F1 eyes Apple, Deltatre’s power play acquisition of Endeavor Streaming, and the media rights bubble

With Formula 1’s ESPN broadcast deal set to expire, speculation is swirling around which platform the series might land on next. In this episode of StreamTime Sports, co-hosts Nick Meacham and Chris Stone debate whether Apple would be the right partner — and what the trade-offs could be. The duo also breaks down Deltatre’s acquisition of Endeavor Streaming, Nick’s conversation with Roger Mitchell on YouTube-first strategies, and ESPN’s quiet entry into the Nordics under Disney+.

 

Key Topics:

• Is Formula 1 risking its reach and sponsor value by going exclusive with Apple?
• What does Deltatre’s acquisition of Endeavor tell us about where the value lies in the streaming tech race?
• Can ESPN become a major player in Europe? Or is Disney testing the water with low cost rights and brand familiarity?
• Are investors betting too heavily on media rights growth? Is YouTube the smarter long-term play?
• Why is the PGA Tour blocking Grant Horvat and other creators from filming?

Episode Transcript

(00:09):
Hello everyone, and welcome backto the next episode of Stream
Time Sports. My name is Chris Stone.
I'm the community lead, joined as always by our CEO, Nick
Meacham. Now, Nick, as we're recording
this, it'll be and this comes out, we'll we'll be a little bit
behind. But one of the things I love
about sports is when worlds collide, anyone that is a
regular listener by now will, will know that you come from
Australia or if they're a linguist, they'll be able to

(00:30):
pick up the accent if they follow the story.
They know you spent quite a bit of time in the UK and that you
know you've got Swedish roots aswell with your wife and you
speak Swedish. And despite the short detour in
Jamaica, you're now currently based in Sweden.
So last night in the EUR we had England V Sweden.
So again, Clyde, and I'm just going to put it out there, Nick,

(00:51):
my question is, I personally think a penalty shootout is the
most exciting thing in sports. I've seen buzzer beaters in
basketball, game-winning field goals, Hail Marys in football,
18th hole heroics and golf. You didn't go through the list.
I don't think there's anything better than a penalty shootout
and last night's was pretty epic.
Well, the thing was, so I was atthis event, which we're going to

(01:13):
talk about in a second, and I left the dinner.
There was a dinner and I left the dinner and Sweden were too
nil up and everyone was very happy, very positive.
There was, I don't think there were any Brits, any English I
should say, because there wasn'tBrits, any English at the event.
So there was very much a consensus of that.
And people actually asked me, who are you?
Who are you rooting for? And I'd say I always typically

(01:34):
go for the underdog, which is even though I'm a English
citizen, British citizen, and I'll go for, I'd say I go for
Sweden in this instance because they're slightly the underdog,
not not hugely, but also they are, you know, relative from a
population size, they're a smaller country, etcetera.
And they were two nil up and there's a lot of excitement
about that. And then I got in the car and I
drove back last night. So, so I got in the car, I know,

(01:55):
just after 10 or so forth, and Ihadn't checked the score before
I actually took off. And then I thought, well, just
Sweden would have just walked itin and then read the news when I
got home and went, ah, that's, that's a bit of a turn of
events. So to your point about the
penalty shootout, well, I think what is good about a penalty
shootout if it happens the way that match seemed to have

(02:17):
happened, which is the the emotional roller coaster of that
match being all right now England's kind of out of it
behind the, you know, backs of the wall built their way back
and then emotional roller coaster of getting to the
penalty shootout would have beenreally exciting.
Yeah. I could imagine the motion when
those goals started going in andtied up the tension towards the
end of the match that I think isreally exciting.

(02:40):
And then I think penalty shootouts are typically very
exciting, but just such a let down if you're on the wrong side
and feels a little bit unjust. So for those that win, it's an
incredible feeling. I remember watching when
Australia, there was a, I think it was to make it to the World
Cup for the first time and it was a penalty shootout and I

(03:02):
think his name was Jean Alesi, kicked the goal, the winning
penalty to send Australia through to the World Cup, the
first World Cup in 20 something years, 26 years I think it was.
The pub I was in went wild in Australia.
People were getting running around crazy, getting naked and
celebrating. It was quite an experience and
that that euphoria only can really happen at least in

(03:25):
football and soccer in that environment with the penalties
goal, maybe a 90, like a last minute extra time goal, but
otherwise that's it. And so the euphoria if you're on
the winning side is pretty much second to none.
If you're on the losing side, though, it can be, you see how
flat down the players are afterwards.
I feel they're so deflated. I think that's that's tough to
watch. Yeah, it was the Euro finals,

(03:48):
the men's. Is that 3 years ago that they
lost to Italy in the finals? I think it was three years ago.
But anyways, I'd had a few beersand I was like, I love a
shootout. They're the best thing in sports
and all these English people like we're literally going to
murder you. This is awful.
Please shut up. England did not go on to win
that. But yeah, I love a penalty
shootouts. It's genuine.

(04:09):
I think it's the it's, I think it's the best thing in sports,
mostly because Team USA is nevergood enough to ever actually be
in a penalty shootout and West Ham usually aren't in a cup
final to be in a penalty shootout.
Very rarely do I ever experiencewith the team I'm actually
rooting for. So I'm just a complete neutral.
But yes, I have been told by English people that it's the
worst thing ever, but I love it.Have you seen, have you seen the

(04:32):
penalty shootout, the old schoolpenalty shootout for I'm not
sure if it would majorly. Soccer.
Was it the MLS? Yeah.
Yeah, but they start for like, it's like, it was like
transferring ice hockey style into into soccer.
For those that didn't see it, I don't remember.
You start at the halfway line, Ithink, and you should dribble.
Like that and. Then the goalies would like
either wait back or they would charge up the player coming up

(04:54):
them. It was.
It created all sorts of completely amazing sets of
highlights. Now that is a spectacle in
itself. I don't know if it's more
carnage than anything else, but it is absolutely a spectacle.
I would love to see a version ofthat come back again because
that was that was something else.
But at the moment, you know, we'll, we'll stick to the
pending shootouts. Still, they can still get enough
tension behind them. Absolutely.

