Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP527 The Bundle 2026 Preview: NFL, WBD, DAZN, F1, UEFA...WTAF?
Welcome to The Bundle, our regular series on the sports media and streaming marketplace with co-hosts Yannick Ramcke, General Manager of OTT at the streaming service OneFootball and Murray Barnett, founder of 26West Sport and formerly of F1, World Rugby and ESPN.
This episode of the Unofficial Partner podcast is brought to you by Sid Lee Sport.
Sid Lee Sport is the fame-making creative and sponsorship agency for brands in sport. Through exceptional creativity, deep sponsorship expertise, and flawless on-site delivery, they help brands, sponsors, and rightsholders unlock their full potential in sport - most recently picking up a Leaders Sports Award for their work with Lidl at UEFA EURO 2024.
Everything they do is driven by a culture of effectiveness - because in sport, performance matters. Not just on the pitch, but in the work too. So whether you want to build buzz, connect with audiences, or do something that actually cuts through, Sid Lee Sport knows how.
Visit sidleesport.com
Sid Lee Sport - where brands become champions.
Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry.
To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartner
We publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday.
These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport.
Our entire back catalogue of 500 sports business conversations are available free of charge here.
Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner’ on Apple, Spotify and every podcast app.
If you’re interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series and live events, you can reach us via the website.
Hello there. Welcome to Unofficial Partner. My name is Richard Gillis and. Today is an episode of The Bundle, which is our long running series on the sports media and streaming marketplace with my regular co-hosts, Yannick Mka, who is general manager of OTT at the streaming service one football and Murray Barnett, who is founder of 26 West Sport and formerly of Formula One, world Rugby and ESPN. This episode of the Unofficial Partner Podcast is brought to you by Sid Lee Sport. Sid Lee Sport is the fame making, creative and sponsorship agency for brands in sport through exceptional creativity. Deep sponsorship expertise and flawless onsite delivery. They help brands, sponsors, and rights holders unlock their full potential in sport. Most recently picking up a Leader's sports award for their work with Little at Uafa Euro 2024. Everything they do is driven by a culture of effectiveness because in sport performance matters not just on the pitch, but in the work too. So whether you wanna build Buzz, connect with audiences, or do something that actually cuts through Sidley Sport knows how. Visit sidley sport.com where brands become champions.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I wanted to start, so this isn't a predictions episode per se, it's more a sort of preview with some, with some prediction ish prediction adjacent content as well. But we will we'll see how we get on. first of all, welcome Murray Barnett.
Murray Barnett:Hi there.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Happy New Year and happy new Year to you, Yannick.
Yannick Ramcke:to both of you. And hello again. Same thing, different year I guess.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Same thing, different year. It's my life.
Murray Barnett:Well, I think we should tell everybody before we get into this is that I'd sent you both 10 predictions, which you said were very boring and dull. And so I've sharpened the pencil to try and come up with some things which are a bit more unpredictable, shall we say.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:well, to be fair, it, it wasn't me saying there were doll, it was Yannick saying that's like, what was the, what was the phrase you
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, whatever I said, I didn't say let make them ludicrous. Right.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:You said it was something like industry, sports, industry Bingo.
Yannick Ramcke:Which can be.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Which. That's true. It can be good fun. Bingo. okay, I think let's, we'll go one by one and we'll, we'll see how we get on. But I think first, both of you, because of the 2026, what's gonna happen 2026 Murray, the NFL, and then I'll get Yannick'cause we've both on one of you, on your lists have mentioned the NFL. So what's gonna happen? What do we expect to happen?
Murray Barnett:As we've talked about a number of times in various podcasts in the past, the NFL have long-term deals, but they all have options to open them up in largely in 28, but I think a couple are also in 2027. So. Off the back end of 26, I think they'll formally announce that they're looking to open those up. It's pretty much a, an open secret. And there's a couple of nuances which I'm sure we'll talk about, include the creation of a new package, which would potentially be a global package, which would be a sort of a, an a a 9:00 AM Eastern slot, which would effectively be the international games.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Ooh. Okay. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about that. So, and I'm gonna ask each of you just to put a percentage, your, your, your assumption is it, you know, 5%, 95%, somewhere in the middle. But, okay. Is this a sort of replication of the UA for relevant idea that you're gonna give, offer up one package of rights, that is specifically targeting a global streamer? Is that, is that what you're getting at?
Murray Barnett:Well, I think it's just an extra package. You know, we've talked in the past about how much they slice and dice. I think in theory, all of the packages are available on a global basis. Albeit that they don't sell them that way. But this is one that would be a package of the international games, which is more appealing internationally than it is in the US because of the time difference. These are games which happen at 9:00 AM Eastern, more or less on in the us and so they're, they're more appealing to an international audience. And they happen in their backyard as well. So I think that's one aspect of it is a, is a new package of rights, but it's more about, know, will the likes of Amazon take a bigger chunk of games? Say for example, the, the current Thursday night package, and will that see a reordering of. The, the landscape for NFL, but with even increased revenues, and then more importantly, what's the knock on impact of that in terms of how that might affect media rights for other leagues or their media strategies for other major US leagues? I think.
Yannick Ramcke:I actually thought that we would have been on different sides of the fancier in terms of. Prediction because as far as I got our very sophisticated WhatsApp con con conversation, I thought that you would predict that there would be a new or revised or updated preempted deal for NFL media rights in 2026. And that is where I think also the industry got a bit ahead of. Itself because what the NFL in the form of, or the person of the commissioners pretty much only said that as soon as 2026, we may start to engage in. Conversation with this looming Optout option after the 29 30 season for most of their media rights partner looming. But these are long-winded conversations, right? So, I am pretty sure that there won't be anything where they put pen to paper and announce anything. When it comes to the main domestic media rights agreements, but they start pretty much, I think next year, not
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Can I, can you, can I just ask a question For those of us who haven't negotiated these things, what's the process? How do you begin this and why is there a sort of. house moment where they can opt out and start to do new things. What's the, is that part of the initial
Yannick Ramcke:I.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Just talk to me a little bit about how we can be Nick talking about this when they've got a deal that goes to, when is it 2032? Is it.
