Pablo Torre Finds Out - The Sporting Class: Caitlin Clark's Next Big Payday

Episode Date: November 15, 2024

She may be the most polarizing athlete on the planet, but whatever Caitlin Clark touches still turns to gold. Meadowlark Media CEO John Skipper is a lead investor in Unrivaled — a groundbreaking new 3-on-3 women's basketball league — and they're hot on the recruiting trail. Will Clark take the money and run? Plus: How might a second Trump administration affect the billionaires of the sports world? And can David Samson get the future Secretary of State to pick up the phone? 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. David Samson is now about to call Marco Rubio right after this ad. You're listening to Giraff Kings Network. What John is saying there, the feeling underneath the table, I make fun of David's weirdnesses all the time. Thank you. Thank you for David Samson. Good to see you. I have never chewed gum, never have put gum into. my mouth. Never? Never. Because when I was a kid in grade school, I ran my hands underneath the desk absentmindedly and felt something and then looked at what it was and resolved, I will never come in contact with this if I can avoid it. Tic Tacs? Yeah, I'll do Tic Tacs. What about Double Bup? What about

the Charms Lollipop that ends in gum? Too close. Starts at a Lollipop ends the gum. You can throw it out before. Too close. But underneath our desk, underneath our studio table here, It is clean. It's pristine. I wouldn't put my fingers under that if I were you guys. I've seen a lot of people do shows with Pablo. I'll stick to the top of the desk. I wonder if you entered any public school classroom and turned over the desk.

What percentage of desk would have gum stuck to the underneath? I went to parochial Catholic school. It felt in my mind like it was 99%. I went to a private school and it was heavily gummed. So I went to a very public school in a small town in North Carolina. And I would guess it was 100%. That you'd probably be okay on the over, under being every desk. I was just happy to see John Smile when I got in today.

Were you concerned? Yes. I was very concerned. Because of... For myriad reasons. The election? The election? probably number one,

but health, happiness, general, overall demeanor. The pink guy's gone. As you go, so does the company. And so when I come in and you're almost brilliant, it really changes the whole show. Well, you know, and I understand it, Matt Gace is going to be the Attorney General. I don't know why I would be unhappy about anything.

I thought you'd leave us for the cabinet. I thought maybe you were going to take over as something. I'm going to take over and be the last secretary of education. There's a lot of misunderstanding about that. Which part? About getting rid of the Department of Education, which I'm not in favor of necessarily. I do understand exactly. Necessarily is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

Well, I think that we need to understand what it, there's such misunderstanding about with the powers of the president. Now, of course, he's got the House and the Senate, but you can't just wave a wand as president and have things happen. You do need congressional support, which, theory he will have for rational things. The concern I have is if there's support for irrational things. Well, of course, we're not on topic of sports,

but he's already suggested that the Senate should just take a little holiday. A recess. Just an old-fashioned recess. So he can just name his cabinet and not have the constitutional provision that the Senate should be a, a check and balance on the system of presidential appointees, he'd like to suspend that part of the Constitution immediately. It's not great.

It's not great. Listen, as a Floridian, former Floridian, where I started losing my mind only, and I'm not, I really have never told who I voted for, actually, but. This election? This election. I have not. It's an American's right to privacy? A hundred percent.

But I just, no, Marco Rubio. You voted for Marker Rubio. As a Secretary of State is so troubling to me because I just know him from when he first started. Okay, wait. So, wait. So. I have his number in my cell phone. We're going to text the secretary.

Can we text him? The Secretary of State Marker Rubio, a photo. He'll respond with the middle finger emoji. I want to get into this. I wanted to get into what the impact of this election has meant for the rich guys at the heart of rich guys only fans. as well as the rich guys on top of sports. Like, I'm actually curious how that world,

how your world has reacted. But Marco Rubio is somebody that you know why. He was in the Florida House of Representatives when we were trying to get money from the state. And so I met him as a South Florida politician and I was president of a sports team. He wanted pictures with the World Series trophy and autographs from players.

And he promised us that we were going to get this state money. And then he lied, basically. He's just a lot. and he is funded by a guy named Norman Brayman. That's his whole career is because of Norman Brayman. He wouldn't have won school board election without Norman Brayman. And you can look at it. It's all public.

I'm Googling Norman Brayman. Oh, you've never, oh, is that a name that no one knows? I, it sounds familiar, but I do not know who Norman Brayman is. American billionaire, car dealer, art collector, and former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles. Yes, he was. And he's so... One spot for me. Norman Brayman is famous because he sold the Eagles.

when he couldn't get his own public financing to build the stadium for the Eagles. And once that happened, he sold it to a guy named Jeffrey Lurie. Cut two, he then became an anti-public financing hawk. He became this bitter, crazy man who sued us. And I ended up in court next to Norman Brayman on the other side and kicked his absolute ass at every turn. But he did delay Marlins Park by a year through his frivolous, ridiculous lawsuit, which obviously was not a winner of any kind.

