The Bill Simmons Podcast - Chuck Klosterman on the Cinema Revival, Sports Tsars, Owners and Commissioners, Analytics, U.S. Soccer Groundhog Day, and State of Reading

Episode Date: July 12, 2026

The Ringer’s Bill Simmons is joined by Chuck Klosterman to discuss why soccer has not taken off in the U.S. the same way other sports have. Then, they talk sports commissioners, eras of owners, evolving ticket prices for movies, and much more! (0:00) Intro (2:25) Soccer in the U.S. (33:19) Sports commissioners and eras of owners (01:07:04) Ticket prices for movies and more Host: Bill Simmons Guest: Chuck Klosterman Producers: Chia Hao Tat and Eduardo Ocampo Brought to you by PayPal. Learn more at paypal.com Discover something new on TikTok. The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit https://fanduel.com/playwithaplan to learn more about the resources and helplines Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Dovemen Plus Care. Fellas, it's time to care for your skin like you care for the game. Dove Men Plus Care is an official sponsor of the FIFA World Cup 2026 and has just dropped their new limited edition deodorant and antiperspirant collection. The deodorant is gentle on your skin, bringing you 72 hour protection with zero aluminum. The antiperspirant comes in a gozone dry spray for a smooth glide stick, keeping you fresh from kickoff to the final whistle. Visit dove.com slash CA slash E.N. slash men dash care to shop now. The Bill Simmons podcast is brought to you by PayPal.

We're also brought to you by the Ringer podcast network where I did a rewatchable. Last week we did Ali. If you missed it, it was our ninth Michael Mann movie and the one we have coming up on Monday. It's a movie that's also on Netflix, by the way. She's the one. 30th anniversary. Very important Gen X movie. we're going to explain all the reasons you should care about this movie.

It's an interesting one to discuss 30 years later. So we have that and then we have Hitch with Will Smith, Neva Mendez. That is going to be the week after. So that is the plan. Coming up is a long conversation I had with Chuck Kosterman over the weekend. It goes in all the directions. It always goes with Chuck and I, sports culture, all kinds of things. And it's a really good one.

So if you haven't heard me and Chuck do that, we've been doing these shit since I got my podcast that he's been in 2007. So I don't remember when he started coming on, but we do these a bunch. And this was a rollicking, rollicking effort. So it is all coming up next.

We're going to take a break. Pearl Jam and then Chuck. This episode of the Bill Simmons podcast is presented by PayPal. You know a clutch move when you see one, a no look pass, a buzzer beater, big steel. Well, imagine if your wallet could pull off moves like that. That, my friends, is PayPal.

Right now you can find offers from hundreds of brands like Sony, Allbirds, and Viator, and save offers before you check out. Earn unlimited rewards. Plus, you can add those rewards on top of credit card points. Now that is clutch. Download the PayPal app today. Save those offers. Start scoring rewards.

Terms and exclusions apply. See PayPal.com slash rewards terms, credit card points subject to issuers, terms, and conditions. All right, Chuck, close to minutes here. We're recording this on a Friday, even though it's running on Sunday. So there's going to be some World Cup stuff this weekend. Hopefully nothing too crazy. Have you been into the World Cup, Chuck? Not, I mean, not really.

I haven't watched much of it. It can never suck you in. You know, now, now you don't even have to try to follow all things. Things just come to you. So, of course, I hear nonstop conversation around it. I know that the game. Games for the United States are supposed to be like a good times now, but the times have not worked out perfectly for me. So I've seen here and there. I've seen some of it. Yeah.

Do you feel like we're in a loop with U.S. soccer where every four years, everybody decides this is the time that it's, I feel like you and I have talked about this for 20 years. And it just becomes Groundhog Day every four years where they build our hopes up and then people get disappointed and then everyone says how soccer is taking off. And I feel like we've been doing this since the 2000s? There is some similarities with the conversations, although I will say every time this happens, the

conversations become a little more serious. Like, you know, in the 90s or whatever, it would almost be sort of, you know, people would make more jokes about, people are less willing to joke about soccer now. In the same way, they're kind of less willing to joke about everything. What is, of course,

I think, to me, always fascinating is then the as soon as the U.S. gets eliminated, there's the immediate conversation about why don't we dominate soccer? Why aren't we more dominant? What do we need to do? Do we need to have our best athletes not play football and basketball? Is it that we have to change youth sports?

Is it the financial structure? It's very interesting. I kind of have my own theory about this. But I'm wondering, first of all, what you would say, if you were tasked with this idea that everybody seems to want, that we need to have like a national team that's as good as anybody in the world, what do you think would need to happen? Well, I want to hear your theory first.

You said you had a theory. What's your theory? Well, sort of, I do. Okay, so, okay, it's going to just kind of see meandering, but, so, like, after the communist revolution in China. Okay.

Okay. China's this sort of what's the once, like, just mostly agrarian country, you know, now it's, it's poor, that this, the entire country has been sort of thrown into chaos, but they want to become a world power in every context. They want to sort of be a, you know, not just in economically, but also like in things like

sports and arts. So, you know, they made a very conscious decision. They looked at the world of sports and they said, what is a sport that is not emphasized anywhere else and that there is no sort of a problem with the physicality and the the size of our athletes or whatever. And what they came to the conclusion, one of these things was like table tennis, like ping pong. We can dominate, like they made a choice to become a ping pong power. And that happened. It was like they saw this vacuum, right? They saw this empty space that if we want to be a dominant, you know, and they did this

with lots of things, like the manufacturing of very small cheap plastic toys, you know, like the kind of toys that are like, you know, 99 cents or whatever. Like, well, no one's really thinking to themselves, we need to build an industry around this. They did all these things. They made all these choices based on sort of seeing what wasn't there and then like kind of filling that vacuum. I don't think that can be done with a sport that is basically the most popular sport in the world. All these other countries are obsessed with soccer and have this big head start. And I like, I'm not sure what could be done.

It might be that you just can't decide we're going to be great. something, have it happen. And like, maybe that shouldn't even be a demand. Yeah. I have a friend of my David Diamond sent me this long text after the World Cup after we lost talking about just everyone was like, oh, see, we weren't as good. This was all Mirage. And his take was we actually did have a lot of talent. And the difference with our team compared to, you know, some of the other teams that you see out there is like the experience, kind of the nastiness, like the edge, which I mentioned on the pod the other day, Burrhalter came in at one point and, you know, it was like energy guy and they actually felt like they had some cohesion. And his

question was, it's not a question of how do we get more athletes? It's how do we get the type of athletes that seem to succeed in the World Cup, who are all these guys that have these edges, right? And we have this in the NBA and we have the NFL, all these other ones. And in soccer, it seems like our teams are always too nice. Like the best, the most successful team, we ever had was the O2 team. That was the team that beat Mexico and then probably should have beaten Germany and there was the handball and the net. That would have been a big deal if that happened now. But that team was just feistyer. And I wonder like if I'm trying to do like the blame pie for all the different reasons, we can never get over the hump. The athletes thing's a piece of it.

The youth soccer is a piece of it. But I also wonder like is there some sort of mentality, personality thing that we're just never going to have. Like, it's basically at sunk cost. There's just, there's no way we're going to have it compared to what some of these other countries have where they know all the tricks and pulling jerseys and, and there's a nastiness to even the best players, right? And I always feel like over and over again, we don't have it. So why don't we have it?

Well, I mean, that would, that would suggest, though, that there's like these kind of intangible secrets to soccer that somehow we can watch and not. That shouldn't be the case, right? I mean, but that's it. How do we copy, how do we build on these intangible secrets that we apparently just don't have?

And I guess the other question would be, why don't we have it, right? Is it something about the structure we have that building from youth soccer, the culture of it, is there some sort of weird toughness that we seem to be missing? Because the weird thing about the Belgium game

was they really like pulled our pants down. Like that was like one of those football playoff games you watch in round one where one team just gets blown off the field and embarrassed and knocked around and they just don't seem tough or gritty or anything at all. So I just I don't know how we get those people because it feels like those are the type of athletes that drift to the other sports. So to me it's less like athletic talent and more like all the other step that comes with being great. Like somebody sent me a great email about Anthony Edwards, how he just carries himself. in a basketball game. And did you see anybody in America who carried themselves like that?

Right? That, and you watch these other countries and you see somebody like Mbapé, and, you know, he's not like the biggest, most intimidating guy, but he's got like some, some oomph to him, you know, and that's what we seem to,

and it's a weird thing to be like, oh, how do we develop that? But I don't know how we do. But, like, okay, there are more people in the United States playing soccer than there are in Belgium. So we have it we have a larger way more yeah you know we have a larger pool to choose so it's not like you know that that's where this idea that's like if well all our best

athletes played soccer would I'll be different I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case yeah it's just I mean I don't know like you can use Anthony Edwards as this example so like let's say let's say we lived in Norway and we were like well we want to challenge the world at basketball So we look at our basketball players and then they look at the Norwegian basketball players and they're like, why don't you guys carry yourself like Anthony Edwards? I'm like, how does that?

I'm just saying that's a piece of it. But they, so Norway's a good example, right? They have Holland who carries himself like a cross between, you know, Rob Grunkovsky and Ray Lewis and he just moves around the field like a shark. But that's somebody who his dad was a really successful soccer player. Like they have like a whole infrastructure in place that if they have somebody like that, they can develop them differently.

Everyone's talked about this youth soccer stuff, which I have some experience with because, you know, we're in California. My daughter went through the whole thing. It is expensive. It is one of those things where the coaches put a lot of pressure on people to only play soccer and do nothing else and not play multi-sports, which I've talked about on past podcast. That seems to be really dangerous when you're specializing in something from like age seven, eight on.

but I don't I don't think there's some grand solution I just feel like this is going to be the way it is for the rest of my life we're going to be solid but never great in the course of your life in the course of your life they have gotten better so maybe that will maybe they'll continue this in the same sort of general up I mean I would think overall the trajectory is upward right maybe like we were really good in 2002 like we were good in 1994. And I would say all the countries got better because there's just more people playing soccer and probably a better infrastructure for it. Now, the people like the diehard soccer fans that I know, and we've had some of them on the pot, are saying we have the most players playing abroad on good teams that we've ever had. So that seems like a bonus. But then you go against

a team like Belgium and they have people all over the place that are like playing key roles for the best teams. And that's where, you know, I don't know how we get over the hump with that. I mean, it also might be that you might have to do more balligan stuff where you're just basically getting people to switch citizenship and come here. How good, how good should they be? This is, I think, a question that is kind of the unasked thing here. It's like what people keep thinking that we should be able to challenge for the World Cup, we should be a consistent world champion or a world power. I'm not, you know, the biggest country in the world is

China. Most popular sport there now is basketball. They're not a World Cup power. I agree. The country is India. Most popularly sport there is cricket. Their biggest country in the United States. So soccer is the most popular sport in the world, except in the three biggest countries, it's the separate thing. So, I mean, maybe this is just maybe the natural way these things kind of work out. I mean, it's like that there has to be sort of a district of sports excellence or whatever. And the United States is not in position to have that role in soccer. You know, it almost seems like people are saying, like,

we've got to be good at the World Cup. Otherwise, soccer will never be popular here. But it is popular here. The thing is, I think soccer has gotten more popular here over the last 25 years. Like, there's no question. And I think even you see some of the stars that are in this World Cup where people, like, we have real familiarity with now that we've been watching. on all these different channels and streamers for 20 years.

There's one piece that, I don't know how we fix this, but like, you know, if you're in England, growing up in like Manchester, the moment you're like three years old, they're putting the soccer jerseys on you, and if you have any talent at all, you're playing, and you're just dreaming like someday I'll be on the World Cup team in England. What a kids dream about here? It's all kinds of things, right?

Like if I'm in Florida and I'm growing up, but I'm a good athlete, maybe I'm dreaming of playing for University of Miami football someday or you know, or Florida State or if I'm in Alabama, maybe like my dream is to play for Alabama someday from the moment I'm four. Whereas like in some of these other countries,

the dream is to just be playing soccer for, you know, the best possible teams and for the country and that's it. So all those young like fledgling athletes are just thinking about that, but here they think, about all kinds of sports. That might be a piece of it.

