The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Prof G Markets: Apple’s Headset Bet, Sequoia’s Big Breakup, and Hypocrisy at the PGA Tour

Episode Date: June 12, 2023

This week on Prof G Markets, Scott shares his thoughts on what product Apple should be focused on to create more shareholder value, rather than its Vision Pro headset. He also explains the real reason why Sequoia Capital is spinning off its China and India units. And finally, he discusses the PGA Tour’s decision to merge with Saudi Arabia’s LIV Golf.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join Capital Group CEO Mike Gitlin on the Capital Ideas Podcast. In unscripted conversations with investment professionals, you'll hear real stories about successes and lessons learned, informed by decades of experience. It's your look inside one of the world's most experienced active investment managers. Invest 30 minutes in an episode today. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. Support for PropG comes from NerdWallet.

Starting your credit card search with NerdWallet? Smart. Using their tools to finally find the card that works for you? Even smarter. You can filter for the features you care about. Access the latest deals and add your top cards to a comparison table to make smarter decisions. And it's all powered by the Nerd's expert reviews of over 400 credit cards. Head over to nerdwallet.com forward slash learn more to find smarter credit

cards, savings accounts, mortgage rates, and more. NerdWallet, finance smarter. NerdWallet Compare Incorporated. NMLS 1617539. This week's number, $10. Salesforce is donating $10 to local charities for each day an employee shows up at work. I give at least 10% of my earnings to charity, another 5% to Destiny, and a few percent to other strippers. Welcome to Prop G Markets. Ed, you love that. Yeah, that was good. That was actually pretty good. Today, we're discussing Apple's headset, Sequoia Capital's spinoff plans. That should be interesting. And the PGA Tours merger with Live Golf.

Here with the news is PropG Media analyst and stage name, Ed Elson. Ed, step away from the poll. Tell us about the markets. Before we do that, Scott, I just want to let you know that I would happily accompany you to the Champions League final this weekend. That's right. Just going to put that out there. I'm taking my 12-year-old son to see Man City versus Inter Milan. And I didn't, I said to him, I said, who should we support? And he was just like disgusted that I would even ask. And he's like, Man City is the enemy. He's not a Man U fan, is he? He's Tottenham, right? Yeah, my oldest is Tottenham, my youngest is Chelsea, but they both were sort of Man U for this one versus Man City.

I didn't realize how many people dislike Man City. Well, they just bought their way to success. That's how it goes, though. There you go. That's why this podcast is called Markets. All right, get on with it. Let's start with our weekly review of market vitals. The S&P 500 was up, and Bitcoin tumbled before paring back some of those losses.

Shifting to the headlines. Instagram was found to be hosting and promoting accounts used to commission underage sex content. European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton demanded that parent company Meta take immediate action to combat child pornography on its platform. Metastock fell 4% on the news. CNN ousted its chairman and CEO Chris Licht, sending Warner Brothers Discovery shares up 8%. His tumultuous 13 months on the job started with shutting down CNN+. GameStop also fired its CEO and promoted Ryan Cohen to executive chairman. That sent shares down more than 21%, and it erased roughly half of the stock's gains for the year. And finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued both

Coinbase and Binance, accusing them of operating unregistered securities exchanges. The SEC is also accusing Binance of mishandling funds, lying to regulators, and alleges that its CEO Changpeng Zhao committed civil fraud. Scott, what are your thoughts? I don't think GameStop will be around in 10 years. It became a meme stock and brought a lot of attention to it, and people keep hoping at some point tomorrow will be today

regarding the future of GameStop. And a store-based video game retailer just absolutely makes no sense to me. I know they do more than that. But if you look at the four-wall unit economics of this company, even with its crash in its market capitalization, it is still wildly overvalued. CNN is interesting. The thing that struck me is they fire Chris Licht and the stock goes up 8%. So why does the market take this company up a billion dollars in value because they fire the head of CNN? And what I think it says is not that they're excited about a new person, but that the market thinks that there is no room in the middle and that trying to be a centrist organization doesn't work in this media environment. And they should go back to throwing red meat at the far left and just embrace who they are, just be themselves. Such a shame, I think. I think it's a shame too. But I think the market has kind of spoken that, you know, go centrist, go broke. And if you think about the shit he got in a lot of trouble for, the Trump town hall, the firing of Don Lemon, the firing of Byron Stelter, I would argue that these things are, quite frankly, just upset the left.