But he is, and he thought it would be great to fund Marco Rubio, thinking that he would make for a great politician. Here's an article, John, from the Palm Beach Post, in case you were wondering about the provenance of David Samson's feud with Norman Brayman, quote, Samson also reportedly lashed out at Automagnate and civic activist Norman Brayman. Lashed out? I never thought I would heard that that sequence of Norton's. noun-verb subject.

David lashed out at Norman Brayman. So wait, go back and read the description of Norman Brayman. Norman Brayman is a billionaire who? Well, he's an automagate, a civic activist, and according to various other sources, an art collector. He has a very beautiful art collection. Wait, you sum up the state of billionaires in that sentence, which is, first of all, lots of people are billionaires now, including is he referred to as an auto magnate? That's right.

I believe that means he sells cars, right? That's exactly correct. He's an auto magnet. So he's a car salesman. He is. And he's made enough money. He's become one of the three to five thousand billionaires in the world by selling cars a reputable, reputable occupation.

Sure. But usually didn't lead to billionaire status. Does now. And what does he do with that money? He wants to buy. We've said it on this show. a thousand times. The reason that sports teams are going up

is if you're a rich man and if you're a rich white man, this is tripled, you want a team because there is no better status symbol and I always said... He had a team. And what I always say,

it's just like art. It's just like buying a Vermeer. There are 32 NFL teams or 34 Vermeers. So every billionaire wants to buy. Art, I want to buy a team. They won't sell cars.

Norman's done it all. Except when. Done it all. In court. And obviously, except win your respect. You have to know that I was much younger than I am now, and he was in his prime, and he did not enjoy losing to me. Can I give you the kicker as we continue into this larger discussion to this article,

which is, quote, and this is Norman Brayman, aforementioned magnate, quote, I wouldn't dignify David Samson by even guessing what he has to say. Brayman said, interrupting the question, that's how little I think of him. Wow. Period. End quote. But Norman Brayman is not here on this show where probably you'd like to add to his art collection

and his team collection with a podcast because that's what every billionaire needs. Is a podcast to go with their art collection? Did you think I was making up the Norman Brayman stuff? I know that you are a... What's the word? Congenital truth-teller, actually.

I have no need to make up a story. I believed you. I just always want the color on what the scene of your description was. Mayhem. But when John says, when he jokes billionaires need podcasts, they actually, it turns out, love and do want podcasts. And I bring up the election because I do want to know the Norman Brayman's broadly speaking,

this population of rich people who own sports teams and or want to and or did. What's the reaction? What's the reaction, David, to this election? There are many of the, there was a great story that we were told inside meetings, which is we know that baseball, their mandate was to support both sides. So if you look publicly at the legislative affairs department of Major League Baseball, it's about 50-50 red blue.

But we're very aware because we would keep track of which owners were donating red, which owners were donating blue. Some owners donated both individually, but some were very dead red, and some were more blue. What we also tracked is what the meeting was like after an election, where everybody celebrated the red victory. And so it very much is a benefit for sports teams and sports owners. It's a benefit for big business.

Everything you saw before this election, there's no question that Trump winning benefits the leagues as entities and the owners who own those. teams, whether it's through capital gains taxes, whether it's through the myriad tax loopholes that we've seen, there's just all sorts of the DOJ not being up in anyone's kitchen about antitrust. There's all sorts of interesting things that come of a red victory. Do we know what Matt Gates' philosophical point of view is relative to the antitrust exemption of the sports leagues?

I believe as long as there are young people around. Is he written about that in illegal? Is he written about that in a law review somewhere? You can Google it, I guess. So, I mean, you're asking a serious question. The series is that there are many owners who are afraid to be read because they view it as a problem with their fan base. The NFL manifested it by not finding Nick Bosa

until after the election for wearing his MAGA hat. He wore it, got fined, but only it was announced after the election, for fear of any sort of election tampering, given how strong the NFL is. but privately, when there's no cameras on, they are very much happy that Harris did not win and that Trump did. But the biggest reasons, John, is this money?

Is it as simple as taxes? Is that a number one big headline here is that they're going to make more money individually and therefore they're... So they'll disguise it. They'll disguise it. They can hide behind Israel and they can hide behind other sort of things that, you know, smaller federal government,

more power to the states. You can argue behind many different walls. But at the end, when they're quiet at a dinner where no one's writing anything down, it's certainly about the impact on their businesses and on their net income. I'm shocked to find out that rich people might be happy about making more money.

