Paramount pays $7.7bn for exclusive US rights deal with UFC
Under the seven-year deal with the sports group's parent company, TKO Group, all 13 of UFC's marquee numbered events and 30 Fight Nights a year will be streamed on the Paramount+ service, with a selected number also simulcast on CBS, from next year.
The agreement will mean the end of UFC's current pay-per-view model on the Disney-owned ESPN+ service.
The deal comes a week after David Ellison took over as chair and chief executive following Skydance's $8.4bn takeover of the Hollywood studio and broadcasting business, with the media company saying it may pursue UFC rights in other markets as they come up for renewal.
'Live sports continue to be a cornerstone of our broader strategy,' said Ellison. '[It drives] engagement, subscriber growth and long-term loyalty. The addition of UFC's year-round must-watch events to our platforms is a major win.'
Paramount is paying $1.1bn on average annually to TKO Group for the rights and will offer all the matches at no additional cost to consumers.
Mark Shapiro, president and chief operating officer at TKO, said: 'Paramount is a platinum partner with significant reach. Our new agreement unlocks powerful opportunities at TKO for years to come.'
UFC is led by Dana White, an ally of the US president, Donald Trump, who spoke at his victory rally in Washington DC in January. He is also a board member of Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram.
Ellison, the 42-year-old son of the multibillionaire co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison, is working with Paramount's other co-owner, RedBird Capital, to cut $2bn in costs from the business.
RedBird, which is run by Gerry Cardinale, is also in the process of pushing through a £500m takeover of the Telegraph.
The rights deal follows completion of the protracted merger of Paramount Global and Skydance Media, a process which drew regulatory and political scrutiny and raised concerns among some investors.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Last month Paramount Global agreed to pay $16m to settle a legal dispute with Trump over what the president claimed was misleading editing of a pre-election interview on its CBS News network with the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.
While CBS initially called the lawsuit 'completely without merit', its parent company decided to settle.
CBS also cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert days after the eponymous host said the settlement by the network's parent company was a 'bribe'.
Paramount owns assets including MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Showtime and Channel 5 in the UK. The film studio has produced Hollywood blockbusters including Top Gun: Maverick, as well as the Mission: Impossible and Star Trek franchises.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Night Always Comes review – Vanessa Kirby gets lost in poverty thriller
There's been a recent overkill of stories told about the super-rich, glossy films and shows set in ostentatious houses filled with characters as superficially on trend as they are painfully out of touch. It felt like needed escapism as we crawled out of the very worst of the pandemic, with The White Lotus, Triangle of Sadness, The Menu and Glass Onion all hitting a sweet spot, but it's grown rather tiring, as Sirens, The Better Sister and Your Friends and Neighbors have felt less eat the rich and more what if we just admired their kitchens instead. It's become especially uninteresting as the gap between the uber-wealthy and the rest of us has widened, food prices up and empathy down. That particular anger pulses through Night Always Comes, a well-intentioned yet often inert Netflix drama based on the 2021 novel by Willy Vlautin. It's told over one awful day, following a desperate, raggedly fatigued woman living on the breadline who must resort to extreme measures to save her family home. It's reminiscent of the Dardennes' similarly fraught, ticking clock parable Two Days, One Night or 2021's underseen Full Time, which turned the day-to-day stresses of an overloaded single mother into a seat-edge thriller. It's notable that these stories tend to emerge within European cinema (the recent German drama Late Shift fits alongside, following an overworked nurse at breaking point), where social-realist stories have found a place less occupied in the US. Perhaps that's why Night Always Comes, while set in and around Portland, Oregon, is made by a British film-maker and led by a British actor, both from a country of artists more comfortable raging against the machine. Director Benjamin Caron, who found small-screen success with episodes of The Crown and Andor, already tackled the wealth divide in his first film, the sleek and twisty con artist thriller Sharper. His primary objective there had been to entertain us (which he achieved, quite spectacularly) but his grimmer follow-up is tasked with a more serious message, an almost two-hour descent into the hellish reality of Lynette, a woman driven to the edge by the direness of her circumstances. He's reunited with his Crown star Vanessa Kirby, a recent Marvel inductee, who had previously shown an impressive fearlessness when pushed close to the edge in the otherwise rather affected Pieces of a Woman. Her determination is persuasive here but the mechanics of the plot less so, forcing her into an episodic