The Dan Le Batard Show with Stugotz - The Sporting Class: TV Money: Caitlin Clark's Olympic 'snub', the WNBA's next deal, and how much is it all worth?

Episode Date: June 14, 2024

Meadowlark Media CEO John Skipper and Nothing Personal's David Samson are back with another episode with host of Pablo Torre Finds Out ... Pablo Torre! Welcome to The Sporting Class! It’s time to talk about women’s sports and where it’s currently at in the media landscape. Caitlin Clark is a shooting star. The Olympic team decided to leave her off it. The WNBA is readying for a new TV deal at the perfect time so what will that money look like? This whole episode is a deep dive into the growth and money that the WNBA is chasing. Then, it’s time for the final thoughts. Here’s what we weren’t able to get to in full. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You're listening to Giraffe King's Network. The white chocolate macadamia cream cold brew is back for the summer at Starbucks. So bold and so dreamy. It's the coolest co-pilot for wherever the sunshine takes you. Embrace the chill, the silky cold foam of that anticipated first sip, and join us on summertime only at Starbucks. Now's a good time to remember where the story of tequila started. In 1795, the first tequila distillery was opened by the Cuervo family, and 229 years later, Cuervo is still going strong. Family owned from the start,

same family, same land. Now's a good time to enjoy Cuervo. The tequila that invented tequila. Go to Cuervo.com to shop tequila or visit a store near you. Cuervo, now's a good time. Trademarks owned by Becle, SAB the CV, copyright 2024, próximo. Jersey City, New Jersey, please drink responsibly. This is the Don Leventor Show with the StuGuts Podcast. Things that have been said already before even starting. David asked John if he had a knife on him. It's a normal question. I'm not going to give any attention to people that don't give us money.

The re-reputation of New York as a dangerous city is overstated. I feel no need to carry a knife. A box cutter is what I might have on my. I gotta shank. Yeah. I really wanted to take a label off a bottle. Yeah, people should understand that the knife was to cut a label off of a green bottle.

Part of solve that mystery, what this used to be, this green bottle. It could be myriad companies, why you, that's exactly the point. I think it's steroids. David also previously claimed that he is super hot. Super hot.

Temperature, speaking. You guys have an interesting studio. I mean, I don't use it every day, clearly, because it's not available, but the temperature is strange. It is strange for cold-blooded individuals. I just always learned, I was from the Letterman School of Studios. I want everyone wearing coats who's in the audience,

because I get hot. I'm a schvitzer, I always have been. It's what keeps me thin and six-packy. I regret starting. Me too. David's knife, his desire for one, brings us to a topic that I need to look at this segue. I really need to dissect with you guys. Because women's sports has been talked about,

debated about, John, as something that of course is everything. It is culture war, it is race, it is gender, it is sociology, and I love it on one level, I'm exhausted by it on another, but this is a show about sports business. It is a show that is, again, only fans for issues of wealth, and I want to discuss this from the business perspective which people talk around, but here we have two people in David Samson and John Skipper. Hello to you both.

To actually cut into this. And so I want to start with Caitlin Clark. I want to start with what NBC might have been thinking. Okay. As the rights holder of the Olympics, when they get the news that Caitlin won't be selected to the team, how do you think they get the news? How do you think they respond to the news? Well, I don't think there's any question

that if CBS, MDC could make the decision, they would put Caitlin Clark on the team. But clearly they're not making the decision because more people would watch those games. Whatever the debates are, whatever the sort of cultural surroundings are here, more people would watch the games if Caitlin Clark was sitting on the bench.

Yeah, I was stunned. I see no reason for the decision. And NBC, here's what I'm thinking. NBC bid for the rights, and when they bid for the rights, Caitlin Clark was not in the picture. And I don't know how good they are in terms of projection, but it's like imagining years in advance, and I just, Koka may know,

I don't know the year NBC was granted these rights, but it was not in the last two years, is my guess. But Caitlin was probably six years old. So she was likely not a star. That said, you are trying to maximize your return on investment if you're NBC, and if you are selling the property, if you're the Olympic committee, you are trying to put yourself in a position to get more money,

especially with some people being paid now for the first time in these Paris Olympics. There are performers athletes being paid, which is the norm, it appears that we're heading toward. So NBC, I would imagine, was furious. They didn't find out on Twitter. If anyone is smart at the USOC, there's a conversation that's had with your partner, and NBC's the biggest partner, and I still think there's time for it to change. And I do think the decision will change.

I think Caitlin will go to Paris, and I think she will suit up. So injuries, of course, are a factor in this. You could have replacements and so forth. Another debate, another wave of this debate, but I wanna understand like, okay, you're the rights holder of the Olympics. What are your expectations

as to any of this backroom cooperation? How reasonable is it, as we talk about sports as both meritocracy and television show, right? How reasonable is it for there to even be a conversation, John, as someone who has held rights before? I don't think it's unreasonable to have a conversation, but I don't think the rights holders expect to get to delineate who's going to play.

