Pablo Torre Finds Out - The Sporting Class: A Hostile Takeover, FIFA Bribes & the 2025 Gold Rush

Episode Date: December 18, 2025

Did Warner Bros. start a war so that its CEO could cash in for courtside seats? Would Mickey Mouse give a fast pass to FIFA? And what did our white-hat hackers learn this year on Rich Guys OnlyFans? John Skipper and David Samson butt heads about sports business — plus invent a new cocktail.• Previously on The Sporting Class: On The Witness Stand at the FIFA Bribery Trial with John Skipper• Subscribe to "Nothing Personal with David Samson" Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Pablo Torre finds out. I am Pablo Torre, and today we're going to find out what this sound is. You speak much truth there, but you ignore one thing. I worked for the Walt Disney Company, and no matter what you may cynically think, as executives we were told, you must behave ethically. Right after this ad. That is a very welcome, David. It makes me feel almost like you're here.

We're going to... Cleaning the table off. We're going to begin where the first sound is going to be John laughing in response to what David said. We will now, on the record, say that David thinks we're too gross to hang out with right now. I've fought back for a long time. He has, but there's been no real reason he didn't have to put up with it. He now has a reason that he shouldn't put up with it. He has the help of his family to think about, and we have nothing but support for that.

Thank you. Though I do long for the day. and you can come back and admonish my personal lack of repulsion to germs and other grotty things. Hygiene, yeah. So I must say, gentlemen, that I spoke to the lead doctor on this very issue about coming into the studio because I knew he had this show to do. And she asked me what the state of the studio was, whether or not there were different areas I could be.

What is the general, basically environment? do people take care of themselves. And when I paused for just a nanosecond, she immediately said, you shan't be going to the studio. And that was that. But you didn't actually cite the specific personal detriments of Pablo Torre or John Skipper.

I actually did not, John. She didn't ask for names, nor did I give them. The doctors know that I record, and so they are very cognizant of the fact that I go to a studio de tons-on-tom. And so the question did come up. And it was a very quick answer when I said that the COVID protocols that used to exist to the extent they ever did have long flown out the window.

I just want to be very clear that this is the final sporting class of 2025. This is our year-end spectacular. And what David is referring to is, is him acting as the responsible father that he clearly is by consulting the doctor in charge of his daughter's health, is it safe for me to podcast? And when the highlight reel of this year spun through his brain, the doctor said, I'm going to cut you off there. The answer is no. Pretty much how it happened. Seems like a reasonable decision on her part. Hard to argue.

You, my friend, if you ever make the decision not to come in here because of our personal hygiene, we will be highly offended. Believe me, I want to be with you guys more than you know. It is incredibly lonely. So thank you. But again, let's not waste a second because now I have my own clock that I'm here and I know where we are already. And we got stuff to cover. So, Pablo, take the reins and let's go. You're the number one media personality.

in the end of the year. You're given every award for being the top guy. Grab the reins and let's go. How can they know he's the top media personality for the whole year? The whole year's not up yet. He could have a very bad two weeks. We could have a very bad next hour at this point. So far.

I want to start here. I want to start in earnest with the topic that everybody's been asking, the sporting class to weigh in on. because the foremost media merger that's not quite done yet, David, involves Netflix, it involves Paramount, it involves Warner Brothers, Warner Brothers being the asset,

David Zazlov being the character who we've covered so much on this show. And I just want to start with this premise. David Zazlov very clearly seems to me like the guy who's winning here. There are lots of nervous people what's going to happen, and David Zazlov seems to be just waiting

to count the money. David. So, yeah, there's been a public disclosure, Pablo, that shows that he can potentially walk away with about a half a billion dollars because there are disclosures that have to be made when you're dealing with the public company. And actually, they released a list of names and what their benefits would be. But the most interesting thing about this process is that there is some thought that David may not be acting in the best interests of the shareholders.