And so the reason he's out of there, they say he, quote unquote, lost the room, that the journalists and the people in the newsroom just lost faith in him. Actually, the real reason is he spoke to me and offered me a show, no joke, about three and a half weeks ago, true story, which gets anyone fired. Literally, I'm the typoed Mary of television. But what he was doing kind of made sense. He wasn't a bad guy. I don't know him well, but I know him. Some of the execution was very ham-handed. He did not acquit himself well. But for the market to go up a billion dollars based on the head of one division stepping down means the market sees something deeper. And the only thing I can figure out is the market said, go back to being the far left and go back to commentary and entertainment as opposed to news, because that is what rings the register.

The most disturbing news here of all this is Instagram, that a lot of accounts were used to commission underage sex content. And I want to be clear, I would imagine a lot of people in Meta, most people in Meta are horrified by this. I bet Mark Zuckerberg's horrified by this. But what plagues American corporations is not immorality, but amorality. And that is if there's enough distance and enough money in between me and the people this is impacting, my profitability over any sort of moderation or fact-checking of content, they know what's going on, but they ignore it. Meta continues to be the mendacious fuckery of mendacious fucks. And the saddest part about all of this is that when a company or an individual does one or two really bad things, it horrifies people and they risk real retribution.

But if you keep doing terrible things, people become numb to it. They begin to expect it. And that's what's happened with Meta. You can't even name the number of times you thought that the government should move in. And I've said this a bunch of times before, and the letter of the law should be followed here. But until somebody does a perp walk, I don't think any of this changes. I'd actually like you to go first on Binance and Coinbase. So if you look at the complaint, they're saying that each company is operating as a securities exchange, a broker, and a clearing agency. And the SEC says that if you want to be any of those things, you have to register with the SEC. Neither of them have done that.

So what's implicit in that complaint is that both of these exchanges are trading securities. And the U.S. definition of a security is anything that involves a person investing in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits based on the effort of others. That's the definition. And the SEC has decided these are securities. Now, here's my question. If the SEC believes that these are securities, and that these companies are securities exchanges, why did they approve Coinbase to list itself as a publicly traded company, which they did back in 2021?

So I was trying to figure out the answer to that question. I found something really interesting in the SEC complaint. So the SEC said this, quote, declaring effective a Form S-1 registration statement does not constitute an SEC or staff opinion on or an endorsement of the legality of an issuer's underlying business. Now, this struck me because I have always thought that that is exactly what the SEC's job is. That before a company goes public, the SEC has to determine, is this thing legal? And if that's not the case, the thing that I find most disingenuous is the fact that only now is the SEC deciding that they care about the legality of this business. Only now, once the damage has been done, the bag's been dumped after countless frauds and Ponzi schemes

that have collapsed, millions of retail investors have lost literally billions of dollars. Only now do they care about what's legal and what isn't. Honestly, the only explanation I can come to is that back in 2021, the SEC, like the rest themselves and recognize, maybe publicly recognize, we made a mistake and we should never have let this thing list on a public exchange. that the SEC is allocated by a Congress that doesn't want enforcement because the people who usually violate these laws and the reason the SEC is there are rich people. But I would bet that the SEC, one of their defenses would be saying, folks, we're dealing with so many different, everything from SPACs to crypto to an unbelievably robust IPO market through 20 and 21. You know, we're just, we're barely keeping up. Having said that, the SEC is supposed to,

they will tell you they're supposed to protect investors. In this instance, they didn't. I mean, a lot of investors, a lot of retail, I've always said the SEC doesn't protect investors, it protects management. It's there to create a series of terms and there to essentially ensure that management has access to the public markets. But I've always thought the SEC erred on the side of companies versus investors,

