The Sporting Class: Woke NFL Media Mob, How Netflix Wins & MLB's Life-Changing Mistake

Summary

Pablo Torre Finds Out — "The Sporting Class": Woke NFL Media Mob, How Netflix Wins & MLB's Life-Changing Mistake

Date: January 16, 2026
Host: Pablo Torre
Guests: John Skipper (Former ESPN President), David Sampson (Former Marlins President)
Episode Focus:
A wide-ranging, witty discussion threading together viral moments in sports media, proxy battles over mega-camera deals in entertainment, and business blunders that shaped MLB’s digital future.

---

Episode Overview

In this episode of "The Sporting Class," Pablo Torre is joined by John Skipper and David Sampson for a characteristically sharp and entertaining dive into the intersection of sports journalism, capitalism, and the fate of major media companies. The trio breaks down:

• A viral controversy over sports media conduct and the blurry lines of "journalist" identity
• Paramount and Skydance’s proxy lawsuit tangling with Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Netflix over a blockbuster $83 billion deal
• The inside story of MLB’s foray into streaming tech, and how selling MLBAM (BAMTech) to Disney may have fumbled baseball’s digital edge

With plenty of punchy banter, the episode lays bare how “proxy fights” in the boardroom, press box, and league office all reflect bigger questions about bias, value, and the unpredictability of power.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. The Lynn Jones Question: Sports Journalism, Ethics, and Media “Wokeness”

[05:20 – 18:03]

• Background: After a Jacksonville Jaguars playoff loss, local reporter Lynn Jones (Jacksonville Free Press) congratulated and encouraged the coach, sparking heated online debate about professionalism in sports reporting.
• The Industry Riff:
  • David Sampson details MLB teams’ control over press access, highlighting how management can “control the room” and even dictate which reporters may attend or ask questions ([07:25]).
    • “Not one... did I not have a list of who was in the room.” — David Sampson ([07:33])
  • John Skipper argues the controversy is overblown, decrying a “woke sports establishment” that polices minor breaches of neutrality:
    • “She just, she was human... Hold your head up. What’s wrong with that?” — John Skipper ([09:33])
    • Cites how Bill Simmons “blew all this up” by normalizing open fandom in media roles ([10:56]).
  • Pablo Torre contextualizes journalist vs. reporter vs. podcaster, advocating transparent disclosure of bias and acknowledging the “existentialism” of losing the meaning of “journalist” ([13:00–15:23]).
    • “All that journalists really have is the vocabulary of being called a journalist... It did become a proxy fight for the larger concept of what does it mean to be a free press.” — Pablo Torre ([14:40])
• Memorable Exchange:
  • “She doesn’t get one chance to say a little something?” — John Skipper ([12:45])
  • “It was a waste of time for everyone there... It’s just the wrong venue.” — David Sampson ([11:46])
  • Consensus: There’s room for multiple approaches—no blanket purity test should apply, but clarity of role, intent, and transparency matter.

---

2. Entertainment Proxy Battles: The Paramount/Skydance v. WBD/Netflix Saga

[20:21 – 43:06]

• The Lawsuit: Paramount/Skydance sues WBD, alleging nondisclosure of financial details in its $83B asset deal with Netflix. Concern: Shareholders can’t assess the “best” deal without full info.
  • “They are trying to get what they believe to be a lack of proper disclosure about what the deals are on the table... It’s a multibillion-dollar issue.” — David Sampson ([20:54])
• What Really Is a Proxy Fight?
  • John Skipper queries if these lawsuits are tactical bluffs to drive up price; David Sampson underscores need for procedural fairness ([22:00]).
• Fiduciary Duty v. Ethics:
  • John Skipper provocatively suggests ethical/cultural factors (e.g. Trump-compliance concerns) should factor in, not just dollars ([23:04]).
    • “Fiduciary duty suggests that no matter what, you have to do only the thing that makes the most money, even if it is unethical?” — John Skipper ([23:42])
  • David Sampson counters that in practical capitalism, “highest bid wins”—as long as it’s legal ([24:17]).
• Value Is in the Eye of the (Media) Board
  • Where’s the real line between price and principle?
  • Pablo Torre links this to his own choices as a creator (“at what point do you have to say yes because the money is so clearly superior?” – [27:28])
  • Skipper, ever the iconoclast, notes he'd “take less money to be where he wants” ([28:44]).
  • Sampson, ever the capitalist, says that's not a real-world boardroom answer.

Notable Quotes

• “If everything is equal, you have to take the dollar more legally.” — David Sampson ([25:16])
• “I would still have that behavior. I am hoping that Netflix wins this.” — John Skipper ([23:20])
• “You’re framing it... to make me out to be this sort of robotic capitalist.” — David Sampson ([25:37])

The Mechanics of Valuing a Deal

• How do boards decide? (Projections, assets, multiples, scenario analysis, etc.)
• “Wall Street... people paid a lot of money to figure out what the value of a company is and then what the choke point would be.” — David Sampson ([38:49])

---

3. MLBAM & The MLB’s Digital Sliding Doors

[43:06 – 55:51]

• MLBAM Origins:
  • MLBAM (now BAMTech) began as a centralized league streaming service. Early owner skepticism, low tech literacy among owners, and the initial creation pitch ([47:32–48:13]).
• Baseball’s Unintended Masterstroke:
  • MLB inadvertently built the streaming backbone for all of sports (and later Disney/ESPN+/Hulu), then sold too soon, losing long-term power and leverage.
    • “That was our best chance to catch the NFL in terms of franchise valuation...” — David Sampson ([48:43])
  • “Once you sell an asset, it’s gone. You have to be very careful about that.” — David Sampson ([49:05])
• John Skipper’s Strategy:
  • Describes outflanking MLB’s desire to “buy players” with big checks, and how the asset became far more valuable inside Disney—even while Disney “overpaid” on paper ([46:59–47:32], [41:57–43:06]).
  • “We paid more money than you because it was strategic for us... more than you could ever calculate on a piece of paper.” — John Skipper ([42:47])
  • “What you’re afraid of is I was smarter than your management.” — John Skipper ([43:34])

Blockbuster’s Missed Shot

• Pablo Torre points out that while MLB made a strategic error, Blockbuster’s failure to buy Netflix for $50 million may be history’s biggest digital whiff ([55:51]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Meaning of "Journalist"
  “All that journalists really have is the vocabulary of being called a journalist... It did become a proxy fight for the larger concept of what does it mean to be a free press.”
  — Pablo Torre ([14:40])
• On Ethical Capitalism
  “Fiduciary duty suggests that no matter what, you have to do only the thing that makes the most money, even if it is unethical?”
  — John Skipper ([23:42])
• On Inside Baseball
  “That was our best chance to catch the NFL in terms of franchise valuation...”
  — David Sampson ([48:43]) “Once you sell an asset, it’s gone. You have to be very careful about that.”
  — David Sampson ([49:05])
• On Outmaneuvering
  “What you’re afraid of is I was smarter than your management.”
  — John Skipper ([43:34])

