Entertainment's Smartest Player

Why you shouldn't sleep on Paramount

Disclosure: The below was written before the Netflix - WBD announcement. As highlighted in Part I can see the allure from a streaming and talent pov. I maintain hesitant from a culture and antitrust perspective. Either way, I decided to publish the original article without editing - I am happy to be wrong here and would love for anyone interested to point out the flaws to my thinking.

Hi friends,

In Part I, we looked at the bidders circling Warner Bros. Discovery and why I see Netflix as the runner-up.

Today, we turn to Paramount, the player that shouldn’t be the favorite on size alone, but increasingly looks like it on strategy.

Sports, sovereign capital, and newsrooms - if Paramount buys WBD it will become an 800-pound gorilla that may end up challenging entertainment’s silverback.

On paper, Paramount is smaller and more constrained than Comcast or Netflix. In practice, they’re acting hungrier, more coordinated, and more politically aware than almost anyone else in the game. IMO they have a real shot at WBD and are either playing 4D chess or I am falling into a tinfoil hat rabbit hole here – you decide.

Let’s unpack how.

Paramount Is Stockpiling IP with Intent

If you want to understand how serious Paramount is, look at what they’ve been buying and signing.

Recent moves include:

• A $7.7B UFC rights deal with TKO

  • A long-term sports rights commitment

  • Shifts UFC’s U.S. model from pay-per-view to subscription streaming

  • Makes Paramount+ a must-have for a passionate sports segment

• Champions League rights

  • Ellison’s first big international sports swing

  • Positions Paramount+ as a global sports and entertainment platform, not just another U.S.-centric streamer

• A $1.5B “South Park” deal

  • One of the longest-running and most valuable adult animation properties

  • Still culturally relevant and globally recognizable

• Poaching the Duffer Brothers from Netflix

  • “Stranger Things” creators signing a four-year film & TV deal with Paramount

  • Symbolic and practical win in the talent arms race

• A deal with Activision (Microsoft) to create a live-action Call of Duty film

  • Moves deeper into gaming IP, an increasingly important source of global fandom

Taken together, this is not random. It’s a deliberate stack:

• Sports (UFC, Champions League)

• Cultural animation & comedy (South Park)

• Streaming-era mega IP (Duffer Brothers)

• Gaming (Call of Duty)

Now imagine them buying WBD’s library and HBO’s slate. Suddenly, Paramount+ + Max looks like a platform that can:

• Compete for the #2 spot in streaming globally (depending how you treat Amazon Prime)

• Anchor subscriptions around sports, iconic series, and big franchises

This is what “playing for keeps” looks like.

Operationally, Paramount Is Rewiring Itself

Deal appetite is one thing. Operating discipline is another.

Paramount is pursuing a serious turnaround:

• Targeting $3B in total savings, up from previous goals

• Cutting around 1,600 jobs as part of broader restructuring

• Crucially, planning to reinvest $1.5B in:

  • Paramount+ content

  • UFC programming

  • Third-party licensing

  • An expanded film slate

Starting in 2026, they aim to release at least 15 theatrical films per year.

The pattern is clear:

• Remove cost and legacy fat

• Reinvest into IP that can travel across theatrical and streaming

• Use the combination to attract talent and create global franchises

That’s the industrial backbone. The more interesting layer is how they’re lining up capital and politics.

Sovereign Wealth, Trump World, and Deal Math

For a smaller company to credibly go after WBD, it needs more than ambition. It needs capital partners who can go big.

Paramount appears to have found them:

• The bid is reportedly backed by three Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds:

  • Saudi Arabia

  • UAE

  • Qatar

Yes, Saudi and Qatar in the same structure. That alone tells you how strategic this is.

• These funds would provide tens of billions in equity or hybrid capital.

• That lowers leverage on Paramount’s side and gives regulators a different profile to weigh than a heavily debt-financed Comcast- or Netflix-led transaction.

Politically:

• Saudi, UAE, and Qatar all have a history of significant deals with the Trump administration and every reason to keep that relationship warm.

• Their combined SWF firepower exceeds $3T in assets.

• WBD is a relatively small check in that context, especially if the upside includes influence over a major U.S. media stack and its sports rights.

It’s also part of a broader pattern:

• The $55B take-private of Electronic Arts involves Saudi capital and Jared Kushner.

• The region is pouring money into sports:

  • LIV Golf

  • Saudi boxing initiatives

  • Padel, ATP sponsorships, and more

If the future of media rests on:

1. Content (especially sports and tentpole IP)

2. Firepower (capital and political cover)

3. Distribution (global streaming)

…then sovereign funds that are simultaneously:

• Buying sports

• Backing studios

• Maintaining strong White House ties

are extraordinarily valuable partners.