(05:16):
And I, I think just scrap extra time, just go straight to the
penalty shootout. Anytime there's extra time, I'm
like, why do I have to wait an extra 30 minutes?
Just take me to what I want. Like I'm actually deflated when
I see a goal an extra time because it it takes away the
penalty shot from the IU. I despise it just goes straight
to the shootout. But you've got to think about
what happened with the NFL back in the days when the extra time

(05:37):
was it. What's the rule there exactly?
Around is the first because he was first points win.
It used to be the rule and they changed it, but it was that they
changed it only for the season and then all playoffs is
different. So it is.
Yeah, it is. It is slightly different with
the playoffs. I think these days it's in the
regular season. The if you score, if you score a

(05:59):
touchdown on the first one, it'sover.
If you have a field goal, you have the chance to match.
I think we're in the play offs. It changes if the other team
scores a touchdown, you get a chance to match it.
Because I was off the back of the Buffalo Bills crying and
complaining about Patrick Mahomes.
And I would just say that the Bengals won a super, won a
overtime game against the Chiefsand they just went and did their
thing. So, you know, Buffalo Bills

(06:20):
fans, we we won't get into it, Nick.
That's but yes, different overtime rules.
But there are whole things like player safety.
So like they ideally want the game to be as short as possible.
They don't want people to have to play an extra 15 minutes of
football if they don't have to. So they do try to the regular
season, make it as short as possible.
Yeah, I'm not so the the IT really takes the edge off the

(06:41):
extra time, sudden death nature of extra time in the NFL.
If you might be out of school back later, I don't know more,
but more TV Times, more ads to be sold.
So probably works well for the NFL.
That is also true. We should think about it from
the stream time lens, how to make more money, not from, you
know, the, the purity of the sport.
But Nick, we're now 7 minutes inand we've yet to talk sports
business. So let's let's switch gears.

(07:03):
So you're talking Sweden. It seems like Sweden is just
hosting all kinds of streaming events and sports events here
recently because you've now beento your second event in nearly
as many months. So you know.
Third. Yeah, actually 3rd 2IN in two
days and then this one's my third.
So yeah, I'm right in the thick of it now.
Good Lord, Sweden, the hub of sports business and sports

(07:23):
streaming media. I did not know that.
Well, I think what it is, it's I've been reflecting a little
bit on it actually because so I've hosted two of those events.
I was asked to host the one thattwo circles which I've covered
on the pod, which had a lot of great rights holders, rights
owners in the room from across the Nordics.
And this event is was also positioned around the Nordics,
around sport and media and really investment was a key

(07:46):
theme as well. And again, a lot of interesting
people getting very Nordic centric, not exclusively, but
very Nordic centric itself. And the other that was streaming
tech Sweden, which is still very, very Sweden and Nordic
based. So what it's sort of giving me
a, a sense of a feel of is how localised the Nordic sports
market really is. And it's not hugely surprising,

(08:07):
but how would I put it? Like when you I talk to some of
the people there, they're not really nearly as aware as I
would think they would be of what's happening in, say, France
and other sports markets. They are much more focused on
what's happening in their respective neighbours within the
Nordic region and some really impressive people, really

(08:28):
interesting companies coming outof the Nordics.
I think there's a huge opportunity still for these
companies to expand their footprint.
And the event I went to yesterday was a great example of
that, where DMC was running the event to, we're doing the
production for the Borstard Nordea Open, which is basically
a tennis competition, 10 men's tennis competition that happens

(08:50):
in a town called Borstard, whichis a couple of hours South of
where I live. But well, yeah, my, I'll come
back to that in a second. But my point back to the
opportunity and awareness thing is I was at dinner last night
with some pretty senior people in the sports broadcasting space
and I ended up explaining and talking them through what had
happened in France and they workin media rights.

(09:12):
And that just caught me by surprise to think, hey, that's
like being the number one news story for us for like several
months. And maybe it's a bit ignorant
for me to think that they will be right across it.
But at the same time, I'm like, well, my thinking is you'll be
paying paying close attention towhat's happening in those
markets. So it wasn't a negative on them.
It was more just OK actually in order to really focus on

(09:33):
themselves quite a lot and they do dip their toes out outside
the market. But it is just a really strong
but quite small sports media industry that exists in that
market that is really successful, really well run and
operated, lots of great people. But in our space and now I've
met quite a good chunk of seniorpeople in the industry and I've

(09:55):
learnt a lot in those conversations and particularly
from yesterday. Well, where do you want to kick
things off? You, you know, the pre meeting,
you told me there's some really interesting stuff about Disney,
but also you had the chance to speak with Rodger Mitchell, who
has a very long background within the sports industry in
the media space, things he's doing on his own podcast
channels and very active on LinkedIn.
You know, where where do you want to kick things off?

(10:15):
You want to talk about your learnings or you want to talk
about your conversation with Rodger.
I'll talk about a few bits. There were lots of interesting
stuff. I think just it was, yeah,
firstly, a great event run by DMC and DMC is linked to a
couple of other businesses. So Sportway is another one which
is basically an AI powered videobroadcasting company servicing
grassroots and mid tier production for live sports.

(10:36):
But DMC does a lot of production.
They do it for this event, they do it for a whole bunch of other
major sports properties, again across the Nordics, but also in
other markets. And they recently actually
acquired now Plaza Media from inGermany, which actually is one
of the one of the established broadcast production houses or
businesses in in Germany and indeed Europe.

(10:58):
So that really perked up my attention as well.
I'm talking to Jonas Parson, who's the basically the CEO and
founder of that business was an interesting conversation to hear
how they're approaching it. Because I think the whole
conversation around production as a topic is actually a really
interesting 1. Linking with what we're seeing
how the how the tides are shifting around around sports

(11:20):
content and sports media about using very much cloud based
workflows and to manage your owncontent and your own broadcast
production, rather than going the more traditional routes of
big major outside broadcast production for live events.
Being able to democratise the ability the live broadcast all
right across the globe and doingit in a fairly efficient way.
And they seem to have found a really nice place that they're

(11:42):
looking to grow and expand. And the acquisition of Plaza
Media gives them opportunity to grow market share and and scale
that business quite quickly. And indeed, one of their
investors who who spoke at the the event, Alan Rosnikoff is the
partner of Coral Tree Partners. And they're actually quite
significant investors in, in DMC, but also in companies like

(12:04):
Pixel lot Layfield in ING, whichactually Layfield is a, if those
aren't familiar, is a American based college based
organisation. And when I spoke to George Pine
last week at at recording of this on at the investment
summit, that was one of the oneshe pointed to when he in his IMG
days that he said was the one that got away a little bit

(12:24):
because that was the one that they it exploded as a business.
It grew to a huge scale since when I had the original chance
of acquiring that IMG at the time.
And so Coral Tree Partners were one of the ones that actually
acquired that, which I thought just was an interesting point of
view. But what we got to hear really
was from someone like Alan. There's a couple of other

