing ridiculously unwieldy. My guess is the sentence went through a few editorial passes, with a bit more added each time, resulting in an unreadable mess. And I'm not sure any amount of further tinkering could rehabilitate it from its sorry state.
(Hat tip, Dan Schmidt.)