They certainly don't get to pick which three runners are going to be in the 100 meter race That's qualifying No, no different. Yeah, this is different in that but there is a body that selects the women that will go the broadcasters I doubt are consulted or expect to be consulted. However, I would expect this is a Exception where it is big enough deal I would expect that is an exception where it is big enough deal. I would expect that somebody from NBC has suggested that it would be really good for business if she was on the team. By the way, you can make the case that she would be a good addition athletically to the

team as well, as she is the best long range shooter. While you might quarrel with whether she's one of the best 12 players in the league. They do not have a surfeit of long people who can make 27 and 30 foot jump shots on that team. I make a commitment to our audience that I will not give a scatter report of the players on the women's US Olympic team. I think it's amazing that you're adding value during the sporting class of your view of the US Olympic team that you think that she belongs there for a basketball standpoint. I didn't say she belonged or did belong. I said you could make the case.

Who, you? Well, this is at least the pretense is we are putting together the most powerful, most competitive team we could put together. I'm simply suggesting it's not certain that that wouldn't include Caitlin Clark. So this is not just about business. I believe that the decision was made for myriad reasons,

not the least of which was her ability to shoot. I think that there's a lot going on inside politically with the WNBA and people talk about it, and it's manifesting itself through race and through yelling and screaming on shows and podcasts and over the air. But I think at the end of the day, the broadcaster will win this

because it's their biggest partner. So you asked, who do you consult? You've got to always speak to your biggest partner. It's more important than speaking to your wife, speaking to your broadcaster. By the way, NBC is not only the biggest, they're the only partner. Even more important, even more important.

And even with multiple bidders for Olympics going forward, you cannot turn your back on NBC. They are obviously one of the, they're in the power five conference, you'd have to say. So I think conversations were had and it's shocking that the team was named without Caitlin Clark to start with, but when it's remedied, I think it'll be

an even bigger story with more interest. So I get the sense, of course, that there are echoes in this story of how we talked about how the college football playoff field was appointed, who was notified, who argued backstage, all of that stuff. With this being about the Olympics,

I actually want to specify it to that enterprise because I think there is, to a lot of casual sports fans, there are two thoughts. One is this Olympic enterprise is one of the most pure athletic endeavors when it comes to the global sense of meritocracy. Gold medals, you ask him, what's this about? It's about winning gold medals. endeavors when it comes to the global sense of meritocracy, gold medals, you ask him, what's this about?

It's about winning gold medals. And John is already laughing out loud. Why would you suggest it is a pure enterprise? It was a fairly pure enterprise back in the 60s and 70s when it was theoretically amateurs. It's no longer amateurs. I mean, to David's point about this being business, there's a reason the NBA players are playing. It's because we lost one time. That's why longer amateurs. I mean, to David's point about this being business, there's a reason the NBA players are playing.

It's because we lost one time. That's why they're playing. I think the professional hockey players, when they participate play, the people in the pool are getting a lot of sponsorship dollars these days. It is not particularly pure anymore. It is a, and by the way, the Russians can't come and can't play under their flag. They, I support that. can't come and can't play under their flag.

They, I support that. They can come. I support that. I said play under their flag. Right, so that's, it's such a joke. I mean, are you saying that that is a good punishment? I'm saying, I- That they just have to play like with a different logo?

I can understand actually that there is some wisdom in that, in that the global sports community is suggesting that what Russia has done in invading the Ukraine is difficult enough that they cannot bring and fly their flag at the Olympics, but they're choosing not to punish the individual players or participants, let them come, but they can't play under the Russian flag.

I think I have that right, I'm not certain. Yeah, I have a major issue with that because there are a lot of conflicts, not in Russia and Ukraine, where the members are allowed to fly the flag. So either you choose to take a position on everybody or you choose to not take a position. I don't think we were planning on getting into this.

I don't think we have time to take a position on every global conflict, David. But the Russian Olympic Committee solution does seem like a useful thing to point to when we point to this whole thing is about politics and marketing and nations expressing something other than a pure meritocracy. And so it sounds like to be very blunt about it, both of you, as part of the sports business show, see this almost as a non-question. Like, of course you put Kaitlin Clark on the team

if you guys are running Team USA for the reasons that you've both established. Especially when it's a team sport like this. I'm certainly never suggesting that you take the fifth place finisher from a 100 meter qualifying race and say, oh, you're more popular, you're on the team. You can't do that with a majority of Olympic sports,

but with team sports like this, where it's the USA body choosing the team, you absolutely can fix it. And I think broadcasters are involved in that as they should be with the other sports. The broadcasters are behind those who generally are going to qualify because it's done on merit, not politically.

What if I were to argue that we need to have more merit in this? Like what if people are out there saying, but you guys are just adding to the idea of less meritocracy and more television show. Isn't that a problem? Why are we advocating for more dilution of the pure Olympic ideal? Well, once again, I would quarrel with the pure Olympic ideal. The U S Olympic committee or the basketball committee knows that the United

States absent some astonishing upset is going to win the game. And there can be a, um, there can be sort of a mixture of we're going to take the best players, but there are best players or there are players we want. For instance, older players who kind of deserve to get a chance to go back and win a medal. There's nothing wrong with that. You're still Diana Taurasi in this case. Yeah. You're, you're, look,'re, look, I want to see Diana Tarassi win her six gold medal. Would you have put her on the team as the GM? Since you're saying that Caitlin was one of the top 12 is Diana.

No, I'm suggesting that there is some freedom in selecting 12 players. I agree with that. By the way, that's happened a lot. When Dean Smith coached the Olympic team, he brought four of his own players. I agree with that. That's happened a lot. When Dean Smith coached the Olympic team, he brought four of his own players. Were they four of the 12 best amateur at the time players in the United States? They were not. Christian Leightner, I believe was on the dream team. Yep. Was he one of the 12 best basketball players in the world at that time? He was not. That was a deal. They had to have a college player on the dream team. That's how they got the NBA to participate is there would still be a college player.