I guess it depends if, you know, does the, like, what you're saying is the dream sort of manifests itself as reality. And that if kids hear dream of winning the World Cup, eventually that will happen, they will almost sort of like wishcast it into. Yeah, it's like you take like somebody who has awesome genes and athletic ability. And at age four, they've just decided, I love messy. That's my guy. I want to be the next messy.

A good example is what happens in Canada, right? Canada has been pumping out hockey players forever, and they have this whole system. And when you think about even like, like we finally, I think, caught up to them. You can see from the Olympics, like our best 30 guys are probably pretty even with Canada's best 30 guys.

But if you talked about the percentage of Canadian athletes who were like four years old, like someday I want to do blank, the hockey is going to be way, way, there than it would be here. I mean, what you're basically saying is this is a cultural thing. Yes. Okay, okay.

So if that is true, if that is the case, and that's a very good argument, let's say if it's the culture, well, then it's not just the culture directly around the sport. Like, the reason that we produce great football and basketball players here is not just the culture of football or the culture of basketball. It's sort of the culture of everything. In Canada, for example, you're saying, well, what makes that different? Well, it's not just their interest in hockey. It's not just them getting kids on the ice young.

It's not just them worrying about what month their kid is born or whatever. It's everything about living in Canada. You know, so if that is what does, if it is a totality of these cultures, then it's got to be everything about the United States has got, in a way, change. And I think some people think it kind of is. I think there's a lot of people who feel like the culture of the United States is changing. But I don't know if it's necessarily changing in a way that's going to produce more soccer players. Like these questions might be too big to solve.

There's nothing that can be done. Now, somebody would say, like the people in Norway would say, well, you know, 40 years ago, we changed youth sports. They all became free. And now look what's happened 40 years later. This is, you know, this is the result. Maybe that's true. I mean, it would be really, I think, wonderful if the United States. decided all youth sports were going to be free for everyone.

It's something that they could do, but they never will. That's never going to happen. But if that did happen, I wonder if that would change a lot of things, you know? I mean, it would change the kind of kid who, you know, it would become something that if it was free, that like some parents would be like, you're playing football this year, you're playing soccer, you're playing tennis because it would be like a free summer camp essentially. And that would, there's probably some. kids we miss due to that.

Like they just have no chance to be involved so we never know if they could potentially be. No, once you get to the travel club soccer level, it's legitimately expensive. You know, for some people it becomes prohibitive unless they're scholarships or teams raising money to pay for a couple extra kids,

things like that. There's one other piece that we didn't mention. We've never had the transcendent soccer player here that would become like, Like the hero for somebody, you know, like for instance, Caitlin Clark dating back to the last two Iowa seasons

and then going to the WMBA had a profound impact on girls who play basketball. Like that's just a fact. People watched her. They were like, I want to be like her. I want to shoot like her. We saw this with Steph Curry too with three point shooting in America, where Steph started having that. Basically, it started at Davidson,

but when it really started to happen with the Warriors, you just saw the sport transform and all these people all over the place where like I want to shoot like Steph does. We've never had a soccer player like that here. We've never had an American messy. And we may never will. But I do wonder if we had somebody like that,

how different it would be? Like how many people did Tiger Woods effect when he made his golf run in the late 90s? Did he cause more people to play golf? I would argue that he did. Did Gulf in the United States improve in the wake of Tiger Woods? Yeah, I think more people played. I do think he had an impact.

I mean, I don't have a research paper handy. I mean, it's actually, in a way, starting to seem like Tiger Woods impact is slightly less than we thought it was going to be. if we'd had this conversation and say 2003. Sure. Well, you're talking about minority golfers. I think we would have imagined

a world of golf now. That would have been like many guys who look like Tiger Woods and like a different, you know, and like and golf has changed. But I think that not as much as we thought it would. Well, it's another sport that you need money to get really good at, which, you know,

like that's, you know, it's like a, it's not like there's not like there's not money here. Well, the best example is, there's enough money in the United States for enough people to play golf. I mean, if they, I don't,

it's, I mean, I like this question. Actually, like, you know, I don't follow, obviously I don't follow soccer.

I'm not watching these games, but I find this, this concept real interesting because one, it's just this belief that as the United States, anything that we want to be good at, we should be able to be great at. Yeah. You know?

It's like, we should be able to do it. Like we have the resources. We have the people. But it kind of is proof that like there's just a different way of thinking, you know. I mean, I mentioned that thing about, you know, after like the Chinese, you know, have you ever seen the documentary on General Zoe's chicken? No.

Okay. It's fascinating for a ton of different reasons, but particularly for one. Okay. So it was just sort of, it's also kind of like a history of like Chinese food in the United States. So, you know, after like, you know, the rail world, railroads were built. There are all these, you know, Asian people in California. And they did this, they made up this draconian law, okay, where it was like, if you were of Chinese origin, you could only operate a restaurant or a laundromat. Like they changed the laws of who could own these businesses. And they, and they, And so the people there that did something that's just incredible to me. It's like they got all the people, all the Chinese people into like essentially got big meeting or whatever. And they said, look, if we all opened restaurants here in San Francisco or whatever, we're going to kill each other. Like, we won't be able to survive.

So here's what's going to happen. You and your family, you're going to go to Carney, Nebraska. You're going to open a Chinese restaurant. You and your family, you're going to go to Stillwater, Oklahoma. You're going to open a Chinese restaurant. And they just sent these families to these places where there was no one else like them and said, you know, open a Chinese restaurant. And that's why sometimes you drive through a town, like a small town in the middle of the country. And like they have like a subway, a grocery store.

But there's a Chinese restaurant there. You know, it's like like it really worked. Okay. That's a kind of mentality that I don't think like it's not a very American way of doing it. It would be really hard to do that. Right. To take Americans, put it together and go like, look, I'm going to send you something. place you don't want to live.

You're not going to know anybody, but you're going to start a business because it'll be better for all of us if we do that. You know, it's just, I don't know if the way that the, you know, like the, the, if the U.S. mentality, like the things that we're good at maybe create problems that make it very difficult for us to improve at things that don't naturally come. You know what I'm saying? That was really interesting. Did they figure out who came up, but is it general gow or sour?

Here's the deal. There is no General Zop. There used to always be this idea. They used to be all the, okay, they basically took a Chinese food, and they were like, we've got to make this palatable to Americans. Yeah. But what's it, you know, there's going to be people who have never seen Chinese. You know, this is the past.

People have never seen Chinese food before. They're going to be freaked out. So we're going to use chicken and we're going to make a sauce. It's kind of sweet and kind of crispy. And we're going to throw some broccoli in there. Then there were all these kind of myths about it. Oh, General Zoh was a general. And when he would win battles, he would.

reward his troops with his food. Or General Zoe, when he was fighting battles, needed an easy food to make, to feed his troops, you know, so that's what they ate when they were, you know, sort of out in the wild. None of this is true. And then, even though General Zoe's chicken is a completely constructed Americanized food, there's now sort of an issue over its authenticity. Can you use white meat in it? People say no. Traditionalists say no. How, how spous, spicy or sweet is the sauce supposed to be? Like, even though this thing was a completely manufactured concept, there's now a debate over whether or not it's real, you know?

And it's just, what's great about this documentary is it really does show like, this is how culture actually works. Like, things that become so entrenched in our life. It's like, we seem to think in some ways that, like, they're arbitrary or that there's some puppet master. And it's kind of a weird hybrid of those two things. where it's like you can't control how people feel about things. We can't really control how people feel about soccer.

Every four years, they try. Like the soccer community in the media tries to do this every time the World Cup happens. They try to convince people that both soccer is going to become more popular and that it's actually more popular than you realize, that people actually already like it. And you're just not going to talk people. Like they've got to actually feel that way. Which I think is what's happened in the last 15 years. 15 years or so, I actually feel like more people do like soccer.

They do. There's no question about it. But in the 2000s, it did feel like that that community was trying to sell us on it versus it actually being the reality. It's also unique in that it has a different meaning in the United States than in other countries, the idea of liking soccer. like the idea of liking you know when we think about say in the UK or whatever like you know like the book like among the thugs or whatever like like it's like that was the world for people who were cut out of

everything else yeah it's like they don't have a relationship to art they don't have a relationship to making a lot of money in entrepreneurship but they have this thing soccer is for like the kind of person who has you know that's what they're union in the united states it's the opposite that if you're really into soccer, it tends to mean like, well, you kind of have a globalist mentality. And that you're kind of, you're not like some SEC football fan or whatever. Like you're, you know, they're called like the beautiful game or whatever. And they read like how soccer explains the world and these things like. So I think that the, that the rise in popularity of soccer in the United States is also the rise

of a certain kind of person, that there's a certain kind of person who likes to see themselves as a sports fan who is not like a retrograde thing. It's like that they're that they're sophisticated. That they're that by and you really see this on like on social media. Like there's every time the World Cup happens, there's these people who wanted like suddenly become like soccer tacticians and want you to describe all the things you're not seeing. Yeah.

And it's like, oh, it's like I know you like watching, you like watching baseball or whatever, but like we know this is how it is. So it, but that you're right. Right. It is more popular for sure. There's no question. When I wrote about soccer back in the 90s, I was wrong about that. Like soccer is going to become like one of the major U.S. sports if it isn't already. But it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to do well in the world coming. Well, there's history with it too because people have teams that they picked. You know, when this was happening in 2000, like I wrote that piece about picking a Premier League team in 07, I think. And at that point, I was. in my mid-30s. What you're seeing now is people are picking their team when they're eight or nine. Like they become an art.

And now those people are in their 20s. So they have like the same way you would pick any team. It's not like they jumped in late that's been part of their lives. And I think that's what's probably changed the most. But I still feel like, you know, big picture with the soccer stuff. Like basically what we've been certainly around is the concept of the sports are and, you know, which I've joked about for two. 25 years. But we actually saw a glimpse of it when Trump did the red card thing and got it lifted

for Balgam, the striker of the American team. And there was some wheeling dealing going on. And I was thinking about, I don't, this is the first summer. I'm like, we actually might need somebody whose job that is for real. And I've made the cases in the past. But even like with this Kauai situation right now, it's ostensibly supposed to be the commissioner of a league, right? But it almost feels like we need somebody who has more oversight than that, who can be like, yo, what's going on with this aspiration thing? Like, we have to come up with a decision. Somebody who could float around who has, I don't know, a little bit of authority. And I don't know why that's not a job. Like we have a department of transportation. We have all these different parts.

What part of America generates like more money for, you? from an entertainment value than sports. And why wouldn't we have more oversight over it? Well, you know, when you would- or oversight be bad. You first mentioned the SportsZar thing, like back when we first started doing this podcast, it was more like a joke. I will admit it doesn't seem insane now in that same way.

We're just talking about youth sports. Yeah. Like if I was SportsR, before I would deal with anything with pro sports or college sports, I would first get involved with youth sports. That is the place where it really does be. It seems like somebody could have enough oversight to say, like, look, this way, this isn't good for anyone. It's not good for the parents.

Well, same thing with the NIL and the college conferences where it's like, all right, we've now drifted to this place that I think everybody feels like is pretty rocky. Like this could maybe be not sustainable in 10 years. So how are we going to fix this? And nobody seems to care. Well, like the situation like with the Texas Tech quarterback and the gambling stuff, It's like there was a point where it was like, this seems crazy, but what can we do?

Like what can really be done? Like there isn't anything. It can really, like, it's not really made up that way. It's as crazy as this is, like, pro sports are actually probably, you know, a little more stable than all the things below it. I mean, it's like there's just. Right. At least pro sports has commissioners and billionaires and smarter. Well, the thing is, though, it's like the commissioner's tough because he's working for the owners.