And yes, everyone involved is loudly insisting media reports about discussions are “materially inaccurate.” Which usually means: close enough to sting.

Legal and Political Positioning

Paramount isn’t only counting on foreign capital and friendly handshakes.

They’ve also:

• Settled a lawsuit with President Trump for $16M.

• Brought in Makan Delrahim, former head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division under President Trump, as Chief Legal Officer (key on the $8.4B Paramount–Skydance merger).

Combine that with:

• Sovereign backing

• A cleaner balance-sheet structure

• A less politically charged brand than Comcast or Netflix

…and you get a bid designed not just to win on price, but to survive the approvals process.

Is Paramount Inconsistent or Just Very Deliberate?

From the outside, some moves look contradictory:

• Settling with President Trump

• Scaling back certain DEI initiatives

• Shifting CBS News leadership in a way many read as more conservative

• Canceling Stephen Colbert’s show, which fueled “purging liberal voices” commentary

And yet at the same time:

• Re-signing Jon Stewart, a very visible Trump critic, through 2026

• Locking down South Park, which targets pretty much everyone

If you only look at content, it can seem messy. If you look at news, it makes more sense.

Paramount bought The Free Press and installed its founder, Bari Weiss, as editor-in-chief of CBS News, explicitly talking about a desire for more balanced, fact-based coverage.

That matters because:

• Comedy and animation skew to one side culturally.

• News shapes the middle, and the middle is where political ROI is highest.

CBS News has long been seen as center / center-left. If you want to influence broad public opinion without looking overtly partisan, that’s exactly where you go.

Why does South Park’s stance even matter? Its audience already skews left and is unlikely to shift their views because of the show. And with today’s algorithmic feeds, platforms like YouTube and Instagram will never surface this content to people outside that bubble anyway. News media, however, is a different story. That’s where real influence happens. And Bari Weiss is certainly not operating from the political center or center-left.

Any political goodwill here will also benefit Middle East financing, closing the strategic loop.

So instead of reading Paramount as “bipolar,” it may be more accurate to say:

• They’re keeping culturally powerful, sometimes critical voices (Stewart, South Park) – appearance, public hedge, talent appeal.

• They’re repositioning news for political goodwill thereby signaling to the administration: we’re not an oppositional media empire.

No one talks about the Bari Weiss / Free Press deal but in my opinion it’s the key piece to the puzzle.

Three Levers That Will Define the Next Media Heavyweights

Paramount’s moves line up cleanly against three levers that will define who matters in the next decade:

1. Content

• Sports: UFC, Champions League, and potentially more via Middle Eastern sports ties.

• Big IP: Duffer Brothers, South Park, Call of Duty, plus whatever comes from a potential WBD deal. Appealing also to talent.

• The mid-tier, generic stuff will get eaten by YouTube, TikTok, and algorithmic muck. You need top-of-mind franchises.

2. Firepower

• Political:

  • President Trump relationship

  • Bari Weiss and CBS News repositioning

  • A posture that feels less partisan and more “responsible steward”

• Financial:

  • Sovereign wealth capital from Saudi, UAE, Qatar

  • Structures that look less scary to regulators than piling on debt

  • Optionality for future sports and IP deals via those same capital channels

3. Distribution

• A combined Paramount+ and Max stack would be at real global scale. Likely #2 behind Netflix in pure streaming terms.

• That’s enough reach to:

  • Properly monetize sports

  • Build and sustain big franchises

  • Offer talent a compelling mix of theatrical, streaming, and global distribution

Even If Paramount Loses, It’s Already Won Something

Even if Paramount doesn’t close the WBD deal, it has:

• Shown that its serious about IP

• Strengthened its hand with talent

• Focused on financial performance

• Deepened ties to powerful capital pools (aided by political goodwill)

• Moved CBS News into a strategically important position gaining political goodwill

• As such, shown it understands that political capital is not an afterthought

This isn’t a company just trying to survive the streaming wars. It’s one actively trying to shape what the next era looks like.

Meanwhile, the wider board keeps moving: Amazon could become more aggressive, Legendary (backed by Apollo) is eyeing Lionsgate, and there are interesting linkages between Oracle, Ellison, and Paramount via major cloud contracts.

We don’t know how the WBD saga ends. But it’s clear that Paramount is out to win, one way or another.

BR,
Daniel