ESPN's blockbuster deal with the NFL will face huge hurdles from concerned regulators
The agreement, announced late Tuesday, involves Disney's ESPN acquiring the NFL Network and other media properties in exchange for the league receiving a 10 percent stake in the sports network.
3 The agreement, announced late Tuesday, involves Disney's ESPN acquiring the NFL Network and other media properties in exchange for the league receiving a 10 percent stake in the sports network.
AP
Advertisement
Andre P. Barlow, a partner at Doyle, Barlow & Mazard, said the transaction 'surely raises competition concerns,' because it could potentially give Disney greater control over televised sports carriage and reduce competition.
'The deal could potentially result in higher costs for consumers, as Disney's dominance in sports media could limit options and drive up prices for streaming services or game access,' Barlow said.
The Justice Department is expected to conduct a substantive review of the new ESPN-NFL transaction, according to one source familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity. Another source said obtaining U.S. antitrust clearance could take up to 12 months.
Advertisement
ESPN and the NFL declined comment.
The expected review comes as the Justice Department's Antitrust Division is examining a separate deal Disney reached earlier this year to acquire a controlling stake in the sports streaming service Fubo TV. The division demanded further information from the companies in March to examine whether the deal would unduly concentrate the market for sports streaming.
Meanwhile, the issue of rising costs for fans as games migrate to streaming services has reached the Senate, where the Commerce Committee held a hearing in May.
'In an era of deep partisan division, sports might be the most powerful cultural unifier we have,' said Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who chairs the committee, noting it brings together Americans whether they're watching from their couches or in the stands. 'But those millions of fans are asking a simple question: 'Why does it seem to be getting harder — and more expensive — to just watch the game?''
Advertisement
John Bergmayer, legal director of the non-profit Public Knowledge, voiced the same concerns.
'The proliferation of streaming services — and the fragmentation of content between them — means that the costs of watching streaming video are rising, and for many people can approach what they were paying on their cable bill,' said Bergmayer in testimony to the committee. 'Some viewers feel like they finally broke free of the cable bundle only to watch it re-forming (before) their eyes.'
3 John Bergmayer, legal director of the non-profit Public Knowledge, voiced the same concerns.
REUTERS
ESPN STREAMING SERVICE
The NFL has done outreach to 30 congressional offices to discuss the terms of its deal with ESPN and how it would result in greater consumer choice, according to one of the sources.
Advertisement
Under the agreement, ESPN would be able to add the NFL Network to its breadth of sports programming and incorporate it as part of its ESPN-branded streaming service. ESPN also plans to merge its fantasy football offering with that of the NFL.
ESPN also will be able to distribute the NFL's RedZone to cable and satellite TV distributors, along with its other channels. The NFL will retain streaming rights to NFL RedZone, which is available online through YouTube TV.
Disney won swift approval for its $71 billion acquisition of 21st Century Fox's entertainment assets in 2018, during President Donald Trump's first term, though it was required to divest Fox's 22 regional sports networks to address competition concerns. At the time, Trump called to congratulate the Fox's Rupert Murdoch on the deal.
'It was worked out in record time,' said Barlow, adding that this time around, he expects the Justice Department 'to take a close look before approving the deal.'
3 At the time, Trump called to congratulate the Fox's Rupert Murdoch on the deal
Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
One recent media deal, the $8.4 billion merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media, became bogged down in a lengthy regulatory review, as President Donald Trump sued Paramount, claiming the CBS News program '60 Minutes' deceptively edited an interview with his Democratic rival for the White House, former Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Federal Communications Commission approved the transaction within days of Trump receiving a $16 million settlement, though FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the civil suit and regulatory review were unrelated.
Advertisement
Politics could complicate the deal. Some sports industry insiders pointed to Trump's threats to interfere with a deal to build a new football stadium in Washington, D.C., unless the local NFL team, now known as the Commanders, changes its name back to Redskins, which was abandoned after decades of criticism that it was a racial slur.
ESPN is currently 80 percent owned by ABC Inc as an indirect subsidiary of Disney, with the other 20% owned by Hearst. If the deal is approved, ABC's stake would drop to 72 percent and Hearst would fall to 18 percent to grant the NFL a 10 percent stake.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Could former Notre Dame QB Riley Leonard be the starter for the Colts in Week 1?