You're going to benefit also, just FYI. No, I will not benefit. Now, it's interesting because I've spoken to a lot of people who did vote for Harris, and I am curious, and I've asked every one of them, and I'm batting a thousand, are you going to not take advantage of any tax benefits that will exist? So, for example, if Harris wanted 40% tax on capital gains, when it comes to your capital gains at the end of the year,

will you pay the 20% is required? Can you explain capital gains for our audience? Capital gains is when you buy something for a dollar and sell it for $2, there's a gain of a dollar, and the government will charge you a tax on that gain, whether you buy a house, a share of stock, anything that you buy at X and you sell at Y, the difference in X to Y, you pay taxes on. And if the Democrats have their way, that number would be bigger, a bigger percentage to the government.

So if you've made a dollar, they may charge you 40 cents, whereas the Republicans want to charge you 20 cents or sometimes 10 cents. So what I've asked people is, will you donate that amount either to the government or to charity or are you going to take the net difference between the 20 cents and the 40 cents 100 out of 100 100 percent we're taking the advantage of course well yeah of course i mean it's called following the law no i don't i don't know about that it's not following the law you are talking you can overpay the government in taxes if you want they're not going to put you in jail for overpaying your taxes but you are implying that people as a as a as a conscientious objector would choose to send more of their money to this particular Trump administration.

That is the, that is the... I also said charity, though. Oh, sure. I said pick a charity and give the 20 cents to that. Yeah. Zero. It's a clever, it's a clever question. And they, of course, you know what their answer will be, which is, no, I'm not going to voluntarily give money I do not legally have to to the government.

doesn't. And I'm not judging. I'm just saying that's, you're asking what the impact is of a Trump victory. That's a real impact for people who are large asset holders. And it's also clever because it is a different question that you're integrating into the larger premise of, is this good or bad for the American economy? Is this a good or bad regime to exist under if you are concerned about economics, right? Because yes, terrible giving, everybody should be more charitable. That can exist, regardless of whether Pol Pot is the president of the United States. The question here, though, is if you are running... I love that Pablo... You did not vote for Pol Pot just for the record here? I love that Pablo thinks that to our audience, we must explain what capital gains is, but that

everybody will know who Pol Pot was. That's just a blind spot of his Harvard education. Don't worry. Pol Pot was a very popular musician in the 1980s. Very. He played a mean guitar. I thought Pol Pot was like when you were going out for an evening long marathon of partying, it was the first joint you smoked. It was the Pol Pot.

Isn't that what it is? I've never thought of that. I got the pole dube right here. Pole dupe. People don't say doob as much as they used to. Hey, you have a doobie? That was my nomenclature in college. You were a doobie.

I wanted a duby. You were a doby brother. A doby brother. Taking it to the streets. God. The point being here, right? If you're rooting for something, if you're rooting for an outcome as sports is concerned, and again, we've talked about all of the big picture macroeconomic concerns for sports, right?

There's tech. There is beyond that the degradation of the current media ecosystem and, of course, cable television. There are the desires to get money from overseas. In what ways is there a thumb on the scale of the biggest issues that we've been talking about beyond just taxes? Everything's easier now. So I'll give you, well, this is a tax, but something else that different than capital gain. Estate tax. A lot of owners sell their teams for estate tax purposes.

And there were thoughts and rumors that a blue victory would have really changed both the lifetime exclusions, the amount of money that you can give to your children or other people without paying an estate. tax it's called and the number is now 13.6 million per person so if you die with under 13.6 million dollars today there's no estate tax if you die with over that there's an estate tax on the difference of 136 to what your estate is worth did john john did you know that specific number 13.6 to the decimal i do know that number you're acting like it's something that no one knows it's very interesting for me but we never explained what pol pot was by the way he hasn't had time to google I'm sure, Popat was the leader of Cambodia, correct?

Spoiler alert, yes. And maybe one of the greatest despots in the 20th century. A Mount Rushmore autocrat of bad people. No, no, killed and is right up there because I think that killing your own people is slightly worse than killing. There's a lot of bad people in Africa who have done that. But he mostly killed Cambodians. Yes, no, I'm saying that he is, while he may be. on the Mount Rushmore.