So, of course, it always seems like the commissioners not doing what they should be. And if there was this next level, if there was this next political level, I mean, the problem, of course, is that, like, people do not like the intersection of sports and politics. And you'll go, like, well, people don't like it when it's against them. It's like, well, that's going to happen half the time. It's like, it's not, you know, you should look at the World Cup or whatever, like, you know, Mandami coming out and he's like, I'm looking forward to like Morocco. be upsetting France or whatever. And it's like, that's a weird thing to say, kind of. I mean, it's like, I understand why he wants that.

I understand this feeling, but it's like that, that is, it's not really, it's not really necessary to the, like, I don't, I don't like when this happens. Well, we, I was having a debate about this with some people over text just yesterday. It's, it, it's, it's, it, whatever a political figure uses sports in any way, it, it, seems to make things less comfortable for everyone. Well, we saw it twice with Trump, right? We saw when he went to game three of the finals in the next, the next loss.

And then the red card, which just made people crazy that he got above, right? Well, especially since so many people who love soccer, hate Trump, so they didn't know how to feel about this. It was like the most complex day of their life sorts. It's like, the person I hate most has done this thing.

I need more than anything. It's like a, you know. Right. Yeah. And also like technically the red card was kind of ridiculous and it's weird that that act would cost somebody a game and a half. But this goes back to like even the concept of a sports are like, hey, what's up with this red card situation? So you basically out like in the NBA where they have a commissioner, Wembe when he elbowed the Nas Reid and he got kicked out of that game. By World Cup rolls, he would have also had to miss the next game.

And Adam Sover looked at that and said, all right, that's, that's kind of dumb. We're not going to, he's not going to lose two games for that. So he brings him back. There was like common sense prevailing, which I'm not sure we always have. We got to take a break. If you had a sports star, it can't be a world sports star, though. So it's like how could, how could they affect? No, it would have to be an American sports.

Yes. So it's like they couldn't have them. Wait, we, we had to take a break. I wanted to talk commissioners with you for a second. This episode is brought to you by TikTok. Did you know you can use TikTok to connect? even more to the sports you love. I love a lot of sports.

It's not just highlights. It's everything around the game, including the sports community. You can find breakdowns at classic basketball plays. I love that. Deep dives on baseball stats, even videos on how athletes train and recover. I guess they don't have podcasters.

There are people teaching strategy, sports history, and ways to improve your own jump shot. Mine doesn't need improving. It's a great 18-footer. It's kind of like the biggest locker room ever, and everyone is sharing what they know on TikTok. Join the fun.

Download TikTok today. So we're talking about how leagues and World Cup, all these different things, use sports, all these different things could run, do any other sports are. But then the commissioners of these different leagues that we've had forever, you know, going back to, I don't even remember

what the first NFL commissioner was in baseball. We had, you know, most famously, when a commissioner used his power in the 1900s it was the black stock scandal yeah um that was the first time where a commissioner was like i actually need to take over and take control of a situation that got really bad and i have the authority to do so from the owners and i was thinking about that i'm sober um and just in general commissioners because we've seen this with giddell um when a commissioner takes over a league, they come in initially and they care about the sport, the sport itself, and the good things that can, that they can affect them the sport. But then also the owners

and the business side of the owners and making everybody more money and making the, making the league healthy and sustainable, right? So you have these two separate things. And what's interesting is the commissioner will come in with the, you know, a little more idealistic, right? And then as the years pass, they basically become Michael Corleone Godfather too. It's all about the business. And we see this over and over again with everybody. And I don't, I don't really know why it happens. But I feel like we're seeing it right now at the NBA. And I think silver for the most part has done a good job. But some of the things that are happening with the league, The second apron thing they did, the CBA that they negotiated with the players to put in basically a hard cap,

is having so many bad ramifications already for team building, for players staying in the same place. And they did this to basically protect the owners so everybody could make more money. Now they're going to do expansion, which I think is, I personally think that hurts the league, and I would much rather see them relocate. They're also doing this MBA Europe thing. And all these things are really smart financial moves. But I don't think any of them have made the NBA better. I think the NBA is in a worse place than it was four or five years ago

because they're making business decisions and not league decisions. And when I say that, everyone in the league gets mad at me. And then it's like, well, why are you so hard on Adam? And to me, that's not the question. The question is, is his job to elevate the league or just make money? And they would argue, well, both. But have you elevated the league this decade? And I don't know if the answer is yes.

And even I look back to the COVID thing. And when they had the COVID, they come back, they play the bubble playoffs. They start the next season. They have to do 72 games or whatever. They ended up 71, whatever. And there was that grind and then playoffs. And then the next season, there was basically no off seasons for two years. They basically played almost three seasons in two.

to try to keep all the money the same. And I think it had real damage to the players and to the teams and the competitiveness of the league. And it was just kind of like, well, we had to do it that way. Everybody can't lose money. I'm concerned about the intentions of the league. And even some of the owners they've led in, like this Portland owner, some of the stuff he's done. Yeah, it's weird. you know, and, you know, they greenlit this Dallas owner.

I still don't know what Mark Cuban sold. But just in general, I just think the league's in a weird place. So what's your take? Okay, like the thing you said about how they begin sort of with the good of the league, what's good for the sport, how can we grow this over time? And then eventually it becomes a thing where they're just kind of like the owner of puppet. Well, I mean, the first part is like how you get the job. It's like they're trying to pick a new commissioners.

They talk to guys about basketball and about the meaning of basketball or its place in the world and all these things. But then as soon as they're actually doing it, then it's like, well, okay, but remember, you work for us. We need to make money. I'm glad you have those ideas. Try to implement those ideas while also doing exactly what we want. It's a, the amount of money is part of it. I mean, it's just the sheer mass. of money, the expansion, right?

You can make a lot of arguments over why expansion's just going to water the league down. There's already too many teams tanking. There's already too many games where you turn on and no one's playing. How old, you know, putting two more teams in their help. You can't really make the argument for it, except

that the buy-in is now, you know, in the... So every owner gets what if this one, I think you know the number. So it's like, so if they get let's say they get seven and a half billion for each team. It's $15 billion for the combo.

There's 30 teams. They would all get a check for $500 million, that they wouldn't have to share with the players, by the way. So if that check, you know, if that check, you know, is like, you know, $80 million, it's possible somebody can go like, well, though, it's like, this could hurt the league.

Maybe in the long run, it could cost me money, you know, but when the number is $500 million, it's just too big. It's like the expansion. They're going to expand the NCAA basketball tournament again to like 76 teams now. Is that the number next year? 76. They're going to expand World Cup too to probably they'll probably go to 48.

I do not know. Or 64. I forget. A single person. I've got to talk to one person who's like, I think the NCAA tournament needs more teams. I think it'll be better if they do that. Yeah, but here's the difference. No one thinks that.

Difference with the NCAA. It's completely rudderless and lawless right now, right? Who's in charge? Nobody even knows. And people just do whatever. they want and they're afraid of all the big universities and people can just form new conferences and super conferences. And we're in this situation where now where you have UCLA who's flying around to all these different parts of the country, which makes sense if it's the football team,

but not if it's like the cross-country team or the women's soccer team just flying. All these these alleged college athletes are just flying around because we just like college sports go to shit. I think the NBA is a little different because they have actual control over what they should be doing, where the team should be, how many should they have, what should the salary cap be that could be, you know, I just think when we get to the point when, you know, and there's a lot of reasons why Brown and Tatum could stay together. But when it makes no sense for them to stay together financially, that's not good. Because if you go back to the league that we loved and we grew up with, you're basically saying, all right, I loved watching the 80s Lakers and Celtics.

And it was really fun when MJ and Pippin were together. Well, I don't know if I don't know if Pippin, they have to do that Pippin, the famous Pippin trade now in 94, right? We don't get those other three titles with M.J. and Pippin because Pippin's on Seattle. You know, Kevin McHale's not on the Celtics in the mid-80s because they absolutely would have had to trade them in like 1985 because they couldn't have afforded max contracts for Byrd to McHale. Like, I, and honestly, I think this is what the league wants.

I think they want complete parity like NFL. I don't think they want teams to be good for more than three or four years. Well, one thing I think, and this kind of happened this year, to be honest, is, you know, I felt that from a consumer perspective, this was a real troubling NBA season. Like, it's, you know, I've mentioned this so many times, but I just, I can't count how often I tried to watch, you know, look forward to a basketball game and realized a bunch of guys weren't playing suddenly or it's just single-in. But they're always like when the playoffs happen and the playoffs were serious, yeah, we're

great bailed out at the end. And that kind of happened. We had this great sort of Western Conference final where this guy suddenly is like, oh, this is the new Will Chamberlain or whatever. Then he goes and plays the Knicks becomes the villain. It's like for if you're trying to write it, if you're the NBA trying to write this narrative, it can't be any better than this. plus they lose to the Knicks, one of the most likable teams.

I can remember it a very long time, but also from New York, it's just like this contradiction. Like it all kind of works out at the end. That's kind of how the NBA sort of looks at this. Right. And then they had a great draft with a whole bunch of great players that came in. You have all these problems. People will forget. People will forget when they see these amazing games.

They'll just sort of be like, oh, yeah, I still, you know, you know, fantastic or whatever. Right. I wanted to ask you something about Jaylon Brown, though. And not really about him, but sort of about kind of the debate going on around him. Okay. And I'm sure you've probably talked about this already, but maybe not in this specific way. So, you know, if you, I listen to like Bob Meyer talking or maybe it was Winhurst. It was kind of a rational guy, right?

It was a rational guy talking about analytics. And what do you think they said about the use of analytics? What's the rational take about analytics in basketball? What are you supposed to say if you're like not a crazy person? you're supposed to say it's part of the puzzle for evaluating a player and a team. Exactly. It's not the part, but it's part of the process. Okay.

But can that be? Like, you know, like one of the stats that was really hurting, you know, Jalen Brown was, I think it was one where it was like Yolkech was number one and then he went down a little bit in the place. The on offsets. It was the one that him, yes. Yeah. Okay, him and De Rosen were the ones at the bottom.

Yeah. And when you looked at all the other guys, it actually did seem pretty accurate. It was like, Yokic was the, Joker was the best player, but he didn't play as well in the playoffs, so it went down.

Like, he kind of went down the list. It kind of made sense. Yeah. Like, if, if the idea is that analytics, watch every game, that the human eye sees one,

but analytics sees them all, um, can you actually say we need a hybrid of these? two things? I mean, it doesn't work that way in chemistry. If we're doing chemistry experiments, we can't be like, we got to measure everything out, except when we use, you know, like a radioactive material. Then we're just going to eyeball that. Because that's like, like, if something has kind of a numeric underpinning, you can act, you know, it doesn't have to kind of be all or nothing. Either you have to say that we're not going to look at this because this is a

That's a good point. I don't know if it can be both. I mean, do you know what I'm saying? Kind of? It seems counterintuitive. It seems like it should, like a reasonable person is to be like, well, of course you consider this, but you also got to consider the old stuff. But if it's numbers and it's math, doesn't, don't you have to sort of accept it in

totality if you accept it? Yeah. House and I talked about this a little yesterday because I went back and I looked at there was 85 guys ever who had a usage rate of. 30% or more, and then averaged at least 28 points a game. There's 85 guys ever in the history of the league. And then if you rank those guys by like win shares and Borp and some of, you know, some of the better advanced metric stuff that we can understand,

Jalen was like the worst or one of the worst on every list. And the best guys in the league that you would think would be the best guys, were the best guys in the list. So then the question becomes, can you have outliers with numbers like this? Or is this telling you, like, yeah, the eye test is actually fooling you. It's a tough fun for me, and I tried to explain it when I talked to House about it. Because I obviously watch more Celtics. I watched the Celtics the most out of any team I watch.