Yannick Ramcke:It's even longer than it's it has been an 11 year, 110 billion dollar contract. It is like part of, and we discussed this before, like, speaking of slicing and dicing and media rights with the three that the NNFL is engaging in more than anyone else. They, because they can, right? Not everybody is the 800 pound goer in, in the market because they can, they have negotiated into the current rights agreements opt-outs for the majority of the media rights partners after the 29 30 season, and I think for Disney and ESPN the following year, but.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So what's the, what does that say about the sort of, I dunno, the integrity or the validity of the contract that you sign? If you're signing an, you know, 11 year deal with the NFL, you are effectively saying, it will be negotiated halfway along.
Yannick Ramcke:That's all part of the negotiation leverage. Right. It's obviously give and take and that is something that they took because maybe they have gotten and given somewhere else, but it is what it is. And I think the two main things that have driven all the discussion around. Okay. Do they actually preempt any of this, even preempting a potential opt-out a couple of years down the road? I think it's driven by two things. One was especially the NBA. Signing a deal in the meantime that is punching far above its weight when you compare to audiences and ways of share and all of this. And the second one is that it's quite timely. I think they had like the best season for like 35 years in terms of average audience. So average tune into their domestic games in the us. Yes, it is a function of how they're measuring and all these kind of things. Auto phone, big data, how news is doing things. But with those two like, headline arguments, I think this is where combined with what they said, we may open up preemptive conversations 2026. I think the industry got ahead of itself jet that like within. The next 12 months, there will be a revised deal. Because obviously also broadcaster would not be fully against having more certainty because their business pretty much make is makes or breaks with having the NFL or not.
Murray Barnett:It's a unique model, right? It's that they have multiple different rights holders and, and because of that, or largely because of that, they, they don't have the regulatory require issues or requirements that say the Premier League has the Premier League. Yes, it has no, has no, no one buyer rule. But ultimately still regulated for competition reasons from selling for period of time this way. All the shareholders of the various different broadcasters who have rights are able to report back to their boards and their shareholders that they have long-term revenue sorry cost certainty, at least theoretically. but they're also able to. Still fit, still have enough of a slice of, of the pie to be meaningful. And so I think it, it, it's just a very unique set of circumstances of being the biggest sport in a market where, which is, which is pretty deregulated.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So you mentioned there's a couple of things. One is sort of risk rewards here in terms of, they'll obviously, they'll, they would do it if they think there's more money in the marketplace. For the second time around or halfway through I remember talking to Sam Sadie at, at livecore, and it was about, just around about the time of the NBA deal, massive new deal. I can't remember what it was, 80 billion or whatever the number was. And his thesis was that you shouldn't underestimate the impact of the opening up of the betting industry and the betting markets in the US and how that impacts on the ability of broadcasters to make back rights fees. And that was. A key factor in why that number for the NBA got so high. not heard anyone talk about this, but what is it? Where do you think the, the, if you were a broadcaster or if you were the NFL and you're looking at a halfway point of this deal, all of the noise is the end of the bundle and you know, the end is NI or whatever in the broadcast marketplace, traditional marketplace, but. Just talk me, talk about this. Let's, what's the risk reward for both sides of this. If they go halfway.
Yannick Ramcke:I think from an NFL perspective it's less about something to be concerned rather than from a broadcaster perspective, because I think the hypothesis that you are referring to is that the broadcaster can like in a more diversified manner. Monetize the IP that they are buying. And obviously when it comes to advertising, sponsorships and so on it's probably one of the biggest spenders when it comes to yeah, wanting to be present and be associated with live sports. It doesn't get bigger, bigger than NFL, so I don't think that this is too material in this whole conversation because the NFL is just one of. Kind. Yes. I think for smaller properties that can make a bigger difference. And the NFL obviously has direct relationship on the, on the media rights income column, but on the sponsorship column to make sure to grab their piece of the budget that are spent from the betting industry. But I would also be a bit hesitant if you look around the world in terms of how. Industry goes through its life cycle. You see that in markets where betting was legalized quite early on you see now movements where they try to. Put the genie back into the bottle somewhat. And I think other markets who liberalized later, like Brazil, like the us, they will go through the same cycle. So, I also can imagine that, especially now with the prediction markets also coming up, that there will be some backlash. And I don't think that at the base of any hypothesis, neither on the rights buying nor right setting side, when we talk about the NFL auction.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. Ripple effects because this comes into your, your one as well, Yannick. So you've got a prediction or a, a, a, something about the MLB. But what are the ripple effects? You mentioned that at the beginning, Murray of this, so once the NFL do something, the big gorilla or whatever the cliche is in the middle of the marketplace, what do the others then do? What does it do? Does it, I mean, presumably it's, it's hoovering up money that might go elsewhere and they'll, they'll be worried about that. Is that, is that what I'm getting at?
