Connect with us

Business

Granderson: Sports gambling is coming, and it'll be even worse than you think

Published

on

Granderson: Sports gambling is coming, and it'll be even worse than you think

The most anticipated first-round series of the NBA playoffs is here: the Lakers versus the defending champion Denver Nuggets. LeBron James’ squad was swept by Denver in the last postseason, and L.A. hasn’t beaten the Nuggets since December 2022, which is why the Lakers are serious underdogs according to the online gambling site DraftKings.

Sound like a good bet? Or at least a fun one? That’s the vibe DraftKings is going for.

Opinion Columnist

LZ Granderson

LZ Granderson writes about culture, politics, sports and navigating life in America.

Advertisement

One of the site’s recent promos features comedian Kevin Hart hawking “no sweat tokens” next to this claim: “Place a NBA SGP or SGPx bet today and get a bonus bet back if you lose!” That sounds as close to a win-win situation as any, regardless of whether you know anything about gambling or single-game parlays.

It all comes across as harmless and fun.

So did candy cigarettes.

Advertisement

Even after the surgeon general advised against smoking in 1964, candy cigarettes were still on the market and tobacco companies were still lending their branding to candy companies. One government study found that 88% of current and former smokers began with candy cigarettes and that “odds for current and ever smoking increased with increasing candy cigarette use.” Nearly half a million people die from cigarette smoke in the U.S. each year, and guess what is still on the market.

Like cigarettes, gambling should never be presented as harmless — or as fun. It can be fun, which is why Hart makes a great pitchman. But legalized sports betting is no more harmless than selling sugar sticks shaped like cigarettes.

It’s not just the personal and societal devastation from out-of-control gambling that we need to fear. The sports industry is not prepared to navigate a world of legalized betting. Ippei Mizuhara, the interpreter who is accused of stealing more than $16 million from the Dodgers pitcher Shohei Ohtani to bet on sports, and Jontay Porter, who this week received a lifetime ban by the NBA for violating its gambling policy, are not unique.

They were just caught.

Last year we learned more than 180 professional tennis players were part of a global match-fixing ring that started in 2014. It wasn’t even started by a player. According to the Washington Post, it began with a law student in Brussels who discovered how little tennis players made at the beginning of their careers. In some cases, winning a title brought home less than the kickback a player could get for purposefully dropping a set. Keep in mind this ring started after the sport was rocked by a gambling scandal involving a Top 10 player in 2007 who was believed to have mafia ties.

Advertisement

Cute commercials and “no sweat tokens” are one face of sports gambling — and are dangerous enough to the public — but there are more sides to this threat. Today it is believed gambling on tennis alone moves more than $50 billion around the globe. That too is a part of sports betting, and I don’t know how you prevent the two from bleeding into one another.

Athletes themselves can be tempted by the promise of easy money, but the LeBron Jameses and the Shohei Ohtanis are not the worry. The worry is the low-level player or trainer who is barely getting by and may be tempted to violate gambling rules for financial help with sustaining their careers. Or even officials on the periphery. Tim Donaghy, the NBA referee who had bet tens of thousands on games over two seasons before getting caught, was a glaring reminder just a few years ago.

If any league has had time to recognize the dangers, it’s the NBA. In 1954, Fort Wayne Pistons player Jack Molinas was suspended for betting on NBA games. By 1961, he was arrested on charges of being part of a college gambling ring that had touched 27 schools, 43 games and 476 players. In 1975, he was shot in the head while standing in the backyard of his home in Hollywood Hills. Police said they believed the murder was mob-related.

That too is part of sports gambling.

It’s not all charming spokesmen and “no sweat tokens.” There’s addiction. There’s greed. There’s corruption and crime. The sports industry is not prepared for this, and neither is America.

Advertisement

@LZGranderson

Business

Pressure grows on California attorney general to try to block Paramount’s deal for Warner Bros.

Published

on

Pressure grows on California attorney general to try to block Paramount’s deal for Warner Bros.

California Democrats in Congress are raising concerns about Paramount Skydance’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — a $111-billion deal that would dramatically reshape Hollywood by consolidating two historic film studios.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) and 33 other members of Congress on Thursday urged California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to scrutinize potential antitrust harms that would come from billionaire David Ellison’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — and possibly bring a legal challenge. The lawmakers’ campaign comes after more than 4,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller and J.J. Abrams, signed an open letter calling for the deal to be blocked.

“We remain concerned that the proposed merger could harm California workers and consumers,” the 34 lawmakers wrote in their letter to Bonta. “We therefore respectfully urge you to closely analyze the potential effects of this merger, and, if you determine that this merger would have anticompetitive effects, use your best judgment to pursue the appropriate course of action.”

The deal, the largest Hollywood merger in nearly a decade, would bring together Warner Bros. and Paramount Pictures, streaming services HBO Max, Discovery+ and Paramount+, more than two dozen cable channels as well as CBS News and CNN. Paramount has said it expects the combination would bring at least $6 billion in cost savings, raising fears among the Democrats about widespread job losses.