Like, I have the most opinions on them. I have the most thoughts. I have the most memory of year after year. And I just thought he was really good last year. And it was one of the only times, like, what I said, saw with my eyes did not match the stats. Usually I'm like, oh, I see that, but I can see this too. This one, I'm like, I'm seeing this and you're telling me this instead. But the good news is they did win 56 games and maybe that's the ultimate advanced metric. And you could argue like,

well, how'd they do that? But so it's possible you can just have outliers with stats, right? It's not a massive sample size. What, what how can that be? I mean, I'm not, I'm not even disagree. if you, but I'm saying like, how can there be, like, well, here's a good example. If numbers are in a sequence, there isn't sometimes where a number actually is larger than it seems that actually, you know, six items is more than eight items sometimes. If we're using these, if they're actually doing what they're saying they're doing, right, the idea of the outlier doesn't really, I mean, it's granted, these are still humans. That's where it applies, though. So Averson's a good example, too, with the 2001 Sixers, where

Iverson was a pretty flawed player by the stats here after year because it wasn't a good three-point shooter. He needed the ball a lot defensively, even though I loved Iverson, but he was five foot 10. So you can take advantage of him. And you really needed to build the right kind of team around him to protect him. Right. And you couldn't have like he played with Jerry Stackhouse that didn't work. You know, he needed like people like Eric Snow, Aaron McKee, Theo Ratliff, these Keith Van Horn, these people that filled specific roles trying to build the right kind of team to make Iverson succeed, right?

So if he comes out of the lineup from that and the team's built around him specifically, it's going to be weird, right? So maybe the on-off stuff will look better with him. But it doesn't change the fact that they built this specific team for him that really only succeeded once. Like he lost in the playoffs every year except for 01. And you could argue in 01, like Toronto took them to seven. Milwaukee, the next series, is one of the most rigged playoff series we've ever had.

Like, Ask Any Bucks fan about that series. So he didn't have as much success as it seemed. And then every other year, he had no success. So people revere Iverson. Is Iverson an argument for or against analytics? You're saying it's an argument for analytics. I think it, but that's the thing. I think he's an argument for and against because they succeeded and made the finals in 2001.

And the analytics are actually a little bit more favorable to them that year than the other years. but he's basically playing the same style every year. So it feels like the team they put around him affected his numbers in the right ways. So last year with Jalen, the Celtics were supposed to be a 500 team. The only way they were going to do better than that is if he played 90% of the games had this huge burden scoring-wise, right? And had to guard the other guy's best player and do all this stuff that nobody thought he could do. And he did.

And they won more games than they thought. But then the analytics said, well, I don't know. They were supposed to win 50 games, you said. No, they're supposed to win 41. Okay. Why are they supposed to win 41? Because they didn't have Jason Tatum.

Yeah, but who said they were supposed to win 41? What was the thing that said if you remove Tatum, this is a 41? Well, you also remove Porzingis and you move Drew Holliday. So they lost three and Al Horford. So they lost four of their best seven guys, including their best guy. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. And Vegas looked at that and all they advanced, everybody who runs number. It's like, yeah, that's a 500 team.

So do you suspect that the 41 number was mostly an analytic conclusion? Or was that a conclusion of this hybrid where they were using analytics? It's tough because I think it was kind of people throwing that number in the middle because they didn't know if the Celtics were in a tank. So it's almost like that's the safe number. And if they tank, you don't get killed. And if they don't tank, you don't get killed either. But I never thought a million years that went 56 games.

you know, so that's where it's like, and that's where the I-TETs just didn't match the analytics in that case. Here's the difference though. Baseball, which we've discussed in the past, like, that is a mass sport. In basketball, the teammates and who you put around people and your bench can affect on-off stuff.

If your bench is awesome, you're on-off stuff's going to look worse than it is. Somebody like Denver who's had no bench the last few years, Yokch comes out, that crater. You could see it with Wembe in the San Antonio, Antonio games. When he came out, they were crater. So his on-off would be better.

But baseball is just math. And as we've discussed in the past, it's made it less fun to argue about because the argument's solved by math every time. That's it. You're just like, oh, here's the evidence. And then the argument's over. I'm not, because what I'm expressing when I'm asking

these questions, I don't want to seem like I, I, I, I, I, are really unsure about this. But like, does it not seem possible that, you know, there's been all these, I've heard all these discussions about why the Celtics would have done this. Yeah. And what no one seems to be saying is this possibility. Maybe they just didn't want him.

Oh, I think that's, I think that's a big piece of, who look at him. We don't, he's actually, we actually don't want him. I think what they,

but what they didn't want, I think, is the, him as a complimentary player, did not make sense to them at $57 million. If you're paying him to be the best guy in your team, and you're trying to overachieve, maybe that's worth the money or close.

George's contract is also real large. The money thing for two years. Yeah. Yeah. You know, I, it's just, I mean, if, if the, if you think about analytics as like this is, like, as just like a small tool, I guess. But if you think of it as something that's like a real thing,

and this is a way to understand the world, I mean, maybe that was just, I do you does this trade still like have you kind of changed your view on this trade? Do you feel better about it now or do you feel worse? I still don't like it. I maybe understand it a tiny bit more.

I do think it was more of a personality trade than an analytics trade. I just feel like they felt like they ran their course and when Jalen ran the team last year now he can't go back to the other way of doing it. The question for me is like you have these people that own teams. It was interesting that more teams

didn't go after him. And I thought that that piqued my interest. Like, what are the reasons? Is it, like, if you, if you, if you're, if you're, if you're, if you, you're, you're some owner on another team, do you look at him be like, I don't know, I saw him going at Stephen A. Smith last week. I'm not sure that's the kind of guy we want around here. Like, I just kind of want guys who are just going to play some basketball and go hang out

with the kids in the community. Or like some other guys like, I trust Brad Stevens. Why does he want to get rid of this guy? Well, that's another piece that too. Like, why are they doing this? Like, there must be something else there. But that's a real thing, though. If it's like, why is this person trying to sell his car so frantically?

You'd be like, huh, what's wrong with the car? It's a nice car. I thought you loved it. Or like, now you'll take half price. I would guess people don't want to trade with Danny Hange. Because they feel like he might screw him over. The Lakers just did. Well, one of the things that's happening in,

Boston is they're talking about the new owner, Bill Chisholm, who's, you know, a VC hedge fund background. And people really worried about, you know, and I don't think this is a fault of his. But a lot of the moves he's made since he took over the team were shedding salary, right? Because they had all this tax stuff. And now if you're going to offend him, you'd say, well, there are all these penalties with the tax stuff. There's repeater tax. There's frozen picks. You can't make two-for-one trades.

Like, it really does hamper the way you can build a roster. So, but they got rid of Porzingis. They got rid of Drew Holiday. They let Luke Corneco. Now, they traded Simons for Vucevich last year, which was whatever. And then Jalen goes for Paul George, who's a year less on his contract and makes like three, four million less. But it did make me think, because I was reading this book, you know, this book, Tall Tales

by Terry Pluto. Okay. I was zipping through that because I was, I was interested in owners. It has some good stuff about the owners back then. And I was thinking there's five eras of sports owners. Five eras. Okay. We're in the fifth era.

And I don't know how this era plays out. First era basically takes us all the way through the 60s. And it's the people that own teams are like local business owners and families, right? It wasn't like, very rarely was it just somebody who was like Mr. Moneybags. It was like the guy who owned the Syracuse Nationals. owned like a bowling alley. You know, Walter Brown, the guy who owned the Celtics, you know, wasn't like the super rich guy.

It was not an impossible dream to own an NBA franchise during that time. Right. It was very doable. And maybe you didn't want to own it. You know, and same thing for NHL, maybe had a little more money because there was only 16s, so they were a little more desirable. But then we go on in the 70s and 80s, which is the era we remember as kids. So now you get wealthier of people.

You get like the Dr. Jerry Buss types. You get the goofy characters. Like we grew up with Charles O. Finley. People like that. These people were like, you know, their own documentaries. And then you would get that, I wrote down misguided local heroes. People who felt like they either had to save the team or keep the team, but maybe they didn't totally know what they were doing.

Like we had the Sullivan's in New England for the Patriots. There was local guys. But they really kind of. kind of over-skied. What's that saying when you shoot over your skis? Yeah. The third era, this is 90s now, legacy kids, ego guys, and smarter local heroes. We had some ego guys coming in here and be like, I'll, I'll buy whoever. So it's like Mark Cuban you can't. No, we're not there. Mark Cuban is the next era. This is more like 90s. Like, oh, it'd be cool if I owned a team and it's starting to, you know, the prices are starting to go up.

I'm going to get in. But you also had the kids from the families. They're still like the Celtics had Paul Gaston, who is Donald Gaston's son, who was terrible. But there was a lot of like legacy kids. Dolan takes over the Knicks in 2000. The fourth era is the 21st century. And this is internet guys, guys with internet money, early VC guys and smarter legacy kids. And all of a sudden now you have, you have like the guys who bought the Celtics where it's like

Wick Grossbeck, son of Irv Grossbach, one of the most respected, you know, business guys out there and he buys it with Deepak Luca, who I think was a bank capital. And they're like, well, buy the Celtics, we're going to blow this out, make it bigger. That happened with the Red Sox, that happened with the Warriors. You know, there was like real purpose to this where, oh, these are better assets in these big cities. We're going to blow them out. And they were right. You know, the Red Sox are worth 20 times probably what they paid. Now in the mid-20s, I feel like we're in this kind of massive money state where you just need like a shitload of money to buy any team, right? So you have like, you buy the Broncos.

It's like the Waltons, right? you buy the the the the uh lakers it's the guy who had the dodgers and probably has like you know middle eastern money behind them um the guy about the celtics he puts this whole consortium together and then gets as the final piece the i think second richest family in india throws in another billion and the groups that are being put in with Vegas these are now like buying these giant giant things and i guess the question is why. What are these people trying to get out of this? And how do you, how do you gain value when you could argue that the value is already there? So like if we wanted to buy the bears right now,

let's say the bears became available. What type of person wants to buy the bears? It's not somebody who's like, I lived in Chicago and I'm rich. That guy has no chance. Okay, so I don't know what era, according to your kind of sequence there, this fits down if this is three or four. remember there'd be kind of a cliche a lot of times that it was like these rich guys buy these sports franchises and they're not trying to make money off this like it's like a tax write off like they make their money that's the second era yeah that's like when john why brown bought the southex and he own kentucky fried chicken but now like when you look at someone like jerry jones and like what he paid for the cowboys in 1989 or 88 or whatever year was what it is now it's like now that

I guess it's completely sort of lost its relationship to the idea of like the ultimate rich guy hobby. Like, you know, like I think there was a time when it was like a rich guy was like, yeah, my friends buy race horses. You know, I buy the, you know, the boss of gruins or everything. That's what happened. That's sort of in the Celtics over and over again. They would have these guys buy it in. They'd have it for two years and they'd sell it. I mean, because now you're buying something that, I mean, I mean,

as long as the world exists as it does now, it's like it's an asset that's just going to be worth more and more because it's almost like, it's kind of like, you know, when I first started making a little money, I remember my dad trying to tell me he was like, come back here and buy a bunch of land in North Dakota. I'm like, I'm not going to do that. That would have been a good idea. Because they can't create land. He's like, they cannot make more of it.

And I was like, now I obviously should have done that. I mean, I like, I probably didn't know. It would have been smart, you know? You'd be like the new Taylor Sheridan. You'd just have this giant ranch. You know, I just, I thought it was just a crazy thing. He was suggesting like you. I was like, but, you know, there's, so now these franchises are these things where it's like, you know, it is the thing itself.

The rest of the world is becoming this sort of this kind of digital, almost like false simulacrum of reality. But these things are real. So I suppose a guy who would be buying the bears. he would be saying like, well, I'm really investing in, in many ways, the NFL. And that, you know, that there's this thing that is maybe opinion is like one of the few things that is not only stable, but has the potential to get bigger in big ways. You know, like, I think that it is the meaning of the franchise has less to do. There was probably a period where it was like a, I want something kind of for. me for fun. Like, I love sports, so this is a way to do. Like, I think if you had become extraordinarily

wealthy when you were a young person, you would have attempted to buy into some sports franchise. I believe. Oh, no question. Well, I remember this really was the like the late 2000s when at one point, I remember writing about this for ESPN. It was pre-Grantland. And there was at one point, it was like nine or 10 NBA teams available because including New Orleans, which the league had take over. Like, think about that. They can even sell New Orleans for like, I don't know, $500 million or whatever they wanted for it. Um, because there was this lock out coming. They were really scared about what was the future of the business. What's going to happen with media? What is the internet going to mean? Like they, everyone kind of looked at it the wrong way.