Murray Barnett:Yeah, I think so. And obviously we've talked about NBA, but you've got both MLB and NHL who may look to kind of rethink their strategies the marketplace in terms. to get out in front of there or trying to work out what's gonna be the optimal opportunity for them to get the best financial outcome and the best exposure outcome. Although we know that most of the time it is just about the, the, the money I'm not sure that I sort of close enough to either of those to really know exactly what they're gonna do other than that, that, as we said, as we were just talking about, whatever NFL does, it tend, it tends to then reshape a little bit what the other major leagues are doing in the marketplace.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yannick Ramcke:And I mean, you spoke about, or you asked for numbers and percentages. I think we both somewhat agree Murray and I, that in terms of 2026, there won't be any announcement of revised domestic media rights agreement either preempting or after the potential upload that they have contractually secured before. But I think. To 100%. But it's actually an easy one. There will be an agreement or media-wise agreement announced by the NFL since the sophisticated people that they are, they have this annual auction running for the season opener which I think this season was on YouTube for the first time. I think it was out of Mexico City. And this is an annual package that they bring to market whether it's about new markets, new platform partners, and so on, to just nurture. Maybe the future big buyer of their main packages. So, this is coming to market and if it keeps the cadence that it had in the past, we should expect something, something around spring to announce pretty much the broadcast of the season opener, which is not part of the Thursday night package. Even though it's a Thursday night games, I'm not completely wrong.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:This, this international rights question for the NFL. Just before we move on from the NFL, I'm, I'm interested because. again, it's a stat that you use quite often, which I think it's sort of less than 3% of the revenue comes from the international market. I, there's a question about, you know, that's hanging there, which is how popular the NFL is outside of America it's not reflected in the current state of the media rights market as I understand it, or as I look at those numbers. Obviously that's, shaped a little bit by the massive domestic market, but. So this idea that they're gonna, you get to a sort of global fan argument, they're gonna have international games, which they have already, but then they're gonna use those as a bridge into an international media rights marketplace and monetize it in that way. Is there much evidence to support that it's that popular outside of the us apart from the expat?
Murray Barnett:I think it's growing in popularity, but it's still very much a sort of secondary or tertiary sport when it comes to sort of fandom. Ultimately the reason to open up these deals or to create the international package is for broadcasters that don't have borders, and that is Amazon, YouTube, you know, all and, and hey, Presto, all of those are US based companies. So we'll look at it through a, a US lens. I think that they will also know that. It carries favor with the NFL for other potential opportunities, or at least they'll be, you know, thinking about that aspect of it. So whilst you they won't get US style money for international rights, it will certainly be a useful increased amount of revenue for the NFL overall and necessarily that, you know, NFL does have sort of quite ambitions about what. NFL will look like internationally in terms of, in terms of fandom. And with flag football being in the LA Olympics in 28, they're, they're quite optimistic that that's going to help really grow the sport at, at its sort of a grassroots level. So I guess they see some positive shoots there, but it's more just a way of of extracting some additional money out of the global marketplace.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, I fully agree that, or in the sense that I think that international markets are complete afterthought. I think you put it quite correctly, Richard, in the sense of international consolidation is shaped by domestic media, right? Agreements in the sense of if Amazon, YouTube or Netflix or whoever else wants to have this as a free throw in, okay, please throw in these set in the other markets, because we also have an operating business up and running. The NFL is happy to accommodate. Because it just doesn't compare in terms of size and relevance, and maybe that's even healthy if you compare this to many, many other sports leagues and organizations who are betting heavily on international market in the form of media rights income. I think it's fair to question whether this is like a hopeful bed or is this holding out hope? In the sense of that this is the next big growth catalyst that is like putting the revenue trajectory in a completely different scale. So I think NFA growth, grassroots growth developing fans locally, internationally, but that's not what they're betting on in terms of this will now materialize and convert into big time revenue streams anytime soon.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. Right. I'm intrigued by your UAO relevant prediction, Murray.'cause I think we're still in the international global game, global fan sort of area. Gimme a sense of this one.
Murray Barnett:It's a little bit of a punt, but I think it, there's been lots of discussions about it. There was the Laga game that was supposed to happen in Florida, which has subsequently been they've rode back on, on a commitment to do that. Think in some ways it's easier to do it with a cross, cross-border competition like a Champions league. I think it. There'll be a lot of noise about how this puts Champions league on in a global context as opposed to a European context by putting it in a different city. I picked Miami, but it could as easily be New York. And I think it has to be East Coast because of the time differences. 27 I think is already Madrid. So the first one which they could do is 28. So
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:just to your specific prediction is that U AFA and Relevant will announce U AFA Champions League final 2028 in Miami.
Murray Barnett:some point, yes, they'll announce at some point during 2026 and I'll
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yannick, what? What do you think? It's a six. That would be an absolute shit storm, but it's a 65% shit storm. Yannick, what's, what's your, put a number on
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, this is far too much accountability for me that, that kind of discussion and number. But I think I am, on Maurice's side of the fence on that one for all the reasons that that you mentioned. I think also last time we spoke, we gave relevant it's kudos for how it steered and managed the media rights, RFP especially in the big time European markets by things like using the global package or the threat, often big technology company coming in as a Trojan horse. To steer up competition or whether it was their data driven approach to pretty much build the business case and build this strategic rational on behalf of the broadcasters. While it would be great addition to their perspective portfolio, so I think they ob we gave them their kudos, but, their mandate is across domains, right? We focus on media rights, but also all things commercial and so on, and they will aggressively pursue other and more growth growth drivers. And that is an obvious one, right? And I think it's also like a lower. Barrier to get this executed then in in the local league setups. And finally, I did not, outside looking in, I did not have the impression that this is the most precious. Decision where to put champion League Finance. If you look at the past two decades or so, where we have played European Cup finals, it's not like that. We only move between, I don't know, Madrid, London and Berlin or Paris. I think we have been off the, off the road and off the beaten path here or there.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:been in Europe,
Yannick Ramcke:They have, but we have been in different places and interesting places I think.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. So a couple of things that spring to mind. There's one question about what were the lessons of the global streaming package for that uafa put out? Because. When we talked at Sport El, it was gonna be, it was, you know, it was a Netflix versus Amazon versus whatever, you know, battle for champions, league rights that never materialized. And it in paramount where that's where it is at the moment. are we any closer in terms of, in interpreting this as a, as a, a good idea or not in terms of offer? You mentioned the NFL are gonna do it, but talk to me about what it is that. You are basing this on. So is it a global streaming idea or is it as Adam Crafton on this podcast from the Athletic, put it that NBC feel like they've spent enough money to justify having an American cup final. where, where do you think it's coming from? Where's the, where's the incentive to do this?'cause it is gonna be a right comms for them.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, Murray, I think I can keep it short on my end and you can go long form. I think it has nothing to do with media rights, revenue, or income. It's a pure commercial sponsorship rather. These kind of revenue stream hosting fees. These kind of things that would drive any such conversation. I think it's quite unrelated. Give also the much more diversified set of media rights partners. It's not like that one market like NBC in case of the Olympics is show shouldering like a vast majority of the, of the income.