There's people who we haven't heard of who have done some very bad things. Anyway, I digress. But estate tax is a major reason why teams yourself. Let's rank all of the... You want to rank the dictators? Who's the Karina of Dual Jabbar,

the underrated but all-time scorer who just really... It's Day Tax. Well, by the way, Paul Pot is up there. He's up there. He's up there. I'm not sure that younger people know who that is. No, and he's my go-to

because I want people to go and Google him on their own when they think that I'm making up a name because it sounds silly well it's a cool sounding name too pol pot i mean yeah i never thought of it as a cool name if you've seen mr mrs pott i could see mr mrs pot at home going have you heard of that there is a bit of a children's book aspect to like is my man pot how about bean pot no no how that pole pot i koka is like to move on immediately just so you know how this show works so we go into a digression wait is that on the tape is

actually everybody get to hear that no because that's it's only in our ear we just heard in our ear Matt Coker said to us, move on. Move on. So we now know that the younger audience does not want to hear more about Pol Pot. Our focus group has decided that we should move on. I want to get to another figure who has broad appeal. God, if you're drinking at home and I say this all the time, take a shot when I say monoculture. But Caitlin Clark feels monocultural at a time when nobody short of Donald Trump necessarily

feels that way. And I want to disclose that John Skipper, in his business interests, beyond being the head of Metal Arc Media, is involved with something called Unrivaled. And so, John, can you explain Unrivaled so that we can disclose your priors and your stake and then get into the discussion? So I am an investor and an advisor to Unrivaled, which is a three-on-three women's basketball league. That will play its first game January 17th. Mark your calendars. I do have a conflict of interest here because I am an investor, so that thanks for disclosing that. It's a brand new league.

It's a brand new league. And it has a brand new media deal. It's been in the news nonstop. So you're downplaying it, but it's really hard to start a new league. It's really hard to start a new league. It's off to an amazing start. Yeah, TNT Sports is the partner. Which is huge.

It's going to be in Miami. We'll play in Miami at a purpose-built stadium that seats slightly under 1,000 people. Are you going to call it a stadium? I would think I wanted to know. Arena, probably arena. What about studio? That's interesting. I have not actually thought about whether we're calling it anything other than a Miami purpose-built stadium,

but it is a good idea to probably name it something that says what it is, which is an intimate place to see basketball, and it is intended, one, to ensure that the cameras are right on top of everything, and everybody watching is on top of everything, because it'll give you a more, you know, up-close look at the game. I don't want to derail this, but that's a huge point. And right now, when stadiums are being built, they're being built smaller because the focus really is on the TV audience,

and the broadcast revenue is a much bigger component of your business. Unrivaled is taking that to a brand new level. they could have made a deal and played where the heat play or played where the Panthers play. Instead, they're going to an 850 person studio. I'm going to call it that. I'm going to see if it sticks. That they're building. And it's a TV studio.

That's why I'm calling at that because the deal they have with TNT, that's going to reach, that's the audience. The people in Miami going to the games, you're going to get a really cool experience. It's like when you go see a late night show live. Well, I was going to say it's unsurprising that John Skipper would invent a, It would help oversee the construction of a venue that is more jazz club than NFL stadium. That does track with John's interests. Well, it does track with my interest. It doesn't track with the decision-making process.

It was not my idea, though I think it's a good idea. And David's right. I mean, it is intended to put the highlight on the game as it is seen by its principal audience, which is a television audience. There'll be 150 lucky people every game. Well, it would be fun. It'll become a hard ticket to get. And we will jam in a few more people who can stand around. But it is all done to make the presentation for the television audience that everybody looks like they have a front row seat.

So you won't, there's no place to put a camera that is in the camera positions that usually go in the upper deck, right? All of the camera positions are low, and so you'll see it. But I know that's not what we won't. Well, I'm trying to set up just also, you're talking about the micro. The macro here is that the WMBA offseason has been the point in the year when the best players would go to Russia. Or they would try to, right? As Brittany Griner experienced, they would go to Turkey. They would go overseas.

And this is meant to fill that and keep them domestically. Yeah, the WNBA season is sort of March to October. So the women, many of the best female players in the world have gone to play in China and Russia and Turkey and Israel. Interesting. And that was to make more money, right? They actually made more money in Russia and China. That's not a good option right now.

And keep in mind just the through line through the countries we've just listed, right? If you're geopolitically aware in any vague sense, you get the idea that this isn't exactly the easiest or most comfortable place for some of these women to want to be, if not for the money that was being offered by the heads of state. Because they needed it, and as I'm valuating... They were making more, way more over there. Well, because the WMBA doesn't pay enough to not work.

The theory is even when you're making the minimum, as a major league baseball player and NBA player, at the minimum, you're still making enough annually that you don't need to work during the off-season. If you're a minor leagueer, you do. For the WMBA, these players needed to work during the off-season because the WNBA salaries were not enough.