So they chose Leighton as the college player. My point is still the same, which is I'm not- I agree with you, John, but it is a meritocracy. That's where I disagree with you, Pablo. It's still a meritocracy. We're just answering to a different God. I'm answering to the business God, to a dollar God. I'm just waiting to hear you say the phrase.

So David is reflecting to Mammon. David literally praying to a golden calf. I am praying to the golden God who understands that Caitlin Clark has a benefit. And it's not easy to carry that torch. She's going through some definite growing pains. It's very difficult to be in her position. The debates are insane in terms of both idiocy

and amount of hours covered. But that said, there's still time. And what I've been thinking about a lot recently, not that we're up to this segment, is how they're gonna get to naming her. So they started already. She's an alternate. So they've started preparing everyone,

all right, we've heard you. And then there'll be some sort of, oh, there's some sort of torn column or some posterior medial thing and she'll be there suited up. So John, on this question of growing the game, I think there are quarrels that people have had about even that premise of like,

is this really gonna grow the game? You referenced the dream team in 92, which exported basketball and grew the NBA in ways that are, I think, obviously reflected in the international pool of players now. What do you think is the upside for the WNBA in 2024, sending out a team that has an attraction like that, specifically because she's an attraction?

It would be a positive for growing the game. More people would watch, they would find the interest in the game and it would be positive for growing the game. So they have at least overtly made a decision that that's not the principal purpose of the Olympics. The principal purpose is to put the best 12 players on the court and win a gold medal. I think that's the statement they've made. I think the benefit of sending people to the Olympics is people are watching the Olympics who don't otherwise watch women's basketball. And when you are opening yourself up to something, you have one shot to get loyalty.

And the shot comes with name recognition. It comes with something that is very well known. Oh, that's Caitlin Clark, or oh, that's name another player on the team. All right, what team is that? Oh, that's Las Vegas Aces. All right, I'll give that a shot. They happen to be in town.

You're trying to get people in the pipeline of fan affinity and the Olympics has historically been a way for people to sample events and sports that they otherwise would not sample. Right, right. It occurs to me in this story that every eventuality returns to the idea that it's gonna be miserable to talk about this on the internet,

where John is largely a conscientious objector very wisely. Cause I think about this, right? Like, okay, let's say she's off the team. Then what happens if the team loses? God forbid, right? What if she's on the team and she doesn't play enough? God forbid. Well, then you get everybody complaining about that.

There's every, I guess the question I'm asking is, how much does the potential reaction factor in? Because Christine Brennan over at USA Today cited sources that said part of the reason why Caitlyn was not originally picked on the team was because, well, what if she were to not play enough and her army of unhinged, Swifty adjacent supporters online were to crusade and make this miserable for everybody.

And they were like, we don't want to deal with the headache allegedly. So how much does that conversation fit into the picture of growth and attention? Well, we're sitting here talking about it right now. So it's working, right? Caitlin Clark continues to drive interest in women's basketball and women's sports in general. And we're proof of that.

I do believe that when they get to Paris, there will be an athletic meritocracy and the best players will play the most minutes. And at this point in her career, it's not clear she would be a starter or the first person off the bench. But it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter. The attention she'd get in Paris when they landed, when they get to the hotel, the images

you have of the dream team. I don't remember the minutes of who played what in 92. I think Larry Bird may not have played for five minutes because of a back injury, but I remember everyone waiting for them as they went through the lobby, et cetera. And that's what you'd have with the women's team with Caitlin there. I agree. And I also believe the American team is strong enough that they would win if they put any of 20 or 30 players

in the last two or three slots on the team. They have been lost. On the other hand, to be fair, it is a recognition of your accomplishment in the sport to be on the Olympic team. I do not want to diminish that. And of course, I wanna make clear as the disclaimer, this is the sporting class.

We're talking about this from the sports business perspective. Of course, the people who guard these positions like they are the grail they've been chasing for their entire life would feel differently. That's all fair for the players to feel a different way than the people concerned about the business side of it. That's why they're players.

And that's why you don't let players in on this because they don't think about anything other than that. Because their God, in this case, is a wrong meritocracy. Is a different God. Yes. And I'll leave you. He's a player hater. Oh God, no.

I'm just trying to differentiate between gods. A heretic in another language. But I wanna point out here to the business point of it that a month with no Caitlin Clark is what we are set up for if she's not in the Olympics, right? So just to do the math, no regular season games in the WNBA between July 18th and August 14th because of the Olympics.

Of course, there's overlap between this sport and the Olympics, which makes all of this even more complicated, but it brings us back to the WNBA as the business, as that enterprise, right? So the media deal with the WNBA, we have covered this at length, but also not enough for my money, as it were. And so how do you explain,

how do you explain the WNBA media deal and what is most interesting about it that people may not intuitively understand here. Because now the NBA TV deal is about to be announced and John is pivoting in his chair, moving back and forth, making me wonder what he's thinking about. I think he was wondering whether he understood the question, but I may be wrong.