Murray Barnett:I think you can see a, a bump in, in potential Latin American feeds if they know that that they're, that it's coming in, in a, in a primetime time zone for them, possibly. But I think as Yannick said, it's largely for other reasons. I think it's also just a sort of the overall halo effect of. Putting it somewhere outside of Europe. It puts it on a different level of stage, as it were. It becomes more of a global competition, maybe that, that also sort of brings some conflict in with FIFA and the Club World Cup, which maybe something that they want to do or, or, you know, want to avoid doing. But that's why I'm sitting on the fence at 65%.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It's quite a wide fence. 65%. I, it's two thirds, two thirds majority.
Murray Barnett:I mean, it is, put it this way, it's what I would do if I was them.
Yannick Ramcke:I think the legal term is more likely than not, right.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Right. Fascinating. Well, we, you know, at least we've, we've got a headline for the podcast So Yannick, let's come to you with your a D Zone. Acquisition. You've both got interestingly, D zone acquisition points in your, in your predictions. Yannick, what is yours?
Yannick Ramcke:Yes. I mean, we can discuss why both of our things. There might, there might be an urgency to further yeah, grow utilization of their tech stack, but also pretty much, conquer the one or the other bigger media rights markets, which they haven't conquered just yet, including the us. But my prediction would be related to recent news reports regarding the reported interest in main Street Sports formally. Diamond Sports Group Knee Sinclair Broadcasting Group. So has gone through many, many different iterations, but in other words, like one of the leading, if not. local or the original sports network in the US with the biggest portfolio with the biggest or with the most N-H-L-M-L-B-N-B-A teams under contract that they're following through with that acquisition.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:a regional sports network and it's one of those things that I never understand. I've been talking about this for a very long time, and RSNs and regional sports networks are always something that I have to think quite hard about what they actually are. But they are the local, the. Sort of area for what? What are they? Explain?
Murray Barnett:cover the local, the local sports teams, broadly speaking.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So they buy up state, by state. So this is a.
Murray Barnett:It's it's media market by media market. So you'll have, you know, new England Sports Network covers, Bruins, Celtics Patriots, like, but it, it depends, o each one has a different makeup of rights because then you also have rights which are only out of out of local region rights. You have national game rights. And, and so on. So it's, it's, it's quite a complex area, but effectively it's a local sports network that only cover covers local sports rights.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So those are things that fall out of, so an NFL national deal. or an NBA national deal, they pick up. There is a local area sort of package that they offer them or give them or they pay for.
Yannick Ramcke:pretty much what is, if you are a na televised nationally, it's not broadcast locally. But if the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay.
Yannick Ramcke:is not put on the,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Yannick Ramcke:Airways, then the local audience, they're probably like fandom is most tied to, should still be available. And I think has primarily and historically grown all of the fact that obviously it's a much bigger market just in terms of. And, different time zones,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And why? Just so for and, okay. Thank you for the explanation. And why are they perennially under pressure? The RSNs? Because feels like there's a. just a li an old linear dinosaur idea. Is it that's just fallen, fallen by the wayside that that streaming is replacing? Is that, is that, is it as simple as that?
Yannick Ramcke:I mean, they're most tied to the legacy linear multicenter, pay two V bundle. I think that's also somewhat this entire discussion because it's still a enormously maybe not lucrative business anymore, but a business that does. A ton of revenue and and thus revenues that, are actually much higher than what streaming has done for a long time because there's different economics,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And what is the business model? Business model? Is advertising, is it a free to air or is it a subscription?
Yannick Ramcke:it's, it's it's a pay TV bundle. So,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay.
Yannick Ramcke:if you are a local customer, you sign up to pay TV at the base tier, so it doesn't get smaller than the base tier. Your channel, the original sports network has been historically always included. So for each pay TV subscriber having the most basic tier ever, you are getting like a carriage fee if you are tiered in a more premium tier where, okay, I need to buy the extra sports package. To get access. Then obviously you have far less subscribers, but for each subscriber you are getting a coverage fee. The main reason why sports and regional sports networks as a result were that interesting because these were considered must have commodities. So there were always in the base package, and if you have a pay to view penetration around 2010 of like 90% of the households. You can pretty much calculate it pretty fast, like these are like nine figure businesses each month that are paid out to the channels.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay, so your prediction is that D Zone will acquire Main Street which is an RSN and Murray. In parallel, parallel predictions. Murray is saying that D Zone will announce more acquisitions, their Fox sport buyout, followed by plans to float see Murray's just offering a little bit more sizzle there on his prediction.
Murray Barnett:Well, I think it's been a fairly open secret that we've talked about that that D Zone is, is keen to explore the market for at least a partial flotation at, at some point in 26. So, I, I mean, I think that that's an 80% chance that that's gonna be announced at some point this year. So I don't think that's really a big. A big bet. I think the issue is, you know, what can they do to sort of fatten it up and make it more interesting? And I think when you look at what happened last year with Belgian League, and to a certain extent, French League, although that was a while ago, now, this is all just trim trimming in the right places and adding in the right places to make D Zone more and more attractive.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Can I just ask a, again, this might be a silly question, but what happens to the Saudi stake if they float? So Saudi owns part of it, is it about 10% of it
Murray Barnett:It's a bit less. Yeah.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Bit less. And so. It all floats or can they carve out bits that they can float or just the zone will float and then there will be part of just the general share ownership.
Yannick Ramcke:many, many different forms and shapes, right? You can always say how many, how much free float you want to have. You can decide whether you want to have a primary. Transaction that you actually also raise capital? Or is it just a secondary market where existing shareholders can liquidate? So I think that's fair. Would be unfair to say or to say what will happen with the Saudi stake, assuming that's the more strategic nature rather than just the financial investment. Chances are that they probably keep. the stake that they have
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay.