---

Best Banter & Meta-Commentary

• “David Sampson advising John Skipper on tech support. It’s like a two-year-old teaching an infant how to drive a car.” — Pablo Torre ([03:54])
• “This is a proxy fight for the Samson and Skipper... I’m Sun Tzu, he’s Clausewitz.” — John Skipper ([46:09])
• Pablo regularly notes the meta-nature of their arguments, e.g., “I like that David is negotiating about negotiating...” ([37:46])

---

Important Timestamps

• [05:20] — Sports Reporter Outrage, Press Box Ethics
• [20:21] — Explanation of the WBD/Netflix/Paramount Proxy Lawsuit
• [27:28] — Personal Example: Pablo Discusses What Money Would Make Him Sell
• [43:06] — The MLBAM Sale and MLB’s Digital Missed Opportunity
• [55:51] — Blockbuster Passing on Netflix

---

Episode Takeaways

• “Proxy fight” means more than legal wrangling: it’s a lens on who gets to define the rules—in press, business, or sports.
• True value, in the media and sports world, is as much about vision, control, and execution as raw numbers.
• MLB’s tale is a warning: short-term gain can cost leagues lasting leverage in tech-powered sports business.
• As for journalism? It’s a spectrum—reporting, fandom, and authority are being continually renegotiated in public.

---

For future episodes and more, follow Pablo Torre’s adventures exploring the hidden mechanics of power in sports and media worlds.

Transcript

[Pablo Torre]

Welcome to Pablo Torre Finds Out. I am Pablo Torre and today we're going to find out what this sound is.

[John Skipper]

By the way, I will hand on the lie detector test. Say, did you ever knowingly and deliberately screw somebody?

[Pablo Torre]

The answer is no right after this ad.

[John Skipper]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians.

[David Sampson]

These are things people say about drivers.

[John Skipper]

Who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary.

[David Sampson]

Not available in all states or situations.

[John Skipper]

Close your eyes. Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth. Feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Notice you're limitless. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com, start for free and finally breathe.

[Pablo Torre]

This episode is sponsored by Royal Kingdom, an amazing mobile game that is super fun and free to play and also has no annoying ads. If you're like me, this time of year is slightly hectic. There's lots of travel, there are all these awkward moments of downtime, and that is where Royal Kingdom comes in as the perfect escape. No matter where you are, the game is just a tap away as it does not require wi fi and is also free to play. So you never need to struggle with connecting to the Internet on the plane or train or car you're on. And Royal Kingdom, in case you were wondering, is a Match three puzzle game developed by the creators of Royal Match. Listeners to our show know how much Dan Lebatard has played this game and with tons of events and thousands of levels, it has got something for everybody. Whether you're looking for something to help you relax or whether you're, you know, Dan and you want a new challenge. The levels are also the perfect length, making it possible to get a few in during those football commercial breaks. And in case you were wondering, yes, it does feature a feud between King Richard and the Dark King. The that is almost as intense as the Cowboys Eagles rivalry, but with significantly better graphics. So what are you waiting for? Join the fun and download Royal Kingdom on the App Store or Google Play today. I was on the West Coast, I believe, judging by the pattern of the.

[David Sampson]

Curtain, the fact that he schlepped all this stuff.

[Pablo Torre]

Really remarkable. Really a tribute to you and to the show. Just, just the tenacity that our staff has.

[David Sampson]

You have to want it.

[Pablo Torre]

You have to want to climb over the lowest bar available for any participant.

[John Skipper]

Don't hear anything. Don't see anything.

[Pablo Torre]

There it is. You can't see anything. We can see and hear who the.

[John Skipper]

Is calling on Matt Coker. Goddamn, I hate technology.

[Pablo Torre]

It's gonna be a good cold open though. If the show ever airs, I guess would be a caveat.

[David Sampson]

Ever occur to anyone to do a rehearsal?

[John Skipper]

Okay, I can't hear anything. I can see you. It's lovely to see you.

[David Sampson]

Good to see you, John.

[John Skipper]

Oh, now here.

[Pablo Torre]

Hey, look at that.

[David Sampson]

On the laptop there's a volume up button and that will turn up the volume of your headphones. Do you see a button? It's. It could be above F12. I do and that may work.

[John Skipper]

It did work. Thank you, David.

[David Sampson]

That is the extent of my IT expertise right there.

[Pablo Torre]

David Sampson advising John Skipper on tech support. It's like a two year old teaching an infant how to drive a car.

[John Skipper]

Well, that's true.

[Pablo Torre]

And now we are starting something resembling a show. A show that has never happened in this way. John Skipper, undisclosed location. Not in this studio. David Sampson. John, hello.

[John Skipper]

I've. I've entered the witness protection program. The Department of Justice is trying to make a case against me. I'm being Pam Bondied.

[David Sampson]

It's a verb now.

[Pablo Torre]

Cash Patel just out of frame monitoring John Skipper contributing to the first remote sporting class taping he has ever participated in. David, we have made history here today.

[David Sampson]

I was unfortunately part of all the text exchanges, getting John his equipment, getting him set up and, and all of the pre show shenanigans. And I just want to personally thank Jon for the effort. It's been herculean in nature and it's been as ineffective as it's been funny. But on the other hand, it's super happy and I'm happy to see you guys.

[John Skipper]

I'm happy to see you, David.

[Pablo Torre]

Yes. Clean shave it. David Sampson, thank you for making the time. As always, we've been tracking, of course, your whereabouts and our thoughts and our love goes out to you and the family, as always. But we got to barrel into. We got to barrel into sports business because our audience demands it from us. I want to start, though, with a little bit of sports media because, David, I don't want to relitigate the story of Lynn Jones, the Jacksonville reporter, the local reporter for the black newspaper who's been working in Jacksonville for decades upon decades, and asked the question of Jacksonville Jaguars head coach Liam Cohen right after the game in which they got eliminated from the postseason. That got everybody online mad about Sports journalism apparently doing today.

[John Skipper]

Lynn Jones, Jacksonville Free Press News. I just want to tell you congratulations on your success, young man.

[David Sampson]

Thank you.

[John Skipper]

You hold your head up, all right?

[David Sampson]

You guys have had a most magnificent season. Thank you. You did a great job out there today.

[John Skipper]

So you just hold your head up, okay? And ladies and gentlemen, Duvall, you the one. All right? You keep it going. We got another season. Okay? I appreciate it. Take care. And much continued success to you and the entire team.

[David Sampson]

Thank you, ma'.

