Getty / Scott Olson
It looks like Warner Bros. Discovery didn't "have to have the NBA" after all.
A year and a half after WBD's CEO, David Zaslav, gave that quote, the NBA's broadcast partner of four decades was outbid by Disney's ESPN, Comcast's NBC, and Amazon for the league's next TV deal, valued at $76 billion over 11 years.
Zaslav was widely chastised for allowing NBA rights to slip through his fingers after appearing indifferent about their value at a time when live sports seemed like it could be the cable bundle's only hope. Some media analysts said WBD underestimated NBC's bid and that the value of its TV networks would take a major hit without the NBA.
But the worst didn't happen. The media conglomerate has managed to secure higher rates for most of its TV networks from Charter and Comcast, the two largest cable providers in the US, people familiar with the terms of the deals told Business Insider.
The Comcast deal is particularly notable, as some in the industry expected the cable giant to drive a hard bargain. Comcast and WBD surprised the industry on Monday when they announced they'd reached a carriage-renewal deal. The financial terms weren't disclosed, but people familiar with them told BI that Comcast's affiliate fees for TNT would remain flat and that it would pay slightly more for WBD's other networks. In return, Comcast customers in the US, the UK, and Ireland can get Max for free.
This new deal, especially TNT's fees remaining flat without the NBA, looks like a win for Zaslav that certainly wasn't guaranteed just a few months ago.
Before the Charter and Comcast deals were announced, the general feeling in the media world was that pay-TV providers could play hardball and demand lower affiliate fees for WBD's networks, especially an NBA-less TNT. Shrinking affiliate fees and weaker ad revenue from lower ratings could be disastrous for debt-riddled WBD.
Instead, in mid-September, WBD struck a deal with the cable giant Charter in which it secured a flat rate for TNT and higher rates for other channels like CNN, HGTV, and Discovery. However, doing so took a key concession: giving away its Max streaming service.
The Charter deal was heralded as a success, with Zaslav a "clear winner" in the eyes of the veteran media analyst Rich Greenfield of LightShed. Greenfield had said that if WBD could fend off a major decline in affiliate fees in its next deals, then "investor fears are misplaced."
Still, another major test was ahead: WBD's negotiations with Comcast. Some observers thought WBD got a sweetheart deal from Charter since the cable legend John Malone was on the board of both companies, but they expected Comcast would take no prisoners. LightShed's Brandon Ross predicted that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts would be aggressive in negotiations.
The terms WBD and Comcast agreed to are remarkably similar to WBD's deal with Charter, and each came together more than a year before key deadlines. "Most favored nation" clauses mean cable providers can get similar terms as their competitors, but some analysts thought Comcast would get a better deal that Charter could match in retrospect.
Company insiders seemed pleased with the deals, though the WBD side seemed especially thrilled. Some people within the company believed they'd been vindicated after taking heat for losing the NBA.
Those with knowledge of WBD's thinking said the company could actually be better off without the NBA now that it avoided carriage-fee cuts. Instead of paying up for the NBA, whose ratings are down so far this season, the company can invest in other sports or pay down debt.
Unlike Amazon or Comcast, which have other businesses that can help subsidize their NBA rights, WBD would have needed its NBA investment to pay for itself — mainly through carriage fees, advertising revenue, and subscriptions to Max, which airs the NBA on TNT. And the company wasn't sure that would be possible if it paid significantly more money for fewer games.
So while the WBD hoped to keep the NBA at the right price, it was prepared to walk away — hence Zaslav's surprisingly blunt quote. By opting for plan B, WBD sent the message that its priority was keeping costs in check and paying down debt.
WBD shares are up by 58% since mid-September, suggesting that the market is rewarding the company for passing on the NBA — even though doing so was controversial.
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
The next Trump administration says it wants to get rid of regulations.
But not all regulations.
Brendan Carr, Trump's choice to head the Federal Communications Commission, says he plans to scrutinize broadcast TV operators to see if they are operating in "the public interest" — a requirement tied to the 1934 Communications Act. If they're not, he says, they could lose their license to use the public airwaves.
What exactly does that mean? Carr isn't super-specific. And Carr, who already is an FCC commissioner, didn't mention the issue when he wrote about the FCC for Project 2025, a conservative planning document Trump allies are using to help staff the next administration. But he has been talking about it quite a bit over the last few weeks.
Shortly after Trump nominated Carr to lead the FCC, Carr announced that the agency would "enforce this public interest obligation." He brought the idea up again in a Fox News interview shortly after. On Friday, he talked about it again, via a CNBC interview.
"Look, the law is very clear. The Communications Act says you have to operate in the public interest," he said. "And if you don't, yes, one of the consequences is potentially losing your license. And of course, that's on the table. I mean, look, broadcast licenses are not sacred cows."
Asked to clarify if he meant he was going to target broadcasters he thought were too liberal, Carr said that wasn't the case, and that he wasn't trying to rein in speech.
"At the end of the day, obviously there's a statutory provision that prevents the FCC from engaging in censorship. I don't want to be the speech police. But there is something that's different about broadcasters than, say, podcasters, where you have to operate in a public interest."
Then Carr argued that all he plans on doing is enforcing existing regulations.
"I'm just saying follow the law. I mean, this law has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It's not my decision to hold broadcasters to a public interest obligation. It's Congress. And if they don't like that, then they should go to Congress to change the law."
(It's worth noting the act applies only to companies with over-the-air broadcast operations, like CBS and NBC. But all four of the big broadcast networks are part of larger media outfits. In the case of CBS and NBC, that's Paramount and Comcast, respectively.)
You can see the whole thing here:
I've asked Carr and his office for comment and clarification about where he thinks broadcasters may have acted against the public interest.
But in the meantime, it's worth noting that he's already argued that CBS deserves scrutiny over the way its "60 Minutes" program handled an interview with Kamala Harris — which is also the center of a lawsuit Trump filed against CBS last month. And that Carr also complained about Harris making an appearance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" the weekend before the election.
Perhaps Carr has also criticized the way broadcasters have treated Harris or other Democrats. But I haven't seen or heard it.
All of which suggests that Carr may try using the power of his agency to affect the way broadcasters treat Trump and his allies. Even if he says that's not the case.
But none of this is super clear-cut. For instance: Carr has talked about bringing up Trump's "60 Minutes" complaint when Larry and David Ellison, who are trying to buy CBS owner Paramount, need approval to transfer the CBS broadcast license. But it's hard to imagine a Carr-led FCC actually holding up the Paramount deal, given that Larry Ellison is both a Trump supporter and good pals with Elon Musk, a Carr ally.
And it's also worth noting that Carr also has carrots available to help get broadcasters on board, in addition to sticks. Most notably: Lots of media owners are hoping that the next Trump administration will make it easier for them to consolidate, and Carr has repeatedly said he's in favor of that. So this could easily get muddy.
But all of it has the potential to cause media companies to think twice, or a third time, before airing something they think Donald Trump has a problem with. Is that what Brendan Carr wants?