Yannick Ramcke:of today. but my morally pretty much then preempted or like took away the prerequisite of all of the zone acquisition of Main Street Sports, which is making main street street sports like an attractive enough. chart for the zone, which is why they will go through a bankruptcy. Bankruptcy allows them, and they went through it before because of the,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Who will Main Street.
Yannick Ramcke:main Street Sports, each time they went through a bankruptcy, they got a different name and they had multiple names,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Yannick Ramcke:the past just to shed further erroneous media rights contracts just to further shed debt. of their balance sheet. So I think that we go through that process. They will reduce the commitments made to the different teams. They will maybe even put, discussed the more cooperative, quote unquote, model of the zone, some variable compensation to those media rights agreements. And I think once they have reemerged from bankruptcy, the zone will follow through with the acquisition. I think it just improving like the terms and condition on which, and what. would acquire. But whether it's the US institutional investor group or the fact that they want to float on the US market, pretty much the fact that they haven't cracked the US consumer marketplace just yet, I think and they're not like tens of options out there. Which bring me to the conclusion that one of the acquisitions, and it might not be the only one, but the main acquisition in the US with. An IPO in the US market in the back of their mind that mainstream sports is their acquisition target and that the reports actually will be followed through this.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. Right. So, let's move to the big, obviously we've mentioned. Well, let's talk about Warner Brothers, and because it's just such an impossible story to, get your head around in terms of any certainty. But Murray what do you think is gonna happen in 26 to that story?
Murray Barnett:Well, we talked about this in, in, Pods gone by and I think we mentioned that even if it progresses quickly, it's unlikely to. Be concluded before the end of 2026, but in the interest of trying to stick my neck out a little bit, I actually think that there's a chance that it may collapse with both Paramount and with with Netflix for different reasons. I think, you know, the, the way it stands at the moment is that Warner Brothers want to do the deal with Netflix. For a variety of different reasons that is problematic from a regulatory approvals perspective. Also Larry Ellison, Oracle Paramount is a major contributor to Donald Trump, who I think has announced literally today that he's inclined not to approve it. Whatever that means. So that. Means that there's a potential delay to the deal that Warner Brothers would like to do. And that is despite the fact that the number coming from Paramount is a higher number than than Netflix is offering. And it's not, it's a bit apples and oranges because the, the Netflix offer is for one aspect of the two divisions or one of the div two divisions of Warner Brothers. Whereas Paramount is offering to buy the whole lot. But I think where this. Is important from a sports perspective is any kind of paralysis that happens over the course of the next year or 18 months is probably negative in terms of reducing a potential bid for, for rights in various different places, whether that's in the US or or internationally. And. Especially looking at it through a UK perspective, where does that leave TNT Sports in upcoming negotiations? You know, will things become clearer in time for Premier League auction? Where does that position them in terms of, you know, not having Champions League, which obviously has gone to Paramount for the New Deal, which still has one and a half seasons to go on. With, with them. So it's not imminent, but it kind of creates a lot of question marks around what the future of TNT Sport could be in the uk. So my big prediction is that both of these deals will end up collapsing for, for different reasons. I.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It's really interesting that bit about the, when one of the Premier League rights coming to market 26.
Murray Barnett:go to market tail end of this year, I think, or early 27 for if I remember rightly, it's the 27, 28 season as the first of the new deal.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Right. Okay.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, I, I, I would've thought it would be later. But anyway I agree that, or I would agree to forecast and predict that Netflix is not. auctions winner after all. But I also think there will be a deal, and I think it will be paramount slash guidance. think just the news came over the ticker that paramount actually mounts proxified against Warner Brother Discovery over the takeover battle and so on. So it will be a saga that continues, which is also. reason why, for example, I don't see an NFL deal coming for many, many difference, but just this uncertainty among the buyers universe, I think it's not conducive to get a deal done in or on short notice, especially if there's no deadline that could spur any, any actions. However, I would actually, I mean, I think the most fascinating or not fascinating we said that this is not about sport, right? We often think we are bigger
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Hmm.
Yannick Ramcke:we are not. And I think that is one example that we should not overestimate how
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Oh yeah. It's not about sport, but it, but it is about the, the ripples are quite interesting on sport.
Yannick Ramcke:what, what I was getting to. As said last time, the International Sports rights portfolio, including at t and t Sports in the uk would actually be part of the Netflix universe because only the domestic. Sports rights portfolio. So TNT sports us and I think they rebranded this as USA Sports now would not be part of it, but actually Premier Rights would be with Netflix Defactor as parent company if the Netflix bit go through, which I think would actually quite interesting. Forget about future wide cycles, but the upcoming or current right cycle.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So 28, 29, we think is the,
Murray Barnett:First season of the New Deal. Yeah.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah, I think it's, I, I that of TNT question again. The, it is quite interesting how fragile the marketplace is.'cause sometimes you sort of think, oh, well these things are set in stone. But then when you start to say you know, where, who owns TNT? Where's the money gonna come from? You start to then say, right, okay, here's, that's one question mark, and then you've got others in terms of, well, you know, where it might reside. I think it's really, it's interesting about the, the competitive strategy, how you deal with that. I can't think of a precedent. In the same way. I know that companies have been bought and sold, know, in the past, but I find them quite an odd company to sort of get my head around TNT in terms of their in the UK because they've got bits of various things, nothing is compelling enough to, to it worth my while.
