(04-13-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  After the Disney-Fox deal closes, the Murdochs will be in charge of Fox, and will also be the largest shareholder of Disney.

Wouldn't an arrangement like that be considered monopolistic, and therefore not pass regulatory muster? [/quote]

Apparently not. OTOH, there was originally talk of James(?) Murdoch becoming a Disney exec as part of the deal, and that was shot down. So maybe the line is common ownership is fine, but mingled executive boards are over the line?

Quote: Wouldn't entities like CBS and NBC be howling at the top of their lungs over this?

Well, they haven't.

Quote:Or is this just an opportunistic move to take advantage of the current political power structure?

I think it's more that (on a corporate level) they're looking forward to their own related shenanigans. (Comcast tried to buy Time Warner not that long ago, and I think CBS and Viacom are discussing a re-merger). On a personal level, why make enemies at Disney or at Fox, when you might need to ask them for a job someday?

Quote:Your next paragraph describes exactly why monopolies are (or were) frowned on. If, in the next round of bidding, the SEC, B1G et al get a severe haircut in their media contracts, wouldn't they be screaming along with CBS and NBC? Or does it really matter to them how much they get as long as everybody else gets the same haircut?

It matters to the SEC and Big Ten a lot. But CBS and NBC (and Turner Sports, whatever umbrella they're under by then) are in the same market, so if the haircut is too much, they can go to NBC or CBS.