[Pablo Torre]

Am. I just want to briefly acknowledge what people are mad about, which is that reporters, sports reporters, have stood up and said, we're not allowed to cheer for the team. We're not allowed to. To say stuff like this as a matter of, like, what our professional standards are. And this set off this argument, which is not really about one thing, but lots of things, because the reporters, the sports reporters were referring to the Adam Schefter tweet, as far as I could see it, in which he said, what a great comment by this reporter, and he's the one who made this thing go viral. And meanwhile, everyone else who's not in this industry on the side of the journalists are pointing out, this lady rules. Like, she's awesome, she's friendly, she's nice, she has great vibes. And you guys are spoil sports in almost a literal sense. You ran a professional sports team, the Marlins. How did you manage Team Friendly Media? What was your radar like for the people in Oppressor who might ask questions that you hated or that you really wanted asked?

[David Sampson]

Well, we controlled the room, so nobody gets credentialed who we do not want to get credentialed.

[Pablo Torre]

And.

[David Sampson]

And yeah, you can sometimes go to battle with the agency, the bbwa, over who gets access to the clubhouse, who gets access to the interview room. We would decide on whether bloggers or podcasters or even certain columnists would have access to the main room where we would do the press avails post game. And the fact of the matter is, there was never a day and I was a part of thousands of these pressers. Not one of them did I not have a list of who was in the room. Not one, because it's given to me each time because there were certain people I didn't want in the room. But when it comes to asking specific questions. And of course she didn't ask a question. It was a statement. When you. I do not ever get the questions in advance. What I do do is prepare the manager or the GM or myself for what I think the questions are going to be. So we've got answers ready to go that we want to give to the media. But if there's ever a situation and it happened where I didn't like the question, I didn't like the tone, I didn't like the coverage, we had the ultimate power, which was to not allow that person in again. Secondly, we choose who asked the question. There is someone in charge of each presser who's there in the PR team. They point it's sort of like a White House briefing where there's an order, there's seniority, and we would control who would ask questions.

[John Skipper]

Wait, did you just say there's a White House briefing where there's order?

[David Sampson]

John, of course. Try to not just think of the, you know, since 2016, in the real world of press availability at the White House, there is a, there is a, an order, there's a place where people sit that. And that's the same in sports.

[Pablo Torre]

To that point, John, I think you do raise a interesting sort of comparison, though, because if nothing else, the White House now is even more deliberate in staffing its press area with friendly entities.

[John Skipper]

I think that it's hard not to associate this with what's going on politically, which is why this has become a big deal. I don't find what she did personally, and you won't find anybody any more woke than me, I don't find that what she did was particularly offensive. The woman has a track record. She's been covering this team for a long time. She creates relationships with management players. And for her to simply say something that seemed pretty non controversial to me, it was sort of like a schoolteacher telling a ninth grader. And I don't mean that to be derogatory. That actually is a lovely thing, saying, you know what? Hold your head up. What's wrong with that? Did that really interfere? If she now discovers some news about the coach that she needs to report, do we think this makes her non credible now? I don't think so. Reminds me of when I first got to ESPN and there was this prohibition by the management that nobody could wear a hat with their favorite team on it or they couldn't walk around the campus with a sweatshirt on. And it just struck me that it didn't matter. Judge them on their work, not on where they're wearing a damn jersey walking around. And by the way, Bill Simmons blew all this up. Right? I mean, this is what Bill Simmons did.

[Pablo Torre]

Yeah.

[John Skipper]

Is he came in and said, I'm a Red Sox guy, I'm a Celtics guy, and I Got opinions and I'm going to sit in the press box. By the way, he was very good at this. All he did was bring new journalism to sports journalism. Hunter Thompson did it before, but nobody thought that was. Everybody thought it was interesting, but nobody thought it was a problem because nobody expected him to follow any rules. What is it he can't do? This is. This is exactly what the Democrats did that got themselves in trouble, which is get all excited because somebody 14 years ago said something when they were young that was stupid. But it doesn't mean they need to resign from the Senate. And this is the same thing. It is the woke sports establishment holding up a mirror and going, this is awful that this woman revealed that she actually appreciates what this guy did. Well, I don't get what's wrong with this.

[David Sampson]

I don't consider myself woke John, at all. What I consider myself is someone who understands the value of time. And that was a waste of time for everyone there who's doing their job and there's a limited amount of time that they have to do it, and it's just the wrong venue. You can appreciate the sentiment, but understand the incorrect nature of the timing. And that's all that. My point was, is that I don't want anybody's time wasted. My head coach or. Or any members of the media. That is not the place I, When I would sit in the press box, Sean, I did not cheer for my team because I know in press boxes you don't cheer. It's unprofessional. It doesn't mean I wasn't cheering inside. She could have thought those thoughts in her own head. But you don't waste time.

[John Skipper]

Okay, I, I mean, you understand the dynamic of that situation better than I do. On the other hand, I'm assuming that woman has been to 500 of those. Maybe.

[David Sampson]

Okay, that's a lot. But maybe 400, 300.

[John Skipper]

So she doesn't get one chance to say a little something. And the time is so tough. All these people are. It's so amazing.

[David Sampson]

I'm calling for her to be fired. John, that's not what I said. I merely asked whether it was a season ticket holder event.

[Pablo Torre]

Well, listen, I want to. I want to. I want to interject myself into this conversation before somehow David Sampson becomes the wokest person on this show, which would be a startling turn of events. I want to actually shed all of that language because the thing that I am seeing here, just as the journalist guy on Sporting Class, is just the vocabulary problem. Like, I think what I was Intuitively feeling when I saw that tweet, which I did not respond to or repost or anything because I immediately had the. Whatever the. The low bar of foresight to say, wow, that's not a character I want to be on the other side of as, like, the critic pointing out the nice one, older woman, is like, violating my professional standards. What I was reacting to was just the question of who gets to be called a reporter. And I think that the word reporter versus the word journalist versus the word podcaster or interviewer, we're so bad at defining what these words mean, right? Because Bill Simmons, by the way, absolutely changed the whole business and changed the norms around it. And I personally am in favor of just disclosing bias transparently while being respectful of the work that the other people in any given work room, work setting are trying to do, to the concern of time that David is pointing out. But at the same time, all that journalists really have is the vocabulary of being called a journalist, right? And so the question of, like, who gets to define that term? Who gets to claim that term? What does it really mean? What it should be defined as briefly, in my view, is somebody who is tortured by an attempt to get the story right, meaning you're trying to get to the truth, even if the thing you're covering does not want you to find out about it. And that means that your real interest that you're serving is not the fandom or the team or yourself, but the public interest. Really, what it means is a degree of difficulty you've imposed upon yourself. And so all you gotta show for it, John, all you have to show for it in the end is the ability to say, I'm one of those people. And so the existentialism of losing that term on top of the actual injury to that insult, right, of no one's funding this anymore, no one appreciates, no one understands it. It did become a proxy fight for the larger concept of what does it mean to be a free press, which is unfortunate, because this lady seems completely lovely.