that they weren't true to their mission. But I think your point is a really valid one, that it's like when the sheriff shows up after the bank has been robbed and everybody's dead. It's like, well, okay, it's good you're here. I agree with you. I think that these agencies have some explaining to do. And there was such a movement that made you feel lame and old if you question the brilliance of these companies and their promoters, even as it was just pretty clear there was... I remember this conversation where I asked you

when FTX went down, what's the difference between FTX and Binance? And you basically said, I don't think there is any. Binance is next because the thesis here is very simple. If your business is predicated on existing outside of the law, and generally that means existing outside of the US, which has probably the strongest regulatory environment in the world. If that's the first pillar of your business and second, your sector is in structural decline, there's just no way that you can win this game. I just want these things to go away. I think that there's Bitcoin does have some utilities to store value, helps people get out of volatile currencies. Other than that, I'm just looking forward to not speaking about this shit again, because

it's a fairly unimportant market. It's worth, what, a trillion dollars? Apple's worth three trillion dollars? Can we just all, can we all just move on? We'll be right back after the break to discuss our reactions to Apple's headset. Support for this show comes from Constant Contact. You know what's not easy? Marketing. And when you're starting your small business, while you're so focused on the day-to-day, the personnel, and the finances,

marketing is the last thing on your mind. But if customers don't know about you, the rest of it doesn't really matter. Luckily, there's Constant Contact. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform can help your businesses stand out, stay top of mind, and see big results. Sell more, raise more, and build more genuine relationships with your audience through a suite of digital marketing tools made to fast-track your growth. With Constant Contact, you can get email marketing that helps you create and send the perfect email to every customer and create, promote,

and manage your events with ease all in one place. Get all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by Constant Contact's expert live customer support. Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca. The Capital Ideas Podcast now features a series hosted by Capital Group CEO, Mike Gitlin. Through the words and experiences of investment professionals, you'll discover what differentiates their investment approach, what learnings have shifted their career trajectories, and how do they find their next great idea? Invest 30 minutes in an episode today. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. We're back with Prof G Markets. Apple unveiled its most ambitious hardware product since the iPhone, the Apple Vision Pro, a mixed reality headset controlled by your hands, eyes, and voice. The headset has a variety of uses from watching movies to browsing the web to FaceTime. And unlike other headsets, it has a feature called EyeSight that makes the user's eyes visible from outside the device. However, it's very expensive. The Vision Pro will cost $3,499, even more than analysts had expected,

and nearly 12 times the price of Meta's Quest 2 headset. Apple shares briefly hit an all-time high the morning of the announcement, but soon dipped and closed the day down 0.8%. Scott, last week you predicted this headset would be one of the biggest tech failures and that it would be the final nail in the coffin for the AR VR headset category as a whole. Now you've seen the products, where do you stand?

It's impossible not to think that any product that Apple launches on that day doesn't have a real shot at success. First of all, every product they've launched in this millennium has gone on to be just a seminal consumer product globally, whether it's AirPods, the iPod. I mean, everything they do kind of is gold. A lot of people would argue, well, that means this will work. I would argue it means that this is likely to fail because I think reversion to the mean is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. In addition, I'm sticking to my guns here. I think this thing doesn't work and just as like can we all admit that crypto outside of a couple things with mostly a levered ponzi scheme can at some point we just admit that people don't want to put shit on their head and i think it's just a violation of basic anthropology and that is the

only things we will put on our face are devices that make it less likely we will be eaten because we can see and or make money because we can read, that is glasses, or that make us more likely to have a random sexual encounter because they increase the elevation of our cheekbones, which makes us more attractive to mates. And also, I just want to be, I have a bias here, and I'm really freaked out that people of your generation are slowly but surely being sequestered from each other and life in general through these reasonable facsimiles of the real world on Coinbase, on YouPorn, on Twitter, on Netflix, on Tinder, that essentially creates lower risk, lower calorie life, and that people have less and less reason to not only leave their home,