Murray Barnett:It's a whole different pod discussion, but you know, they, this will be the third iteration of ultimately. A deal, which isn't really the right thing for the company to do. So you had the A OL Time Warner merger, then you had Warner Brothers Discovery, and then now you're gonna have Paramount Warner or Netflix Warner. And there's a case to be said that. Those two merge previous mergers were not successful in, in delivering shareholder value or, or ultimately a, a good experience for customers. And there's a lot of skepticism in the market that either paramount. Netflix should, you know, paramount of Netflix shouldn't be doing these, this deal anyway. So I think that there's a, there's an argument to say that maybe the motivations for doing these kind of deals sit in the wrong, with the wrong people making, making those decisions. But that's a, a whole different podcast.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, I, I also think that, I think everybody can laugh about the history of Warner, Warner, brother Warner, brother Discovery, unless you are like someone working for the company as it changes hands like fields like every five years. And it's interesting because it was considered like not the most interesting asset, as just alluded to, but all of a sudden we have like a huge fight over it. Both financially, because I think bits will further go up also legally. Paramount now also goes to court over this et cetera, et cetera. But I think it's more defensive on both ends, but than offensive in the sense of, I think as Paramount acquired the UC rights, he said, okay, they went. Big or go home because either you remain subscale or you put yourself on the map. You also gain legitimacy from a guidance perspective that you are like a big time player on the market for buying media rights and so on, but not getting on following through. No, this is add on acquisition. Of one of other discovery, which in fact is like is multiple times bigger than Paramount guidance as of today. I think they would be still stuck in the middle and then I think they will go home because they've all be competitive. So Paramount absolutely needs this, I think Netflix. They have made up their mind that this is the best money spent to just protect their position with the backlog library and all of the IP that comes attached to it. rather than having a legitimate competitor all of a sudden as a combination of paramount and one or other discovery.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Just before we move on to the, to, another area, I mean I think this does touch on your other prediction, Yannick, which is the sort of 2026 Bing year of content aggregation. And this feels like a poster child at a top, at the top end of something that is gonna probably happen the course of the year is happening already. But you know, that feels like, and your framing is that end fan consumer. This is a good thing. Can you just explain your rationale there.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, so I was thinking a little bit in and losers, and I actually think that at the end of the day, the end consumer will be. One of the winners in 2026 we have always said that especially once the. OTT streamers came into the marketplace, followed on by the big technology companies who were always, always wondered whether they will get into or not, at least partially. I think all of them now have, that okay. Increasingly fragmented market, increasingly cost prohibitive to really access and get all the content that I as an end consumer want to get. So the end consumer was always. Deemed as a loser of all of these things going on. said especially around between 2020 and 2023. And consumers are not that big of a loser because yes, as soon as, and as long as, and that's a condition you are able to navigate that digital jungle given the aggressive pricing. Of the new media rights buyers because they, they are in the full customer acquisition mode. Back then, once you were able to navigate this digital jungle marketplace, that it wasn't too bad. It was more choice than ever. It was aggressively priced and so on and the forth. But I think the last couple of years, especially 24, 25, we have then seen like streaming inflation, right? All of them hike the price points. They move from. Full priority on on subscriber growth to actually making money. So I think it has been quite a bad. Position to be in for consumers the last couple of years, but now I think also not many rights are up for grabs and many, many right cycles. It's a midpoint or the second half of their cycle. So all of a sudden the licensees start to care about making the p and l broke, making money and so on. Also being super precious about having the content exclusively to their own. Platforms will, decrease. So I think there will be a lot of partner partnerships. Consolidation. I don't think there will be much consolidation in terms of m and a activity, but I think there will be a lot of cooperation just to make products more accessible in fight for the incremental consumers, just to make ultimately also the p and l and the return on invest work. As many of the right cycles or rights agreements that we assigned the last 3, 4, 5 years with either the midpoint or the second half of their of that relation. So we, we are, we are the winner of 2026.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. I won't ask you to put a percentage on that'cause it's quite a it's not, it's not very specific, but Yes. Okay. I, I, I'm a winner. I, I put a 40%, 35% chance of me being a winner in 2026. right. Just two more just to finish off. And now they're quite juicy. So, Murray Liberty Media will make an offer for nascar. I love this.
Murray Barnett:well, let, let me, let me take a step back. So, last year. Michael Jordan's team, 23 x one racing, and another team front race sports took NASCAR to court, accusing them of monopolistic practices and, and unfair sort of charter agreements that they, that they had commercial agreements and this case was settled. In December, but it sort of peeled back a layer of of what's happening with nascar and a sort of discontent between the teams and the and the owners. It's privately owned by the, by the France family. And the sort of collateral damage from this was the very well respected Steve Phelps who had been commissioner for a number of years. Who sort of left the sports who, who left the sports because of some sort of salacious details that came out of various things that he had said about some of the people involved in the, in, in the lawsuit. But what that did is triggered a whole load of speculation about. Might this be the right time for the France family to sell the sport, which was valued in 2023 at about 5 billion dollars? I think so. It's worth probably con, well, it will be worth considerably more than that. Now, bearing in mind, as we've talked about previously, they've got a 7.7 billion media deal coming up. And. The, the settlement of this suit means that, at least in theory, that the teams are, are largely happy with the way that things are going. And, you know, I'd specific,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:low,
Murray Barnett:sorry.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:that feels a very low price.
Murray Barnett:That's what I'm saying is that it, that was the five, bi 5 billion was the price in 23 prior to these new media deals being announced. So, you know, it could be a lot more than that. Although I think if you are an investment company looking at nascar, you'll say that the chances of global development are. Are, are, are not are, are not particularly strong. And so where are you gonna see that growth coming from? You know, audience spectators are, it's challenging to have more people coming to, to, to grounds. In fact, I, I think I read somewhere that they're they're actually seeing for. Slightly fewer spectators actually coming to races. But that being said, there aren't that many assets out there, which are available to buy, which, so I think it'll make it attractive for anybody in the investment community. And then in order to keep it nice and juicy for you, I've suggested Liberty Media because they obviously have Formula One and motor gp, and in some ways this is. Would avoid on anti-competition because it's largely a US face focused league. But I could see that there are some synergies and benefits from them of having a US based Motorsport series to sit alongside the three races that Formula One currently has there. Albeit that it's a very different type of of racing, but I think it could be very attractive for them at what is quite a, a, a keen price potentially.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:nice and also at the same time, you know, we've mentioned previously I, one of the predictions for 26 could have been Liberty selling Formula one to Saudi Arabia, M-B-S-P-I-F,
Murray Barnett:the answer is it goes, it goes, you know, if they've decided not to go down that route, that it's to double down on motor sport.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Excellent.