And I remember when Lake up and those guys bought the Warriors, I think they paid like 360 or like 400 or something. And it seemed like a lot. And they outbid, what's his face? The Allison. I think that's who, or the Oracle guy, one of those guys. And everybody's like, wow, that's a lot of money. And I was either writing about it or talking about it. I was like, that's an amazing purchase. Like they just bought this, everyone loves that team in the Bay Area. That's one of like the seven best teams you can own. Like, it's been poorly run for 20 years. Now, Now you have that asset. You can turn that into something great.

The problem is there's not a lot of those opportunities. I don't think anymore in 26. Like even the bears would be, if you get the bears, that's amazing, right? It's the third biggest city. It's the only team. But you're paying like $11 billion. Like right now the Seahawks are available. And there's two groups going for supposedly, who knows a bomber is going to be in it.

One of the people is Wick Grossbeck, who combined with that Indian family, the middles. And, you know, that might go for like $9 billion. So if, like, if we were, if he was on right now, be like, why would you do this? The answer would be no NFL franchises ever gone down in value. Right? That's why these guys get in.

It's like go back and look at the values. Five years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Is the arrow just pointing like this? Yes. Well, why is that? Because people love football. Live rights. media, all that stuff. So I guess the answer your question is it probably is still a great investment.

Well, I mean, certainly it seems that way, although it's just like, you know, we for so easy to forget things. Like, you know, like, do you remember why Monday night football moved to ESPN? I don't. I used to know this. So bizarre. ABC was like desperate housewives is more popular. Right. They didn't want. Now, that. seems impossible now that if you had a chance to have a primetime NFL game somewhere, what could you possibly be like, well, this TV show could be bigger? That wasn't that long ago. No, that was what happened, you have the right thing, but it was they could have had Sunday

night football, Monday night football. Well, that was part of it. Yeah, and NBC ended up getting Sunday night football because Disney decided, I think this was Iger to say, well, Disney, we're desperate housewives. It's a huge night for us. You take something like the NBA. It's like, why do these values keep going up? because people want to buy in because they want to own teams.

You have a lot of wealthy people that have extra money that they can spend. But you also have a league that seems to be perfectly willing and just let everything kind of all the prices, all the salaries, everything just go up and let it. And that's just how it's going to go. Franchises are going to go up. Players are going to make more money. The media rights are going to make more and the tickets are going to go up. The ticket part is going to be the one that's going to be.

hard because already the cap went backwards because the local TV stuff kind of wasn't what they thought, right? Local TV revenue got really hurt. The national TV revenue went up. But if the ticket prices keep going up, but they can't solve the scheduled piece and having the players be more available in regular season games, now you're really playing with fire, I think. But we know, we kind of say this was everything with like concert ticket prices, movie ticket prices. But at least concert tickets, you're paying for Taylor Swift. You know Taylor Swift is going to be in the arena for the date you paid. That's true, I guess. That's true. If you paid for Warriors come to Portland, you're like, I want to see Steph Curry. And then he doesn't play. Are you less likely to go

see the Warriors the next time they're in Portland? I would say yes. Yeah, but I would think more so the thing is, okay, using Taylor Swift is the example. Because you play Sulfi or whatever five nights on the last night, the worst ticket was $1,800. So that's the worst seat in the place on the fifth night was $1,800. To me, it's less the security about knowing whether or not she is there. The question becomes like, how is what I'm getting worth what I'm investing? Like you say, the warriors come to Portland and even if Steph does play. Okay.

So, you know, I take, you know, what is the, what is the price point where it's like, this doesn't really. I can't do this. Yeah. It would depend on the seat. Everything. Because there's always going to be people who can do it. But at some point, even they will be like, this is crazy.

Like, you know, like, you know, you, you would, we'll always have enough money to pay for these things. But I think at some point, somebody's being like, it's just, I, like, I, like, I, I, I, you can. can't justify it. Like, it's ideologically too weird. Like, I'm not going to pay $3,000 to see a play or something. And people would be like, even if I have a billion dollars, like, I'm not going to pay this much for that. I wonder if, like, will this, will that become what it is? Not the idea that you're not getting your money worth, like, that you're missing Steph Curry or whatever, but like the event itself can't equate with the amount of costs. This leads into

the movie conversation I wanted to have, but we're going to take one more break. This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales, using automation, analytics, and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access better data across the business. The result? Less time spent on operations, more time connecting brands with the moments and fandoms that matter

most. Learn more at Accenture.com slash Spotify. This episode is brought to you by Activia. You might already be eating yogurt, but not all yogurts are created equal. Activia contains over one billion probiotics per serving to survive and reach the gut alive. When it comes to gut health, Activia is the number one family doctor-recommended probiotic yogurt brand. Choose Activia. Feel good from the inside out. Visitactivia.ca for more details.

My name is Peter Parker But I'm also Spider-Man This July We're faced with a threat That can be anyone The world may have forgotten Peter Parker I'm just a neighbor

Friendly neighbor But he hasn't forgotten them Sometimes Spider-Man has to do the hard thing That's my responsibility Talk to Banner I didn't know you could get that big Spider-Man Brand New Day

In theaters July 31st All right So we were talking about tickets for movies And I was thinking about this with The Odyssey, which I actually went to a screening for it, so I didn't have to get tickets. Did you give your response to the movie yet? Because one day on social media,

I just saw all these people saying, The Odyssey is wonderful. The Odyssey is amazing. Yeah, I mentioned the tail end of a podcast last week. I was just saying, I thought it was awesome. You know, it's under embargo until it comes out. I'll have more thoughts. But I thought it was an awesome movie theater experience.

I had a great time. And there was a lot of care and great casting and a whole bunch of things. But what's interesting is post-COVID, we had this moment in, I think it was maybe late 2000s, early 2010s, when they started to try to shove 3D down our throats.

Remember? It's like 3D is the next thing. You gotta get 3D TV, 3D theaters. And nobody really liked it. It took like three years, but it was they were able to charge more money for the tickets, all that stuff. now they have half stumbled and half because of the best directors like seeing their

movies on these awesome theaters. Now it's like this 70 millimeter and all the IMAX. The experience of going to the theater is actually back. It's been an amazing resurrection this decade, which seemed inconceivable, even pre-COVID, but definitely during COVID. Like, wow, movies. Oh my God, TV, you're just going to watch everything from home. and that's flipped. But now there's this next piece, and I wonder if it's going to happen, and you think about it with something like The Odyssey,

where Odyssey, it's like, oh, it's the 70-millimeter and Universal City here in L.A. Oh, I want to go the Friday night. The tickets are gone. Next night, gone. Tickets are just gone for a month. Do you think we're going to get into a world where, like, the best 25 tickets or best 30 tickets,

the best 30 seats in a theater when these things come out are going to be treated like we do with sports, where it's like Odyssey Friday night, $1,000 in ticket for the, for middle row, center, best seat, and the thing. It's not going to be $25. It's going to be $1,000.

And do you think people would pay it? Short answer, yes. I think what is going to happen or might already be happening is the idea of, seeing movies in theaters now is going to become closer to a luxury experience. It's sort of like the lowest tier of the luxury experience. Because when people talk and this is a common thing now, it's like Tom Cruise, I guess,

is the forefront of this. We must save movies. Movies are important. The experience of going to a movie and eating this popcorn and all these things. like this is central to the American understanding of like how we understand the world. Movies teach us this and all this. But what, so we're trying to save that,

right? There's this real attempt to save this. Like Nicole Kidman walking down the stairs with that smile on her face sitting in the chair? What was that for AMC? That, you know, that little preview they would show and Nicole Kidman would be like, The Magic of Movies.

But this is what I think is kind of getting like, like, could be like kind of a misstep or maybe not a misstep. I guess there's maybe no other way to do it. But I think when people talk about the magic of movies and the experience of movies and how that is just so different, it's actually a somewhat simpler experience than we're now sort of evolving into. The thing that was magical about a movie is that like the screen was big, it was totally dark, nobody was talking, you're just looking at the thing.

So the reality becomes that screen. There's no other part of your life is there. And you're feeding off like some reactions from everybody else. Like laughter, scared silence, all that stuff. With horror movies and stuff. You're sharing it with other people. But I think it was mainly just that to me, maybe I'm just speaking for my own experience. But for me, it was sort of like when you go to a movie, that's all that's happening.

There's no other part of your life that's going on. You're only with the movie. Your vision of sight. is encompassed by the screen. That's all that is. That is reality for you for two hours or whatever. You zone out of everything else in your life. But now they're sort of like, well, okay, we've got to make this something people that's

different from their house. So it's like the seats have to be better, you know, and maybe we're going to give better food or feed them during this thing or doing all these things around it and stuff. I think that that will sort of make it into, like I said, this like this luxury experience where it's like you have to pay a lot for all the trappings of seeing the movie, even if the movie is now almost secondary. Like it'll be like something like I suspect in the future 20 years from now, there'll be people who are like, we really got to take the kids to a movie.

They got to know what that's like because maybe no one will do that that much because there'll be one theater down or whatever that will be this high in place. See, I would argue it's gone the other way. and people are going to movies more than ever. I think especially with the younger generations. Yeah, I think it is. I think especially with people 25 and under, which I don't think we're going to movies quite as much

for a little bit there. I think it's back. I think especially like, and they've found out ways with like the 70 millimeter or the IMAX, like the special experience of it combined with like horror movies. are the hottest they've ever been in years and years. That's like people have been talking about that for like two months. But it's kind of happening.

Like what just happened with obsession was really unusual like over the course of movie history. We've seen hit horror things before. This became like something else. And it infiltrated culture in a way. I talked about this on a podcast last month that I felt like TV had taken the baton from movies for setting cultural conversations and like a, in like a consistent, just kind of elevated way. And it feels like it's shifting back to movies now and TV's just getting worse.

And these TV shows are, these TV shows are just like Bs and B pluses. And then the movies are where the really interesting stuff is happening. We've seen a bunch of them come out this year already. Does it not seem though like the cultural conversation about obsession and backrooms seems to be about the idea of those movies being popular, though? No, there's stuff coming out. Do you feel like the ideas from those movies? Especially obsession.

I don't know if you follow it, but obsession has led to some pretty intense discourse. It's a little like what's happening with the WMBA now where it becomes like this kind of thing that we use to discuss all the other things we want to talk about anyway. is interesting because it's like, you know, sometimes I think we've talked about it. I think you and Derek Thompson have talked about this idea that, you know, it's possible to follow the NBA in one

of two ways. Like you can watch the games or you can just follow the narrative and the discourse. And it's almost as if that's what happened in the way. We're doing this. We're doing this. And then like they do it in a way that's actually much more elevated than the way the NBA does it. Right. I mean, it's like, like the WNBA, it's just, it's, it's incredible to follow is something if you're not watching the games. It's just still, it's just crazy. Well, the craziest thing about WMBA. No, there has not. And Seart wrote a really good piece for The Ringer about this this week, that now that

now politics has gotten involved and there's like, you know, and it's, I think that's probably going to, unfortunately, get worse and worse. But what's interesting is, I really want to talk about movie theaters, but I did want to say this one, WBA thing. Have you seen Olivia Miles play? A little bit. Like her glasses? I think probably the most fun

WMBA player for me. I like the links anyway because I just for, you know, not like I like the Celtics, but that was kind of the team that I was, you know,

fair weather fan rooted for. But Miles is like pretty special. And it's crazy to me that all the discourse has just Senator Caitlin Clark and our team's being mean to her and then politicians coming in and it's the lead and

the commissioner being terrible which is a topic people should talk about. But it's not like they don't have like Paige Beckers and Olivia Miles like these are really fun people to watch play basketball and none of the dialogue is about them like nothing. It's all about all this other stuff. I've never

seen anything like it. Well, I mean they just I mean it's always like it's just it there's just no there's no league like this it's just you know it's like where you know it's like you're like you're like happens to Caitlin Clark you just know immediately now like you know she gets punched or something and you're like now she's got to apologize for getting punched like it's got it like it's got it doesn't it it it's so it's so it's then like listed like the 11th best guard or something by the players or something. That'd be like if it was like, well, the bigger, yeah, the bigger picture.