Riley Leonard doing Riley Leonard things 💪😤📺 @nflnetwork #IrishInTheNFL☘️ | @Colts | @rileyleonard13_ The Indianapolis Colts played its first preseason game on Thursday night, and there were more than a few positive developments for last year's starter for Notre Dame in Riley Leonard after making noise in practice leading up to the game. Picked in the sixth round, not much was expected as Anthony Richardson was the presumed starter. Unfortunately for the former Florida product, he suffered an injury early in the game against the Baltimore Ravens. Obviously this isn't what Indianapolis wanted to see, but it gave Leonard a chance to get more playing time than he expected. He did was he does best, and that was moving the ball with his legs, gaining 34 yards on four carries. He wasn't sharp throwing, as Leonard completed half of his 24 attempts for 92-yards while getting picked off once. Daniel Jones was next off the bench after Richardson went down, and it does look like he wanted to return, but the coaches didn't let him according to Destin Adams. Most likely Leonard is still trying to make the team as the third-string quarterback, but the starter does have an injury history and Jones hasn't looked like a No. 6 overall pick in his six years in the league. It will be interesting what happens, but we are all rooting for Leonard to make the team, and potentially see some playing time during his rookie year. Contact/Follow us @IrishWireND on X (Formerly Twitter), and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Notre Dame news, notes, and opinions. Follow Mike on X: @MikeFChen
Atlantic
24 minutes ago
- Atlantic
So, About Those Big Trade Deals
If there's anything Donald Trump loves more than tariffs, it's a deal. So you can understand his excitement lately. Over the past few weeks, the president has announced tariff-related deals with three major trading partners—the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—that have been hailed as major victories for the United States. In each case, America's partners agreed to accept 15 percent tariffs on their exports to the U.S. while lowering trade barriers on American goods and promising to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. economy—in essence paying Trump to impose trade restrictions on them. 'Europe Caves to Trump on Tariffs' read a representative New York Times headline. In the days following the European Union deal announcement, the White House released a fact sheet quoting all the positive coverage. On Thursday, Jamieson Greer, Trump's top trade official, published a New York Times op-ed boasting that, with the completion of these deals, the administration had successfully 'remade the global order.' But upon closer inspection, Trump's trade deals aren't nearly as impressive as they sound. In fact, they aren't really trade deals in the traditional sense, and they might not benefit the U.S. at all. Trump did prove the doubters wrong in one important way. When the president originally announced his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, other countries threatened to respond in kind, leading many economists and journalists (myself included) to conclude that the tariffs would lead to a spiral of retaliation. With a few exceptions (notably China and Canada), that didn't happen. Instead, Trump has gotten key trading partners to back down. But simply avoiding retribution was never the goal of tariffs. The whole point of Trump's dealmaking strategy was supposedly to get foreign countries to lower their existing trade barriers—the classic purpose of a trade agreement. In his Liberation Day announcement, Trump complained at length about what he considered to be the excessive restrictions that other countries had imposed on American goods—including not only tariffs but also currency manipulation, value-added taxes, and subsidies to domestic firms—and vowed not to back down on tariffs until those countries lowered them. Scott Lincicome: What the U.K. deal reveals about Trump's trade strategy The announcements of the new deals purport to have delivered on this promise, giving Americans 'unprecedented levels of market access' to Europe, 'breaking open long-closed markets' in Japan, and making South Korea 'completely OPEN TO TRADE with the United States.' But the details of the deals, which remain sparse, tell a very different story. None include agreements by trading partners to meaningfully reform their tax or regulatory codes, strengthen their currencies, or reduce the barriers that have long been major sticking points in prior trade negotiations. Instead, the announcements are full of vague statements of intent—'The United States and the European Union intend to work together to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products' (my emphasis)—and references to things such as 'openings for a range of industrial and consumer goods.' The main concrete action that the EU agreed to was to eliminate its tariffs on American industrial products. This sounds impressive unless you're aware that the average EU tariff rate on nonagricultural goods prior to the deal was just 1 percent. The main difficulty in trade negotiations with the EU has long been its barriers on agricultural products, which appear to have been untouched by these deals. South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, agreed to allow more American-made cars into their markets—which also sounds great until you realize that the main reason American companies don't sell a lot of cars to those countries is the fact that almost nobody wants to drive a truck or SUV in Tokyo or Seoul. Lower trade barriers won't change that. What about the investments? According to the announcements, South Korea, Japan, and Europe have respectively pledged to invest $350 billion, $550 billion, and $600 billion in the United States (In an interview with CNBC, referring to the EU investment, Trump claimed that 'the details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it.') The EU has also agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion of American oil and gas. Those are big numbers, but they might not add up to much in the real world. The EU has no authority to require European companies to invest in the U.S. or buy its products. What the Trump administration touted as 'commitments' were mostly rough numbers based on what European companies were already planning to invest and buy. 