Yannick Ramcke:Interesting. I also read a couple of reports. I think if there would be a divestment or like, bringing on board a joint venture partner or what any kind of equity trend transaction, which for that sport would be quite a big deal since I think it has been privately held and owned by say more similar people like forever. I would bet in terms of. Predicting that we are not talking about a group like Liberty or TKO, which would be mostly about driving efficiencies operationally and some financial engineering, but actually would think in terms of growing the business. And in one of the reports it was a bit of a side note, but thinking about it, I actually. Considered it quite interesting to at least double click on is this whole topic of a joint venture with a real estate developer who, because NASCAR also takes on ownership of more and more race circles and so on. So, and that reminded me of. The NBA. Traditionally many new investors coming into the NBA were technology focused. And I think there's a bit of a transition ongoing. I think the Dallas Maix might be the poster site for that, where Mark Cuban big tech investor around two thousands made, make, made this money, then followed up with acquiring the maths and this new tech. we are the big thing. Like ever since from 20 2005 to I feel like, but there's a bit of a changing of a guard because also including onca and media rights, income might be mixed out and it's all, you know, digitized and all of this. What is the new. Revenue stream that may can be amplified. And Dallas got in with the betting industry. I think the owner of Las Vegas Sense bought the Mavericks is doing a whole general entertainment district around the arena and casinos and all these kind of things. So that's just brought my interest. Also real estate developers as a joint venture partner. So not a majority acquisition, but as a joint JV partner. For NASCAR might be actually something that is less about and improving efficiency technically, operationally, which would be like a roll up of like multi gp, formula One and so on. But rather looking at where the growth is over the next decade decade or two, and which partner could accelerate that growth in that
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:If I was to want to build this into a proper conspiracy theory, I would add, throw in George Pine's name and who's just announced a, a, a new, very uh, splashy new fund with who is a former long term executive at nascar. So I think if anyone's gonna buy it, he would be interested in
Murray Barnett:But haven't they said that their focus is largely on providers to the sports business. They're not looking at teams and so on, per se. I mean, I thought, I, I thought that in itself was, it was quite an interesting view that they're taking, that it's, you know, secondary operators within the, within the sports business rather than the sports businesses themselves.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:They did. Exactly. And also, I remember interviewing Brian France ages ago, and it was, culturally, I can't imagine a sort of, you know, that that would be a heck of a HR job trying to get NASCAR and Liberty and Formula One and Motor, you know, all that together. I don, I mean, whether that matters anymore, although just, just, it's just a sort of, question of allocating debt to various places. I dunno. La Right. Last, last question, last prediction, and it is again, a very nice one Murray Tennis Grand Slams will announce plans to sell media rights together and add a fifth slam. I think the FI agree. I think the first bit I really like, I think the la, the second bit that adding a fifth grand slam think would be a weak move. But I think the first one is really interesting.
Murray Barnett:Well, I think there needs to be a disclaimer here first that you are, you didn't like my original. List of safe predictions. And so the, the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I
Murray Barnett:both, the NASCAR and this one are a little bit more out there. And I think
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:are,
Murray Barnett:when you focus on this one the tennis, it's, perhaps slightly more what should be done rather than what the prediction is. And I think if you talk to anybody,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah.
Murray Barnett:we know many of them in the, in the tennis world, they'll all say. Privately at least, that this is absolutely what should happen. But there are so many vested interests as to why it's not happened so far. But to pick it apart in a. In a little bit more detail. So firstly, the mediaite side of it, to a certain degree, it happens already because there's a bit of collusion or a bit of working together, because in tertiary markets you have broadcasters who are vested in certain sports such as, you know, tennis, golf, whatever, whatever it is. And I'm not suggesting that. Anything would change, certainly in the home markets. So Wimbledon would still continue to be able to do whatever they wanted with Wimbledon in the uk, same for France, Australia, et cetera. But when it comes to. What's happening in the US for example? Well, yes. Sorry. It's a bad example. What's happening in Latin America? What's happening in large parts of Asia? There would be more collusion working together in, in those sales. But how, how do you make that attractive for a more international marketplace? It would be adding a fifth slam. The, I don't have the percentages in front of me, but it's something like the total amount of investment that comes into the sport of tennis. Commercial investment whether that's sponsorships or, or TV rights. 70% of it sits within the, the current fore grand slams and only 30% goes to the remaining WTA and a TP events and, and ITF. Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out. Well, surely you want to add at the top end then if that's where the money is going, and see if you can grow that pie because. The danger is when you go further down into the one thousands and the WTA and so on, is that you've got just a, a huge array of events that people don't really understand and can't really get behind. So the idea of having a fifth grand slam. By no means, you know, my idea or, or unique, it's been banded around for a variety, but by a variety of people for a while now. And I think it wouldn't necessarily be the creation of a new event. It might be that there's an existing 1000 event that ends up being escalated into an official Grand Slam event. So obvious candidate would be somebody like an Indian Wells especially when you've got. I think I'm right in saying Italy are going to have a 1000th event, a new 1000th event added to the calendar in 28. So, already there's, I, the, the, the conceit is that it'll grow, but it could be that then that leaves an option for one to be elevated into a. Into an, into another into another Grand Slam. This is obviously me just completely speculating, but it just seems that when you are looking at getting a casual fan, they wanna know that they're watching the best of the best all the time, and.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:is