At least that is what the Ellison family would like to believe. So they chose on behalf of Skydance and Paramount. Caviot, I do work on my off days with Paramount and Skydance, that their offer for Warner Brothers is better, more cash, and they went right to the shareholders. They skipped David because they realized that they're not getting anywhere with him. So they said, screw it, we're going to go to the shareholders. And just recently, what Warner Brothers decided is, you know what,

We appreciate it, but we're going to say that your offer is declined. We don't think it's in the best interest of the shareholders, and that's on behalf of someone ready to make a half a billion from the people at Netflix. So, John, just to recap here, right? So the deal was going to be Netflix buys Warner Brothers, David Zasloff, the head of Warner Brothers Discovery and all of these assets. What David is saying is that on Wednesday morning, after there was a hostile takeover bid, which is a great term,

much like carriage dispute, hostile, takeover is a fun term for us to explain. It doesn't feel that hostile. It's a sort of semi-acrimonious takeover bid. They're doing something which is not inappropriate, which is suggesting we have a better bid, and we would like the shareholders to take a vote on whether it's a better bid. They have the right to suggest that maybe there's some reasons

that the management of Warner Brothers Discovery might favor the Netflix bid, I don't, I'm not making that assertion, by the way, but that would be what they would suggest. God, for me. But, so we'll see. I would, I would, I personally believe that Netflix will end up owning this because it's very hard to convince the shareholders. You're talking about a lot of people. By the way, I'm assuming those shareholders include all those people who are going to get those hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm assuming they have some saying that.

And shareholders tend to go along with the management, particularly when they're all going to make money. Right. I mean, and in some ways Netflix seems a safer bet. It seems, I do think Netflix is overwhelmingly about streaming, and they are the better place if Warner Bros. Discovery is going to transition into more of a streaming world.

it probably is a better company to on them. The caveat, though, John, is that what the Ellison's are doing, they're not going to the mom and pop shareholders. If I don't know this for a fact, as you would say, nor would I like to speculate, but okay, I actually will, they're likely talking to the institutional investors, and they're likely trying to convince them that it really is about the price per share.

It's about the amount of money they can realize, because if you convince enough institutional investors, you're right, the single shareholders tend to go along with management, but institutional investors actually tend to go where the most money is. So I wouldn't poo-poo Paramount and Skydance. The Ellison's don't like losing very well. And David already is talking about David Ellison, that is.

There's so many Davids. He's talking about, hey, if this doesn't work with WBD, maybe I'll turn my attention to Comcast and to NBC and that family because they clearly want to get some economies of scale after the merger with Skydance. So I don't think they're going to walk away that quickly, but it will depend on what the large block of institutional investors believe is best for them.

I feel schooled there, and I think that's right. Well, can we explain the Ellison's? I want to take people into the classroom of like, okay, so the way a deal like this can work if we're doing a quote-unquote hostile takeover bid is that Paramount comes in with this $30 per share, all-cash offer. And where's the money coming from?

Well, a couple of the names, David Sampson, already referenced. Larry Ellison, the at last check richest man in the world and his son, David Ellison, who has been very active. Well, not quite the richest man in the world. Depending on where the... It's about $2.35 billion. And I believe Elon Musk has a little more money than that. I could be wrong. Sorry.

Based on the performance of Tesla and SpaceX, it all changes based on what is happening in a marketplace that I can't begin to summarize on account of the rank corruption that is currently influencing the growth of all of these properties. That is quite an allegation. It's a stock market, actually, and you multiply the amount dollars per share times the number of shares outstanding, but again, have at it. I bring that up to say that what the Allisons are doing is making a deal, a proposal based on what is now, a lot of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, public investment fund money plus

Abu Dhabi's holding company plus the Qatar Investment Authority and this is Tuesday now not Jared Kushner, this is the son-in-law of President Donald Trump, of course, not Jared Kushner's affinity partners as one of the equity investors because Jared Kushner said, I'm out of here.

And so at this point, David, could you just explain Yes. Like what the fuck? It was 200 million, Pablo. Give me a break. It's a rounding error. And it's not, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze because Jared Kushner and the relationship

with the White House, it just wasn't worth it to go to the investors if you're David Ellison and say, wow, what are you bringing to this? What Jared Kushner would bring to any partnership is government approval. What he would bring to anything is simply the president. And in this case, the president has to be very careful in terms of. terms of Netflix versus Skydance because both of those groups do a lot for the president and therefore it was not worth it. There wasn't any incremental benefit to having Jared as a part of it. And again, it was a rounding error. It was $200 million.

I'm amused by your use of the words, the president must be very careful. You think we're going to see a precedent, precedential thing here where he is careful on something? Your point is well taken, but I think that the appearance of impropriety in this instance is just not worth it. He can direct the deal however he wants to through the chair because it will have to be approved. By the way, the antitrust issues are not just for Netflix. They're also for Paramount Skydance. They'd be for anyone in this arena with this type of transaction. So there is the obvious need for governmental approval and therefore you have the appearance

that if Jared Kushner's in the deal, it just looks uglier than having Saudi money or Qatari money because the truth is their money is everywhere anyway. I would only make two points. I believe that Jared Kushner is capable of making the assumption that the appearance of impropriety is a problem. I do not believe the president is capable of making that distinction. So I'm amused by your idea.