'We can't force the company to do anything, nor will be able to pretend that we can, but we can talk to them, we can get their intentions, and we can transmit that as a faithful indication to our partners in the U.S.,' Olof Gill, a spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU's trade-negotiation body, said after the deal was announced. The 'investments' from Japan and South Korea, meanwhile, might not be investments at all. Shortly after the deal with Japan was announced, the country's top trade negotiator said that he anticipated only 1 or 2 percent of the $550 billion fund would come in the form of direct investment; the rest would mostly consist of loans that would need to be repaid with interest. South Korean officials have made similar statements. 'These numbers bear no relation to any conception of reality,' Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a trade adviser to the Biden administration, told me. 'Everyone has figured out that Trump really likes big numbers to sell his trade deals and doesn't need much substance to do so.' Recent history supports this view. As part of Trump's first-term trade deal with China, Beijing agreed to increase its annual purchasing of American goods by $200 billion. In the event, it didn't increase its purchasing at all. If America's trading partners didn't agree to meaningfully lower barriers to U.S. imports, and if their promises of investment are likely vaporous, then the only real concession that Trump's tariffs have won is … the right to impose tariffs. This means that the value of the deals comes down to the value of the tariffs. Tariffs can help domestic producers by making their foreign competitors' products more expensive. But tariffs can also hurt them, by raising the costs of the inputs they import to make their products. Several studies of the tariffs imposed during Trump's first term, which were much smaller and more targeted, found that manufacturing employment either stayed level or actually fell as a result. The ultimate result of the current wave of tariffs is yet to be determined, but so far, since Liberation Day, the manufacturing sector has shed tens of thousands of jobs and investment in new factories has fallen. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers in May found that optimism among manufacturing firms had fallen to its lowest point since the height of the coronavirus pandemic; trade uncertainty and raw-material costs were cited as top concerns. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved The new deals should at least give companies some much-needed certainty about tariff rates, which will help them make investment decisions. But in other ways, the deals actively undermine key American industries. Foreign cars, which represent the single largest American import from Japan and South Korea and the third largest from the EU, will face 15 percent tariffs. That is far lower than the rate American car companies have to pay to import car parts, which are tariffed at 25 percent, and crucial car-building materials like steel and aluminum, which are tariffed at 50 percent. As Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, said in a recent interview, foreign competitors such as Toyota now have a $5,000 to $10,000 cost advantage over American-made vehicles. Ford projects that it will lose $2 billion in profits this year alone because of higher tariffs; General Motors forecasts losses of $4 billion to $5 billion by the end of the year. The deals announced so far are only the beginning. The Trump administration is currently in the midst of negotiations with several trading partners, including China, Mexico, Switzerland, and Taiwan, and just yesterday implemented a new round of tariffs on about 90 countries, the ostensible goal being to bring those nations to the bargaining table too. If recent events are an indication, any future pacts will be framed as historic milestones in the quest to remake the global trade system in America's favor. The White House will issue pronouncements of eye-popping investments, drastically reduced foreign-trade barriers, and major concessions to American industry. When that happens, remember to look closely at the details.
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
Tell us your story: How well are you living in retirement?
is looking to hear from retirees on how they are doing financially in today's economy. A large surge of Americans will reach "Peak 65," with more than 4.1 individuals turning 65 each year from 2024 through 2027, according to the Alliance for Lifetime Income. Factors like tariffs and inflation may affect those retirees and aspiring retirees differently. If you've reached that life stage, are you living the retirement that you had envisioned? If so, how did you do it? Are there ways in which you could be doing better financially? If so, what could be better, and how do you want it to change? If you would be interested in sharing your story for an article for please email