[John Skipper]

You have to ask yourself whether you're doing more net good or more net bad. You decided weighing in would be more net bad, right? The correct public and part of what you want to do there, which is noble, well said by you. But you do deal with the fans and the public, and the fans and the public are going to be on the side of this woman. So criticizing her, making this a big deal is nothing different than what we're seeing in the backlash to DEI and in this country, which is you guys are overwrought about something that we don't care about. And trust me, 99% of people watching that don't care about the definition of a reporter. And, and by the way, you can't make it precise, right? I don't actually, I'm not familiar with her work. I don't know what she does. I don't know whether enterprise. You can't do that. You could not do that. Right. Because you would lose credibility when you investigate Steve Ballmer or Bill Belichick. And, and you have to be able to say, nope. Far, as far as anybody here can see, I don't have any rooting loyalties. I'm not pulling for anybody. I am pulling for truth, and that's my job. I agree with that. I don't know what her, She's a beat reporter, which by, you know, is a, is an adjective which by itself confines to some extent what she does. I doubt she's doing 6,000 word enterprise journalism pieces for her newspaper.

[David Sampson]

And Pablo, you actually, often you'll get on social media when people accuse you of being too far pro Democrat, you will actually correct people by explaining that you go after Democrats and you talk about your aspiration story. You actually choose to respond to almost every one of the people, whether they're bots or they have 10 followers, when they impugn your neutrality or your credibility.

[Pablo Torre]

It's just, I think, relevant to the conversation to point out that lots of people do different jobs. There should be a Bill Simmons, there should be a Lynn Jones. There should be a David Aldridge. There should be a Pablo Torre, hopefully. And the question that I want any consumer to ask is, what is the thing they're telling you they're doing and are they living up to it as opposed to applying like a blanket purity test? Because frankly, I don't expect anybody else to do what I do. And it's better for me that they don't even try at this point. I like the little niche that I'm in. What I don't like is that I decided to not weigh in on this and have been tricked effectively by a show that I host into talking about it and getting aggregated for reasons that I will almost immediately regret.

[John Skipper]

I see nothing in what you said you should regret. And again, I didn't see any behavior from that woman. She just, she was human and maybe she felt a little outreach was something positive and something good to be done. I didn't see much problem with that.

[Pablo Torre]

All right, I got it.

[John Skipper]

David, your time is so valuable that you can't give up One question for a humane response to something. In a world where January is supposed to be boring, one staple of the holiday refuses to end. The great deal's at Verizon, the joy just keeps on coming. Right now you can save on four new phones and four lines. Critics agree it's the deal that keeps on giving. Come into Verizon and save on four new phones and four lines on unlimited. Welcome additional terms [e-mail] for details.

[Pablo Torre]

This is Paige Desorbo from Giggly Squad. Boost Mobile gives you the same network coverage, speed and service you're used to, just at a more affordable price. Why pay more if you don't have to? Offering reliable nationwide coverage backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Love your service or get your money back, no questions asked? Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store or head to boostmobile.com to learn more. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers who cancel within 30 days of activation will have Boost service fees refunded, activation fees if applicable, and phone payments will not be refunded.

[John Skipper]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game, shifting a little money here, a little there, and hoping it all works out well? With the name your price tool from Progressive, you can be a better budgeter and potentially lower your insurance bill too. You tell Progressive what you want to pay for car insurance and they'll help you find options within your budget. Try it [e-mail] progressive casualty insurance company.

[David Sampson]

And affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

[Pablo Torre]

In an earlier statement, I mentioned the word proxy fight because I've been trying to get us to the actual story that you're here to talk about. Paramount Skydance suing Warner Brothers discovery. They're now seeking to force WBD to disclose financial details of its $83 billion deal with Netflix. You may recall Netflix being the winner of the derby to get Warner Brothers and its assets. David, please define what proxy fight is because I want to understand what kind of a fight we're talking about, what.

[David Sampson]

Paramount and Skydance are doing and for purposes of brevity, just call them, say, say Paramount. They are trying to get what they believe to be a lack of proper disclosure about what the deals are on the table for the shareholders. So what they're alleging is that Warner Brothers did is they did not fully disclose in filings that you are legally obligated to do the intricate details of Paramount's bid as it and Netflix's bid to give an opportunity to shareholders to decide which bid they prefer. Because at the end of the day, it's not like a privately held company. The shareholders can rule the day. So the lawsuit is about that specific little thing and. Which turns out it's. It's a multibillion dollar issue, but it's, hey, you got to be honest, give the people all the info so they can make their own decision. That's what the lawsuit is. It's not saying, hey, we have sour grapes. You didn't accept our deal. It's not a injunction saying you must accept our deal. That is not at all what Paramount is doing.

[John Skipper]

But wouldn't you just define it, David, as tactics to try to win?

[David Sampson]

No, it's to make sure that the rules are fair.

[Pablo Torre]

They.

[David Sampson]

They certainly want to win. The tactic to win is to bid the most and to make sure that everyone who's casting a vote knows what the best bid is and what the highest bid is. And. And by the way, actions speak louder than words. Netflix, in a response to the lawsuit, which they're not being sued, they didn't decide, they didn't call up Zaslav and say, hey, make sure you disclose more. They up their bid. They changed the nature and characteristic of their bid, which to me is one of the great acknowledgments that they knew that their bid actually was not the best for the shareholders. So, by the way, all of this is to the benefit of the WBD shareholders, maybe. Are you a shareholder? Do you not want the most money for your shares? What does maybe mean?

[John Skipper]

Oh, we'll definitely get into that. No, I, I don't want to. If I'm a shareholder, I want them to sell to Netflix and not to Paramount.

[David Sampson]

And, and what is your reason?

[John Skipper]

Because putting more media under what is clearly a compliant organization for the, For President Trump is a bad idea for our country.

[David Sampson]

I'm only laughing because you speak as though you're not a shareholder.

[John Skipper]

I'm actually not a shareholder in this case. But. But I still would. I would still have that behavior. I am hoping that Netflix wins this.

[David Sampson]

Do you know you have a fiduciary duty? Let's say you were in charge of an institution. You were an institutional shareholder. The words you just said are a blatant violation of fiduciary duty.

[John Skipper]

I don't think so. Fiduciary duty suggests that no matter what, you have to do, only the thing that makes the most money, even if it is unethical, if it is bad for the country, you Know, bad culturally, bad socially. You think you have to take the most money. Is that legal? Is that a legal definition?

[David Sampson]

Hold on. Because. Yes, I was waiting for you to say illegal because, well, you share do. You cannot do something that's illegal.

[John Skipper]

I know, I agree. Is that illegal to say overall, this other deal is best for is. Is the best deal.

[David Sampson]

Best deal represent the country. You represent your shareholders and your investors. I appreciate what a good person you're trying to be, but it's incredibly misguided. Not as who you are, John Skipper, it's misguided. Guided as someone who is representing investors or as a shareholder himself. And frankly, the argument ended the minute you said you don't own any shares.