(12:45):
examples of investors actually presenting their thesis
basically on how they look at sports as an industry, what
types of properties they invest in.
Coral Tree Partners were very clear about how they're very
selective on who they invest in.Likewise, the Adam Holland Meyer
from EQT, who also did a presentation.
Apparently they have like the second or third biggest

(13:07):
investment fund in the world, which I'd never even heard of
based out of, but they're based out of.
Yeah, sort of like put me, put me by surprise.
And then so they they sort of set the scene.
The first couple of presentations were really very
detailed, very visual, A lot of learnings from that, which I'm
not sure how much I can share onthat, but the numbers were very
explicit on how they look at it.And then the next bit was

(13:28):
basically then I, I think I wenton to my conversation with,
well, a conversation with Roger.I'll actually, I'll just skip
the middle bit. There was something else I did
in the middle, but that's fine to Roger and it was great.
So obviously we are familiar with Roger's content work.
I've spoken to Roger a number oftimes.
Those that follow him, follow his podcast know he's got some

(13:50):
very clear opinions about where the industry is going.
He's written a book called Sports Perfect Storm, which is
basically about this predicamentI'd say sports is in right now,
not far off what's happened in music, I suppose, of going
through a huge monetisation shift and change because of
consumer habits and alike and piracy, etcetera, and having to

(14:12):
try and ride through that and overcome it.
And So what was one of the things that I, I picked up on
and I knew he would have noticedas well.
And he came onto stage basicallysaying, well, there's a few
things that I disagree with fundamentally with that were
delivered from, on, from the investors beforehand, which was
really set the scene for what was, what was to come.
And he did a great job, but he did a great job articulating

(14:33):
some, some points that I, I, I think almost everything I agreed
with from his point of view. There's a couple of things I,
he, I'll focus on the things that I definitely agreed with.
One was, and I set him up for this a little bit in my question
to him, which was the second onepointed that they really liked
what CVC was doing around investments in sports and how

(14:54):
they've been able to modernise and make some sports properties
more entertaining and alike. And I, well, I have a contrary
opinion given what we've seen ina bunch of CVC's investments and
how they've gone IE league on rugby for starters, and the
jury's out on a few of the others that they have like
Volleyball World. We don't know if that's worked

(15:15):
yet or not. That's still to be determined.
And so I asked basically Roger that question, what do you think
about something like CVC? And he was definitely quick to
tell, tell CVC they've done a pretty poor job with with what
they've done and are not a good example to lean on.
And look, Roger did a great job running through some of the

(15:36):
major challenges in the industry, some of the naivety
that exists in sports, the role and the importance of YouTube.
He is very bullish on. You basically need to be like
going all in on YouTube. And he just he's involved with a
couple of let's just call them, I don't know what you would call
them, start up leagues, disruptor leagues, newish

(15:57):
leagues ranging from the the newrugby competition through to
PTOI think was another one and acouple of others.
But the main thing those businesses have got in their
thesis is not a heavy focus on media rights focuses on getting
media reach and visibility, but using channels like YouTube to

(16:18):
get that and then monetize to other means.
And obviously, you know, we've talked a bit about that.
There's really where the the industry has to be looking
further rather than these decks that I've seen, which are huge
media rights growth in year 3 and 4 for all these
organisations. And that's just not a reality.
So yeah, Roger, Roger did a really was a was a great
conversation. I didn't have to do much work

(16:38):
for that one. I just asked him some questions
and let him let him go and he hehad everyone on the edge of
their seats listening to every, basically every word he was
saying. So I have to say I was very
impressed with how he held the room and what what a great job
he did with that and spoke to him off stage.
And yeah, we talked a little bitfurther.
It was a really good conversation there.
So I think he did a really good job of almost taking the

(16:59):
conversation from the investors,basically pushing back on some
of the things they were saying there and more then taking a bit
of a step more widely about things the industry needs to be
serious about. You know, putting things behind
paywalls is a is a big no, no, that sort of stuff.
And really set the scene for us to then kick on into talking
about more, more specific media side of things afterwards.

(17:19):
But it was definitely a really big asset to the agenda.
And yeah, a lot of people reallyagreed with him and were I guess
enjoyed him sharing his forthright opinions.
Because it it doesn't happen, happen enough.
For sure. And I think one of my favourite
stories going way back to to Rodgers earliest days when he
was the CEO at the SPFL talking about sort of when the, the

(17:41):
league was potentially looking at kind of splitting its way
from Sky Sports. And, you know, I, I, I remember
Steve McCaskill wrote a story onand I think kind of talking
about where the lead could have been headed, gone to EDC back
then. But you know, it certainly seems
like this is not necessarily newbeliefs on Richard's part, You
know, some of this stuff he's been leaning into.
But I do quickly, Nick, actually, I can see you want to
reply to that. And then I'm going to take us
off piece real quick. I was going to say is, yeah, no,

(18:04):
I think he, he's very clear withhis thoughts on things, I think,
which is good. Probably I'd say we even had
this talk afterwards. And I think I, I probably need
to be more forthright in my opinion sometimes.
But he also says that he's able to because he's not working the
top of a company. I am where he's able to be a
little bit more independent. So we actually had a
conversation about that, about Iprobably see, I didn't say this

(18:27):
exactly to him, but I would say I probably sit within the
moderates, but I lean one way orthe other when I, when I'm
saying something like, oh, I think this is probably a this I
actually mean. What I mean is I really believe
that this is actually a bad idea.
Whereas he's has the the abilityto be more forthright because of
his his company and his position, which just gives you
an interesting perspective on what it's like running a media

(18:49):
business and also my confidence to put my neck out a bit further
as well. Well, so one of the you just
mentioned YouTube and it's growth, and I'm only mentioning
this because I saw it pop up on my timeline over the last 24
hours. Is the YouTube golfer that
turned down the opportunity to golf on the PGA Tour because the
PGA Tour wouldn't give him the opportunity to film, which I

(19:09):
think is just incredible. A as an athlete, I'm just going
to say naked. I shouldn't say this is someone
that is a very, very amateur golfer.
I think he's just a bit scared. But my, you know, the, the more
businessman is, I think it's incredibly short sighted by him.
I get him wanting to tell this narrative that his YouTube fan
base is what gave him the opportunity, but there's just no

(19:31):
realistic world the PGA Tour wasever going to allow him to do
that. But on the other side, like,
mate, just like the what what you could do for your brand name
by going out of golf in hell. Maybe you do really well.
Like I'll be curious to know where you fall on that because
I've seen some people take the other opinion, which is, oh, the
PGA Tour bunch of old white guysthat don't understand youth
culture and things like that. And I was like, kind of I, I

(19:55):
think the other guys being shortsighted about what this could do
for his career. But yeah, that's that's a
scoring off piece talking about YouTube.
Well, no, it's a it's a fairpoint because it links with
YouTube and we actually talked about that yesterday Roger and
on on stage he was in the interview.
I actually did on proper interview sit down interview.
The rest were either brief Q&A with everyone else who were
doing presentations, but we talked a little bit about
obviously the fact that you are competing now with the creators

(20:18):
of the world for attention and that's why it's important to,
you know, differentiate. But your your example of Grant
Horvath is an interesting one. I, I, this sceptic in me is
basically suggesting he didn't want to put himself on the line.
And you know, if he shoots A-15 over round, then it's not good
for his brand. If that's that's the case, I
don't think he could just be just that alone.