Murray Barnett:It's not about like we're going, you know, you switch the, the TV on today and, you know, sitting here in the uk you've got, you know, most of the tennis on sky. Half the time it's, you've got no understanding of the importance of the relevant of the, of the respective tournaments.'cause there are just so many of them on. And I think, you know, as we've talked about a number of times on this, the scarcity of events. Tends to increase the, the value of it. And so I think elevating somebody or creating an event that becomes that fifth grand slam, and then creating some kind of branded environment which talks about'em collectively and therefore eventually they get sold on a collective basis. Whether that's sponsorships, whether that's media rights, which as I said to a certain degree is happening already, but it's more form, a more formalized process would be the way to maximize the, the revenues for those tournaments.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I, I agree and I always say that every te, every generation falls in love with tennis in the business of tennis and, you know, your old place ISL famously bet the house on a TP rights back in the early two thousands. And then there is a, a sense of, I can't quite work out what CVC are doing. With tennis and why? You know, I get the intellectual arguments that it's global. It's gender, you know, the the, you've got the WTA and you've got the A TP, but to your point, it's never gonna be more than the middle market and I, and that that bit is, I'm sure they can squeeze more money out of it, centralize the back office to all the things that private equity do. But you can't get beyond the fact that those four events are the pinnacle
Murray Barnett:there, there, there's also a point about money being left on the table. I, I, I just saw before we,, we started recording this about this exhibition match between Alcaraz and Sinner in South Korea, where. If I'm, if I remember correctly, it's, they're taking home two and a half million dollars each to play this match. Right. Now the winner of the Australian of, of the Australian Open, I think makes two and a half million. So. That's if they get through seven games, you know, under the grueling heat, five sets, blah, blah, blah. This is a best of three. You know, exhibition match with two of the best players and they get to walk away with a guaranteed, level of money as the same as if they won a tournament. So it strikes me that, does that not. Mean that there's a plenty of opportunity for growth within the market in terms of a, from a commercial perspective.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah, it feels a bit like boxing. I mean, it feels like, okay, there's a whole where you could sort of go the celebrity route there's loads of things you can do with it, but structurally in terms of the sport, those players need will are only valuable in terms of how they do in the majors or in the grand slams. And geographically, tennis better spread on the grand slams than golf. I mean, golf, there been, you know, this debate about a fifth major has been going on forever because three of them are in America. Sorry, ya.
Yannick Ramcke:Yeah, I think with that particular matter, I think the big question is how much the economics are rooted in fundamentals and how sustainable these economics would be of those celebrity matches. Is this transferable? To like, the normal calendar and more traditional economics and and events. I think there are many, many other reasons why I want to be on the com on the other side of this of this bed. I think first I mean, forget about all the different minds and opinions that you probably need to get under one head. Which might be already like a deal breaker from the get go. Two things. One, I think the positive or potentially positive impact on, commercialization tertiary markets might just not be worth the squeeze in terms of all the compromises and
Murray Barnett:I'm saying that would be phase one.
Yannick Ramcke:attached to it. Fair. I also don't believe in the hypothesis that is also currently ongoing in college. Sports, especially in college football where they say, okay, if we throw together the conferences and sell it as a whole, it'll be much, so much more worth than the sum of the parts. think that it's a lame argument. And I don't think that this is reality. And hence and final point, and you alluded to it with WTA and a TPI think like the second tier kind of tournaments that is, I think they're such corporation cion partnerships or however you want to call it, I think can make a difference and simply expanding the list of. Of majors. it has been a go-to strategy. We just talked about champions league, right? This was pretty much their go-to strategy for a couple of circuits to just throw in more games into the package. But I think we also have other examples, especially for example, the NBA cup where you struggle to make people care. About things as you want to elevate certain part of the inventory and ask them to care more, pay more, and so on. But if you're right, then head tip to you.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:What, what percentage Murray are you gonna go with for your, let's just talk about the the tennis Grand Slams.
Murray Barnett:mean, I, I think there are still too many vested interests in this. I'll come to my percentage in a minute. I think, I think Yanick is completely wrong, but I'll take that discussion offline with him. There's some, there's a, there's a, there's some interesting things happening in the background. Tennis Australia have reached agreement with professional tennis. Players association around sort of, some sort of anti,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:thing, is it?
Murray Barnett:sorry.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Is that Jovi's
Murray Barnett:Yes. Yes, exactly. And that's that. That's effectively pitting them against the other three, which suggests that there's a bit of a crack, there's some cracks developing between the different grand slams, which actually, in a weird sort of way, is potentially a positive thing about m. Increasing the chances of making this happen. That being said, I think that they have such diametrically different views and you know, a bit like we've talked about rugby and other, and some of the other sports in the past is that there's sort of glacial pace of movement with any of this stuff that if we're talking about project projections, predictions for 2026, I think the answer is probably 15, 20%. That it will happen. I think it's an 80% if that it should happen. And maybe the answer is it's gonna happen but not for another few years.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I think there's a whole thing about having their own tour. So in terms of going far beyond the media rights, question and that being a gateway into, all we're interested in are the four majors, and then if you had a couple of tournaments running into each of them, might do me for the, for tennis for 2026. You know, that's, that's, and that's true of most sports. I am sort of superficial observer of most sports. And a fan, a deep fan of very, very few. And I think, I dunno if that's unusual.
Murray Barnett:Well, I know, but I think, I think, I think part of the problem with. When you look at this from a sort of second tier sports perspective, if you wanna call tennis, that is that whether you're tennis or whether you are rugby, there's a paralysis of fear of change, right? Because you understand that things are not right the way that they are or could be improved. You are worried about upsetting negatively what you, what you have already. You know? And so I think that there's a little bit of that that goes on, and I think that it's. You know, you need something coming in from the outside that's really going to impact on it. I mean, you know, we've talked in the past about there wasn't really change in cricket until you had Kerry Packer come along. You know, unless you bring this kind of thing from the outside, whether that's money, whether that's crisis, whatever it is, you don't really see a change in the sports, which are in that kind of strong second tier level.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, listen, I, I, I've, I will go back and, and look at the percentages and then check each month against them and no, I won't do any of that. That sounds, it sounds like hard work, sounds spreadsheet based task, which I think Yannick is more suited to than me, happy New Year and. Thank you very much for your preview episode of The Bundle and if you are out and about, we're gonna do a number of bundle lives this year. More news coming soon.
Murray Barnett:Look forward to it.
Yannick Ramcke:Thank you. Have a good one.