[John Skipper]

So if the Chinese government wanted to buy the company and pay more cash, they would be legally obligated to take that.

[David Sampson]

If it is a bona fide offer that is legally able to be accepted by the company, then you are obligated to take it should you choose. By the way, that's assuming you choose to sell. There's people who make offers all the time for assets and the holders of the assets decide they don't want to sell the asset. Even if some people think, wow, that's an amazing price, you are not obligated to sell an asset.

[John Skipper]

As a fiduciary, I understand that. But if everything is equal and somebody offers a dollar more legally, you have to take that.

[David Sampson]

If, if everything is equal, you have to take the dollar more legally.

[John Skipper]

Legal, not duty. Forget duty. Duty may be different than legal. I feel now like Mark Kelly and Pete Headset. Right. It's do you have to violate your personal beliefs, what you might consider unethical, in order to get the extra dollar?

[David Sampson]

John, you're framing it in a way to make me out to be this sort of robotic capitalist. And I know that's your favorite character of me, but I'm talking about the reality of when you're examining deals. This is not the Chinese or the Russians. This is Netflix and Skydance. It's really not anything other than two bonafide purchasers. And you do have the obligation to make sure that you choose the best and highest bid. And especially when you say everything else being equal, you're damn right you take the extra dollar.

[Pablo Torre]

But. But this is, this is the question that I have, which is, I think at the root of the disagreement, which is how do you value things? Right. So it's not merely a line item that says, oh, that's the number of dollars. It's ostensibly a longer term strategy that will Transcend, by the way, if this administration ever, you know, accepts its term limit will transcend President Donald Trump. And so the question then, David, when you're talking about what is equal, it speaks to what does the. The relevant party here in this proxy fight, the board, how do they think about this? Like, what calculations are they actually making?

[David Sampson]

Pablo, when you were examining possible partnerships for Pablo, Tori finds out, do you agree that what was in your head and without too much under the kimono, when you've got. And you had several, as you should, it's such a great show that you do several different bidders. When you're evaluating the bids, do you remember there's a time when you said, well, that bid, and whichever one doesn't matter, but that bid, that is, if they go to this number, then I have no choice. It's irresponsible not to accept that bid. Do you remember those conversations?

[Pablo Torre]

I remember trying to figure out what would the threshold be beyond which I had to say yes, because the money was so clearly the superior offer.

[John Skipper]

You're in different territory. Pablo is not a public business. If he had been asked by the Koch brothers, Cook Bros. Would have paid you more money, would you have taken it?

[Pablo Torre]

Pablo, I. I like to think that I would not have.

[David Sampson]

Oh, my God. That is such ridiculous offer. Five times.

[Pablo Torre]

Let me say it more stridently.

[David Sampson]

Stop it.

[Pablo Torre]

I would not. I would not. I wouldn't.

[David Sampson]

It's not right.

[John Skipper]

It's incomprehensible to you. That's a personal decision. That's not even shareholders.

[David Sampson]

It's not a personal decision, John. It's your company money. If you were offered five times to do the show, have the freedom you have. So remember, everything's equal, which means you have the freedom, the editorial freedom. You can cover anything you want. Oh, by the way, it's five times the amount of money for you, your staff and your budget. Oh, sorry. I don't like their politics.

[John Skipper]

I will say the implication of the Koch brothers paying you that much more money is not that they're going to let you do whatever you want to.

[David Sampson]

Do, but that's different. John, I agree. If you're offered five times more money, but you have no editorial control and you're not allowed to do the show you want. You're not comparing apples to apples.

[John Skipper]

I know it's incomprehensible to you, but I would take less money and be at the company I wanted to be at, as opposed to taking more money and being misaligned with. With my owners.

[Pablo Torre]

Can I quote? Okay, I Want to quote the open letter that the CEO of Paramount, David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, wrote. This was on Monday to WBD shareholders, quote, WBD has failed to include any disclosure about how it valued the global network stub equity, how it valued the overall Netflix transaction, how the purchase price reduction for debt works, the Netflix transaction, or even what the basis is for its risk adjustment of our thirty dollar per share all cash offer. So that is what the Allison's are saying, which speaks to the question actually of like, so how much is any of this being valuated at in real dollars? David, if you could explain the strategy there.

[David Sampson]

Well, what he's pointing out is all the different ways that the Netflix offer may be even less than what it is purported to be. Because we haven't mentioned yet on this episode, what Skydance is offering is to buy all of wbd. What Netflix is offering is to buy only one of the two companies that it's planning to be split into. And so when you look at what's left, meaning the WBD shareholders would have money from Netflix and they still own an asset. And the question is, what is that asset worth? What's its value? Because then you take the Netflix offer plus the value of what you still own, you add those two together and see how that compares to someone who wants to buy the whole thing, which is Skydance. And so what Skydance is saying is, hey, what's the actual value of what you're keeping? How are you measuring that? You haven't told anyone, David, in a.

[John Skipper]

Way, is Netflix obligated to say what they think they're not buying is worth? They're not, are they? Why would they have to say we want to buy this, we don't want to buy this, here's what we'll pay for this. They're not obligated to say, and here's how we value this. Not buying.

[David Sampson]

Okay, John, they're not. So that letter. Correct me if I'm wrong, Pablo, because I may have misunderstood. That's a letter sent to WBD shareholders.

[Pablo Torre]

Correct.

[David Sampson]

The obligation is on the WBD board and Zaslav to tell, tell me what the value is. Netflix doesn't have to say a damn word.

[John Skipper]

And you could, we've been talking about accepting the highest offer or not. We'll put that aside. You could also have a good discussion around what is best for the shareholders over the long run. Now again, we may disagree. If I were a shareholder in wbd, I would want to be with Ted Sarandis and Netflix, which is clearly a power clearly on the ascendant, clearly right in the middle of sort of new streaming media, Paramount is saying they will buy a bunch of old media. I'm not making a characterization that old necessarily means bad, but you could make the argument that as a shareholder. Now I'm going to just make a dispassionate argument. As a shareholder, I want to be with the company that is going to grow my value more over time. And I would argue that Netflix has a more coherent long term play than Paramount does.

[David Sampson]

Now we're talking John, because that is a legitimate reason to vote for your shares to the Netflix deal, not the Skydance deal. But again then, then the offers aren't equal. All what Skydance is suing for is hey, disclose, tell us exactly what's happening within the deals and then if we decide that, you know, hitching our wagon to Netflix makes more sense, we will vote that way. If we decide we want more current day cash and we sort of are okay with the mid and long term implications of such decision, we'll vote that way. Both, both of those results are legitimate.

[John Skipper]

Right.