(20:41):
And I mean, he's a very good golfer.
He obviously plays and he's an influencer, plays with some of
the best names, but he's not that tears and he he knows that.
So yeah, I'm not sure how genuine that that that is.
That's a sceptic in me. I would say that he was
basically didn't want to put himself in line though that
being I didn't think they playeda few tournaments, but I think

(21:02):
I've watched one of his videos where he was just trying to get
was it a, a tour qualifier maybeto get on the tour and he wasn't
anywhere near the mark. So I think just basically
sticking to his focus on being agood content creator is where
he'll continue to focus. That's what pays the bills.
Being a really high level, well followed content creator

(21:26):
probably pays him better than being a blow par or fledgling or
flailing to a pro or aspiring pro.
So no knock on him, he kicked mybackside and golf every single
day. But I think it's a smart
business decision more than anything.
I just don't know if the mess the message was necessary.
Yeah. And like you said, the it's not.

(21:49):
I think it's the more I think it's the more the messaging to
be clear, it's not the decision to knock it back.
It's like everyone, I'm not doing this because they wouldn't
let me have my camera crew there.
I'm like, come on, mate. It's like, yeah, you're going to
get exposure in different places.
You'll be able to do some great content around the edges of it,
like you can make it work if youwanted if you wanted to.
Yeah, and on that we're on agreement.

(22:10):
I think for me, it's just some of the people I've seen talk
about the PGA, you know, not being open minded to to, you
know, opening up the window there.
It was like because like I mentioned Bryson de Chambeau the
other day watching his YouTube channel.
Well, they're going to let some YouTube do.
Why can't he do it? And then all of a sudden the the
hundreds of millions of dollars,pounds, you know, from Sky,
ESPN, everyone else, why am I paying for this if you're

(22:32):
letting these guys go do it? Like it.
It just, it doesn't work. So yeah, I think my comments
were the people that were yelling at the PGA Tour about
it. Like it just just doesn't make
any sense. I think it's an easy thing to
point out, right? It's an easy thing to say, oh,
the PGA should do better, shouldlet them have access.
But yeah, where do you start? Where do you stop?
Like if he's going to start doing it in literally in a

(22:53):
couple of years, you would get half the tour doing it probably
if they open up those floodgates.
One of the things that made has made Bryson Dechambeau so famous
is obviously doing a lot of content around the map.
The the live golf flexibility that he has, but hasn't actually
been loads of content from from the live matches themselves that
I have seen that he's broadcast.It's all around there, the

(23:14):
peripherals. So maybe there's some
flexibility in the future PGA tool can give around
broadcasting or creating contentpre matches and around and like
practise rounds and so forth. But I think to have a massive
goal though, I think just an easy thing to do.
But I'm not, I'm more on the PGATour side than than anything
else. Given the amount of plays they
have in the competition and so forth.

(23:35):
I think it is a Pandora's box ifyou start letting 111 do it.
Agreed. Now, flipping back to the
Nordics, you mentioned, you know, the story around ESPN
launching in the Nordics and kind of the European take on
that because, you know, as an American, I've always been
slightly underwhelmed, you know,just growing up with the ESPN
that there wasn't a stronger presence over here.

(23:56):
And you know, they do have some ESPN stuff abroad, but it it's
not what it is in the States. But with Disney being the home
of the Women's European Champions, not Not European
Championship, sorry, Champions League coverage being on Disney,
that now sounds like from what you heard, is going to be placed
under the ESPN banner in the Nordics.
Yeah, that was it. It was quite an interesting

(24:17):
conversation. Now I have to look down a lot
because I haven't had a chance to transfer my notes because I
was, no, I didn't know if I madethis clear.
I was hosting the whole event, so I did every and there was, it
was the most jam packed programme ever.
There was probably 8 or 9 sessions in three hours.
So if it fast-paced I do a couple of questions for each
one. So I didn't get much of a chance

(24:37):
to sit down or even run to the bathroom.
Have to say I had to leg in between.
Well, when someone kicked off their their next session.
Sorry, I haven't had a chance toprepare for this too much
because I got back at like midnight last night.
But I need one of those AI toolsthat for the video to that makes
keeps my eyes on the screen whenI'm looking at this.
But to give some context. So as you alluded to, they've

(24:58):
got the Champions league. They've actually got a few other
set to write for the Nordics nowthat I wasn't fully sort of
coming to grips with. So now the, the chap that was
speaking was Hans Van Rein, who is the SVP of Walter Disney
Company, country manager for theBaltics and the Nordics.
That's his, that's his brief andreally impressive guy.

(25:20):
Really good presentation. There's one thing that I think
was quite interesting, which I'll come back to you later,
about how they look at IP value.So the way they look at content
is how do you get the most valueout of it?
IP leveraging is the maximum thing you think about Disney,
right? You think about the IP that
Disney's created over the years,they don't just make revenue out
of it from content consumption alone.
They're finding other ways to make value out of it.

(25:41):
And he made a point of that, which I think is a little bit
contradicted with buying me and buying meteorites for a period
of time. But anyway, I digress.
So ESPN is coming to the Nordics.
They are doing it with the Europa, Europa League, Women's
Champions League with also a TGLGolf, which was a bit random,
but I think that's because ESPN might be a shareholder in TGL.

(26:04):
So the UEFA leagues, NWSL didn'tknow they had that there as
well. So another women's competition,
the Nordic Star Cup, which I'd never heard of before, but that
is the an influenza NX players competition.
So enter Bowler league or one ofthose types of.
Yeah. Yeah, that type of thing.
So that's their set of rights that they're launching with.
So they haven't spent a lot on that, right.