whether it's Zoom or whether it's a dating app, and less reason to engage with people, endure the rejection such that ultimately they can understand the victory of real friendship, of real mentorship, real romantic partnerships, and develop the skills that they need for the rest of their lives. And also, I think it just makes people more depressed. And whether you're an orca, whether you're a dog, the worst thing you can do to a mammal is to sequester it. Leave your dog alone. See how he or she reacts. Put an orca in a tank alone. We are not meant to be alone. We're not meant to have anything getting in the way of our ability to look each other in the eyes. So I find all of this trend, whether it's shooting people to Mars or into a metaverse and these devices and these platforms, really disappointing. I also think it's

a no man's land in terms of a price. At $3,500 with sales tax, you're up towards $4,000. And I would imagine the technology here is so cutting edge that it gets perishable pretty fast. So the way I look at stuff is the useful life of a product. A computer costs $1,000 now, it lasts four years, five years, you're losing $200 to $300 a year. A pair of sunglasses cost you 200 bucks. Hopefully hold on to them for five years. That's 40 bucks a year. This thing, I can't imagine this thing isn't going to be outdated within 12 months. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say 24 months. So it's 2000 bucks a year to have a headset. Yeah. I think once you get above, once you get to this weight class in terms of price, it needs to be more enduring technology. I mean, you're getting to the point now at $2,000 a year, that's the cost of a lease on a Toyota or a Hyundai.

So what do you want? Do you want a Hyundai or do you want a mixed reality headset from Apple? What if it weren't a headset? What if it looked't a headset? What if it looked like the Google Glass? You just wear the thing, you're free, you've got your peripheral vision, and it has all of the same features and you use your hands and your eyes to select things. And it basically just works as a phone that is an interface that you just see in front of you. Game changer. Game changer. I think that works. I think if I can put on a pair of effectively Ray-Bans

or Persals, and it has this sort of technology built into it, boom. But supposedly the technology just isn't there, that it's more about a decade away. Finally, last year we wrote this post where we tried to picture what Apple would need to do if it hit a trillion dollars in revenue, which no company has ever done. We suggested a lot of different categories. We said banking,

search, health, fitness, home products, also cars. Apple trades at 30 times earnings. If you compare that to Tesla, Tesla trades at 66 times earnings. We did not mention headsets or spatial computing or VR. But if you were Tim Cook, what would you be focusing on? Three things, a car, a car, and a car. Tesla has taken a low margin manufacturing-based business to a high margin software-based business. And that all spells Apple. And the ultimate self-expressive product

is probably, other than where you went to college, is probably your car. It says a lot about you. And then maybe number three is your watch. And the car is so self-expressive in terms of what it says about you for so many people, not as much for people your generation, but people my generation. And I think the most valuable waiting list ever assembled would be the day that Tim Cook announces a car and opens a waiting list. I think there are a ton of automobile manufacturers with excess capacity that would partner with Tim Cook and co-pilot on the design, an electric vehicle that had some autonomous technology. I'd buy one. I think anyone who makes over a certain amount of money would get on that waiting list. I think it'd be the mother of all waiting lists. And the auto industry, there are just very few industries that move the needle

for Apple. And the automobile industry is one of the biggest in the world. And I think Tesla is ripe for disruption. The disruptor should be disrupted. Its design, to me, has gotten stale. I don't think their products look especially appealing. I think it was a truly differentiated design six, seven years ago. There's a sameness now around Tesla. And I think Apple has, and specifically Tim Cook, because brands get personified, has such a better brand, I think right now, than Elon Musk and Tesla. So I would have just loved to have seen Apple, and they still might. They still might. Completely agree. I mean, you look at the sales of this headset, it's projected to do 150,000 units in its first year.