series of increasingly less involving and believable situations as she tries to secure $25,000 for the house that's about to be taken away from her family. Lynette's after-dark quest sees her try to get money owed by an old friend (Julia Fox), revisit a shadowy figure from her past (Michael Kelly), get mixed up in a drug deal with a slimy coke hound (Eli Roth), beg for help from an ex-convict co-worker (Stephan James) and return to sex work with a client (Randall Park). The chain of events is kicked off by her mother (Jennifer Jason Leigh) suddenly spending the original $25,000 on a new car, an act so impossibly cruel that the film can't quite find a way to explain it. Lynette is quick-tempered, confrontational and maddeningly impulsive and it's refreshingly unpatronising that the script, from the Mothers' Instinct writer Sarah Conradt, doesn't spend time trying to soften her hard edges. But her desperation shifts too quickly into reckless foolishness and when the pace slows down to allow some more texture to her character, Conradt's only way of doing this is upping the trauma from her backstory. Caron mostly avoids accusations of poverty porn – his direction is propulsive and then restrained in the right moments – but Lynette is written as only being the product of the very worst things that have happened to her and by the end the overwhelming bleakness of her story starts to feel numbing. Night Always Comes tries to be both seat-edge action thriller and searing social issue drama and while Caron is able to squeeze suspense out of the early, frenetic moments, there's not enough emotional weight to the more human final act. It might be glumly of the moment and it's never a bad thing for a tech giant like Netflix to fund films about those grappling with the hopelessness of an impossible system but noble intentions aren't enough to save this one. Night Always Comes is out on Netflix on 15 August
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Claire's store in Haverfordwest at risk of closing
Claire's revealed on Wednesday (August 13) that it had filed a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators ("NOI"). Interpath later confirmed Will Wright and Chris Pole had been appointed joint administrators. The administrators are set to seek a potential rescue deal for the chain, which has seen sales tumble in the face of recent weak consumer demand. What happens when a company goes into administration? This all comes after the US-based Claire's group filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a court in Delaware last week. It is the second time the group has declared bankruptcy, after first filing for the process in 2018. Chief executive of Claire's, Chris Cramer, said: 'This decision, while difficult, is part of our broader effort to protect the long-term value of Claire's across all markets. 'In the UK, taking this step will allow us to continue to trade the business while we explore the best possible path forward. "We are deeply grateful to our employees, partners and our customers during this challenging period.' The UK high street shops that no longer exist Claire's store in Haverfordwest at risk of closing Claire's currently has 306 stores across the UK and Ireland - 278 in the UK and 28 in Ireland, while it has more than 2,150 employees. All these stores and jobs are now at risk, following Wednesday's administration update. One of the UK's 278 stores now at risk is located in Haverfordwest (Unit 7 Riverside Quay, Haverfordwest, SA61 2LJ). Claire's has revealed that for now, all its UK and Ireland stores will remain open and staff will stay in their current positions. Interpath said Mr Wright and Mr Pole will be contacting all of Claire's employees in the UK and Ireland to 'provide further information about what the administration means for them'. RECOMMENDED READING: Mr Wright, UK chief executive at Interpath, said: 'Claire's has long been a popular brand across the UK, known not only for its trend-led accessories but also as the go-to destination for ear piercing. 'Over the coming weeks, we will endeavour to continue to operate all stores as a going concern for as long as we can, while we assess options for the company. 'This includes exploring the possibility of a sale which would secure a future for this well-loved brand.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Hit horror Weapons doesn't have a deeper meaning but that's OK
For years now, horror fans and critics have grown increasingly and understandably impatient with the tendency of genre films to orient their scares toward a clearly conveyed central metaphor. The real monster in these movies is parenthood, personal trauma or that old horror-movie standby, grief. Writer-director Zach Cregger is no stranger to this line of thinking; his 2022 horror movie Barbarian is very much a spooky-creature-in-the-basement movie for the #MeToo era. Now Cregger has returned with a movie that may well stymie anyone who has been trained by the last decade to search for an easy-to-track allegory within their viscerally depicted fears. His new movie Weapons has received mostly rave reviews and positive audience response. But at least a few critics and fans are pivoting from complaining about obvious metaphors to ask … is that all there is? Is Weapons actually about anything? (To further delve into this question, of course, we'll need to go full spoiler mode, so if you want to