No, no, I was thrown by Pablo's use of, for my money. And I thought, well, is there money involved here? I thought you were gonna say it's my money. For our money. So the NBA deals will get announced shortly after the end of the finals, could be pretty soon. And I would assume the WNBA announcements will come somewhat after that. I believe the commissioners of the NBA, the WNBA have both suggested that they're

likely to share the same partners that the WNBA may have as they do now, additional broadcast partners. additional broadcast partners. So we'd expect to hear Amazon, ESPN and NBC deals for the WNBA and you might also see ION or CBS or somebody else with an additional WNBA deal. I think the deals will be significantly increased from what they get paid now. I believe now they get paid $60 million a year, 40 from ESPN, 20 from the other four partners. I don't know what the mix will be going forward, but I have consistently suggested that these guys are,

that the WNBA is going to get a 300% increase. Why are you shaking your head, David? Because the NBA will choose whatever number it wants for the WNBA. The WNBA does not have the ability to do an independent media deal, no matter what John's saying. Oh, I would pay for that on its own.

I would assign a number to that because I'm John Skipper and I like women's sports, that's fine. There's no market out there for a triple of their 60 for the WNBA. The NWSL got $60 million a year. I think their rights fees before were less than 20. So that's a market indicator. It's like when you buy a house, right?

And they say, well, here's a comparable. Here's a comparable. The NWSL, which is clearly not as valuable as the WNBA got $60 million a year in the open and free market. But the 40 million number where the WNBA is coming from that you're using as the basis was a pegged number. So let's explain this, right? This is how this is most unintuitive for people.

The WNBA has a rights deal that lives inside of the NBA's rights deal. It's not broken out. It is underneath the larger headline that you've seen. When the NBA gets triple, it's 2.5 to 7.5 billion, thereabouts, the WNBA is inside of that seven and a half. They're inside it currently. So the current deal with the broadcast partners for the WNBA, it was, and you did the deal.

And so my thought of how that went for the WNBA, it was, and you did the deal, and so my thought of how that went is the WNBA was part of the package. You were not able to prevail in getting the NBA rights without taking the WNBA. I was not, I volunteered to take it and was never asked or told I had to take it or had to be included any more than the draft.

I mean, we bought the draft, we bought the finals, we bought X percentage of the playoffs, we bought Sunday games, we bought the opportunity to take our media to the Las Vegas, I forget what they're called. Summer league. So we bought a lot of basketball content and part of that was the WNBA. What was their allocation, John? You're saying that you got all this.

I don't know. I didn't allocate for the draft. We paid an amount of money. I didn't say, here's what we're paying for Saturday night games. Here's what we're paying for the finals. We paid X amount of money and got a whole bunch of stuff. Somebody who works for you did.

No, they did not. You can say that you did not. They did not. You're assigning no value. If the NBA draft were its own entity and it went out to forbid, you're getting the NBA draft. That's all you're getting.

But it's way less valuable than as part of a package of all the NBA assets. Nobody ever did a valuation of here's what this is worth, here's what that's worth and how we got. John. Look, it's actually simpler than people think. Well, this is David assuming, John, that you have a knife. Yeah.

You would cut it all up and David's like, of course you would, of course you would slice everything up. It actually happens that many of the big deals, the number is pretty much established by the league. They say, this is what you're going to pay. Uh, or pretty close to it. There's not a lot of back and forth. We did not have, oh, we'll pay this.

We'll pay that. Oh, I'll pay this. If you'll give me these six things, it is much more of here's kind of what we need to get to, there is an expectation. You'll probably agree with me on this, this David the commissioner gives the owners some level of expectation here's where I think we'll get they get there because they have some discussions with us about what will you pay but I never was asked oh if I take out the I never had a discussion where I want to pay a little bit less

so take out the draft take out the you bit less, so take out the draft, take out the summer leagues, take out the other stuff, the highlights we get. It was all- Because you had the A package, the whole discussion they have with the B and C package is what you're not getting, and that's why the number is less. I'm actually not understanding what you're saying,

because the NBA packages is a perfect example. The B package that we're talking about, Turner doesn't get the finals, NBC will not get the finals. That's why they pay less. So let's just pretend that the numbers come out that NBC pays a billion under what Disney pays. Let's just pretend. Okay, wrong, but we'll pretend.

What number would you like to use? NBC versus Disney. At least what's been reported, and I suspect it proportionally is right, is ESPN's gonna pay about 2.8 and NBC's gonna pay about 2.6. So $200 million. The math is gonna be more difficult, but okay. $200 million. What is the difference in assets that Disney's getting as part of the A package versus NBC as the B package? The most important is the finals. And so would you agree that there's a chance

that you could value what the NBA finals would be and how companies would bid for their package if they had the finals? You could, but that's not how they bring the rights out. I can guarantee you that the discussion with Bob Iger and Adam Silver was, we're not giving up the, we want the NBA finals. I don't, I doubt there was ever anything that said, well,

now the NBA finals is currently worth this. And you're going to have to pay four times what you're paying for the NBA finals. It's a number. It's a big number. There may be, now that I'm gone, there may be more mathematical calculations done than we did, but we never took the constituent parts. What we did do, we would look at what advertising dollars we thought we would drive from that, but it was never enough to cover the package, right? Most of the money is covered by the distribution fee on the cable, cable satellite telephone operators. But, um, we didn't again, tell me we did, but we didn't ever,

I never looked at anything that said what I did do is say, Oh, you want me to pay that kind of increase. Then I get the summer league. Then I get more highlights. Then I get to make documentaries and get the licensing fees. Exactly what I was saying. But I, again, what you do, you mostly decide on a number or kind of the number, and then you figure out what you're gonna try to do.