Like anybody was like, Eddie Van Halen's the seventh best guitar player in Los Angeles or something. It's just so weird. I can't think of any. When Caitlin Clark came into the league, I think a lot of people would have been like, boy, you know, it's just going to get sickening. They're going to ram her down our throat. All we're going to do is hear about it. Literally the opposite.

Beyond the opposite. It's like, it's like, it's like, it's. I just, you know, it's so, I, I, I guess in a way, just in the past couple years, yeah, they left her off the Olympic team, which she clearly just should have been on because she's the most popular woman's player we've had. That's the same reason, like LeBron and Durant will be on the 2008 Olympic team for the men, like sometimes you got to do it. The Nike, who you would have thought would have gotten behind her right away like they did

with Tiger Woods, like did the opposite. They took like forever to put her shoe out. The players definitely seem like they resent the attention she got. I don't know whether they don't like her or not. But they're not doing any of this stuff I haven't seen to Olivia Miles, who's coming this year as like the rookie phenomenon. And she's not getting knocked around. At the same time, it's been kind of fascinating, a little bit fun to watch.

It's almost like there's like a hockey helmet to the league now. I really like the old Nick. H. It's like, it's like really animosity on both sides. Or whatever. I just,

you know, but it's had about it. At times, the WNBA almost seems like kind of like the psychop where it's like, someone's like, you know these

stereotypes about gender and race and sexual orientation? We've got to bring these back into the world. Like we've put them all into this league and have them just sort of, it's just nothing comparable to it. I can't think of anything

that's comparable to it. And it's, I just don't know how it plays out. What's ironic is the quality of play is easily the best it's ever been. Like the games are good. Like you watch some of these games. It's like, this is like really good basketball. Like it's a lot of, I just think the play has evolved so much. And yet I don't feel like people talk about that at all.

And it almost seems like you're better. Like I'm sure this will get cut out and aggregated in some way. but that's how this is gone where it's become like almost political to even talk about it anyway. Here's a really good example. Controversial by saying that. Everyone knows that.

But here's it. Everyone knows this. This is where I thought, like if you're going to be a giant league, so Dallas has the first pick in the draft last summer, right? And they take Yukon Guard, who's page's former teammate. Yeah.

Who they live. Brilliant move in terms of getting people to talk about the WNBA. Well, and they had been in a relationship at one point, and they don't seem like they were. But if you go back and you read all the mock draft stuff, and everybody's like, this isn't, why are we trying to make a big deal of this?

It's like, if this happened in the NBA, this is all we would talk about for months that they didn't take who the best person in the draft was. And now you think, like, they could have miles and pagebackers together who I think, you know, are probably as fun or maybe even more fun to watch than Caitlin.

And they could have been on the same team. I don't even know how that would have worked. But holy shit. This was the NBA. This would have led like seven podcasts for me. Yeah. She's pretty funny. Yeah.

So people are like, you know, I think we'll see how it goes with the league. But it does feel like this Caitlin situation. I talked about it like two months ago. I don't think it's sap some of the joy for her. I don't think she ever wanted. any of this. I think she just wanted to play basketball and shoot threes. I can't imagine what it must be like to be here. She seems miserable.

She is having a singular experience in American history. Right. Like, I mean, she's not the first person who's ever dealt with problems as an athlete or her, but like her specific experience is so strange. And she seems to be handling it extremely well by just saying nothing and letting it all happen around her, but it's got to be wearing on it. her. I mean, I just, I don't see how. No, it definitely is. If you, if you go back and you look at even footage from her like three, four years ago versus now, like she looks like she's carrying

the weight of the world on her shoulders now. By the way, she's making a lot of money. She's famous. Like, there's a lot of good things that come with it. It's just, this was not what was happening with Steph Curry in like 2013 and 14. It was like, who the fuck is this guy? He's not, he's 11th. The 11th best guard thing, which granted was, you know, a player pole. and I think too much has been blown out of proportioned for it. But there's just no way, if you actually watch the league, there's no way she's not one of the five best guards. You could say she's fifth, third, whatever.

But she's just like, you know, it's the whole thing's just bonkers. Anyway. Can I make my bold prediction, though? Oh, go. Let's hear it. Okay. This is my, it's the bold prediction. Okay.

Sophie Cunningham in the next, maybe, I'm going to say 2050. is going to be vice president of the United States. She's going to be vice president of the United States. By 2050. I think that, you know, I think that will be the year. I think that will be the,

that will be, I don't know what parties she'll be in. Is there an election that year? Yeah. 42, 38, 34, 30. Oh, so it would be like 2048 or 2052. 2040, okay, yeah.

Yeah, I don't know what party she'll be in. I don't know anything about her political views, but she will be the vice presidential candidate, at least the candidate. I love this. I hope we still have the internet in 20 years, 20 plus years that people can be like, oh, remember,

remember that Simmons podcast and that guy Chuck? I was pretty wrong about Cooper Flagg. Okay. So I feel I'm going to go the other way and take even bolder attempts, you know, even bolder predictions. I don't know what it is. I have no,

you know, it's something about the fact that she wears like, she wears those sleeves on the court. something about the way she triggers inbound plays at the end of games makes me think she will be someone's ideal vice person. She's getting a likable personality. She's definitely likable. I thought the finger-pointing thing was one of the funniest things

that's happened in like three years. I thought it was like genuinely hysterical. And she was just, she kept it going for 25 seconds. Yeah. And at one point when she kind of cocked her head to a side, and that was like, you know, it's like that that was, you know. It really is funny. Well, I don't know.

Now that World Cup's going to be done, there's going to be no sports on. I feel like I'm going to watch. I feel like I care about the characters in the league now in a way that I haven't before. I have real opinions on the teams. I like Minnesota the most. I also like watching Indiana.

I like watching Becker's. You know, Wilson on Vegas is, I don't even know what her NBA equivalent would be at this point. She's basically like putting together like a Kareem, 1970s kind of run. But there's a lot of good stuff going on. Did we have any more things you wanted to hit on? You said you had a big picture thought about movies.

Did we hit it? Oh, well, you know, this is, you know how sometimes you guys with the ringer, like you'll do these live events. Yeah. Okay. You know these live events.

If you ever do a live event around the rear watchments, uh, we have. Yeah, I know. I'm saying important. Okay. Yeah. I'm not angling for this, but I'm saying if you do.

I'll go there tomorrow. I would like to be the person who like moderates the event because I think something interesting has happened. Okay. I'm going to start this with a compliment. Okay. Like, I think it can safely be said that you absolutely change sports writing when you were writing a lot of ESPN.

I think that that was an incredibly, you know, like I think that you altered the way people wrote about sports. And in some ways, maybe even thought about sports, but it can really alter the way people consume sports or watch sports. I feel like now you, Sean and Chris and Amanda, your cousin, like the whole idea sort of like the success of the were watchables has had a very interesting impact on the culture of how the average person thinks about movies now. Okay, explain.

I'd like to interrogate that idea with you guys. You want to do that in Portland instead of a live rewatchables. Somewhere like that, you know, because it's almost as though the rewatchables and the big picture and you, all this together, you have kind of created this aesthetic for consuming film and what's good about film. And I find it to be a very interesting kind of collection of ideas. And there's some things like you really overrate and sort of made things. Like, I feel like you guys' obsession with Tom Cruise is weird. I feel like you've now made heat an overrated movie.

For a long time, it was moderated, and now it's vastly overrated. Oh, I'm so excited we were part of that. Like, there's like a variety of things. Just sort of the idea of like what a movie's supposed to do in your life. I think that this has been like a real kind of like, like you've affected. movie culture. And I think it's very interesting. Not in a negative way,

but in a different way, in a way that's surprising to me. All right. So, Kanner, you don't feel like a lot of that stuff was in there already? Like, we, like, TBS would show Shoshank Redemption

every two weeks for, you know, 20 years. Like, I do think people were re-watching stuff over and over again. I remember, oh, no.

Even with my, like, going back to the Boston sports guy days when I was writing about, like, sports movies and stuff, we were all watching the same 20 sports movies over and over again. I don't know if that's the case.

But here's the difference. So if it's like 1999 and they're like re-showing the Shashank Redemption and someone is at home and they're like, oh, well, I guess I'll just watch this. I've seen it. It's good. I'll watch it. Now you've sort of created this idea that there's a meaning to that. Right.

There's an outlet. Because it used to be if people who rewatched movies, those were people interested in filmmaking. cinematographers. That's why you would rewatching movies. You guys have sort of introduced the idea of rewatching movies for the content. For nitpicks and what it meant in the moment, all that shit. And it's what I love is that it sort of dovetails with like my ongoing, you know,

slow cancellation of the future stuff I always talk about because it seems as though the idea that what we have in the world of cinema now is, kind of just going to be the world that we exist in going forward. We'll just sort of rewatch and reinterpret and remake and reboot these things over and over again. Right. I just think it's a thing. I think that there is something that is changing about what a movie fan is supposed to

be now and that there was a time when the idea of being a movie fan meant you liked a specific kind of movies. And now it means you support movies ideologically, like the political idea. But it's more, it's more than just. us. Like there's other, there's other movie podcast. I think Letterbox is a big piece of this. Sure. That's part of it. Which, by the way, that's the one part I've never

dove in on the letterbox. I always make fun of Sean and Chris about this where it's like, I haven't either. I guess. But you know, but even like the idea of like Sean buying you know, all these Blu-rays and stuff like that. It's a different kind of possession.

He's possessing them seemingly more like artifacts than like ways to watch a movie or a combo, but yeah, the physical media area. It's interesting. I found this piece I wrote because we were doing Ali for rewatchables and I wrote about Ali back in 2001, whatever that was. And I had written a piece heading into the holidays, my favorite DVDs. You know, if you want to buy stuff for the holidays or ask for stuff, here are all these different DVDs I like because I really like DVDs back then. And I realized I'm actually the king of physical media at the ring or not Sean because I have this column. He didn't have, he doesn't have anything. I mean, I was 2001, I had like 30 DVDs.

So I don't know. I feel like I should get more credit for that. I was talking about the director's commentaries and the deleted scenes. I was doing this years ago. So I don't think Ben's Secret's credit anymore. I mean, this is a tough thing in a way for you to respond to you. But like, okay, you know you did that list, you did that episode with Sean and Chris about your most rewatchable.

The my 50 most rewatchable, yeah. Yes. And I think I saw this clip of you mentioning Limitless. Yeah, yeah, number 16 limit. Yeah. Why do you think that happened? Why do you think that specific moment was what people were so like, that almost seemed in a way to be like a like a like a totem of your entire sort of film world?

Because that's kind of what, you know, why do you think that was? It seemed like people like that pod because it was just a thing. Everyone was doing all those lists, the whole first 25 years, all these different. movies, TVs, all this stuff. And the premise of that list kind of, I think, just flipped it, where it was basically the premise was, I can't defend this list. These are the 50 movies I've watched the most the last 25 years. And I'm going to rank them from 50 to 1.

I don't know why this was the list, but this was the list. And then I got to limit list at 16. I think it was the reactions of Sean and Chris. That was part of it for sure. I think the reactions made a clear. Yeah. But the reaction. But we've all been working together for 15 years.

So it's like we have like a shorthand with each other. But it's sort of in some ways describe, I mean, I guess if somebody was like, they was like writing an academic paper about it. And they were kind of like ringer noir or something. Or like what is the ringer aesthetic for what makes a film great? You know?

Yeah. And it's like all these things. It's like, well, it's kind of like, oh, Michael Mann, you know, anything he does is great.