So one of the business risks, and it's not that I was ever asked to be an investor because none of us were told, we read it in the paper here at Meta Lark, but we're not upset about that. I mean, but we are. But one of the business risks that would be in any prospectus would be if the WNBA is as successful as they think they are,

if they become as successful as they think they already are and the players start making more and more money, one of the risks would be that they would not need to play during the off season. Yeah, I would define need to play. The fact of the matter is these women who are the best players in the world had the opportunity to make more money, right? And the wages in the WNBA were not high enough that you could simply say, that's okay. I'm making $43 million already.

I don't need to go make another 12 by playing somewhere else. they, you know, were making more modest salaries. And because the teams in China and Russia and Turkey are mostly supported by oligarchs. Yes. They are non-financial teams for the most part, meaning they're losing money. And back to where we started with the auto magnate wanting to own a team, turns out the oligarchs won't own teams as well. Yeah, would love a team of high-performing women from a team.

America to play for them. So they had an opportunity to go somewhere else and make seven figures. That's, you know, I didn't turn down a lot of seven figure jobs when I was 23, 24, 25, and they had that opportunity. The unrivaled is intended to, it's in January, February, and March before the WNBA season, so it doesn't interfere with the season. It is intended to provide the opportunity for the best players. in the world to stay in the United States the whole year.

That works well with their sponsorships, with their families, and maybe with their personal lifestyle. They probably won't to be near their hometowns or in the United States, near their families for the whole year. They don't have an opportunity. Now their opportunity is here. That's what it's intended for. And we have been successfully in getting,

we have signed 30 of the WMBA players, and our intention was to sign the 30 best players. We have probably 30 of the 35 to 40 best players in the league are signed. A couple of notable exceptions, which is, and the most notable exception is Caitlin Clark. And this is why your disclosure of a conflict is actually the reason I want to talk about this. It's because you guys have so many of the names you would know. Angel Reese, by the way, is also in this league. Brianna Stewart and Fisa Collier, these are the two.

main Yukon products who are the faces of this, seemingly on the ground floor of this in a business sense and otherwise as recruiters perhaps too. In this case, though, the biggest fish, David, and it's not close, is of course, Caitlin Clark. And that is not a statement, as we always have to caveat about is she the number one best player in the league. That's an argument that many have had and we'll continue to have in the ways that we want to Mount Rushmore everything. But in terms of the draw the biggest free agent, the biggest economic stimulus package that can be provided to a startup like this, it's obviously her, and she is not signed. She's bigger than even Shohayotani.

In terms of direct, my view is that in terms of direct relation to bottom line performance of a league, you get Caitlin Clark, you are able to go to banks and present financials that are way more base case than upside case, and your base case goes higher. you have more access to capital, your sponsorship revenue goes up, your media rights deal, I assume there's some sort of minimum guarantee and maybe an upside, maybe whatever deal that was negotiated. Having Caitlin Clark is an absolute economic boon, which is why there's a rumor, and we have the person right here who can confirm it or not confirm it, that she was offered what has been called a messy-like deal.

And that is Leo Messi. Right. Is there another? As opposed to an M-E-S-S-Y. A messy-like deal. I've never used messy-like as in your like messy, like from the valley. I'm just trying to help post the show. Just trying to be clear to our business.

I apologize if people heard messy-like and didn't know I was referring to the MLS deal. They know Pol Pot, don't know the O'Massy. Move on. Move on. Is he telling you that? So I'm curious as I think about it, what would I offer? Yes. To get a pre-agent like this.

How do you recruit a transcendent superstar? I'm making it so she can't say no. because that's how important she could be to our league. Now, they've done an amazing job of standing on their own two feet without her, but the incremental benefit, there's no free agent like her in the world, male or female, I would argue, currently. Well, you could actually, you said messy-like, the one example you might come up with is messy and the MLS,

though I doubt that it is quite as dramatic. It certainly was dramatic in terms of merchandise, But so that, but I agree with you. There are very few instances of where one player in a league brings as much value as she does. Again, we're not talking about who the best player is. We're not talking about what the most fun thing to watch would be necessarily, though she's lots of fun to watch. Yes.