I'll tell you what the leagues do then, John, though, is the leagues try to figure out how to maximize what their assets are. Of course. And they go to different partners with different assets, and they try to get people to bid on those assets. So we're gonna come up with another round of playoffs, wild card playoffs.

Let's go out to market and we're not just gonna give it to an existing partner. Let's see who will pay what just for that. And math is done by networks. Yeah, it is, but not much of that happens. The NBA did their in season tournament. It didn't change what the partners were paying to do that in season tournament. Now there have been reports, I do not know if they're true, that they tried to sell that separately.

Didn't end up sold separately. And I doubt that there was an auction for who will pay the most money for this package. They probably approached, I don't know, I'm making it up. I don't know this. there was an auction for who will pay the most money for this package. They probably approached, I don't know, I'm making it up. I don't know this. They probably approached, let's say they approached Apple or Netflix and said, what will you pay for this package? And they would then thought of extracting it from one of the packages. For whatever reason, they didn't probably because nobody said

we'll pay such a big number. They probably believe we can get more money by including it in the A package to B package. They then did create a C package for Amazon. And again, I suspect Amazon is much more mathematical than I ever was. Do you not think, I can't let this go, I'm sorry, but do you not think that when the leagues

go to their partners and the partners say, you know what, we're a little disappointed, we're not getting the sales that we thought, our revenue is being cut because of what's going on in the cable world, we need some more jewel assets. We need something that's a little different than a regular season Sunday game. How do you feel about maybe an in-season tournament

where we can have a competition where all of a sudden more eyeballs are gonna be on it, and we'd like those extra assets in order to justify what we're currently paying you. Backstreet's back, all right. Since the dawn of mankind, we've cooked our food over an open flame and debated the best way to grill. One thing not up for debate,

grilling and beer always go together. But not just any beer will do. Whether you barbecue, Texan style, or just celebrate Wednesday with burgers and dogs, Grilling and beer always go together. But not just any beer would do. Whether you barbecue, text in style, or just celebrate Wednesday with burgers and dogs. I love Miller Lite. Every single time my team plays on television, I am sitting behind that television screen with a Miller Lite or three. Miller Lite keeps it simple. Undebatable quality, taste as great as your barbecue.

It's the beer that strips away everything you don't need and holds on to what matters the most. With the Miller Lite in hand, grilling doesn't just taste great, it tastes like Miller time. To get Miller Lite delivered right to your door, visit MillerLite.com slash Dan. Or you can find it pretty much anywhere that sells beer. Celebrate responsibly. Miller Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 96 calories per 12 ounces. Folks, we are this close to crowning an NBA champ,

and with the action heating up on the court, it's even hotter at DraftKings Sportsbook, an official sports betting partner of the NBA. With same game parlays, live betting, odd boosts, and so much more, don't miss out as the NBA season winds down. And if you're new to DraftKings, you got to check this out. New customers bet five bucks and get 150 in bonus bets instantly.

Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app now. Use code Dan. That's code Dan for new customers to get 150 bucks in bonus bets when you bet just five bucks only at DraftKings. The crown is yours. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or in West Virginia, visit www.1-800-GAMBLER.NET. In New York, call 877-8HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY467369.

In Connecticut, help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-789-77777 or visit ccpg.org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boothill Casino Resort in Kansas, 21 plus, age varies by jurisdiction, void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance. See dkng.co. slash bball for eligibility, deposit restrictions,

terms, and responsible gaming resources. Don Lebatard. We love you, we've got you, we've all got each other. Let's go, right now. Stugats. One, two, three, Brett. One, two, three, Brett! This is the Don Lebatard Show with the Stugarts. I'm sorry, I lost the question.

The question is, does that happen? Are there broadcasters who would like more assets to justify what they're paying? Sure. We, for a long time, I lobbied for a second night at the NBA draft. And they finally did it, but nobody ever came to me and said, what would you pay extra? I mean, it will be included in the new deal, but nobody, there was always a dialogue about how can we make what we're already selling you more valuable. The leagues genuinely won't there to be value. On this this, I wanna figure out where the WNBA fits in

to these assets because we've just described all the things that go into the NBA rights deal and these are NBA products. You're talking about inventing and dicing up, slicing up. The WNBA is what inside of this? And I guess the question really is, who is it good for, for it to be vaguely hidden inside of this deal? Who benefits the most? Well, if the WNBA was going to get dramatically more money by coming outside of it, they would

do so. So the WNBA probably gets some significant benefit from being inside of it because the NBA can leverage their attractiveness to get money that they can use to grow the WNBA, which is good for the NBA. And in fact, if the WNBA grows, it's good for their broadcasters as well. for their broadcasters as well. And if you look at, as I know Mr. Sampson is skeptical of my, they're seeing a 300% increase, why wouldn't they? Which is growing faster, the NBA or the WNBA? The WNBA. Well, because from a percent standpoint, when you have a 10, this is my favorite trick.

We have 2000 people coming to the game, then 4000. We have 100% increase. It's from a lower base. It's not harder to get a higher increase in revenue year over year when your revenue is 180 million instead of 8 billion. So if their revenue goes to 200 million, proportionally for what broadcasters are paying for professional men's and women's basketball, they are actually declining as a percentage of what those broadcasters are paying for. I view it as a blip.