And I'm also a little bit amused. It's a cynical amusement. so I'll confess that, that everybody's talking about the regulatory, as though the Justice Department under Pambandi is actually going to do anything other than a claim and put a stamp on whatever the president wants to do. Do you believe there will be a serious look at whether or not this is deleterious for consumers?

No, certainly not. This is never about consumers. It just is supposed to be. It's actually just about where the chips are in terms of other deals that are happening and other things. When we see that, I must say, it's not just President Trump who does that. This happens throughout business, throughout politics, where everybody is making deals every day. I mean, John, you know better than many, although you forget what you used to be in terms of how you put deals together. You had constituencies that you had to answer to as well.

Yeah. Yep. No question about that. don't think there will be a credible regulatory process here. Well, as we consider what the FTC might do, what the Justice Department might do, and we assume that the answer is nothing, that seems to be, I think, a unique feature, not...

And I don't disagree with you, David, there's always been this, but not. There have been Justice's departments that did actually do what they're supposed to do and find out whether this would be anti-competitive anti-consumer, right? That's what they're supposed to figure out. But I don't think there's any intention

in this Justice Department to do that. By degrees, it feels like when they are presented this Justice Department, this FTC, with the following sort of image, right? Netflix wants to buy Warner Bros. Pictures, Television and Games, DC Studios, HBO and HBO Max, TNT Sports International, and New Line Cinema.

Right? And that's already this thing from a competition perspective of like, whoa, that is a bit much, you'd imagine. But then Paramount wants that and also Discovery, CNN, Eurosport, TNT, and TNT Sports U.S., and 18 other channels that we've listed here, including, you know, Adult Swim and the Food Network and all this other stuff. You see the NCAA logo there, the Olympic logo there, Major League Baseball's logo there. A little bit misleading.

Those are not assets. The Paramount is buying the, is assumed. the licenses with those companies, but they're not paramount assets. The sports that they're going to get their rights to involve the logos aforementioned. Yes. And so I like that you do pictures, Pablo, but I think we should inform people that Warner Brothers Discovery is in the process of splitting into two companies. Netflix is offering to buy one of the companies.

Paramount is offering to buy both of the companies. And when you're meeting with the institutional investors, the question is, when you're supposed to act on behalf of your shareholders, the question is, what's in the best interest of right now the one Warner Brothers Discovery, given they're on the path to splitting into two? And there is an argument to be made on both sides that just getting rid of everything, if you are Warner Brothers Discovery, it's clean, it's neat, you don't have to worry about your balance sheet anymore, you don't have to worry about whether splitting the companies was the right decision or the wrong decision. But on the other hand, what Netflix is providing

is schmuck insurance. And schmuck insurance is when you keep a piece. Mark Cuban is good at that. It's when you keep a piece of an asset you've sold in case that asset happens to increase in value more than you expected it to, and therefore you can share in some of that upside even after you sold a controlling stake.

Yeah. It does also, doesn't it, David? To a quick read of some of the public information about this, you would assume that the Netflix bid is 83, give or take, and the new bid from Paramount, I think, is 108. But it's not apples and apples because they're, in fact, buying more things. So it's not a $25 billion, I'm sorry, it's not a $25 billion delta. It's a more complicated mathematics than that.

And what it does, John, is it actually pins a value on that second spinoff company. and so that requires a lot of extra work by the investment bankers to figure out they know what Warner Brothers discovery is worth now when it's split now we're assigning a value to each individual company and the question is whether or not that value is accurate and whether or not that value will change and increase over time with one of these deals being done so it's not a simple decision by Zazlov in my opinion because he stands together gain either way, it's not like he's going to be, you know, dancing for his dinner, no matter which direction he goes.

Yeah. I'm looking at just the number. I mean, total, I think John may be gazing in the direction of the chart where it says that total value of unvested awards for David Zazloff is $537,66,46, quadrilleb, bazillion dollars. Look, I want to start with the Zazlov perspective simply because he's the guy we've covered on this show. And we've covered him in the sense of he had this bid for the NBA rights. And it seems like if you're just listening to the sporting class, that's worth considering as context for this. Does this happen if Warner Brothers Discovery and David Zazlov and his very not game-worn Knicks

at MSG. Does any of this happen if they get the NBA rights, if they stay in that deal, do you think? Yeah, John, I think it happens. I'll allow you to go first. John, just remembered that back when we started this conversation, when he said Warner Brothers doesn't need the NBA, and Adam Silver took offense to that,

they then do a deal with Amazon and with Peacock, and don't forget what Warner Brothers did, they had a lawsuit ready to go saying, hey, we have a right to match. We went through all of this this year back before Pablo was the media personality of the year. And the reality, Paul, I'm going to keep going. I got two weeks. The whole year? The whole year.