If you assume those projections are correct, that means that the headset's going to bring in $525 million. That's 0.1% of Apple's annual revenue. Apple makes $395 billion a year. So, I mean, it better be the greatest long-term play of all time, because based on its first year, this is going to do absolutely nothing to the company. Venture capital firm Sequoia is spinning its China and India units into two new entities distinct from its US and Europe operations. The firm said sharing the Sequoia brand across

borders has created market confusion and portfolio conflicts. This, of course, comes amid an increasingly tense US-China relationship. Biden has been working to restrict investments in China, and TikTok is under intense scrutiny, with Montana taking steps to ban it. Meanwhile, one of TikTok's biggest investors is Sequoia China. It has a 10% stake in the parent company ByteDance. In other words, running a global investment business has become, to quote Sequoia, increasingly complex. The split will take effect by next March. The China unit will be renamed Hongshan, the India unit to peak 15 partners,

and the U.S.-Europe unit will remain Sequoia Capital. Scott, what's your reaction to this? So that sentence in there, the firm said sharing the Sequoia brand across borders has created market confusion and portfolio conflicts. That's a bald-faced lie. That has nothing to do with this decision. This decision is that they are worried that they're going to get caught in the crossfire of a US-Sino conflict where American investors might

not be able to invest or register a gain from ByteDance if ByteDance doesn't comply with US regulations. And what they're sitting on top of is potentially $100 billion in gains. And the partners at Sequoia want to make sure they have access to that so they'll create a chinese unit that's subject to chinese laws or international laws of which there are very few not subject to the long arm of uncle sam or regulations or they can do whatever they want and they won't come under fire for it full stop it has nothing to do oh my god that's hilarious it's increasingly complex to run a decentralized global investment business. So we're going to simplify by splitting into

three different entities. Yeah, that'll simplify things. Do you think that there's an argument to be made that this is sort of a good thing from a national security perspective? And that is Sequoia is arguably the most iconic, influential VC firm in the world. The fact that they're doing this will probably set a tone that going forward, US VC firms shouldn't invest in Chinese companies and vice versa. They'll probably just be less cross-border investing at this point. I don't know. I think that VCs will go where the money is.

And I think there's a benefit to this. And that is there are people who will, in organizations, that will just pursue a return on invested capital. And moral clarity for them isn't high up on their list. That's not to say there aren't a lot of great citizens out there who run companies and try and do the right thing every day. But if there is opportunity in tainted baby milk and it's not regulated there will be a vc who will fund it and i'm not saying it's sequoia capital because they're so rich that they probably you know can be a little bit more selective and not get involved in stuff like that but

i mean christ look at the people look at the people these investment banks they're good people i know them look at the people, these investment banks, they're good people. I know them. Look at the shit they took public. They knew, they knew retail investors were going to lose a ton of money. They knew it. They knew this stuff was shit and they still underwrote it. I mean, look at the people in crypto, not bad people.

They really think that, you know, come rocket as a place to, to store value. You know, you want to be a good citizen. You want to have some fidelity to the Commonwealth. You want to be a good employer. But for-profit entities are primarily there for profit and to create economic security for them and their shareholders. We'll be right back after the break to discuss the PGA Tours merger with LiveGolf. Creators merger with Live Golf. I just don't get it. Just wish someone could do the research on it.

Can we figure this out? Hey, y'all. I'm John Blenhill, and I'm hosting a new podcast at Vox called Explain It To Me. Here's how it works. You call our hotline with questions you can't quite answer on your own. We'll investigate and call you back to tell you what we found. We'll bring you the answers you need every Wednesday starting September 18th. So follow Explain It To Me, presented by Klaviyo. Clavio. with our colleagues, business partners, and managers. Listen in as I talk to co-workers facing their own challenges with one another and get the real work done.

Tune into Housework, a special series from Where Should We Begin, sponsored by Klaviyo. We're back with Prof G Markets. The latest conquest in Saudi Arabia's sports washing campaign is golf. The PGA Tour merged with its Saudi-backed rival Live Golf after a long and very public dispute. Ever since Live Golf emerged last year, it's gone head-to-head with the PGA, issuing lawsuits and counter-lawsuits and poaching PGA-registered golf players. Live offered Phil Mickelson a $200 million contract, which he accepted, and they offered Tiger Woods an $800 million contract. He rejected that one.