[Pablo Torre]

But what's happening now as we alluded to earlier, which is that Netflix is working on revised terms for his acquisition of WBD and now they're, yeah, they're discussing the all cash offer for the studios for the streaming businesses. Reportedly that indicates that they acknowledge what specifically? That their offer is not as strong as Paramount or that it's going to be a continued negotiation upwards basically. And that none of this is actually done.

[John Skipper]

Well, it clearly just, it's not philosophical for them it is, is this muddying of the waters And I'm not suggesting that's wrong. It may be a clearing of the waters. This effort to sort of get them to disclose, to get WBD to disclose things. Netflix is not going, oh, this is a good argument. We may be on the wrong. They're going. Does this affect the probability that we are going to win this and is it worth it to pay more money to make sure we win this? I think that's all it means. I don't think it's. It, it's. It doesn't validate nor non validate what Paramount has done. David, do you disagree with that?

[David Sampson]

No, I think you're, you're exactly right. What Netflix, it's very much the way you ran espn. They, you know, you want to bid a dollar more than is necessary than anyone else bids because you want to win. You've always said that to us during these shows and you've got to be able to know in order to do it. And we talked last show about when you didn't know FIFA, you didn't win. So all Netflix wants is they'd love to know what's the number here that we need to get to to get the vote. Because that's really what they care about. And then they'll decide if they've passed their choke point.

[John Skipper]

Yeah, it was always paired with, for me with a, a, a rejection of false precision. Right. Is it worth 83 billion that nobody knows? Would you pay 86 for it? And does it really make any difference in the long run? Will you paid 3 billion more? It doesn't at this point, I don't think. And that I was always puzzled by people who have false precision. These rights for 11 years are worth $100 million and not a penny more.

[David Sampson]

I'm sorry, Pablo, can I just distract you for one second on that? Because that is the most non business thing you'll ever hear from anyone. The whole job that you have is to have precision. You may be wrong, but the only way just go as low as when you're buying a car, something like that. Hey, is this car worth 10,000 or is it 10,400? I'm not really positive, but I can look at the markers and I can make comparisons and I can sort of see. But you've got a choke point. Whereas you don't have the financing. You can't afford to buy a car for 11,000.

[John Skipper]

That's a different point. The point there is you have a budget and you need to live within it.

[David Sampson]

And that's a company, John.

[John Skipper]

I know. And I always lived within my expense budget. But I decided that the extra 3 billion for this is worth more than something else. I was going to send 3 billion on. That's just, that's just family budgeting, that is. We cannot afford to buy $20,000 car into subject. No false precision. They can be very, very, very precise on your EBITDA and your expenses and, and your revenue. But you can decide that something. Deciding that something is worth exactly a thing. You can decide what you can afford to pay. Deciding what it's worth is an abstract. It's abstract things like buying a house. You walk away from a house not because it's not worth the $500,000 you want. Don't want to pay. It's because you can't afford to buy it.

[David Sampson]

I don't agree. I don't agree. People walk away all the time for things because it is not worth what the. It's when There's a difference between the bid and the ask. When the ask is absolutely more than what it is worth, you don't bid.

[John Skipper]

Well, you're misunderstanding. My argument is overwhelmingly abstract and hypothetical and that is you have to, you also have to have a sort of instinctual feel for the binary of if I buy it, what are the what happens and if I don't buy it, what happens? And some things are existential, you need to have it. This is a moment for Netflix to say we're winning. Some other people are winning too, but we're winning. But gee, we don't have the share. YouTube has for instance. We want more share, we're going to buy more share. We think this is a scale business and gee, there's a range. Clearly if the, If Paramount offers 200 billion, they will get it. But the question I was making is between 83 billion and 86 billion, which is not really for a company. The market size of Netflix, it's not particularly, it's not particularly meaningful.

[David Sampson]

I'm not a fan pop of the slippery slope theory where that's really what John is talking about, where if 83 to 86 is no big deal, why is 86, 89? You have to have a point where it is 89 to 92.

[Pablo Torre]

I like that David, I like that David is negotiating about negotiating, he is negotiating inside of an abstract conversation about negotiation. And I get where, by the way, this is why I love this show is because I actually have a follow up question to all of this because I now more clearly understand why John was a delight to do business with and also a nightmare to bid against. Right? So that's what we're, that's what we're getting a sense of is that David's like this mother is throwing around 3 billion, like it's a rounding thing. And, and so I, and so John's perspective, I, I frankly understand as a matter of opportunity cost, as a matter of like what would happen to us if we didn't get this set of, of, of meteorites. But David, in, in, in practice, if you're going to go the, the Samson route, as these letters are demanding, like let's get precise accounting, how do you do that? How, what is this is a larger question, right, about how to value anything. Like how does the number get settled?

[David Sampson]

You look at it, you get the books of a company, you interview the officers of the company, you understand exactly what the product is that the company sells, you understand what the audience is, you make projections, you have low case base case and Upside case projections of what a company can do, what it can sell, what it can develop, and then you take a multiple of that. That is generally industry defined. So it can be 5 times revenue, 10 times EBITDA. I don't give a what the number is. But you do what is on Wall street, where there are people paid a lot of money to figure out what the value of a company is and then what the choke point would be for their client who's trying to acquire or their client who's trying to sell. And having John on the other side, the reason why it's a bon rev, it's like a dream come true, is because he's not. And I can't imagine that if Bob Iger is listening to this, I would assume he's smiling somewhere, you know, on vacation. But the difference of $3 billion with the value of rights or the value of an asset, that adds up. It's like when you do construction of your house and you, you're over budget in your bathroom by a grant, who cares? It's a grand. But then all of a sudden you get granted to death and you realize you're out 100 grand.

[John Skipper]

Well, that's what contractors do. The. But it really comes down, David, it's not as much of a philosophical difference as a belief in the credibility of that analysis. Right. You know what's happening at Netflix? They're going, oh, we ran all the numbers. It's data in, data out. It's just, it's just. And, and somebody's going, you know what? I bet you that synergy income that we put in that we're going to get from having a larger share or we're going to be able to have relationships with writers and directors that's probably worth. We had that in at 17%. Let's take that up to 18 and a half. That's all they do.

[David Sampson]

Agreed.

[John Skipper]

And I'm not suggesting we did it every time. We always ran. Okay, here's what we got. What happens if the ratings go up 5%? What happens? They're down 10%. But all I'm suggesting is around the margins. I'm not suggesting, oh, we're going to go from 86 to 120. I'm suggesting around the margins. You're playing a game. I just chose not to play the game. They want to buy it. They know that Wall street will like it. They'll accept it. By the way, who gets punished for doing a deal that's a few billion dollars too much? Not very. Shareholders.

[David Sampson]

Shareholders get punished because it has a quashing impact on your share price.

[John Skipper]

But again, you're assuming there is a precision that really cannot be calculated completely accurately. I do think the intangible benefits of an acquisition. We paid what the CFO of the company, my company and the CFO of Walt Disney Company thought was an insane amount of money for Bam. Right? Do you think those numbers Baseball Advance. Yeah. You know that business, David, with. With what we paid ever a mathematical good deal.