So there have been discussions about what was appropriate for Warner Brothers to do because the NBA package, as evaluated by Warner Brothers Discovery, was a loser package. and so it was in the best interest of his financial health of his company, his investors himself, to not overbid on the NBA. And what happened is he did what the Yankees did when they lost Juan Soto. They signed Max Fried.

They signed Paul Goldschmidt. They got a bunch of other different players, maybe for the same amount of money, but a different, you know, spread out the risk a little more. And that's exactly what Warner Brothers' discovery has done. Because since they lost the NBA, they have announced multiple rights deals with multiple properties, all in an effort to, A, strengthen the balance sheet,

but B, to show investors and potential suitors that it's not the emperor's new clothes, that there's actually assets here worth purchasing. So you're suggesting, David, that there is a tumble-on effect from that to this deal? A hundred percent. Yeah, I'm not sure I believe that. I think this is a case of David Zaslaw, aggregating a bunch of assets.

I think the general sense was it's not a coherent company. They're going to face difficulties. They have too much debt. I don't think he anticipated that, gee, while this may be an unwieldy and perhaps illogical company going forward, may have troubles, that somebody who is in the process of wanting to be a force in the entertainment business, which is the Ellisons, have a collection of decided to make a bid for it. I don't think David was inviting bids.

I think he actually expected, he's a confident man and he has succeeded before, and I think he actually expected to figure this out. This actually turns out to be, in my opinion, an exceptionally great deal, because not only does he make all that money, he doesn't have to spend the next season. six years of his life trying to justify that deal because this means it worked, even though it may not have been a good deal in isolation, putting those assets together, created an attractive acquisition target for other companies that have to consolidate. Yeah, you may be right, except part of the provisions that they're negotiating both with Netflix

and with Paramount Skydance is what role David Zazloff would actually have post-trans. transaction. And many of these transactions require the CEO to stay on. They've been negotiating with him. What title? Could it be co-CEO? Would he be the president? What exactly would he be doing? So I don't think he's able to sell to either of these parties and just disappear onto a yacht. I think he's going to have to stay and watch and participate as it unravels whether or not what he's done has been smart. So I guess my question then, John, is... I only want to say, I apologize.

I only want to say, that assumes they actually won't him. His greatest skills have been in creating value, not in operating a company, though he has a lot of talented operators who work for him, some of the other people listed in those filings. Well, that's my question, actually, is did David Zaslov know he was going to win all along? Because all of us are talking about,

ooh, does this company make any sense? Will they get the thing that we consider and have always established as the most valuable property in media, which is sports rights? Does David Zazlov and his lack of sports rights actually indicate that he's been playing

the longest game of all and he's been laughing while we've been stressing? Certainly appears to me. I mean, we have to see where the deal ends up and we have to see how cleanly it finishes. But to me, I'm going to give him more credit, John. I'm going to say that this was all part. And the reason I say 100% is I can't imagine anyone at any level of business not thinking ahead.

And certainly when you're running a company like Warner Brothers Discovery, when you are looking at splitting the company into two, which they had gone down the road, you don't just do that without thinking what's next. That's the whole key in business is you have to look around the corner. You have to be three to ten steps ahead. So I would certainly assume, and I'm still going to say 100%, that all of this, including all of the machinations with the NBA and all of the public statements and all of the lawsuits,

I believe that everything was part of a plan to cash in for himself and his shareholders. Yeah, I'm a little bit skeptical of that. I will give him credit for adapting to a changing landscape. But I do believe, and I do David a bit, I do believe David was genuinely excited, right? One of the perks of being the CEO of a company like that is you get to sit in the front row in the front row of a next game. And there is value to that.

And I think he expected to run the company and create value for his shareholders and himself and sooner than he expected. It turned out that his exit presented himself. Now, you may be right. He may have been prescient and actually had planned this all along. But if I was going to do that, my first action would. not be, I'm going to piss off the NBA and lose these rights. Keep in mind, he bid, I think, $22 billion for the rights, and they wanted $24 billion, something like that. It's an immaterial.