(26:26):
Let's be clear, That is what would they have paid any serious
rights for? I mean, probably none of them.
I probably will be happy to get the the reach maybe something
for UEFA Champions League. But I remember if I if I
remember correctly with the Women's Champions League, the
deal with the zone and UEFA and YouTube was effectively UEFA was
paying the broadcast production on that deal is what I this is

(26:48):
what I heard was paying the broadcast production.
So the zone was paying next to nothing for the actual, actual
rights themselves. They were just getting the feed,
giving it the visibility. And that's why they would be
very clear like marketing it andpromoting it.
And YouTube was there to try andenable to try and drive revenue
from it. But we know that they had
challenges in their approach with that Women's Champions
League zoned it and they had to pivot their business model to

(27:10):
keeping it free to air right through the the length of the
broadcast. So the thing that I found
interesting there, back to my original point, is, OK, so they
picked up the rights from the zone designer, has put quite a
bit of effort in to creating visibility for the Women's
Champions League competition through the investment they made
with time. They lost those rights to

(27:30):
Disney, but now they're doing the same hiring, hiring sister
rights. How are they going to maximise
the value like they say they do to the rest of Walt Disney's IP?
Maybe they don't need to, but I just thought it was an
interesting slight contradictionin their approach nonetheless.
Why are they investing in the Women's Champions League?
His points were pretty straightforward.

(27:51):
They have so the Women's Champions League and the the
Europa, the UEFA Europa League and the Conference League.
Those leagues have the most local teams and the most local
players, so that local value piece is actually one of the
driving forces for that. Not a huge surprise, but there's
something like 60 players that come from of those key markets

(28:12):
that are playing in those competitions.
So quite a lot of players they can point to and and athletes
and personalities they can pointto.
They also get access to some of the big teams because if you
think about it, you know, the Conference League, for example,
you actually get what Chelsea won it this year, if I remember
correctly. What?
You talking about this year? Oh, men's or women's?
Men's on the men's side, becauseI had the men's Conference

(28:34):
league. Oh.
Yes, that was Chelsea. Yeah, so they get they get
access to some of the bigger clubs who actually end up in the
Champions League from from the Premier League and a lot which
actually drives a lot of interest because the Nordics, a
lot of the leagues. And I'll talk later about what I
heard from the Danish, Danish league CEO, but they're

(28:54):
competing with the Premier League in their market.
That's their number one competitor basically for
visibility and for attention. So to have the the big Premier
League clubs actually pop up in those cheaper leagues is
actually a huge result for them.It's actually quite an audience
driver. They've also interestingly,
because Disney Plus isn't synonymous with sports, they've
partnered with Chelsea Football Club to actually is a

(29:16):
sponsorship deal. They've also done series of
content with your Gordon, which is I think it's a Stockholm team
if I'm not mistaken, and they'vepublished that stuff on YouTube
to get more, again, visibility and awareness of Disney Plus
having sports content. They're also publishing
supporter streams, so it's a bitlike an old broadcast with
supporters. They showed a couple of clips on

(29:37):
that, which were highlight clipsthat they showed.
I'm not sure if they do full version matches, but it's
basically like the split screen with a live match and fans
watching and commentating. So that was an interesting thing
to think, to see Disney trying trialling that.
And they were very clear to makethe point that they don't limit
rights use for highlights to just themselves.

(29:59):
So they give it out to teams, they give it out to all the key
stakeholders and make sure they're maximising the use of
that. So I thought that was a really
interesting thing to highlight to look at.
The other factor is that the sports component is at no extra
cost. So they've launched ESPN as this
this this brand in market that they're going to have all of

(30:19):
these sitting within on the platform, but there'll be no
extra cost for access to that, which obviously is quite a
different model to what they have in in the US, although no
real surprises given the rights aren't worth a lot in in
relative value. So I see it as very much a trial
opportunity and exercise for them.
It's a very well developed market for Disney Plus, Disney

(30:41):
in in in the Nordics, and it gives them opportunity to see if
they can make a destination thatdrives sports attention and
activity. But obviously the ESPN name is a
bit of a surprise to many. Well, that's my question is, you
know, I sit here talking about ESPN because I grew up with the
sports centre. You know, you've been in the UK

(31:01):
much longer than me. You've obviously spent time in
the Nordics. Is that just me because I'm
American? I think ESPN big bold, you know,
letters like it's just synonymous with sports.
Is that really the case in Europe?
I mean, is it, is it one of those things that and you almost
have to take a step back, Nick, because you you work in the
industry. So for you it makes sense.
But like, you know, would your wife's parents know ESPN if you

(31:23):
mentioned it? Yeah.
So I mean a couple of things. Firstly, you know, had a, we had
a discussion about this a numberof times with people through the
event and really the consensus, it doesn't make a lot of sense
to them. The only thing we could, we
could try to work out the why, like why would you do it?
I didn't get a chance to ask this question on on stage.
And our guess is basically you still want to add another piece
of brand IP to the mix or like call it Disney sports and get a

(31:47):
bit cloudier for other types of internal branding and such.
So just have it sticking with ESPN as their sports brand.
It just makes it a bit easier, which makes sense to some
extent. But to your point, my feeling of
what ESPN is, it's an American sports brand.
I would expect American sports available in ESPN if I was

(32:08):
watching ESPNI would not expect European women's football in
there. It just doesn't make a lot of
obvious sense. So if they're willing to play
the long game here and build over the next decade, build ESPN
as a a different brand altogether outside of the US,
maybe start to mop up global rights on a couple of these US

(32:30):
sports and say, hey, MLB, how about we just take your rights
and put it into our Disney Plus in the ESPN brand.
It makes more sense than you trying to go direct to consumer
yourselves or sell it market by market.
I could see that being a play for them.
So just they that might be a reason why to do it.
But other than that doesn't makea lot of sense other than they
wanted to create a destination with a defined IP that didn't

(32:52):
need a lot of explanation as in it's sports, but didn't need to
create something new altogether.And that's really the conclusion
that we came to. But for now, I think it's just a
test case for them, a very low cost test case and they'll
they'll see what happens then decide if they want to ramp it
up or turn it off in a couple ofyears, turn it off in a couple
of years time. So not much, not much risk for

(33:13):
them. But my final point on this is I
do think the risk is not for there's no risk for Disney Plus.
I do think it's a little bit risky for those rights owners if
there's some, I don't know to the extent of exclusivity, But
if those deals are exclusive youand you don't know they're
there. This is pretty good at
marketing, right? That's probably this their