But it's also this idea that it has to be, like hyper populist. But it also has to have like kind of a major star because you guys are really into stars more than acting. Like you like actors way more than acting. Like you like the people, right? And so of course,

we've had movies that we were going nuts about the performance more than who did it. Yeah, yeah. There are always, like, I'm doing broad strokes here. I'm sort of describing like what is the overall. But to me, Limitless though, is like the ultimate rewatchable

because it's a pretty dumb movie. But it's got a great premise. You put yourself in the thought of how far would I go if I was in the shoes. There's good actors. It's well done. And it's just easy to watch. It's also like it has essentially low stakes in reality. You don't really look at that, you know.

But it also has high stakes in terms of like you say like like the pitch, the concept of this. Yeah. I just think it would be interesting to Deb because I feel like when I listen to the watchables, you guys are always kind of like talking around these ideas, but they're always there. Like what is, you know, and I just, I think it would be interesting. Well, so we just did rewatchables about she's the one. The Ed Burns movie from 1996. Okay.

Which is not a movie that should probably be on the rewatchables, but it's a really interesting movie to talk about. And that's always what the premise of that podcast is. Like, is there a good conversation to be had about this movie? What is the reason for it? So sometimes it's easy because it's a classic. And you've come on, you've done a bunch of one with us. So like we did, did we do Reality Bites?

We did reality bites. We did J.K. Yeah, yeah. But reality bites is a perfect conversation for rewatchables because we get to go into Gen X and early Ethan Hawke and Ben still are directing and the music that's in it. It's kind of like that the strangely brilliant part of this is like when like when Spielberg goes on,

rewatchables, right? In some way, and like he's really up for it. He really loved it. It was shocking. In some ways, this kind of rewatchable's concept has tapped in to like the primitive primordial feeling people have about movies. Like what they like like what is really important about these movies to them. Like the reason that like, you know, 2001 or whatever is important to him, He can talk about all these little detail. He knows Kubrick, knows all these things. But it's like, it's like, I want to say this about the movie.

I want to be able to say this thing that resonates with me because that show was like what the meaning of this movie is, you know? Right. Well, that's the thing. You have, like, I watched Kramer versus Kramer a couple of nights ago just because it was on. And I still have K. But we've already done that on rewatchables. Like, I wasn't watching it to scout it for the next one.

and sometimes when you've seen movies a bunch of times and then you're watching them again, you're watching them for different things, right? Totally. And for whatever reason I started watching it this time, and I was really focused on the structure of how they do it with the Dustin Hoffman character, the first 20 minutes versus how things change,

and how much they're showing and not telling, which I think for some reason, I had Taylor shared it on the podcast, Kibuik's going, and he was talking about how he structures storytelling and how the mistakes people made. I thought he had some really interesting comments in there, but one of them is, he thinks, basically, he's, one of his takes was everything's overwritten.

I want to show stuff to you. I want, I want you to, like, feel the location, and I'd much rather, like, dwell on an actor and how they're reacting versus, like, having this, like, witty repartee back and forth, which you can have, too. And there's this great scene in Kramer versus Kramer near the end when, uh, does, Justin Hoffman, he's lost the suit, right? Merrill Street's going to get the sun, and they have one last breakfast together, and they're just like kind of making the French toast,

which in the earlier in the movie, they make French toast, and it's a disaster. They spell it like, everything goes wrong because they haven't made a meal together. By the end of it, it's just like the routine of them making the French toast, and they never say anything. And then the kid starts, you know, the kid wells up, and it's like this emotional moment. But I was thinking, like, you know, I was watching this time, and I'm thinking like, this is like a, the kind of thing you should show young directors like that are thinking about how do I make a movie, like little moments like this that we don't seem to have in movies

in the same way anymore. And I feel like they're starting to come back. So I wonder like the next generation of people that are moving into movies and making films are really starting to think of these moments now instead of just being like, oh, if I can do two movies, maybe I'll be able to do a Marvel movie. You know what I mean? In general, though, movies are becoming less visual. But my point is maybe it's going back the other way. Because obsession has moments in it.

I thought obsession was really interesting. But obsession has moments that are all about the visuals. It's all about the choices the actress is making, you know, with like some of her faces and stuff. Well, I mean, it's a visual medium, but by saying it's getting less visual in the sense that I always hear these things now that, well, I mean, like, actually,

your buddy's old Matt Daven and Ben Affleck talk about this, how, like, Netflix wants you to give exposition at times for no reason because people might be folding. The streamers, yeah, there's. Yeah. So that, that's, you know, it's kind of the opposite of, like what Sheridan would be saying or whatever, that, you know, if you're folding laundry while his shows are on, I suppose it might, you might not know what's going on.

But I would argue the streamers have different, different kind of, uh, I don't know, things they have to solve, right? Like in a streamer, there's so much content now. And they've been open about this. There's so much content. You have to grab somebody in the first four minutes or they go. Right?

You click on it. I don't know if I like that. You're out. If I'm going to a movie, I'm stuck there. I already made the decision to go. So whatever ride you take me on for the next two hours, I'm not going anywhere. I already bought my ticket.

So. When you texted me about this podcast, You'd mention that Atlantic story about like the end of reading or whatever, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's another piece of that. Oh, it seems like no one's going, you know, the reading might be over or whatever, you know. So a couple of weeks ago, I read this book. It's a book called Stoner.

You're familiar with this novel? No. My whole life, people have told me to read this book and I assumed it was because the guy must be stoned all the time. That's not what it is. It's, you know, it's just about the story of this guy. It starts in like, you know. You know, early 1900s and kind of goes through his life. And it's a really quiet novel.

And now I'm reading a book called, you know, Butchers Crossing by the same author, similar kind of tone in some ways. But, you know, it reminded me of how, like, how you're reading these books, you know, and everything that you visualize has to be described to you. Like, you know, everything about the way that guy's hair sits on his face. the way he walks into a room, all of these things, you know. And it is, you know, it's really deliberate. And it's easy to understand why the way things have changed makes reading novels harder now.

And that we're just so accustomed to the idea that we're just going to have like a passive relationship, like this thing is going to be dumped on us, all, what everyone looks like. However, like, I think part of the reason that people struggle reading, now is because it's like they just aren't willing to imagine everything they have to imagine. Like it really is a, it's been an erosion of the potential for imagination. Like people are just like, I'm not going to spend time to visualize what a green shirt looks like. I just want to see the guy's shirt, you know. And I wonder if this part of, you know, everyone thinks this, this reading situation is all solely because of phones in the

internet and I think that is the biggest factor. But I also wonder if our imaginations now have changed in a way that it makes very difficult to understand anything that isn't obvious. Like, you know, that, that, because it's work to think, basically. Render the reality. Yeah. Yeah. Do you think people, like, I, I feel like more people in my life listen to books than read them is the other interesting piece to this. They, they're basically like more elaborate podcasts. But like my wife is more likely to listen to a book than read it at this point. And I don't know what that means either.

And you know, a lot of that had to do with the overcoming of what was a prejudice. Like when I wrote my first book in 2001, there isn't an audio book. And at the time, the idea of doing an audio book, I mean, they almost said like, well, you know, that's for people who can't actually read, ha, whatever, for blind people or whatever. Now, it's like, it's almost like, half the market, like the book I have coming out this September, I'm recording the, doing some of the audio stuff next week. And it's, you know, now any book I write, I will always do the audio for, you know. But it's great. It should, but it's, you know, because I know people,

people want to hear. Like, people want to hear. Yeah. I did want to mention one thing that I find kind of interesting. It kind of ties back to this. Wait, I had, but I had more on books. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. because I had to, I had this office where I used to do my podcast and it became before we moved out and finished this thing, the studio we have now. And so I fixed the office. And I really like, my wife was making fun of me for weeks

because I was like really like, I should post a picture of it on Instagram. Putting all my books in the right show. Yeah, well, so. But I redid it. I found more books in the attic. And now I have even more books and I have it stacked. And I had these two shelves of basketball books. But I found this, I found these two basically things of paperback books that I had.

Not like the smaller paperbacks, but the bigger ones. Because, you know, in the 90s, we would buy the paperback books because they were cheaper. Right. So I had basically like 10 years of books I read that were just in these two things. So I added that to the thing. And then I was looking back and I was looking at all the books. And I've actually read all the books. You know, and it's a lot of books.

And you think like, fuck, this probably shaped 95% of the choices I made in life were all these books I read because I was an only child. I read books all the time, so did you. And so when I read this stuff about how people don't read anymore, reading is turned into texts and, you know, internet stuff and Twitter and Reddit, and that's, people are reading the same amount, but they're not reading the actual books. Like the question I get the most from everybody, you know, if people are like people with young kids who want to be a podcast or a writer or somebody who's breaking in the business or somebody

who's in college like, hey, do you have a tip for me? And I'm always like, fucking read. I feel like the reading, that was how I learned everything. That's how I learned how to pick styles. That's how I learned information. That's how I learned what happened in the course of history and how to not repeat the same mistakes or decisions people made or analyzing the decisions. You know, every book you read is going to have a different effect on you. But that's the part that scares me is that if people are reading less and they're just going to these other things, is it affecting their brains in the same way? And I don't know the answer to that.

Yeah, it's wild. You know, one thing, okay, so this book I have that's coming out in September. Okay. I'm doing an interesting event in October. So the book comes out in September, but I am doing a book. event at New York Comic-Con. Now, I was completely baffled when this was initially thrown at me. I have to say it is my son's ultimate dream.

It's the greatest thing that could have possibly happened. So we're all going to New York to go to the Comic-Con or whatever. So I don't even care if no one comes to this event. Because in my mind, I'm like, well, these people are paying a bunch of money to like see the stuff, you know, see comic books and Marvel movies. and, you know, magic gathering all this stuff. Yeah, how do you fit in? Are they going to come on to see this, like a book reading or whatever, like a book event?

Then, you know, I was starting to wonder if maybe what will happen going forward is this. Maybe if reading really does kind of fade from the culture, people will still buy books as collectable objects. Like physical media? Almost like Pokemon cards or something. It's like, oh, I like this author. I know what, yeah, I've heard him on podcasts, I've seen him or whatever. Oh, buy this book. And this book will sort of be like the physical representation of who I, why, what my

identities, what I like, what I'm interested in it. Maybe I'll read it. Maybe I won't. Maybe it'll just be on the shelf or whatever, you know. But I wonder if there is, I mean, I don't, I mean, in a way that's kind of a scary thing to think about is somebody who sells books for a living or tries to sell books for a living. But I, I do wonder if. the possession of physical books in the future.

Could help save books? Well, yeah, well, like, it'll be sort of like how, you know, there was, there was a time when people would buy vinyl records, even though they had it on CD or they had it on cassette. They like collect records. They like the gatefold. They like the feel of it. They like the smell of it.

They like the idea of what it was, you know. like maybe that's how it's going to become for books in a way that like you'll you'll still have to write them you can't you know the books have to be written you have to put all the work in it if someone actually does read it it will need the merits of a book in the classic style like they won't just buy a book just for what it looks like it's got to be the thing it's got to be that if people see that you own this book they know that's like that's you know it's all this information um so So maybe, so maybe like going to like a Comic-Con is like a reasonable thing to do, sort of. Like, you know, maybe the kind of people go to that are already in the mindset.

It's like, I buy the things that are, you know, important to my life. Like I, you know, guy buys like a figurine of like the Incredible Hulk or whatever. He's not going to play with the Incredible Hulk. He might not even take it out of the box, but maybe he will. And it'll be like, when people see this, they will know not only do I like this, but like I'm invested in this. So I'm very curious to see what this is going to be like. I've got very curious to see if I do this book event at Comic-Con, New York,

and people show up or not, you know? And if they want to buy the book or if they have questions, I just have no idea, you know. Hear that. It's your money calling. It wants a promotion. Elevate your savings with the Scotia high-interest savings account. Always earn high-regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest. Conditions apply.