I mean, I just think he miscalculated the negotiation. I bid on a lot of things, John, that not wanting to win them. A lot. Bid on a lot of players, not wanting to sign them. You bid on a lot of assets. You go to an auction. You play some bids. Explain. Explain. Explain. Explain. Explain. Explain. why you did that? Because you want the appearance. And you don't want to make it as obvious as some people like the pirates when they're offering Schwabber

like $25 million for four years. I've bid for players where, hey, that's a respectable bid, but I know from the agent and from the player that they're not taking it, but I get to be the PR guy out in front saying, hey, what more do you want me to do here? So I don't believe that part of the strategy

for WBD was re-upping with the NBA from the start. But I, you know, it's impossible to know and that I cannot, I know of no information to dispel what you just said. I just don't think you needed all that theater. If you didn't want a bid, if it just was a plan, just be straightforward and say, we're not going to make an irresponsible bid. Why, they need to sue them? They need to go through all this. And I genuinely felt from people who I know at what would have been T&T, they saw.

certainly believe that the company wanted to get those rights. But it doesn't matter. You know, for whatever, whether completely pre-designed or actually just adaptive to new circumstances where there's opportunity, the man has done an astonishing deal. And he must get credit and the kudos you would give to somebody for doing that. What made Andy Kaufman great is that he leaned into it in a way that you couldn't tell bit from reality. And so when you're the CEO of a company, yes, you need people at TNT to believe that your intention is to complete a deal. That is part and parcel to the entire process. So I don't use that as a dispositive argument that people that far in the middle management were like, yeah, I think we're coming back, man.

I would agree with you as not dispositive, but I would also quarrel with your suggestion. that anyone involved there had anywhere near the creative imagination of Andy Kaufman. I do think it's a perfect summation, though, as it often is, unintentionally on this show, that David is talking about and Andy Kaufman as commitment to the bid in terms of what he was doing, in terms of the bids he made, and John, who is always, I want the biggest bid plus one, plus $1, is like I don't even have time for such theater. I'm a simple guy. It's a simple...

David, he's a simple country lawyer. All I can picture in my mind now is Andy Kaufman going, here he comes to save the day. Funny and weird and a bizarre auction also describes the next story that I've been meaning to talk to you guys about. And this is a story, David, that involves something that John did that I also want your view on, because John Skipper once testified in the federal FIFA corruption trial.

We did an episode about this on PTFO. It's fascinating. you get to see a photo of, as always, a truly delighted John Skipper, almost skipping into the courthouse. You have these photos from the sidewalk to also evaluate if you're watching on YouTube. But I bring it up because the news of this month

is that, and this is the New York Times, I will quote them, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have moved to drop charges against the former Fox employee who was convicted of scheming to pay millions of dollars in bribes in exchange for the lucrative broadcast rights to soccer tournaments. This was, I mean, it remains a real like briar patch of a story. I mean, this is how FIFA awarded the World Cup to Fox instead of John Skipper and ESPN.

He lost the bid. And so, John, what was your reaction when you saw this latest development in that case? My reaction was that Johnny Infantini and FIFA finally found a United States government that would descend to their level of corruption and ill-gotten gains. And while is there this broish relationship between Johnny and Donnie and whilst. And by the way, it's yet another coincidence, right? Jisleine Maxwell gets moved to a minimum security prison. It's just a coincidence. So it's just a coincidence that the Justice Department decided,

and I believe they put out a statement, this is no longer a priority for an administration which wants to do nothing except work for the American people. It is a serious abrogation of the United States' role in the world. The reason that the United States and was it Letitia James who actually served all those people at the Bar-a-Lock Hotel in Switzerland

is because the United States government is the only entity capable of holding FIFA to some reasonable, ethical, and legal standards. The Swiss government has no authority over FIFA, no other entity does. The United States government has always asserted that if you are committing crimes in the United States,

we can go after you wherever. And that's what they did. And that was a moral authority that our country sometimes has assumed, not always perfectly, but this administration, and I realize this is devolving into my opinion of this administration.

This administration is going, it's not our job to actually bring ethics to the business. Trump is also, go ahead, ask a question until I stop. No, well, I want to, put that on hold for a second just to do a bit of clean-up in Isle Skipper. So Johnny Infantino is the, we're looking for an O. What I call him, Infantino. You bought a different vowel.