Many PGA players and leaders have expressed their concern over Saudi Arabia's influence on this league. Rory McIlroy said he, quote, hates LIV and hopes it goes away. And the head of the PGA Tour, Jay Monahan, said that anyone who ignored the Saudis' history of human rights abuses was, quote, living under a rock. But the two parties are now setting all that aside. The PGA Tour will send its revenue to a new collectively owned for-profit entity, uniting it with the European circuit known as the DP World Tour and Live Golf. The PGA Tour will still exist, but primarily as a governance body. So Scott, we've been covering Saudi Arabia's sports interests for a while now.

You've made your position quite clear. You think the pay-to-play model will work. It's worked so far, buying sports teams like Newcastle United, recruiting sports stars like Cristiano Ronaldo, but this is the first time they've purchased an entire sport. What does this say about the future of sports and the Gulf States role in it? Simply put, it's what Logan Roy said in episode three of season two, money wins. And this is, I think, the biggest business story of the week, that essentially the kingdom has executed a creeping takeover of a sport. And they didn't just buy a team. I mean, it's one thing when they buy Newcastle, they have bought a sport. And I don't have a problem with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. becoming closer. I

think we should. I think it's very difficult to have moral clarity around geopolitics in the kingdom, regardless of what you think of their LGBTQ abuses and Khashoggi, and all of that warrants scrutiny and caution, but I think we need to engage them on every level. The kingdom has one of the largest military budgets in the world. And in a world that's increasingly shaping up as Europe and the U.S. versus China and Russia, the swing votes become India and the kingdom. They sit on a reservoir of tens, if not hundreds of trillions of dollars in capital known as oil. And whoever has the best relationship with them is going to get a disproportionate amount of that economic benefit. And I think that should be us.

But as much as a capitalist I am, I've said at this show, at the end of the day, it's mostly about shareholder value. There has to be some rule of fair play. There has to be some semblance of character here. There is no individual more hypocritical in business right now than Jay Moynihan, and that's the head of the PGA. Because as he is putting pressure on players not to accept huge offers to play for live, these athletes whose money-making years are finite, they maybe really have five or ten years to make enough money to support them and their families for the rest of their lives. A lot of them bought into the argument and said, Jay, we're with you and you're right. I don't want to be associated with the kingdom.

I have a problem with the way they acquit themselves. And they turned away these tens of millions of dollars. And while he's making these morally indignant arguments, he's negotiating with them and agrees to a merger or a takeover. I just find that if you're going to weaponize geopolitical, if you're going to weaponize 9-11, if you're going to be emotionally manipulative of young golfers and try and urge them to do this for moral reasons, then boss, you got to die on that sword. Yeah. And just to clarify the arguments that he's made. So you mentioned the 9-11 thing. He

basically suggested that live golfers were betraying the victims of the 9-11 attacks. And he also said, according to Senator Chris Murphy, he said that PGA officials were in his office talking about how the Saudi's human rights record should disqualify them from having a stake in a major American sport. He also canceled a sponsorship deal with Raytheon because, quote, the company sells missiles to Saudi Arabia. Those are the arguments that, Scott, you're referring to. But he's also made the business case. And it's difficult here because he has both apparently a moral incentive, but mainly a financial incentive from the beginning to protect the PGA Tour.

And last year he said, quote, We welcome good, healthy competition, but the live Saudi golf league is not that. It's an irrational threat that's not concerned with a return on investment or true growth of the game, which to me basically aligns with your view that live doesn't have any of these financial constraints because it's backers don't care about a financial return. All they care about is soft power, brand influence, national awareness. Well, Live Golf essentially did what Netflix and Amazon have done, and that is they came to the party with cheaper capital

and overwhelmed the competition with capital. And you can't compete against the kingdom. They just have more money and they are looking for non-economic return. PGA is looking to invest a billion dollars and get a billion, 200 million a year. The kingdom is looking to invest a billion dollars a year and maybe get half a billion back and have people feel better about the kingdom and diversify into sports. They can't compete with that. Now, there might be an antitrust argument. There might be a CFIUS argument. And by the way, I think Jay, what he should have done was made those arguments, held out, and then sold out for a big number. The business end, selling out to the kingdom, negotiating, fighting them hard on antitrust, crying foul that they're competing on non-economic terms, that's business. That's

full-body contact capitalism. This is a bridge too far, the whole 9-11 and the moral argument. I don't think he lasts. They say Chris Licht, the final straw for him was that he lost the room. I love that term. He lost the room. And that is the journalists and the people in the newsroom no longer supported him. I would be shocked if Jay hasn't lost the locker room. If I'm some golfer that turned down 20 million bucks, I would refuse to be in the same room as this guy. I don't mind Darwinism. I don't mind capitalism, but for God's sakes, just be a little bit more honest about it. Finally, the other big news in sports is that Lionel Messi turns down an offer from Saudi