But in terms of value, if you were starting a new league, which we are, and in the first game, the most impactful thing that could happen would be the, Caitlin Clark would be there, and she would be playing. I am certainly willing to disclose that, of course, the league has been in discussions with her. I can't disclose anything about any specifics, including whether it's messy life. It's just us. It's just us, and some number of people listening, and legally, I have an obligation to not disclose. But there's no reason not to disclose that, yes, we would like to have Caitlin Clor.

in the first game. Yes, we have discussed that with her. The answer has neither been yes or no yet, though we will know yes or no pretty soon. And I won't characterize what the chances are of one or the other, because I don't know, because it's only one person knows, and that's her. Obviously, we would love for her to play in this league. We have made her a very attractive offer. I won't characterize whether it's messy or messy like. But can I ask, can I ask a general question, which is about the deals being offered to these athletes, of course, in a normal league, right? You're not getting the same deal if you're Breanna Stewart, multiple MVP reigning champion versus the more anonymous player, right? So in terms of the scale of this, what's been reported, John, is that the average is projected around $250,000 higher than the WMBA's highest base salary.

plus there's an equity stake. Is that something that you can comment on, or can you just let that sit there? Every player has equity in the league. All 30 of the women signed have equity in the league. Now, Nefisa, Collier, and Brianna Stewart are co-founders. So nobody will get a better deal than the co-founders. Worse to live by.

I digress. As I stare into the camera. break the fourth wall. But I would mention that that is what you do in a startup when you're when you need, you're dependent, they are your product. And unrivaled, you could go the ice tea or ice cube. Oh boy. Which is the three-on-three league.

It's just calling Mr. Ice Cube. The big three. You could go that way. There's also leagues where the league owns all the teams. That's common when it starts, where unrivaled would own their trying that and live actually. but here it's interesting you're giving points away to the employees because players are employees of a league points being shares in the company points being shares in the company i would point out that metallark uh has given shares to all employees as well very nice of you and uh but i was going a

different way which is that there is a limited amount that you have only a hundred points to give and so that once you give to somebody is Is there a mechanism where if they get hurt, if they stop playing, if they stink, what is the mechanism to get them out at a prearranged number in order to replace that equity with the next? Because I hate to say this. You're already thinking about firing people. They'll be another Caitlin Clark. It's remarkable.

Well, because you haven't even played a game yet. You're already firing players. Because when you give equity away, you only get to do it once. You don't get a second chance at the 100 points that you have to give away. So it's a very risky strategy because he's giving equity to the best players. He called it the 40, 35 to 40 of the top 30 players. That list will be different in five years. The top 40 players will be different.

But you would be able to guess what the mechanisms for that are, right? You get equity, invest over time. If for some reason you get hurt and can't play, you won't get more equity. But notably we've already signed Page Beckers, the incoming next generation. We think it's a risk worth taking that she will turn out to be a great NBA, WNBA player, great unrivaled player. We did an IL deal this year, and she has already contracted to play in the league next year. And you're right, somebody will not be, will not perform well and will not be in the,

but they are multi-year deals. So we are taking a bet that there will be some kind of. consistency. And again, I've got to be fairly careful about what I disclose about the contracts, because I'm not supposed to disclose the material terms of the contracts. I certainly won't talk about anybody's specific salary or equity, but we can guess, though. We can guess all you want. I want to do a quick, quick. It will not add up to more than 100. I'll give you that clue. What I want to get to, because we're not going to extract from John as much as we strap him to the torture device that this chair is, we're not going to get.

the is it seven figures plus a percentage of the broadcast deal, which is the Leo Messi like deal. It's not... Or an increment over what the basis of the broadcast deal. If there's an upside to it, she could have a piece of that? Could she be made to have the largest, the largest non-cofounders stake by a lot? We're not going to get that from John. Or larger than a co-founder steak. Yep. It wouldn't be out of the question. He's really hypotheticals as John is swirling in his chair, not commenting. Oh, we could keep going. I'll go all day. We really could. But on this, in terms of like how you would court the equivalent of a Caitlin Clark, let's make this generic now, but specific to your experience,

you got to get a big fish, a whale, right? Like, what's the deal you would construct, given the abstract scenario? There are so few players who I can have a direct correlation, and the Dodgers are trying it with Otani and all the rumors that they made $120 million this year in sponsorship, incremental sponsorship deals, and incremental gate revenue. In 18 years, I never had one player, never had it proven to me, whether it was bomb, or Sosa or McGuire or anybody, that there was an increment that was due to that player

where you could justify a certain expenditure. My view is, if I know that I do something that will make me $10, that I have no other way to make in the world, I need this person or this thing to happen, I'd give him $7. I'd give him $8 because I'm still going to get $2 that I never would have been able to have. There's never been a player that exists like that. Wait, wait.

