CEO of the TKO agency and really one of the most famous super agents in our time, Ari Emanuel, who has a new Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing for this controversial merger. The Paramount-Warner merger could save Hollywood, where he argues this antitrust lawsuit puts the entertainment industry at risk. They say they're protecting competition. Their actions threaten to destroy it. Emanuel, of course, is a business leader, pioneering agent who's shaped a lot of what constitutes modern Hollywood. He's represented stars in film, TV, sports and news. He doesn't represent me, but he does, you should know, represent some of our colleagues, both on this channel and other major news stars. He's the founder of the global events and experiences company, Mari, and also co-hosts the podcast Rushmore, which looks at who should be involved in sort of the GOAT or Mount Rushmore level leaders of their field, which is why he joined us last time. And if you go back far enough, you might know that Ari Gold, the HBO Entourage character, of course is fictional, but many say inspired by Ari. Ari Emanuel joins me now. Welcome back.
Hey, how are you? I'm good. We got a lot in your introduction. We're good. I've got a lot in your introduction.
You've done a lot of things and you know this is controversial. On this program we recently had one of the attorneys general who's opposed to the deal and says it's not only bad for diversity in media, it could be bad for democracy. Why are you writing now that it could be good?
So can I frame things a little bit? So the states claim that giving one company too much influence over theatrical release and cable operators is bad. And then the WGA argues that the combination hurts writers. Both, I think, imagine a Hollywood that doesn't exist anymore in today's world. If you put Paramount and Warner's together, they account for less than the TV viewing, which includes streaming and cable and network, less than 20%. If you add YouTube, it's probably in the 13%. The combined company, I think last year did 18% of theatrical releases. Over the last six years, it was 22%. The AGs just forgot to include Lionsgate, MGM, Amazon, A24. Both had huge movies recently. So I think it's just a false narrative what they're talking about. And then I would just say the following. David Ellison has committed to 30 movies. Adam Aaron from AMC just endorsed the deal. If the AG thinks that theatrical is too much, one, the percentages are wrong and less than they say. And he's given them a 45-day window, which is what Adam Aaron and I think other theatrical companies are going to come out and say. Plus, he's going to do over 170 TV shows, commit to $30 billion of spend. You know, we've gone through six years. We had the COVID years and then the strike of really hurting the theatrical business and the production business, etc. Sure, blocking this deal in my opinion does not create more competition, it just permits two weaker players in the marketplace, and I don't think the AGs... because you're just gonna have two guys that cannot compete with, you know, 250 to 300 million subs in the stream here, because it's not the movie business or television of old, it's of the new, which streaming has to be part of.
That you're a savvy guy, people know your brother Rahm Emanuel, you have reason to believe these Democratic attorneys general are not on the level? You're saying yeah?
I think it's a false narrative. So they're just, they just don't want David Ellison's father, quote-unquote, controlling CNN. You actually heard this in a weird way. You heard this from Norm Eisen. You know, he did a tweet, he talked about it, he talked about this is, he did two tweets, he talked about this is about CNN. It's not me supposing this. Norm Eisen has actually gone on record and saying, and kind of so has Bonta. So here's what I would say to you. I'm actually happy that we have the filibuster in place because if we got rid of it during the Democratic when the Democrats were in control, imagine post that which a lot of people were screaming they wanted. The Republicans now didn't have a filibuster and they could make any laws they wanted. So here's, let's take this out to its full thing. So by using this, has now been approved, this has now been approved by, I think, 65 countries. This deal, this merger, all over the world. So now we're saying in the United States, you can tell me all the reasons why. So now we're saying that even though 65 countries, every country in the world has approved it, an attorney general in California, New York, et cetera, can block it. Then when the Democrats get in power, Republican attorney generals can block it. They can't block it forever. They could delay it. Okay. Okay. Delay it. So if we're going to become a banana republic, like I wish we had the filibuster, you couldn't do this. I actually think this is harmful. First of all, I think it's a constitutional crisis. Two, I do think if that is the case, the capital flows in our country are so great and you approve a deal, and the rest of the world approves a deal, you get to go ahead with the deal. These attorney generals and Norm Eisen and all that whole group is saying no, we don't approve it. We want to block it. You know, we want the fact on capital structures of money coming in.