Arabia. Come on, go Messi. Greatest player in history in my book now. They would have paid him $400 million a year. Instead, he's going to Miami, where he'll play for David Beckham's MLS Football Club into Miami. Does that news change your perspective on this sports-washing campaign? This was the best business news I got all week. I saw Messi play.

I saw the best kind of older player square off against the best younger player, M Mbappe at what is the greatest football match in history at the finals of the World Cup. And I was with my sons and it was just one of those moments I'll remember the rest of my life. And I just think the world of Messi seems like a good person. I don't know how much of it is PR and bullshit, but he seems to spend a lot of time with his kids. What he was offered, though, I wouldn't be surprised. I doubt he got $400 million, but he was offered an opportunity to buy a stake in the team. So he gets kind of a call option on Inter Miami or whatever they're calling it, that if he brings the kind of value they think he can, he then gets an option to buy a percentage of it. And then it's an Apple and an Adidas contract. And also, you know what won here? The Soho Beach House and the Faina. I mean, for God's sakes, where would you want to live, Ed? Riyadh or South Beach? The lifestyle in Miami is outstanding. It is hands down, Ed,

the coolest city in Latin America, and it happens to be in America. And the quality of life is just outstanding. And for a guy raised in Argentina, who's played in Europe, he and his family, I'm not entirely sure here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Lionel Messi didn't pick Miami. Mrs. Messi picked Miami. Miami, baby. Oh, my God. That shit's for real. When you got a limited number of years like me and Lionel, you want to be in Miami. Can you imagine the sale weekend, what they call the pitch weekend, Beckham taking Messi out for the weekend in South Beach? That must have been a pretty good roll, right? That must have been a pretty good roll, right? That must have been a pretty good weekend.

I got to think when Ronaldo comes and visits Messi in South Beach, he's going to go, okay, who's the one who fucked up here? Yeah, exactly. All right, let's take a look at the week ahead. We've got earnings from Oracle and Adobe. We'll also see the consumer price and producer price indices for May, and we'll try and rub vaseline over the lens of this or put lipstick on this pig here but i would imagine in the next 90 days he's going to announce that he's moving on that he's accomplished he's seen the pga through a difficult time and ended up with a deal that was good for golf and good for golf fans and good for america he's going to declare

victory and leave he's going to get fired. Okay, this episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our executive producers are Jason Stavers and Catherine Dillon. Mia Silverio is our research lead and Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to Property Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

Join us on Wednesday for office hours and we'll be back with a fresh take on markets every Monday. Reunion As the world turns And the dark lies In love In love You're welcome you're welcome claire claire still hung him over from san jose hey it's scott galloway and on our podcast pivot we are bringing you a special series about the

basics of artificial intelligence we're answering all your questions what should you use it for what tools are right for you and what. What should you use it for? What tools are right for you? And what privacy issues should you ultimately watch out for? And to help us out, we are joined by Kylie Robeson, the senior AI reporter for The Verge, to give you a primer on how to integrate AI into your life. So, tune into AI Basics, How and When to Use AI, a special series from Pivot sponsored by AWS,

wherever you get your podcasts. What software do you use at work? The answer to that question is probably more complicated than you want it to be. The average US company deploys more than 100 apps, and ideas about the work we do can be radically changed by the tools we use to do it. So what is enterprise software anyway? What is productivity software? How will AI affect both? And how are these tools changing the way we use our computers to make stuff, communicate, and plan for the future?

In this three-part special series, Decoder is surveying the IT landscape presented by AWS. Check it out wherever you get your podcasts.