You're saying in your experience in baseball, there was never a player that moved that needle. Meaningfully enough that would cover their salary never once and there's never been a player. And anyone who tells you otherwise, they're simply lying to you. But I'm about to give you the exception. Caitlin Clark with Unrivaled would be the example where she will bring with her a pot of money that otherwise would not be available to unrivaled. And that would help inform me what I'd be willing to give her, which I assume is what they are willing to.

to give her, which is going to be far greater than anyone else in the league. It will be more money overall comp than the co-founders. There will be an opportunity for more equity because it's measurable because I bet that they've negotiated in a way with their partners that should they get this tornado of benefit, which is named Caitlin Clark, then what may be worth $1 today is worth $2 tomorrow, and they want to monetize that. So I want to do the tornado of benefit. It doesn't happen often.

And it's a tornado because it doesn't last that long. But when it hits you, you get swept away in it, but then it's gone. So beyond the natural disaster metaphor here. I don't know if I buy the argument you're making as a categorical observation. LeBron James wouldn't move the needle, right? Patrick Mahomes wouldn't move the needle. There's no $50 million of revenue going to the Lakers for LeBron James. an extra incremental $50 million.

I think there is a case you can make based not on simply what the broadcast revenue would be or even the gate revenue would be, but the other factors of being a team that made X number of championships over X number of years. Listen, on an annual basis, no player pays for himself. Would I argue that the Warriors are worth more today because they won the titles with Steph Curry? Yes. Then they would have been had they not, you're right. Yes. How do I allocate that to specific players?

I've never seen the math on that. Well, that is a clever way of saying, I do a lot of math, but that math, ooh, that's a little too hairy for me. But can you do it? Well, I think you can make an argument, but I digress now, John. I'd like you to help me. I do think David's essential point is correct. She is sweet generis, meaning I'm not sure I can think of another athlete who just clearly drives attendance, drives ratings, drives merchandise, and it is incremental, right?

I mean, I don't know what the NBA merchandise does year to year. LeBron, I'm assuming, is a significant portion of it, but probably the aggregate NBA merchandise doesn't go down much. They buy their players. Yeah, when he retires, the jersey sales will not go down very much. I agree with Caitlin being number one by far on the list right now. That is true. And David's only point is that it is such a phenomenon that in order to get her to the league,

I'm assuming you did the math of what the incremental revenue would be and made an offer that reflected that. And without disclosing what any of that is, the answer is that philosophically, of course. We did the math. John is not a stupid businessman. This is a business transaction with her. Do you remember, David, just as a matter of like the soft factors in a sense of? courtship in a recruiting process.

You said that you... I would think David was better at the hard factors. Well, I want to know. What's David Samson like trying to court star-free... Charming. Yeah. No. I let other people be the charming.

We just would go through. Our biggest pitch being in Florida was we would talk to the players and explain to them what their net take home would be by not having state tax in Florida. So if they were thinking about other NL East teams, we would compare it to New York and Pennsylvania and at a time. time Montreal and whoever is in your division. And we would talk about how if you don't get, and I would simply say, if you want to play with the Mets, that's fine.

Here's what they have to offer you in order for it to be the same for you and your family as playing for the Marlins. All roads lead back to taxes in that sense. Well, that is, it's an argument. It's real. But I want to ask you about just, I'm going to pick a star player from the past at random. What was it like to recruit Jose Reyes? It really was about years and money.

He had a number in mind. He wanted to get as close to $100 million as possible. And we knew before free agency started what the number was. And we pretended to not want to do it. And then we gave in at about 12.02 a.m. Two minutes after free agency started, so we wouldn't get accused of doing a deal before, which we had already done. Great.

And we met with him literally at midnight, at a bar in New York. And he agreed. He was upset with the Mets for not being more aggressive. Good Jor. It was drinks. at that time of night. But Jose was on time. I was looking for the specific beverage.

Oh, that I ordered. Set the scene. It's like the tornado of benefit. What was the cocktail of negotiation? I was too anxious to drink. It was a darkened stormy, in fact. It was, but we had gotten a private area in a bar. And because Jose Raced at the time was a very famous New Yorker.

Yeah, former middle infield. People may not have heard of him. He was for a shortstop. Yeah, shortstop for the Mets. For the Mets. Why wouldn't you just go somewhere private? Why would you be talking about $100 million dollars a public facility.

Because we thought that it would be cooler to have sort of what we dreamt about is that he would say yes on the spot and that we'd like unveil him in this bar of hardcore New York fans and be like F you, he's a Marlon. That's where my head was.

So it was the bar of fandom. It was the bar of fandom. It was like with sports people around and it would have been really something. Oh, God. And by the way, Matt's fans to this day were not happy, but It's okay.