Visit scotiabank.com slash h-I-SA to learn more. Scotia Bank. You're richer than you think. This episode is brought to you by L'Oreal Group. Beauty is a powerful force that moves us. That's why L'Oreal Group has built a business that is inclusive at its heart with 100% of its brands, championing diversity. With 25,000 professional opportunities for people under 30 worldwide

and 54% of leading positions held by women, diversity is a strength that helps Loreal group create the best beauty products for all people. Visit Loreal.com to learn more. One thing about books, you said this earlier, because you mentioned Among the Thugs, which I knew immediately what you meant because I have it and I read it.

I didn't know anything about early 90s hooligan soccer fans in the UK, right? Neither did you when you read that book. So it brought me into this whole world that I would have known nothing about other. otherwise. And it's that, by the way, an excellent, excellent sports book. Is it too easy to discover stuff like that now where you don't need a book? I feel like people now would have opinions on boogynism and soccer and different things. They would just know more and they wouldn't even

necessarily have to read a book to learn all the same stuff we learned from the book. Yeah. Like there's shortcuts to it now. You wouldn't have to read the book, which is kind of frightening. I mean, the, the scary thing about this is that it is possible that maybe books are just not the most effective way to learn things. I think you and I both were raised or kind of with this idea, but maybe it's not because I will admit some nights I'm at home, you're lying in bed, and I'll just go to YouTube and I will watch say like. Just random shit. A nine-minute documentary about, oh, like the, like how primitive men were able to keep fires burning during inclement weather. And it'll be like nine minutes long. Yeah.

But like, I will get it all. Like, I will learn this thing, you know. Or I watched one. I think I maybe have mentioned it another part. It was just a fascinating short little documentary about like how. how they selected Hiroshima and Nagasaki's in two places they adopted atomic bombs. And like the conversation that led to the amazing. Yeah.

I mean, yeah. I mean, like one city was saved just because one guy at the meeting was like, I've been there. It's nice. Don't drop a bomb on there. It's like, you know, there was like there were these, you know, and it's these things that, you know, in a way I almost didn't even,

had never even invested the time and wondering about, you know. And that can be done so quickly now that you can watch so many. You can watch them at 1.5 speed. So even something that's nine minutes, it's now six minutes and you've got all this stuff. It is hard sometimes to, like I'll write a book and I'll be like, okay, so who's the person who's going to read this?

Who's the person is going to put the time in to do this? Right. It's just kind of praying that there's 100,000 of these people out there. That would be a great letterbox sequel is just you log, crazy things you watched on YouTube? Because like yesterday, I went on my YouTube, it was literally I was like a half hour from going to bed.

And I went to search for something on YouTube. And you know, the algorithm really knows me now at this point. So for some reason it suggested this Mark Knopfler, this concert that he did in 1996, where he plays what some people think is the greatest guitar solo of all time. I think it's from Expresso Love or Tonnel of One of those.

And it was on some concert thing. And then he didn't like, I guess he messed up like two things during this like three-minute solo. So he took it out of the concert. So the song wasn't out there. But all these people had sworn they had seen the thing. And then in 2024, it appeared again on YouTube. And people were like, Knopfler, guitar, God, it's back. And they were.

So I watched the whole thing. It was amazing. And then I was like, I feel like I saw him on Letterman once in the mid-80s and he did a song with the band and it was like the best thing I've ever seen anyone do with a band on late night. And then I went and I was right. It was 1985. Mark Lofnerner came in and he sang Expressal Love with the band when the Letterman

band was like the best it's ever been. Like Schaefer had Steve Jordan was there. And it's like this awesome five minutes. My point is that was just 15 minutes of my night last night where I watched those two things. And then I watched five minutes of a 1980 dire strait. And all of a sudden I was down a 20 minute dire straits deep dive out of nowhere. And that's just what happens night after night if you let it, you know? It's very easy to do that.

I mean, I... That would be a good letterboxed. But also it's just that the fact that like it's all there. Like you have memories that you don't even. We know where real memories. There's a section in, like, I wrote Farger Rock City like in 1999, 2000. Yeah. It comes out in 2001.

There's a chunk in that book where I talk about the strangest thing about rock videos is that you see them constantly for two months. And then you never see them again. Right. So like, like, one summer, I saw the Black Crow's video for the song Remedy every day. At some point, because MTV was on my house all the time, you know, I saw the video for Remedy. every day. And then it was like gone. And it appeared like this was just sort of how the world was going to be. There would be these things you're hyper involved with. And then it's pretty much gone unless you like buy Black Rose DVD or something. Now there's nothing like that. Like there's nothing that if you

experience you have to, you know, you know it. You know that if I don't see it now, I can see it again or I can see it my leisure or whatever. I wonder if that has changed the way that we watch these things. we're not doing it consciously, but I wonder if unconsciously we now realize that these things can of course be accessed at a different time

or a different way. And as a consequence, I don't have to care as much. I don't have to invest anything in it intellectually because it'll always be there and that we're kind of doing this with everything now. And maybe that's why

everything seems less satisfying than it used to. I remember I had these VHS tapes of different things from the 80s that I'd just recorded in real time, including, I think three Letterman anniversary shows in a row. Right. And I was like, I would have put these in a safe.

I had a whole bunch of stuff, like a whole bunch of games and just things like, I'm so glad I have these because if I didn't have, these would be gone. And one of the, one of the V had like the tape melted or broke and it was just gone. I think it was the Letterman anniversary once. Maybe it was something else. And I was just like, oh, my God, it's gone. now all that shit's on YouTube. It is.

It was like some of my prize possessions, you know, the Michael Jackson Motown, 25 and shit like that that I actually recorded in real time. I was like, oh my God, what would happen if somebody stole this? You should keep those, though,

because actually what is amazing is the stuff that you didn't think you were recording, the ancillary stuff. Right, the commercials and stuff. Yeah. For my birthday, my wife, I guess went on eBay. and got me a bunch of Sports Illustrators from the early 80s.

So I was reading through them on July 4th or whatever. And, you know, and like, you know, like there's a story about like a, I think it's a Frank DeFord story about like Will Chamberlain at the age of 50. I remember that one. That was a good one. And it was also I've forgotten about this. It was like, he almost came back and played for the Nets. Right.

And like, you know, and like he probably could have, you know, like almost certainly could have. And it's like, you know, and I kind of did vaguely remember that story because, you might remember this at the front of the magazine. It's a close-up of Wilt's hand, how big his hand is. And you know, in that you could put your hand on. It's like a jump- Yeah. So I did remember that story. And I remember that it happened.

But it was so weird, like looking at some of the cigarette ads in this thing. Or like the 19th hole, all the letters. Like the letter, somebody were a letter to Sports Illustrated. There's no way. You cannot go on the internet now and find, like, random letters to Sports Illustrated from from 1983, but here they all are. Right. And it's like, and it was also strange to hear, to read some of these letters and like, see, like, boy, you know, people are still saying that now.

Like, he's, he's describing this thing as a new thing, but it's like still happening now. People complaining about announcers, which now we have with Alexi Lawless for everybody's just like, I can't stand Alexey Lawless, but in the 80s we had somebody else. So, like, I bet if you went back and like watched like a, like a, or like when I was writing the football book, you know, I was, like went back and I rewatched like the Boston College Miami game or something, you know. Yeah.

Wouldn't the flutie game or whatever. But like before it happens, I think it's like Brent Musburger talking about like Falcon crest is going to be on or whatever. Like these things I just totally forgot. You'd forget it happened, but. Well, there's this. First of all, you must have watched some of these old NFL games. Just random week six, Browns versus Steelers,

1978 and it just will be the complete NBC broadcast. It's kind of riveting. There's this account on YouTube called Rare NBA Footage, which has only 8.4K, 8,400 followers right now. And they just, I don't know where this person gets all the video stuff, but he'll have some good fights every once in a while. And he had, he had the, when Kareem punched Kent Benson, He had that whole thing, but then the aftermath of Kent Benson with this huge black eye being like, what the fuck just happened?

It feels like everything's out there. There's more and more footage. People are just finding. It's really crazy. It's almost more surprising if you can't find something. You almost expect you should be able to find it. Yeah, because there's stuff. There's NBA stuff from the 60s and 70s where they did.

they literally didn't televise the game. So there's no way to find it unless somebody, for whatever reason, at a camera, upper deck or something. There's just games that don't exist. Most famously,

the Will game, but that was 1962. But there's, you know, a whole bunch of stuff. Anyway, all right, we went two hours.

We went too long. Can you plug some stuff? Well, no, I mean, I got a, I have, I got this book

that's just called Rock that's coming out in September. What's, so what's rock about quickly? Okay. Okay. I don't want to. One thing I found promoting that football book is I just I did so many podcasts that occasionally

you'd end up saying the same thing on multiple podcasts. And I really feel like a lot of people are like, I kind of read this book. Like I heard I'm talking about it enough. Like, you know, I like it. Keep some mystery. So this is just called rock. I'm going to try to not talk about what's in this book as much. But I will say this.

Okay. So it's like it is a fictional history of rock music. It's fictional. But it starts in 1967 with the premise that the Velvet Underground's first record is released and immediately becomes 25 times more popular than the Beatles and the Stones combined. You told me this idea. This is a great idea. And it completely alters all of the culture over the next many years and then ends in 2002

where 9-11 has been. blamed on the strokes. Okay. Yeah. So, but there's a lot that happens in between that. So that's, those are kind of the bookends of this book. Wow. You really were a podcast horror for that football book.

Well, yes, you know, but they can't, you know, people ask me to go on a podcast. They'll do it. Why not? Because the thing is also they don't, it's amazing how little they overlap. There's only a certain kind of person who listens to all of them, but, you know. Yeah, true. It is like pieces of different audiences. But I think it could have been a mistake, though, because I did so many of those podcasts, and people always wanted to talk about one section of the book.

They wanted to talk about the one chapter near the end about the eventual sort of erosion of football or football receding from the culture, which now I think many people think that's what the book is about. It's like, it's like 5% of that book, maybe at most. But I did, I probably did too many podcasts for that, you know. Trying to think of what the Velvet Underdard. what the sports version of that would be. Because I was going to say, like, if the Knicks had bought Dr. Jay from the Nets in 76, is the next 50 years of NBA history different.

But it was, Dr. Jay had already been around for half his career, so maybe it's not as impactful. But the concede of this book, though, is that all the records from 1967 until 2002, they're exactly the same. The records haven't changed. it's the perception of the records and the perception of the artists so that could only that could be with sports yeah so every well no in the sports version would be that all the games played out

exactly as we remember them but everything we think about sports is completely reversed got because of the way it is perceived I'll have to think about what the sport I need to I don't want to say the wrong thing here trying to think of what the basketball version that would be for some reason think about the late 70s if the Sonics bullet series was considered to be the series that saved basketball and Gus Williams was like Magic Johnson or Magic Johnson and then we just go. All right, Chuck, thank you for the two plus hours. I had a great time as always. Okay. Now you made me want to come to Portland. Well, you ever do? Well, you know, I don't have to twist Chris Ryan's arm. He goes there anyway just to socialize. He does. He comes quite

often. Yeah. All right. Sad everybody in Portland for us. Thanks for coming on. Okay, bye-bye. All right, that's it for the podcast. Thanks to Chuck Kosterman. Thanks to Gahau and Eduardo and Jack and Chris and everybody else at The Ringer as well. I'm going to be coming back midweek with a podcast. It's going to be a very unique podcast, probably on Wednesday. So stay tuned for that.

And don't forget, rewatchable. She's the one is coming. See you next week. Must be 21 plus in President in Select States for Kansas and affiliation with Kansas Star Casino or 18 plus in president in D.C., Kentucky, or Wyoming, given a problem, call 100, 800 Gambor or 1-800-Map. Call 88879-7777 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Connecticut

or MDGamblinghelp.org in Maryland. Hope is here. Visit gambling help line, ma.org, or call 800-3-2-7-50 for 24-7-support in Massachusetts or call 8778-Hope NY or text Hope NY in New York for Louisiana. and call 8777-7-7-8667. Hey y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder, what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up?

That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what-if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home.