(33:34):
special one of the special sources, so to speak, But those
sports properties could just dieoff and be hidden away and
people not watch any of it at all.
So you know, because they're notnot easily discoverable or my
word that doesn't actually, it'snot English.
The stumble stumble ability of something.
Basically, you can't stumble across it.
It's like discoverability, but it's like accidental

(33:55):
discoverability unintentional. I'm just maybe I should just
stick with discoverability actually as as the word I'm
using, but it's a big challenge.I think if you're putting in a
way within Disney versus where they were looking before, you
know, they have to educate the market and have been watching on
YouTube. Now you got to go to Disney Plus
to find it. That's that can take time.
Well, that I think is a perfect segue into one of the news

(34:16):
stories we wanted to cover, which is the Formula One rights
in the US are set to expire, I believe, maybe even after this
season. But one of the entrants coming
into the market rumoured, although they've been rumoured
just about everything these days, because that's just kind
of how the sports will work, is Apple being one of the top
contenders to come in and take those rights now It was, I don't

(34:39):
know if this was proven alleged that Amazon previously had bid
when ESPN won the rights and supposedly Amazon had actually
bid more for those rights. But at the time the argument was
Formula One with ESPN because it's a it's a full blown media
business. You're not just getting the the
distribution, you're also getting all the news channels
you're being included on, you know, ESPN plus the app, all the

(35:03):
other side bits that came on. The argument at the time was
that discoverability of being onESPN, the editorial media
coverage you were going to get would make up for any additional
fees that you would get from a right steel will now enter an
apple and it feels like that would be a very similar problem
to your point, a stumble ability.

(35:24):
I don't know as American I can just pronounce that a little bit
easier. But there's a few things to
unpack with this. There's that there's the Apple
perspective as to why they wouldpotentially be interested in
Formula One. There's potential angle why
Formula One may shift its opinion of going from an ESPNA
sports media home to something more like an Apple.
But at the moment, those are therumours that Apple is interested

(35:47):
and there is some other background in terms of just ESP
NS general interest in the rights that we can kind of talk
about how that contract has played out for ESPN.
But yeah, Nick, just sort of, you know that Segway, you know,
stumble ability with Formula One.
I think I should stop using that.
It really does not. Yeah, I really can't say it
either, which is the most embarrassing part of it.

(36:08):
This is an interesting topic fora few reasons.
One is I got a lot of attention when I posted my thoughts on it
the other day. And then I noticed that Steve
Mccaskill's written a piece of basic because it makes sense for
them. So I was.
Going to bring it up. I was going to play devil's
advocate. Yeah, I should have got him.
We should have got him to give us a bit of a, a man or a man of
debate on it. But no, I mean, look, the, the,

(36:30):
the lens I took on this is F1 has been so focused on driving
the, the entertainment factor, the awareness through drive to
survive, just creating this excitement and like trying to
move into the mainstream. And it just feels like whenever
you start to think about partnering with someone that has

(36:51):
a really small, comparatively small market share and
visibility and distribution channel for you, IE like Apple
does, you're taking the decisionto take the cheque over, taking
the growth of audience and fandom.
And given the amount of revenue they drive through sponsorship,
which they are heralded as one of the best in the world at

(37:13):
doing that. There's some, there's a great
piece of content on this actually on sports pros channels
around how much an average deal is worth.
And I can't remember the number,but it is extraordinarily larger
than anyone else who works in the global sports seen.
But if you're driving revenue from hosting and from
sponsorship as two of your major, major revenue drivers

(37:34):
like they are, to then go with Apple, I think could have a real
negative knock and negative implications for their
sponsorship momentum that they've got.
And they've got incredible momentum behind them and for
what price? An extra maybe 50 million, maybe
80 million US for, for that, that for the the comparative
deal that they're probably able to get from elsewhere.

(37:56):
Is that worth it? I just don't maybe for F1 or
Liberty Media Group in isolation, but is it for the
teams? Is it for the knock on effects
the rest of stakeholders for that lack of visibility that
they get through not only ESPN channels, but indeed on ABC for
those key events that are linear?
I can't seem to make that work in my head.

(38:16):
And it links a little bit like the comparison you had with
Amazon ESPN, but on a on a slightly different scale this
time around. Yeah.
Well, one of the the interestingthings, I think it's just work
for context because we had key and brittle on our Motorsports
editorial writer must have been 2-3 months ago where we did a
Motorsports themed episode just going through some of the top

(38:37):
Lee, some of the news that was going on.
And I think sometimes, you know,the European mindset thinks of
Formula One probably a little bit differently than the
American mindset does. Because I think one of the
points Kian made was when you look at the two big races in the
US, typically looking at the Daytona 500 and the Indy 500,
that actually those audiences are significantly larger than
the biggest races for Formula One.

(38:59):
Now it's worth keeping in mind not every single race in NASCAR,
the IndyCar Series matches to those levels, but the idea being
the two biggest events in those,they are significantly larger
than what Formula One's doing ona race by race basis.
And I think perhaps we're specifically talking about the
US rights. Like they still have, as much as
they have grown, they still are in a very competitive space in

(39:22):
terms of even within the Motorsports, you know, they
don't necessarily, at least in my opinion, don't necessarily
maybe hold as strong of a foothold as they maybe do in
other European markets. Yeah, it's a tricky position to
know where F1 really stands in the the stead of like
Motorsports in that market. It feels like in some in many,

(39:42):
many metrics they're #3 and to then try act like a number 1 is
a tricky game. Now the the stuff that I have
read now, obviously Apple was one of the major like backers
and producers of the F1 movie. And I actually listened to Bill
Simmons podcast. He started talking about that
and he was. Waxing lyrical about how great

(40:03):
the film actually is. Both him and the the Co host on
that so I've not seen it. I was immensely sceptical when I
saw a 60 plus year old Brad Pittbeing the the driver and so
forth. Like where's how's this going to
play out? But apparently just the way it's
produced is is incredibly exciting, a really gaping piece

(40:24):
of content and good for people that are not massive followers,
but also for people who are interested in the sport will
still find immense value out of it now.
So with that's done really and the gross revenue so far that
it's produced from movie ticket sales has been really
significant. So I could see why Apple buy go,
hey, let's ride that wave of visibility and excitement and

(40:47):
revenue generation we've createdthrough this film and see if we
can turn them to something meaningful by through this
potential partnership with the F1.
But again, I just think it wouldneed to be a, for me, a global
F1 deal. And that's not what's being
rumoured. If they were talking maybe US
bulk of US rights plus F1 TV Proracked all together in some

(41:09):
major global deal where you now watch F1 TV Pro exclusively or
near exclusively through Apple'splatforms.
So there's enough like partnership synergies between
them to go, OK, Apple's really part of F1 now then I could say,
well, that could play out well for them both from like a brand
alignment perspective as much asanything.