[David Sampson]

I wanted to vote against the transaction but was told I couldn't.

[John Skipper]

That's. That's, that's.

[David Sampson]

But just FYI.

[Pablo Torre]

But by the way, I have to get my revenge on this in 20 years when I podcast about it.

[John Skipper]

But with the numbers that you are familiar with, how could you have justified paying more? Because it was strategic rather than financial. Correct.

[David Sampson]

Because my blanket thought is that you were screwing us. Even if I couldn't possibly. That was my argument.

[John Skipper]

That's different. That's neither philosophical nor financial. That's personal. I know this guy.

[David Sampson]

Was I right or wrong?

[John Skipper]

You're wrong. We paid more money than you because it was strategic for us. We paid more money than you could ever calculate on a piece of paper today.

[David Sampson]

As you look back, was I right or wrong?

[John Skipper]

You're wrong about my screwing you. I paid a over market value for a company which was worth more strategically and technologically in the Walt Disney Company than running it as a standalone business, which is what baseball was doing. We weren't going to run it as a standalone business.

[David Sampson]

God forbid you could admit one time just whatever.

[John Skipper]

By the way, I will hand on the lie detector test. Say, did you ever knowingly and deliberately screw somebody? The answer is no. I never did that.

[David Sampson]

Black.

[John Skipper]

That's what you just said.

[David Sampson]

What I'm saying is you knew very well what you thought. Owners wanted money for players and that is how you got the votes.

[John Skipper]

Exactly.

[David Sampson]

The fact is the asset was worth more and it was going to be worth more and we should have held it. That's the bottom line.

[John Skipper]

What you're afraid of is I was smarter than your management. In a world where January is supposed to be boring, one staple of the holidays refuses to end the great deals at Verizon. The joy just keeps on coming. Right now you can see save on four new phones and four lines. Critics agree it's the deal that keeps on giving. Come into Verizon and save on four new phones and four lines on unlimited. Welcome additional terms applied seeverizon.com for details.

[David Sampson]

This episode is brought to you by.

[John Skipper]

Progressive Insurance Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers.

[David Sampson]

Who switch their car insurance to Progressive.

[John Skipper]

And save Hundreds of Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary.

[David Sampson]

Not available in all states or situations.

[Pablo Torre]

Lunch was great, but this traffic is awful.

[David Sampson]

Um, can we stop at a bathroom? Are you alright? I keep having stomach issues after eating like diarrhea, gas and bloating, abdominal pain and sometimes oily stools.

[John Skipper]

Sound familiar? Those stomach issues may actually be a pancreas issue called Exocrine Pancreatic insufficiency, or epi. Creon pancrelipase may help manage ep.

[David Sampson]

Creon is a prescription medicine used to treat people who can't digest food normally.

[John Skipper]

Because their pancreas doesn't make enough enzymes. Creon may increase your chance of fibrosing colonopathy, a rare bowel disorder. Tell your doctor if you have a history of intestinal blockage or scarring or thickening of your bowel wall. If you are allergic to pork, or if you have gout, kidney problems or worsening of painful swollen joints. Call your doctor if you have any unusual or severe gastrointestinal symptoms or allergic reactions. Take Creon as directed by your doctor and always with food.

[David Sampson]

Do not chew capsules as this may cause mouth irritation. Other side effects may include blood sugar.

[John Skipper]

Changes, gas, dizziness, sore throat and cough.

[David Sampson]

These are not all the side effects of Creon. Call 800-633-9110 or visit CreonInfo.

[John Skipper]

Do learn more.

[David Sampson]

That's C R O-N info.com I'm asking my doctor about EPI and if Creon could help.

[Pablo Torre]

I love when this happens, when I'm like, oh, right, this proxy fight story is a proxy fight for this other thing you guys were proxy fighting about. That's what.

[John Skipper]

No, no, this is a proxy fight. This is a proxy fight for the. For the Samson and Skipper. You know that's right. He's cla. He's. I'm son. What's the Chinese. I'm son's son.

[Pablo Torre]

Sun Tzu.

[John Skipper]

And he's. He's Clausewitz.

[David Sampson]

That sounded.

[John Skipper]

Who's a German military strategist.

[Pablo Torre]

I'm going to just give some of those numbers. Right. So this was again, this is a larger story than just this headline, but Walt Disney Company to acquire majority ownership of Bamtech. This was August 8, 2017, and it was. Here we go. Disney will pay $1.58 billion to acquire an additional 42% stake in Bamtech, which was and remains an amazing story when you realize that Major League Baseball, despite being the stodgiest of all the sports, somehow had the most cutting edge streaming technology before the streamers did. And in came John Skipper to say, you guys want to pay your second baseman some money this year, right? Well, I got a deal for you.

[John Skipper]

Yeah, he's right. We did divide what we were going to pay by the number of teams and said there's going to be enough teams who want that money and we're going to buy it. And by the way, he's right. And by the way, if an interesting guy, Bob Bowman, gets a lot of credit for that. Difficult. Could be a difficult guy to deal with, but very bright and he had a vision which by the way, how, how helpful would it be to baseball right now, David, to have that technology as their regional networks collapse and they want to.

[David Sampson]

Yeah, I want to bring you back to the vote, the original vote, which was one of my first meetings. And you'll be able to fact check this back in 2000 or 2001 when ML Bam was, was basically created. And I will never forget sitting in the owner's meeting and looking up at the names of the people who are going to be on the board and it was all old white people who didn't know at all about technology. And I didn't either. And I was a young white person, but I, I was not technologically proficient or understanding what the world remember. I'd run a newspaper business, for crying out loud. And, and didn't think the Internet was.

[Pablo Torre]

Delivering newspapers physically to Europe.

[David Sampson]

Yes, that is literally how my career started. And so I will only say that when BAM was created, what Bob Bowen was able to do and what we let him do was create this amazing asset. And we just didn't hold it long enough. And because we could have, and we would have had power as an industry, that, that was our best chance. And this was the argument I had, it was our best chance to catch the NFL in terms of franchise valuation was this was nothing to do with baseball or media rights or John Skipper or any of that. It all had to do with this entity that was created out of thin air and had such value creation. Can you imagine what it would be today? And that's the thing about selling an asset. Once you sell an asset, it's gone. And you have to be very careful about that.

[Pablo Torre]

It's so funny to look back the timeline, by the way. Yeah. 2000, the year 2000. MLB clubs vote to unanimously consolidate Internet rights, create MLB AM as an equally shared and centrally operated entity. And I just love this fork in the road. MLB Buys mlb.com the domain name from a Philadelphia based law firm, Morgan Lewis and Bacchus, which I like to think of a different world in which they refuse to sell that.