The WNBA is a freckle at the moment and they're trying to make it bigger. And so by allocating a bigger number, which they will, and I assume John knows they're gonna allocate a bigger number like 200 million a year, maybe even more. And by allocate, you mean what? That is that the NBA in the contract with its broadcasters, which will be Disney and NBC and Amazon,

there will be provisions in there that will, believe it or not, in the contracts, it will say, here's the amount of money being paid, here's the assets you get. Then there will be a provision that talks about the WNBA and the rights that the broadcasters have and what's being paid as part of the bigger fee in Section 2 Gimmel. It will outline here is what is being paid for WNBA. If you were managing men's and women's professional basketball, what would you allocate and how

would you decide how much to allocate to the WNBA? As much as possible. Yeah. Because I want, it's fake it till you make it. I want to prop it up and keep the narrative going. Look at how great everything is. And that's great, I'm happy to have that happen. But I want there to be no illusion that the WNBA

on its own would not find a partner in a void to do $300 million. They just don't have, they don't have. You just gave them an extra hundred million. 200 million, that's true. 200 million. So I see you even more than me support the WNBA. Look, just think of it in these terms.

If you're trying to grow the sport of basketball and you have an extra 100 million for the WNBA, as opposed to giving what another three million per team to the NBA, it is actually, this is a business show about the business of sports. It is money better spent. Is giving the, the NBA teams three million more a year will do very little for you to grow the sport of basketball. Given 200 million or 250 million, I'ma mark it up.

The Yankees would take an extra three million, as would the Marlins, to spend on marketing, to spend on anything. They would take an extra. Utility and fielder. They would take an extra $40. Yes, we would. And you make fun of it like we're in the wrong.

Is there a chance that there's any benefit? I read this article recently about some sort of new amazing league that John Skipper's involved in involving women's three-on-three. And can you imagine when you're in charge of selling the media rights to that league that you get to say the WNBA is at $300 million a year. We're going to fit just right in under that. Is there any part of that that is in your mind right now? Well, first, it does-

And I love you and respect you. No, no, it does remind me that I have to disclose that I am an investor in a women's basketball league. We're at the deposition and disclosures phase of the show. No, no, it's okay. No, no, no! I may be fine. David, David is most guilty of trying to do my job.

Of course, I wanted to ask about this, but we're here already, so let's do it. So, John, your sense of this marketplace is not an abstract question, it is a practical one, because you are a, how would you describe your involvement with this business and what is this business? I am a modest investor but not modest for my personal self. I'm an investor in Unrivaled which is the new women's three-on-three league,

was announced about 10 days ago. Will play in January, February, and March in front of the WNBA season. Include six teams of five players. Those 30 players will be among the 35 or 40 best players. Our intention is the 30 best players in the league. So I do care about meritocracy. Would you not want Caitlin Clark? Of course we would. And, and by the way, she would be very near the top of the list

of who you'd want in that league. I want to defend myself slightly by suggesting I have been consistent with both the Walt Disney Company's money, my advocacy in this, so no, it doesn't influence what I think is happening with the NBA. Our feelings are hurt because you didn't invite us to invest side by side with you.

I think the possibility still exists, David. You could come in side by side by side. I think the possibility still exists, David. You could come in. We had to read about it. Side by side by me. It was tweeted. That's how we found out of this amazing thing you're doing. And we should mention it's really an amazing thing to start a league. Not easy to do.

And it is one of the things that, first of all, I am, I do believe I'm supportive and I wanted to invest in things that reflected my personal interest in values. And I am trying to sell the meteorites along with Mr. Levy. And so, yes. When can we expect to see it, if I could ask? Because it's... January of 2025.

That's very soon. So that's in six months? Yes. Well, seven months, but yes. So that's David Levy, by the way, who was the head, of course, of Turner Sports, who is the man that you co-negotiated with to get the previous NBA rights deal. Kaitlyn Clark, the aforementioned,

would be top prospect in this three-on-three league. As the data point of the WNBA is concerned, her games have been the top four largest audiences in the past 22 years. And so when it comes to the WNBA and how they're gonna claim that money and that increase, that spike, right? Can you imagine what a league partner

is doing behind the scenes to maybe just, you know, get some more fever games. How does this work? Given that you just talked about ESPN wanting to pay more for the NBA finals, here's the NBA finals relative to women's sports when it comes to ratings, these Indiana fever games. You would keep open, I assume, the flexibility,

and this would be discussed in league meetings where they have the ability and the right, the broadcast partners, to choose different games. In the NFL, we know it is flexing. You flex away from games if your team stinks, and owners don't like that. They don't want to be flexed out of national games. Players, on the other hand, want to be flexed out of ESPN

Sunday night games because they hate them on the baseball side because they want to get out of town and get going. They don't like the Sunday Night Games. And so when you have a situation, it's one of the rare ones. I haven't really seen it in baseball, maybe with Barry Bonds at most, where there was such a delta between

when this person plays and when everyone else plays. And I just had not seen this before, but it also goes to show you where you're starting from with the WNBA, that the difference, there's no NBA player, I can't think of one who would make that sort of difference on a game by game basis. Not the same proportion, right?

When Michael Jordan played, the ratings went up. Yes. Right? And by the way, when McGuire and Sosa were chasing the home run records, the ratings went up. But it was, you know, from a two, three to a two, six, it wasn't from 7,000 to 17,000, which is what it was this past weekend.