How many players ever said yes to you for less money than someone else offered them? I'm pretty sure never in my career, and that's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of players. In the number of, I did rights deals, and people would always talk about what rights were worth and what we would pay. And I always, of course, said, you heard it here before, one dollar more than what anyone else will pay. and I can only remember one rights deal, two rights deals, in the history of all the deals I did where somebody took less money. And that was the Little League World Series,

one of the most lovely events on ESPN. Now, they didn't take much less money, but they took slightly less money to stay on ESPN because... Order of magnitude. Yeah. Like 10 grand or like 2 million? Probably like a million. That's significant, but that's not nothing for...

that deal. Nothing, but they were getting paid tens of millions of dollars annually. That's really their main income. Yeah. But they wanted to be on ESPN. They wanted to be on ESPN, and they were appreciative that ESPN had built the property from something to something dramatically bigger. I know people who were on my staff used to say, let's remind them that when we first put them on ESPN, they weren't very popular, and now they're a big deal, and we should get it for less money. That never were. You created a monster. That never worked.

And in fact, to be fair, these guys were great, by the way. Lovely guys. And they didn't, we had a handshake deal. And I said, did we, I forget how. But at some point, I asked them, did, I'm assuming we had the highest bid. And they said, no. In fact, you had a marginally lower bid than someone else. But we wanted to be with you.

Why, they didn't just say, if you'll pay $1 million more, we have a deal. I think that's the kind of they wanted us to know they were those kind of guys. I think when you talk Turkey with Caitlin Clark, I think that you don't slow talk it. So the way we were with free agents, the way you've got to be with someone like Caitlin Clark, is you're not really selling. You can go through the PowerPoint of the vision. Here's what unrivaled is. Here's all the people involved.

Here's what we're trying to do. You really are trying to compel her to do a business deal along with her representatives because my guess is she doesn't come alone to the negotiation. My guess is she has representatives. She has a business manager. Of course. She likely has a social secretary who has her plan for January through March. She likely has an agent who's negotiating certain provisions of what she would like in terms of accommodations and travel.

And the job is to explain to the player that this will be additive to you because she already knows. Someone like Caitlin Clark and many players were this way, we know that you want us. We know that I can help you win. So why? Why do I? Why should I come to you? And that's sort of like what Juan Soto is going to be doing during the meetings he's having with clubs. Of course he knows his worth and sort of the other teams, but he can sit across the table and say, well, I know what I bring to you.

What are you going to do for me in addition to matching the money? That's why I think there's other things that Caitlin Clark will need in order to do a deal with unrivaled. John, you mentioned that there was another deal you struck where the... Oh, this is great. This was the college football playoff in which we were instructed that we would need to put all but one of the games on ABC because they did not want to be on cable television. They wanted to be on broadcast television. And so I convinced my boss, who was George Bodenheimer at the time, that we would put in two bids. and one of those bids would be $25 million higher than the other bid,

and that would be that if we put all the games on ESPN, we would pay $25 million a year more than if we didn't put all the games on ESPN. I love that. And in fact, the college football playoff committee decided they would take the bigger money, even though they had told us they wouldn't be on cable television. In fact, I was mofowed by the principal negotiator, which was a guy named Barry Frank, who's a legendary. He's passed.

But he was a legendary CAA guy. Agent. Agent. He invented many, many. He invented senior skins. And he invented... Senior skins? Yes.

Golfing. Weightlifting, strongest man. He's really an interesting guy and did a lot of interesting things in sports. He could not imagine one of those. being taking the college football playoff and putting it on cable. So at the end of today's show, a show about finding stuff out, about sports business in particular, what did you guys find out today? I actually found out that John has masterminded an incredibly interesting business and unrival

that really has a chance to work, and that's really cool. Yeah, certainly I did not mastermind it. There's a guy I'm Alex Bezell and Nefisa. I'm giving you credit. who with Nefisa and Brianna were the masterminds of this. I've been advising the masterminds a little bit, and I'm very excited about it. I'm very proud to be associated with it,

and I think it's going to be a lot of fun. What I found out today is that David Samson is now about to call Marco Rubio. To congratulate him on being secretary. Incoming Secretary of State. By the way, Marco will actually, he actually does know what he's talking about here. Hold on. It's working. There's no possible way. This has been Pablo Torre finds out a Metal Arc Media production.

And we are produced by Walter Averoma, Ryan Cortez, Sam Daywig, Juan Galindo, Patrick Kim, Neely Lohman, Rob McCray, Rachel Miller-Howard, Ethan Shrier, Carl Scott, Matt Sullivan, Chris Tuminello, and Juliet Warren. Our studio engineering by RG Systems, our sound designed by NGW Post, our theme song, as always, by John Bravo. And we will talk to you next time.