see the movie and haven't yet, turn back now.) The movie certainly alludes to plenty of hot-button issues. It springs from a chilling premise: one night in a small town, 17 children from the same third-grade class wake up at 2.17am, leave their houses, and disappear into the night. Parents are understandably distraught, and in looking for someone to blame seem to land on the students' teacher Justine (Julia Garner), who is as puzzled and disturbed about this as anyone else. When Archer (Josh Brolin) angrily demands to know what was 'going on' in his missing son's classroom, convinced that Justine must have played some role in this tragedy, there are unmistakable echoes of social panics in an era where parents feel empowered to dictate what their children learn about at school. The fact that the movie's school shutters, then must reopen before the disappearance is solved or its pain is at all healed recalls Covid-era school closures. And when Archer has a dream where he sees a giant AR-15 materialize in the sky above the town, it seems like an obvious reference to school shootings that have devastated so many classrooms over the past quarter-century. Or is it? Cregger actually says no. I co-host a horror podcast, and in our interview with the film-maker, he unequivocally said he was not thinking of school shootings when he wrote the movie. For him, that's not at all what it's about. (Though he did stress that he welcomes people's interpretations, and in fact wanted to make something with that kind of flexibility.) He wouldn't say precisely how he personally interprets the story, but he has mentioned repeatedly that it was something he started writing out of – hey! – grief, even if the movie itself may be more ambiguous as to its thematic aims. This leaves Weapons open to the charge that it's not about much of anything – that it's all great hook and solid technique in service of a thrill ride where some stray inspiration from Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia is more superficial homage than thematic link. The real question, though, is how bad of an offense this is supposed to be. Plenty of great horror movies are principally concerned with the visceral experience of watching them in the dark, rather than the talking points or takeaways they might hand over to the viewer in broad daylight. Subtext shouldn't have to be plainly visible at first glance. Indeed, some of the skepticism over Weapons seems to stem from the fact that it turns out to be … a horror movie. The children in the movie are enchanted by a witch. The movie doesn't say whether she's always been a witch, or has turned to witchcraft in the face of a debilitating illness. But that's why she takes control of these children, and various other adults at her convenience: to sap their life force, attempt to heal herself, and, in the meantime, use her control to make her victims do her bidding. So yeah, pretty witchy stuff, and her comeuppance has the gory satisfaction of a Brothers Grimm story fed through a powerful amplifier. That wild, almost fanciful ending may strike some as reductive, especially when its first half plays more like a dark mystery like David Fincher's Zodiac, or at least Seven. But is the spectacle of brainwashed children being turned against their older captor and ravenously destroying her so devoid of opportunities for interpretation? It's not even that Weapons is demanding a lot of work from the audience – and that might be exactly what rankles some about it. Most of what happens in the movie is unambiguously explained; it's the meaning that's left up to the audience, and maybe some sense an incongruity between those two approaches. That's a fair-enough critique, as is a thoughtful consideration that concludes none of the movie's interpretations hold up to much scrutiny. But it's hard to fault Cregger for making a horror movie that is more concerned with its own scary, twisty immediacy than its optics as a social critique. At the same time, maybe the discourse over the meaning of Weapons suggests that the eye-rolling about 'metaphorror' has been overblown, too. Countless horror classics could very much be described as driven by metaphor. Some are murkier or more interpretative than others, but having a central idea and conveying it clearly isn't a marker of hackdom. It's just something that some hacky movies have done, often directly imitating very good ones. Think of Get Out, which may have been thornier than it was given credit for, but still has a trackable central conceit that's not exactly obtuse; then think of heavy-handed Get Out knockoffs like Antebellum and Blink Twice with too much visible effort and too little inspiration. Jordan Peele himself followed a path not unlike Cregger's when following up Get Out; his movies Us and Nope are immediately engaging visceral experiences with more allusions and evocations than clear signaling of a central metaphor. They may be more successful in that realm than Weapons, but then, that's true of most movies when compared with Peele's output. It's the prescriptiveness – give us a meaning, or kill all metaphors – that goes against the nature of horror in general. The combination of the concrete and slippery is what makes horror such a compelling field; there may not be a genre better suited to blurring the lines between reality and a heightened dream state. There's no single correct way to have a nightmare.