Her game had 17,000 attendees, ticket buyers, and the other league games averaged 7,000. Big delta. That's a big delta in ticket revenue, but on the broadcast side. It's also, I don't know what that is, but it's at least double. If you could get off Fever Games,

if you could get Katelyn Clark, it's why ESPN has Yankees Red Sox every Sunday night, because that's the markets they want. It's why they'd want the Yankees and Dodgers in the World Series. That's what- Well, it's not the markets they want. It's the teams they want.

They do happen to reside in good television markets, but the Yankees Red Sox just rated higher than anything else by a not insubstantial number. So if I were to tell you, according to this Washington Post story that came out recently about the WNBA and its business, that it's still losing money. That this year, in fact, according to their reporting, the WNBA and its teams are still

expected to lose around $50 million, according to two sources that they spoke to, anonymous sources. Is that surprising? And what does that suggest about how simultaneously it could be this thing, worthy of investment and growth and all good news and also that running a deficit? I think we're too experienced on this show

to just take that number and say they're losing 50 million. I don't know that the NBA or the investors in the WNBA are cutting a check for an actual $50 million cash loss. So I would not ever comment on what they're doing in terms of I can make a team look like it's losing 50 million tomorrow and I can make a team look like it's breaking even. It depends on all sorts of accounting principles,

all of which are legal. But I think- How sharp your knife is, yes. How principled it is, I don't know. It's completely within the definition of general accounting principles. What a romantic answer to that question. I think Donald Trump has often been within the-

That's not right. That's not right. Now that's the payback for the earlier statements. Put the blades away. Put the blades away. Put the blades away. Sheesh. We're going in the alley with our switch. Yeah.

With our switch braids. A foot taller than I am. I'm sorry. We're talking about wingspan. But speaking. What's your wingspan? I've never measured it. But speaking of reach,

you party better than I do. I never measure any. You guys are trampling my awesome segues. Speaking of reach, when the WNBA is figuring out, okay, like what are we losing as a matter of this number? How much of that is real versus also a function of the allocation, which seems to be a thing the NBA itself can simply decide?

I don't think they can, there are, there's some parameters in which they can make a decision. Ultimately, they have to be accountable to the owners. I mean, they can't pick a number out of the air without some level of justification. It is why I was suggesting it's an easy thing to justify right now. And if you were investing in the,

by the way, most things you invest in lose money to start with. So the fact that it's losing money, all that matters is what can it be eventually? And I think it can be significant eventually. And if I was looking at 75 or 7.5 billion dollars every year that I had to spend, I think spending on a league that is losing some amount of money, like David, I would doubt that that's an exact figure, is a good investment.

Adam Silver commented on this. So it's not a new business. Adam Silver specifically stated it before the NBA Finals began, when asked about Caitlin Clark, et cetera, and he gave a brilliant answer. The best commissioner in terms of PR, in terms of meeting the media of any of them.

He said the WNBA is losing money for way longer than what we thought when we started this league. It's not a new league. He said they've been losing money since it started. I think he said 92. It's 20, this is either the 27th or 28th year. So there's no way that you start a business projecting that you're gonna lose for 28 years and have it survive.

It has been buttressed by the NBA and it does come up in owners' meetings where they do allocate money to continue this quote unquote marketing investment of growing women's basketball. Yep. 96 was the... So 28 years.

The first year. Yeah. Excuse me. I'm sorry, April 24th, 1996, it was founded the first season, 97, to get all of the math completely accurate. So. It's been losing money for a very long time, and Adam Silver acknowledged that,

and I would assume they would not, they would like the WNBA to be better on its own, but I think they realize now that it's not going to be, and so it is just a cost of doing business. So the next question then is, okay, outside of the TV rights deal, which are complicated for the reasons that we have already laid out,

in which they're never gonna get credit or blame fully because they're hiding inside of the larger deal, this umbrella, how do you immediately make the math better? And how does expansion figure into this question for the WNBA, which is talk now about adding two more teams by a couple of years from now? If you can get gate revenue that is greater than

the increase in working, I was gonna say working capital, but that is the wrong word, in people cost. So you're gonna have 20, how many people on a team? Is it 15 players per WNBA team? Whatever the number is, you're adding that number of jobs and you have to have enough revenue to cover what their payroll is going to be. And you have two expansion fees

because you will get outside investment for those teams. And you add that all up and you decide for yourself whether we're best served having developmental league teams in more cities. And that's- 144 players across 12 teams. So that would be 12 per team. Correct.

So that's adding 24 jobs. Yes. Which they need to do by the way. They have already an issue that they're drafting X number of players into the league that they don't really have room for. International players are getting better and coming to the United States. So they need that. Plus they just need national coverage, right?

You can't have a league that doesn't have enough teams in the South and the West and the Northeast. And they don't right now. Last year they added a Bay team and a San Diego team. So they had a pretty good contingent on the West coast. They, and it's my home state, so I'm completely respectful, but they got a team in North Carolina, it doesn't really help them with big markets, right? They need a team, uh, uh, and they needed more teams in Florida than eight teams. They had one, I think it went under.