Infantini, which is a drink, I think, inspired by corruption. I think it's a subconscious desire to use the word teeny. He was cooking, Pablo. I didn't want to stop him. Because there is something teeny about Trump and Infantini. Well, there is that. And the quote, by the way, is a quote from the Justice Department spokesperson to Newsweek, and John got this one right, quote,

these prosecutions are not consistent with the current prosecutorial priorities of the United States, which direct the Department of Justice's resources into making America safe again. From Letitia James and James Comey. So, and by the way, David, on that, Latitia James was not the person who was overseeing the original trial, the FIFA trial, but she did resign due to the reasons that you just alluded to just that, yes. I think it should be pointed out that the people in the United States, if you ask them, nine and a half out of ten people would agree with that statement, that if I had to choose between my own safety and trying to curb the corruption of the most corrupt company in the entire world

for game ticket prices and where games are that I'm not going to go to that I don't care about, nine and a half out of ten people, if not more, would choose safety. However, the timing, as per usual, is just unfortunate because it masks the message. And so, yes, all of these things, the peace prize that he got from FIFA, which is creating its own yarn, complicated yarn, the Justice Department dropping this case. And the truth of the matter is that when you look at what the case was and you look at what he did, and John, you were there. you are the only one I know in that process

who went in thinking, well, this may be fair. I may have an opportunity to bid a real closed bid, and if I'm the highest bid, I'm going to get it, and if I'm not, they're going to keep coming back. I'm not sure that anybody else in that process had any notion that it was going to be like that. So I returned to where we were earlier on PTFO

and the sporting class, which was, I don't know, what you were thinking in terms of when you're dealing with sports teams and leagues and conferences in college, the way that you have bullied them and gotten deals done is exactly what you're describing. You give a price, there's not enough competition, and therefore you win. FIFA doesn't operate under those rules and they never did, and you made the mistake of thinking that, oh, my experience with X would inform what my experience with Y would be. Well, you speak much truth there, but you ignore one thing.

I worked for the Walt Disney Company, and no matter what you may cynically think, as executives we were told, you must behave ethically, we could not. There is the foreign, what's it called the Foreign Corruption Act? We were told you must abide by that. Foreign Crump Practices Act. Foreign Crump Practices Act. We built a building in Mexico City, and we were frequently, advised by local suppliers that we could get it done quicker, we could get better plumbing if we

would slip some money, and that is a fire bullet fence at the Walt Disney Company. Again, you may have some reservations about the accuracy of that statement, and did somebody do something at some point? Probably. But we didn't, at ESPN, we did not bribe anybody to my knowledge ever, and we chose to behave ethically while the American people made. decide that they don't want the United States to represent the ethical authority of the world because people have the right and everybody's reaction to everything is, what does it mean for me? And that's an appropriate reaction. I no longer wonder why your stock price lags.

My stock price, I'm not for sale in the public markets, David. So I don't have a stock price. What's stock price you're referring to? Disney stock price was spectacular for many, many years. Their issues are not ethics. Their issues are that their most lucrative businesses are under challenge. They're trying to respond to those. But we weren't dupes by being ethical.

There are advantages to actually behaving with that and not approaching everything with the assumption that everybody else is going to cheat. Now, to be fair, we had more money than anybody else. And that usually trumps even cheating. I want to, David, David, David, I want to actually. explained to people, though, you know, just the visuals on John's in court in a federal trial

and it's basically a version of the sporting class without us. They're asking him about like, so how did you make, John, we talked about this, like, how did you make your bids? Why did you make your bids? What did you know about these other side deals

that were apparently being perpetrated, allegedly, by Herndon Lopez, who was the ex-CEO of Fox International Channels and full playgroup essay, They were convicted in 2023 after this trial. But then, of course, an acquittal and then a reinstatement of convictions. Again, a whole briar patch of just like stuff. But David, just for people who don't understand, the fun of being in a trial like that and a courtroom like that,

how can you explain to people just the dynamic in that room? Well, for John, there was really nothing at stake. When he was asked to testify, he was not under indictment. He was not under subpoena. he was simply asked to participate. And I believe, John, you did have legal counsel smartly because JIC is always a good way to be just in case. And I also believe that when you were in there

and you were telling your story, that's the story as you believed it to be and as you experienced it. That was your experience with that bidding process. But when you look at what the convictions were and when you look at what the process was, it's hard to believe that Disney was anything other than a stool pigeon.

You were never going to win. But your suggestion is that it's impossible to operate in a business environment unless you assume everybody else is going to cheat and lie. Thank you for putting words in my mouth that are exactly as I would say them.

When you are dealing with FIFA, for you to expect that the Disney way, I'm picturing like Mickey Mouse walking in and giving a fast pass to FIFA, it's a joke. They're not interested in that. They're interested in making sure that they've got the relationship. They've got the money.