(41:31):
But otherwise, I, you know, I'm just not sure it really makes a
whole lot of sense. I reckon you'll see a last
minute. My prediction will be you'll see
a last minute deal with one of mainstream US providers.
They won't go all in with Apple.I just can't see that making
logical sense unless they actually ramp up their butt bid
even even higher. And final thing I would say, I

(41:52):
wonder what the reaction would be of some of the major sponsors
in F1, namely Android, if Apple picked up the rights.
I don't know if they would kick up a stink, but Apple Android
I'm pretty sure is a pretty major sponsor of McLaren, the
leading constructor at the moment.
I'm sure wouldn't be too happy if Apple then took all the
rights on, but that's another conversation altogether.

(42:13):
Yeah, not to put words in Steve's mouth, but just to play
the devil's advocate, the two things you mentioned are both
things Steve mentioned in his article.
So go read it if you want to seethe other side of the argument.
But he did talk about if they could wrap the F1 TV Pro into
the Apple package, it would makea tonne of sense.
And then he did also talk about just riding the wave of Apple
being one of the key producers of that movie.
Now he did make the argument forFormula One it given stagnation

(42:37):
of growth cash and while you can, but I think your argument
would be that would almost be kind of, I'm not waving the
white flag, but sort of let's cash in while we can and whether
or not that's the best move froma long term perspective.
So Steve has his own opinions onit.
Some of the things you touched on are some of the reasons why
he said they are pros. I probably lean a little bit
more on your side, but you know.You don't need to take sides,

(42:59):
Chris. It's OK.
It's OK. But no, look, look, I think, but
I, I, I, I do think, well, I, I so probably Steve and I are
probably more aligned than it might sound like, even though
he's saying they should and I'm saying they shouldn't.
The the business logic, if you wrap in those extra layers makes
it a much more appealing product.
I'm doing under the theory that they're just talking about

(43:20):
pretty out-of-the-box meteoritesdeal.
I like for like ripping out the ESPN deal and putting in Apple.
And if that's the case, I just don't get it.
Yeah. Well, Nick, it's always an
exciting time in the sports media space, particularly in the
last year with the sheer amount of mergers, acquisitions that
we've been seeing. We just had the sports pro

(43:40):
investment event the week prior to.
And if you want to hear about how some of that went from our
perspective in the media space, check out last week's podcast.
But there was a big news. One of the companies involved
used to be formally invested in,you know, Nicholas, just RIP off
the Band-Aid. The story is going to be about
Delta Trey. Delta Trey used to be invested
in by George Pine, who's one of the individuals you got to speak

(44:02):
to and interview at the investment event.
And we're now seeing what what is it an acquisition of Delta
Trade, acquiring the Endeavour streaming business.
So Nick, you know, we've spoken about both of these businesses
before. Obviously Delta Trade, one of
the leaders in this space, Endeavour being a part of the
larger IMG Group. We've talked about some of the

(44:23):
IMG Arena mergers and acquisitions and the TKO and all
the stuff they're kind of doing from a cost cutting efficiency
perspective on the service. It feels like 2 really large
names coming together. You would think that there'd be
a large price tag, but you also had a LinkedIn post argument.
Actually, there probably wasn't much or too big of a price tag

(44:44):
associated with this, just givensome of the things we've seen.
Because what was it IMG paid? We, we use this example earlier.
They paid who'd they pay to takethe rights away from.
Them they paid Sport Radar to take on IMG Arena.
Yeah. So I think on one side, you see
these two businesses that you'revery familiar with.
If you work in the industry, youthink, oh, this must be some

(45:06):
monumental deal. Your argument, or at least not
putting words in your mouth withthe LinkedIn articles.
Actually, this deal may be more strategic and less just
financial than anything else. Yeah.
I look, I think when you see a deal like this, and this is
pretty significant, I think in terms of big tech service
providers that are dedicated andbuilt around sports, they're two

(45:27):
of the biggest definitely on thesports media side.
I'm trying to think of who wouldbe comparable.
I mean, genius and sport radar coming together in that type of
nature. But they're probably they're,
they're valued at a higher a high click than high click than
these two. But it's that sort of feel
because they're so synonymous with sports.
The sports media landscape by streaming RTT and platform

(45:50):
development and obviously endeavours roots through the
entire ecosystem before then were really pronounced.
Now we have talked quite a detail about again, that there's
a whole, pretty much a whole poddedicated to the IMGIMG arena
sale, the Sport Radar where we talk about that.
And I do think there's probably,I'm gonna all hypothetical here.

(46:12):
This is just my view and my take.
But some things I've heard from people around the edges who've
got in touch with me. We're pretty close to the mark
is what I've what I've heard. But basically this is the sale.
Firstly, the sale of Endeavour streaming was inevitable.
The reason it was inevitable waswhat we talked about with IMG
Arena. So Endeavour's business was
basically sold and the core of the business was sold, which

(46:35):
they had packaged up to maximiseit's profit value and they sold
that for an absolute several billion dollars, our Emmanuel
and his leadership. And then what they were left
with is a, a couple of the quoteunquote peripheral businesses
being the IMG Arena business, Endeavour Streaming and maybe
one or two more that I can't think of.
But because they cashed in the bulk of it, the basically next

(46:57):
step for them was to just move on these businesses as quickly
as possible. They didn't want them sitting
around. I don't know if they're
profitable or not. I'm guessing not from what we
saw with IMG Arena, the commitment to meteorites
probably exacerbated their financial situation.
So in that instance, it was as quicker to just move it on and
step away because they cashed inso many billions and that in

(47:20):
that deal to sell on the core ofthe business to with TK Group
Holdings. In this instance, I don't know
enough about the financials. All I know is that.
And what I do know is Endeavour Streaming has incredible
clients, you know, UFCWWE and the like that are big major
deals linking with the original relationship with Endeavour.