And I think in order to have a league, you need to have, let's say, 25 to 30 teams. And the NBA with its business plan, I would imagine, if they wanted to have it ever stand on its own two feet, you have to build it to a critical mass of teams in that range, because then you can start talking about broadcast deals that really do impact. Yeah Because then you can start talking about broadcast deals

that really do impact. Yeah, and you can have regional rivalries. I mean, part of the problem with teams, with 12 teams scattered across the country, you know, you've got a natural rivalry in Seattle and Portland, but you need a natural rivalry in Dallas and Houston or San Antonio.

And they'll get to that and they'll get to, I would assume over the, I would assume they'll add teams every year for the next 10 years. They've announced one, a partner of the Golden State franchise coming next year, year after that. Portland team is reopening. They used to have a Portland team, used to have the Miami Soul, the Portland Fire, previous, no longer with us, these franchises. But we're getting to the end here, and we have a lot left over. And so we have on the table still,

what happens to TNT right now? What happens with NBC right now? Paweł, can we talk about TNT for a second and talk about Charles Barkley and what he's been doing? Please. I can't stop thinking about the way he's selling David Zasloff, walking around to every single network and talking about him on his own network no less.

The amount of power that Barkley has to have. I imagine John watching this seething with smoke coming out of your ears. If he worked for a network I was in charge of, I would be very, uh, discomfited by his going around and telling me how to do my job. So I suspect he's not making the David's Ass Law summer barbecue. Uh, it's incredible. Yeah.

I haven't really heard a broadcaster do it the way Barkley is doing it. He's still, he's got another year With and and he knows he can't get fired and he knows Turner's not getting the deal and he knows he's a free agent But he's going scorched earth and he needs a better agent Because what's interesting to me is you think Barclay needs a better agent? I do because I believe that he doesn't realize there's only a certain number of bidders, and someone who's gonna sign Barclay is gonna say, he just did it to David, he's gonna do it to me next.

Man, I don't think so. Anybody who can get Barclay is going to take Barclay. They're going to, but you don't think- They would let Charles Barclay poop on the hood of their car. God. And they would be happy about it to get him. I've not had that pleasure yet as a-

What is that? As yet as a broadcast executive. Now Barclay probably is the most valuable pundit that there is. There's a couple of people close, but if you were starting from scratch, you would hire Charles Barclay. He went on ESPN, he was on the Stanley Cup. Nothing like going on your competitor.

I couldn't even believe it. Oh yeah. He went on ESPN to complain about Turner. This is a real company, he doesn't work for TNT, he works for Warner Brothers Discovery. I love Charles, he also threatened to go to the live tour at one point, right? Like that was a story too.

What he does negotiating in public, look, I guess what we're saying is that Turner requiring the rights to the French Open from NBC, not really doing a lot for Charles Barkley. He doesn't seem to care. Warner Brothers is doing what we said they would do, which John reluctantly now may be seeing. The strategy for them, they were gonna lose the NBA

because they didn't want to overpay, but they're trying to justify their sports tier. And so they're picking up these other sports. They did the ESPN, they bought the two CFP games from ESPN. They just got the French Open on a 10 year deal. And so they're building some critical mass. They are, I would, I disagree slightly on the French Open. I actually believe that when Louis Silberwasser says that that deal was in play and has very

little to do with the NBA, I believe it, because those deals don't get done. The negotiating window, Turner had just passed, what, 60 days ago at most, and these negotiations have been going on longer. And they have another year, which you just pointed out, which people forget. So the distribution fees can't go down for a year. I do think they'll execute that strategy, David. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just suggesting they have credibility with me when they say we were negotiating for the French open anyway. We have like one minute left. John, I believe it was an anniversary you wanted to celebrate today.

Anniversary? I believe it was an anniversary you wanted to celebrate today. An anniversary? I thought it was the 75th anniversary of something I just sent out to you. Oh, oh, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. That's a segue that went, that segued over my head. I'm Caitlin Clark today. Just throw up passes that people are not converting, but proceed. I just felt that as we talk about what might be on my mind at the very end of this, see that Paramount has filed some

compensation details for its new co-chief executives and there are participants in something called the Paramount global executive change in control severance protection plan. It's a great plan. It is the 75th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. The 35th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. And this is definitely some crazy ass Orwellian double speak bullshit. That you would have loved to have when you were at Disney.

I've never wanted to get paid a whole bunch of money for doing nothing. Uh, and that's what they're going to get paid a whole bunch of money for is doing nothing except having the power to create a golden parachute for themselves. It's abominable. And it's what's wrong with American business. He can add the last word. Let's just listen to that again. The paramount global executive change in control severance protection plan. That is what the country needs right now.

And a partridge in a pear tree. David Zebs and John Skipper, thank you and thank you to your respective gods as well. Backstreet's back, alright! Since the dawn of mankind, we've cooked our food over an open flame and debated the best way to grill. One thing not up for debate, grilling and beer always go together. But not just any beer would do. Whether you barbecue, Texas style, or just celebrate Wednesday with burgers and dogs, I love Miller Lite. Every single time my team plays on television, I am sitting behind that television screen with a Miller Lite or three. Miller Lite keeps it simple, undebatable quality, tastes as

great as your barbecue. It's the beer that strips away everything you don't need and holds on to what matters the most. With the Miller Lite in hand, grilling doesn't just taste great, it tastes like Miller time. To get Miller Lite delivered right to your door, visit MillerLite.com slash Dan or you can find it pretty much anywhere that sells beer. Celebrate responsibly. Miller Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 96 calories per 12 ounces.