They've got individual. The board members have individual benefits as well. We've seen it with what they do with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar in the last World Cup. We know how they operate. And you did too. And Disney did too. And Bob Eiger did too. And it's nice that you were called on to profess your innocence.

and I don't mean criminally, but sort of you're, oh, I wish the world were this way, but you knew the world wasn't that way. There is, there was no alternative. We weren't going to bribe anybody. We weren't going to cheat. What are you suggesting we should have done? Other than maybe I should have been a less naive, right?

And figured out an ethical way to win. By the way, we did fare an ethical way to win to get the 2010 and 2014. is an ethical way to win is to pay the most money. And for most of the things I dealt with, paying the most money, being the best partner, was enough to win. And so I had very little experience in having to deal with going into a negotiation

and going to now I've got to figure out how I'm going to out-fox and out-cheat these other potential bidders. By the way, while I, it's the, worst business experience of my life, meaning the most disappointing, not most disappointing. I would not, if they had said you're going to get this, if you write me a check, if you, if you go get $10,000 in cash and give it to me, you will win. I would have said no. I know you don't believe that, John. Okay, good. I do believe you would not have done that, but what I, what I find it hard to believe is you're asking me,

how could you have behaved differently? You could have not made a bit. Yeah. Yeah, and I had to say my emotion attached to loving that event so much and thinking it was so great. And we actually did move the sport of global football to a level of prominence. I thought that might matter. I thought the spectacular job we'd done.

with it. Nobody quarrels that we did the 2010-2014 World Cups have never been invested and never will be. It just means you're Frankenstein, that you created a monster and then were surprised at the actions of the monster. Yeah, yeah, it's an interesting metaphor, but I understand it now, and it's accurate. We did, and by the way, I've seen many people make the mistake of going, wow, they'll love me because I help make them. and in fact when it happens, but that's okay. I mean, in retrospect, I wouldn't have done anything different, I don't think. I can't figure out what to do. And if I'd gone to ask Bob Eiger, we can sort of get this if we kind of do some things,

he would have said no. I know it's hard to believe what there are ethical players in the business world. I do like that one of the defenses of Mr. Lopez, according to his attorneys, in writing, was, quote, South America has different cultural norms and customs of gift giving than the United States. It's accurate, by the way. I was once riding along with a couple of my friends in Mexico, and we were speeding like crazy.

And I said, aren't you afraid you're going to get stopped? And they said no, because you're going to get stopped whether you're speeding or not here, and you just have to pay the policeman and leave. So it is different. And by the way, many of the people who we said we won't pay you a bribe were shocked because it is the practice in many cultures. It's not the ideal practice in the American culture, though it is much practiced. And it's okay.

It's okay. You ever built anything in the Dominican Republic? Because it sounds like not. We had businesses throughout Latin America that were quite successful, and we did manage to operate them theoretically in violation of some local cultural norms. Did I ever build a business in Dominican Republic? The Walt Disney Company has a small business in the Dominican Republic, but no. And I don't really buy the, it's okay when you travel around the world to operate. You don't have to have a set of your own values, your own ethical practices.

You have to adapt to those. It's bullshit. You know, the fact that it is cultural norms somewhere for people to, execute people who are homosexual, it doesn't mean when I go in there that I have to accept that. I merely want to ask David about what his experience was like

building something in the Dominican Republic. You have to know exactly who to talk to, when to talk to them, and what they need to get anything done. Otherwise, you will get nothing done. That's just the reality in baseball. And baseball spends a lot of time hiring people like Albert Pujo,

is to try to make everything okay and look good. But the Dominican is one of the most corrupt places you will ever see in terms of getting any academy done, in terms of renting a field, in terms of signing players, just in terms of how the government works there. And so all I'm saying is that you do have to. And so you have to adjust to the rules of engagement.

You can choose not to play the game. But when I do business in Japan, it's far different. Trust me, I don't buy guns. gifts for people when I'm negotiating with a guy in Nebraska. But when you're negotiating with someone in Japan, you don't go to a negotiation without a gift. I can choose to not bring a gift, and then I can choose to not get a deal done. My choice.

That is not an unethical adaptation. And at the Walt Disney Company, you could, when you went into a meeting, provide an appropriate gift, it would have to be de minimis value. But you can adapt. But again, we, and the Walt Disney company probably is somewhat special, right? The world love Walt Disney. People want Walt Disney. They want to buy plush, and there's a lot of money to be made in it.