(47:41):
They have a relationship with LFP, League Earn and they'll be
the ones powering the platform. They're already doing that in
the UK, but they'll be taking onthat responsibility in France
itself. And they do more than just the
platform itself. They are really, we're helping
to work out the commercials and the strategy behind that.
So they haven't really got a great pedigree of what they can
deliver. And when I've done some had some

(48:02):
conversations with like UFC for about the work that Endeavour,
doesn't it? They've one of the most
intricate, complex and deep strategies and approaches to
using OTT in the in the, in the industry.
And they've done a great job with what they've done there.
But you had the situation where they needed to be moved on
quickly and who else would really be of the size and scale
to take on that responsibility. If you think of similarly again

(48:25):
to like the IMG Arena sport radar conversation in that
instance around sports betting and data, you're probably only
talking the three big ones in insport radar, genius sports and
maybe a stats perform. Who would be able to take on
that sort of burden of and caught up with, you know, I
guess the burden of taking on a business of that scale?

(48:46):
I was going to say paying the cheque, but obviously it was the
other way around. So a little bit more
complicated, but you still got to take the burden of paying for
those rights in the future, right?
So what, where am I trying to get to here?
I'm trying to basically I'm getting to the fact that like
this deal was inevitable, that an endeavour was going to be
sold. Delta Trade was the most likely
and most obvious partner, unlesssomeone else could have come to

(49:08):
the table with some private equity money from somewhere and
try to wrap up in another OTT business to try and blow the
blow that way the market with a new big player in the space.
But instead we now just have onebig super player.
Now this deal is the worst kept secret in the industry.
I think that's the first line I used in my post because I've

(49:28):
heard everyone has come to me and talked about talked about
this deal happening and they're wondering when's it going to be
announced. And I heard from people within
both respective organisations that were actually having a
negative impact on them. Just because when there's
uncertainty in a business's future, clients start getting a
little bit twitchy as well. So they just wanted to get it
settled, get it sorted and now they can move on.

(49:48):
I don't think it's like this huge transformation for the
industry. I think for Delta Trace
perspective it is to solidify their position in the market.
They will have the number one roster most likely of top tier
sports properties and if they can find other ways to expand
the relationship with that client base, then that's where

(50:08):
the growth's going to come from.I think by and large, because
underneath that top tier, it's areally congested marketplace and
they've been trying to, what would I call, expand their
products to Philtre through the lower tier, lower tier of the
industry, but it's really congested with a lot of other
players. So this in essence allows them

(50:29):
to double down on being the leading provider for tier one
properties. And now I think they're in a
great place. I predict that Endeavour
Streaming's brand will probably just disappear and be aggregated
into the Delta trade brand. Like we have a few prediction
predictions as well, but I thinkit's it's an exciting one
because of the scale, not necessarily with the big price

(50:51):
tag that if it happened organically that you would
expect. Yeah, for sure.
And I think maybe my one follow up on this is just off the
investment event, George Pine and Brewing Capital originally
invested and isn't out Bain, arethey the ones that have taken
over? What do you think given just
what Delta trade is going to have to prove to its investors,

(51:12):
the money that they put into it to your point, they're obviously
trying to find growth. I think one of the issues is, is
there's only one unfold. There's only one NBA that or the
clients that Endeavour have. There's only one UFC1W, well,
not even 9 WW. But the point is there's
actually only so many of those eggs in the basket.
And to your point, having to go down in terms of the two tiers,

(51:34):
2 tier threes for growth, how isthis merger acquisition going to
help Delta trade from the perspective of proving ROI to
its investors? Well, the main thing it's going
to be able to do is it's a a typical merger of this scale.
Let's call it a merger in terms of you bring 2 business
together, but it is an acquisition is where are the
synergies. Synergies are often related

(51:57):
around technology and around personal.
I would be very surprised if youdidn't see significant
optimization in personnel, meaning people getting cut in,
in quite significantly across the business to save costs
pretty immediately out of eitheror either either or of those
businesses to basically improve the bottom line pretty quick

(52:19):
quickly. And by doing so into that,
because that business becomes way more profitable than it was
yesterday, just because efficiencies make a, a huge can
make a huge impact to the bottomline very, very swiftly.
So that's a big starting point. Then if there's anything the
others are doing might be able to expand how their existing
relationships on both sides are with those clients.

(52:40):
So it might be, for example, that double trays doing a
certain aspect of delivery, let's say, it could be just
delivering an OTC platform, but it might be missing one piece of
the ecosystem or or the servicesthat another rights owner might
be doing elsewhere. And they might be able to say,
hey, actually now that with thisnew expansion of our services,
we can do that for you better than we could before.

(53:01):
So it might allow them to get more value out of existing
partners. It might allow them to expand
their reach into lower tiers. I think that the next step will
be is that Delta trade will probably push heavy outside the
sports. I'd heard that from a few on the
corners that that was their goal.
I think that's a tricky game to play because there is it's a

(53:22):
much more established industry with a lot more technical
expertise that just the need forsomeone as comprehensive as a
delta tray or other. The type of relationship it
typically provides is less prevalent in media and
entertainment than it is in sports because of the relative
immaturity of sports media landscape doing it themselves.
But that is one way to potentially drive.

(53:43):
So new verticals, new sectors, expansion of relationship with
existing clients and efficiency basically on probably headcount,
maybe tech Cam as well, you know, they might be able to save
some costs on various tech stacks and services they're
using currently to to operate aswell.
Well, it's a big move. It is something that I'm sure
will have unintended consequences we're not even

(54:06):
aware of yet that over the course of time, this won't be
the last time we've come back tothis story.
And I will say for anyone that maybe catches video across this
podcast, apologies if you see mewiggling, moving around.
I'm recording the podcast on theroad.
I'm at my in laws, they've got builders in.
So I'm having to record the podcast for my wife's teenage
bedroom. So I'm not very comfortable

(54:27):
right now, Nick. So if anyone catches any video
of this podcast, you see me wiggling around, I'll just you
just going to have to give me a bit of a break.
I'm focusing on delivering high quality content and audio.
But if I'm moving around in the video, apologies anyone that's
going to have to watch that. Oh good mate, I I've just
realised that I move around way more than I should be and I
think I bumped my desk and movedso I think I need to get one of

(54:47):
those stabiliser mics as well. I think people are going to get
get seasick or a car sick if they watch this this episode,
but we're doing our best. We're doing our best, but thank
you again, everybody for tuning in and we'll catch you on the
next episode of Stream Type Sports.
Thanks everyone. Now before you go, if you liked
what you heard today, be sure torate and review and just let me
know what you think on social. You can find me on most social

(55:08):
platforms at Sports Pro Nick. Now please do spread the word of
the podcast. There's no better way of
marketing than word of mouth, whether that be in person or on
social media. And if you don't like what
you've heard or you think we should be doing more or less of
something, then reach out and let me know as I'd love to hear
from you. Thanks.
Stream timers until next time.