About Robert Iger
In a June 2026 interview with CNBC’s Eunice Yoon, former Disney CEO Bob Iger reflected on the 10th anniversary of Shanghai Disneyland, which he described as a career highlight. Iger said the park was a "big risk" because Disney had never operated or designed a park for mainland China, and he stated that the company aimed to build something "authentically Disney but distinctly Chinese" so that Chinese visitors would feel a "sense of ownership." He noted that over 100 million people visited the park in its first decade and said he felt "great" about its economic success. Iger recalled that competitors in China had predicted the park would not work, adding, "I always felt they were wrong, and I could not wait to prove that they were wrong."
Regarding US-China relations, Iger said he tries to be "a realist" and acknowledged there will be "ups and downs" and "times of strain." He stated that Disney has succeeded by "putting politics aside" and focusing on its mission to entertain people globally, asserting that if the company does that well, "pretty much no matter what happens, Disney does just fine." Iger also mentioned that Disney is building a Spider-Man land and two new hotels at the Shanghai resort. On his own future, Iger said he is looking forward to "truly enjoying life after Disney" and expressed confidence in his successor, Josh D’Amaro. He advised the company to "create a balance between legacy and innovation."
Source: AI-verified profile updated from Robert Iger's recent appearances.
Browse all interviews →
✨ AI-enhanced transcript with speaker attribution
I
Interviewer0:00
So Bob, we have to talk about August, September, because the Disney stock did come down significantly and it was tied, at least in most people's reporting, to ESPN and possible loss of subscribers. You want to describe that for us? ESPN, that still by the way crushes it. I mean, it's still crushes it, it's fairly successful, but still it was tied to comments that we made when we announced earnings in August, when we talked about the television ecosystem and in particular the multi-channel television universe, and specifically talked about the fact that we had seen some sub losses that I believe I described as either moderate or relatively small in nature. But just the fact that I talked about it in a candid way, I think created a fair amount of concern, if I want to call it that, and it obviously had an impact on our stock price and the stock of a number of other media companies. But do you think the concern is less about the power and strength of ESPN because ESPN is clearly on top and it doesn't look like that's going to change for the foreseeable future, but in terms of programming, the power of live events for years we've said this is the thing everyone cares about. So could the negative response really be how it's going to affect all those below you who really are in a more vulnerable position?
R
Robert Iger1:20
Well, that's an interesting point. I thought first of all there was an overreaction to what we had said, but you know, the market is the market. We certainly have very little control over that. It's clear that television is experiencing some disruptive forces, shall we say. Lord knows what impact just calling it disruptive forces will have, but it's clear that that's happening. There's just so much more competition, so much more choice for people's time, how they spend their money, how they spend their leisure time, and that's putting pressure on television to be great, obviously, and to be of great value, meaning the price to value relationship has to be great, and the user experience must be great. I happen to believe that if you're in a market that is being disrupted, you obviously want the best products that are out there in a disrupted market, and we believe we have that at the company, including obviously ESPN. If you're in a market that is changing, you'd rather be with a strong hand. So I've said, you know, what's better than ESPN in that regard? I'd argue the value of live is really important, the licensed sports that ESPN has, the original programming that they do, the brand value, the allegiance from fans, which is by the way short for fanatic. That, I think, is really important and it positions ESPN extremely well even in a market that's being disrupted. And so we feel long-term ESPN will be just fine, but we refuse to have our head in the sand or be Pollyannaish about what we're seeing in the marketplace. Others may be seeing things differently, but we believe that there's disruption going on and there's more disruption ahead, and we're spending a fair amount of time making sure we're well positioned in that market. Obviously, ESPN is, we believe, something of great value even in this disrupted world.