[David Sampson]

No. Because now go back Pablo and. And Morgan Lewis. If you go back and look and. And again, my memory. I'm old and decrepit, but I believe Rob Manford go back to his past and I'll bet you a dollar that that was his law firm. You don't have to.

[John Skipper]

It would. It would make no difference. It was $2.

[Pablo Torre]

So take $2 from him to fact check. The less young white guy who said that Rob Manfred worked for Morgan Lewis. He did in fact work for Morgan Lewis on labor and employment law. Which is all. Which is all to say that. But of course if you dig deeper into any business story, you find a bunch of guys who know each other.

[David Sampson]

That's exactly right.

[John Skipper]

That's true. Look, David, when the. There was a. There were a group of people, and Bowman was the one I knew the best, who believed that the advent of delivering games over digital over broadband Internet would allow the leagues. It's the same time period that the MLB Network was started, which by the way, screwed espn. The MLB Network was. And the NFL Network and the NBA tv, they were invented with the idea one. It's a. It's basically a counter to ESPN getting too powerful. If they actually don't buy rights and pay us enough money, we just put them on our own network. And then Bob actually had the vision to go. He told me one time, I said, bob, I'm not doing this. He said, well, it won't matter because it won't be a next rights deal. We're going to bring everything in house and create a subscription service called MLB something. And people will get all the baseball they want directly from us. I remember specifically having conversations with Bob and Larry Murphy and the other Disney board members. They're like, could this really happen? And I said, no, this can't really happen because these are not corporations. They are aggregations, by the way, monopolistic aggregations of owners that will never go, we're going to do it, but it's going to require us to do what Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandis did at Netflix. Undergo years and years of people complaining, why aren't you performing better? Why aren't you making money now? Why isn't this good? And the owners would have had to say, yep, it's going to go down we're going to have to lower our payrolls. We're going to make less money for some number of years. But then we'll control our destiny. We will not be paying a middle, middle company to, to take our games. We'll take them all. We'll get all the ad money and, and we'll get the subscription money and we'll be in charge of our own destiny.

[David Sampson]

And look where we are now as the Washington Nationals have become the seventh team to go in house at mlb. And there's a lot more coming once Main street goes bankrupt because Dazn doesn't buy him and, and Fubo and Pluto. Nobody's buy declining decrepit business right now. It is exactly happening what you're saying Bob said would happen. And it's happening today. Literally today.

[John Skipper]

But who is actually doing that?

[David Sampson]

MLB has now a department within it where they are taking the rights fees. Now they're doing it so they can pull everything and sell it again in 2029. But MLB Network and everything we were trying to do was to create, as you said, competition to be able to say no to espn, to have a viable place for our inventory that would be monetizable for the owners. But the biggest thing you said and the biggest problem that every sport has is owners do not have the right horizon. They want to win that particular season and sign that particular player. They do not understand what it would be to have a dip in payroll, a dip in earnings in order to capture upside. And you took advantage of that smartly. Very smartly.

[John Skipper]

It's still. David, it's. It's a fun conversation to have it still would require extraordinary execution. Execution on behalf get you to get that done. And I'm not positive you would have ended up in a better place. You make a credible argument that that asset could have changed the trajectory of the league, but it's not certain. Bob was pretty good at executing, but leagues are good at governing. They're good at managing certain things. It's a hard thing to manage an organization that has that many, that has 32 board members or 30 or 28 board members who actually do show up to the board meetings, do argue with the executive. We were laughing before about what is the board saying at wvd. The board of WVD is mostly going to. David, what do you think we should do? I've been in lots of board meetings. I don't know who has a board that really holds their feet to the fire. Europe, you have it much more than the United States. The United States, the Governance of public companies is pretty woeful and for the most part they're controlled by the CEO until somebody gets unhappy with them and they run them out and hire another CEO who then stacks the board with their buddies and friends. It just. So it would be hard to execute. It's not. You're right. Should they have kept that option open? They should have. They should have refused to sell the rest of it to us. Taking it a minority position. Good idea, but selling the whole thing. Or they could also have done what we did with the Big Ten network when they needed all of our footage from years and years at abc and we said, great, we will sell that to you. In fact, we'll give it to you in the next rights deal. But we had a perpetual license to use it. So bam could have said, we get a perpetual friendly ability to use this. You can manage the underlying technology and the company, but we get to use it forever at a below market license. Wouldn't that have been smart?

[David Sampson]

It came up. All of this came up.

[John Skipper]

You wave the big check around and say, we'll pay you this, and you have a negotiator as good and as tough as Kevin Mayer. You say, sorry, you can't do that. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Pablo Torre]

I'm just pointing out here that in the year 2000, while that was happening at Major League Baseball, planning for the future, investing in the future, only for that future to be bought by John Skipper and the Walt Disney Company. September 2000 was when Netflix's founders offered to sell the company to Blockbuster for $50 million. And Blockbuster thought the offer was a joke and declined. So it could be worse is what I'm saying. It could always be worse.

[John Skipper]

Well, it could, but once again, who's to say that Blockbuster would have actually bought the company and executed as well as the Netflix guys did? That. That's a pretty high bar. And I don't see many companies operating at that level of efficiency, innovation and, and intellect. And I'm not sure Blockbuster. I don't know who ran Blockbuster, but.

[David Sampson]

My guessinga it was way former owner of the Mar.

[Pablo Torre]

Exactly.

[John Skipper]

So I rest my case. Do you believe, David, if Wayne Hunga would have bought Netflix for 50 million, we would be looking at a double sized behemoth at this point.

[Pablo Torre]

Yeah. In the words of an institution that my generation needs to respect more, Blockbuster Video. John Skipper, David Sampson, thank you for being kind and for rewinding as always on the sporting class.

[John Skipper]

Thank you, Pablo.

[David Sampson]

David, see you later.

[Pablo Torre]

Pablo torre finds out is produced by walter averoma, maxwell carney, ryan cortez, juan galindo, patrick kim, neely loman, rob mcrae, matt sullivan, claire taylor and chris tominello. Our studio engineering by rg systems sound design by andrew bercik and ngw post theme song as always by john bravo and we will talk to you next time.

[John Skipper]

In a world where January is supposed to be boring, one staple of the holidays refuses to end the great deals at Verizon. The joy just keeps on coming. Right now you can save on four new phones and four lines. Critics agree it's the deal that keeps on getting come and to Verizon and save on four new phones and four lines on unlimited. Welcome. Additional terms [e-mail] for details. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and.

[David Sampson]

Affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law, not available in all states.

[John Skipper]

With endless scroll algorithms and AI flooding feeds, podcasting stands out.

[David Sampson]

They're sought, not served. Audiences actively choose to hear trusted voices on topics they care about. In fact, 72% of listeners say podcasts shape cultural conversations. For marketers, that means podcasts shift brand.

[John Skipper]

Perception like no other channel.

[David Sampson]

Acast's Podcast Pulse 2025 report has the proof. Get all the [e-mail].