So maybe we got the opportunity to be a little bit above some of it. And that's where I spent 27 years. So I believe in that. And you and I've talked about this. Oh, David, sorry, David's crying. I do. I'll come with emotion now, John. I'll leave it alone.

Look, I'll leave it long. The line that we arrive at is the line that the United States is contemplating, which is what is the distinction with a difference between a cultural norm of gift giving and commercial bribery? And what the lawyers in this case have argued is that, in fact, this is not something that should be prosecuted because it happened outside. of the boundaries of your American norms. That's not what they said, Pablo.

That's not what happened. They just said that they're not allocated resources. That's a lawyer. The lawyer for Mr. Lopez said... But he's just making a public statement to try to justify the behavior of his client. Oh, this wasn't bad. It wasn't a legal argument.

We have arrived at the place where the sporting class was destined to arrive at the end of the year, which is in the theater of press release, We are talking about who looks good and who looks bad and who did something that's actually worthy of indictment, I guess, ethical as well as legal. What did we find out this year?

We've done so many episodes. We have built an audience that is here to listen to you guys show what it is that you have found out in your careers. But when you look back at the year in sports business, David, I want to start with you. What are you left thinking in terms of the trajectory you've traced on this show? Well, I'm left thinking that consolidation is exactly where we are and what is coming.

And the speed of consolidation may be a little faster than I expected, much like when COVID just basically increased the rate of things that were happening anyway. So I think consolidation in the sports media world was going to happen, but it's happening a little faster than I expected. And the other thing I found out is that the unique vantage point that John has and what I appreciate most about John and what I've learned most over the past year of episodes

going back to just this year is that he legitimately believes in every move he's made and every step he's taken and breath he's taken. And I respect the hell out of that. But you used a word today, John, that I would never associate with you.

You used naivete. I don't find you to be naive. I think that you want us to believe that you are this person. person who always, you know, has the line between what's right and wrong and will always be on the side of the people. But what I've learned is that no matter what, when the camera's off, you are an extraordinary person. So to speak for the people, it's the equivalent of Pablo pretending that he can now speak to the people for the people because of who he has become,

or me for that matter. But I love the fact that we try and that we do these episodes. That's what I've learned, Pablo. I think that I benefited dramatically from being very early to understand that sports was the most valuable content in the world, and particularly a world where it was no longer about broadcast networks. But sports is the most valuable content, and everybody has realized that. And what we're seeing is whether it's private equity funds, whether it's sovereign wealth funds, whether it's whatever, athletic departments, everybody's in a gold rush, right? This is sports is Sutter's Mill right now, right?

It's a gold rush. And everybody knows that sports is valuable. They want to buy teams. They want to be involved. They want to figure out a way to make money off athletic departments in academic institutions. And some of it is ugly. Some of it is wonderful, right? I mean, but that's what we're seeing, right, on a macro level is everybody now understands this is the most valuable content in the world.

You want to start a big company. Netflix very cagely for years said, oh, we're not really interested in sports. They've always been interested in sports, and they've waited for the right moment to enter, and they'll be quite successful in it, and it will matter their company, because sports is about passion, and it's also about concurrent audiences. What I am left thinking at the end of this year, as I listen to both of you guys, be so different in how you talk about this stuff, is that I like that you guys are, there's a term the white hat hacker. Are you familiar with this term? It's basically somebody who knows how the bad guys work, the malicious ones work, in order to explain for people as the white hat hackers, this is what they're trying to do to you. That's why I love this show, is that you guys are. white hat hackers in the world of sports business and capitalism. And also, relatedly, John is a guy who truly mangles entirely unintentionally the

Survivor slogan. Did you catch that, David? He was trying to talk about out-foxing. Outwit, out-play, out-last is what the rule, what the framework for decision-making is in Survivor. And David, of course, has a moment. body that. I nailed that game.

As a guy. By the way, it's a manifestation of you and me, David. You nailed that game. It's funny. And I have never seen 30 seconds of the Survivor. Well, I was on for an entire episode, John. You know what? There's a great 30 seconds of David in that first episode.

If I ever thought about watching a little survivor, I'd start with your episode. And much like David, you would also end with that same episode. Well, yeah. In that case, David and I would be completely aligned. Thank you, guys. All right. David, we love you, we miss you. Thanks for a great year.

It's been fun. We'll do it again in next. I dare say we'll do it again in 2026. Dared to be. To dare us to do. To dare us to do, which is a slogan of Tottenham Hotspur. Oh, boy. This has been Pablo Torre finds out a Metal Arc Media production.

And I'll talk to you next time.