Pressure is growing on Bonta to try to thwart Ellison’s proposed merger.

Advertisement

Bonta has previously told The Times his office is reviewing the proposed combination to determine whether it would harm consumers and industry competition. On Thursday, a spokesperson confirmed there was still “an active investigation,” into the proposed merger, but Bonta’s office had no “updates to share at this time.”

Bonta separately has brought a lawsuit with a bipartisan group of 13 state attorneys general to halt another merger — a massive consolidation of television stations by Nexstar Media Group — favored by President Trump.

The president wants to give more power to Nexstar, which owns network affiliate TV stations, to weaken ABC and NBC. In that case, a federal judge in Sacramento has issued a temporary injunction to freeze the merger until a trial to determine whether that deal violates century-old antitrust laws. Irving, Texas-based Nexstar is appealing the ruling.

Critics of the Warner Bros. deal are nudging Bonta to separately bring a lawsuit to block Paramount’s proposed takeover of its rival.

“Writers have seen merger after merger leave fewer and fewer companies in control of what our members can get paid to write,” Writers Guild of America West President Michele Mulroney said to make a case against the merger during a press briefing last month.

Advertisement

Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders have voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Paramount transaction that would pay them $31 a share.

Several U.S. senators, including Cory Booker (D-N.J.), also have sounded alarms, including about plans to bring sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi into the deal as minority investors. Those Middle Eastern investors would hold a nearly 50% equity stake of the new company, although Paramount has said the wealth funds would not have board seats.

The Paramount-Warner Bros. transaction is expected to fly through its antitrust review at the U.S. Justice Department, in part, because billionaire Larry Ellison, who has agreed to backstop the financing for the deal, maintains close ties with Trump. Paramount has said it expects the deal to be completed before the end of September.

Rep. Laura Friedman at APLA Health, Michael Gottlieb Health Center in West Hollywood June 28, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Trump has agitated for changes at CNN, one of Warner’s most prominent properties. Ellison’s son David, who is chairman and chief executive of Paramount, hosted a party in Washington two weeks ago to honor Trump and other high-level cabinet officials, including some who have expressed a desire to see Ellison in charge of CNN.

“The proposed merger does not occur in a vacuum,” the lawmakers wrote. “Decades of consolidation in this industry have already resulted in reduced output, higher prices, fewer choices, and less innovation, while merged studios face few consequences for breaking their pre-merger promises.”

Paramount representatives, who did not immediately comment Thursday, have previously defended the proposed takeover.

David Ellison has also promised to maintain the two studios’ current release schedules of 15 movies a year — for a total of 30 films a year — following the merger.

Advertisement

“This is also a moment when the industry has been facing significant disruption — and the need for strong, creative-first and well-capitalized companies that can continue to invest in storytelling has never been greater,” Paramount has said, adding that it will follow through on its commitments to ensure that “creators have more avenues for their work, not fewer.”

The Congress members’ letter also called into question the Trump administration’s oversight, alleging there has been “unprecedented politicization of antitrust enforcement.”

“Given that we cannot have confidence that the Trump administration review of the merger will be conducted according to the law, and with the best interests of American workers and consumers in mind, it is even more vital that you conduct a thorough, independent review,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Bonta.

Federal regulators agreed to approve the Ellison family’s acquisition of Paramount last summer after Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit he brought over edits to a CBS “60 Minutes” interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election.

The proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would be forced to make steep cost cuts to balance such a large debt load. In the last three months, Paramount lined up banks and other institutional investors to provide bridge financing to help pull off the transaction, the company said.

Advertisement

The letter from Friedman and the others noted that the film industry in Los Angeles already is almost on the ropes. Last summer, on-location production in the Los Angeles area declined by 13%. More than 42,000 film industry jobs were lost between 2022 and 2024, a period that included two labor strikes.

David Ellison at the U.S. Capitol.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance, attended President Trump’s State of the Union address in February as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Friedman was joined by a group of prominent Democrats that includes Reps. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village) , Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and George Whitesides (D-Santa Clarita).

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle

Published

on

How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle

President Trump’s wide-ranging campaign to punish his perceived media critics has come for newspapers like The Wall Street Journal, The Des Moines Register and The New York Times; broadcast outlets like the BBC, NBC News and CBS News; and the late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert.

But now it is bearing down on a new opponent, one that remains politically potent and has a storied place in Mr. Trump’s oeuvre of media grudge matches — the long-running ABC daytime talk show, “The View.”

The Federal Communications Commission has been quietly investigating the program for months, looking into whether “The View” violated old federal rules requiring equal airtime to rival political candidates. The inquiry could also feed into the agency’s wider review of whether ABC should be allowed to continue to own some of the country’s most important local television stations.

The clash between ABC and the Trump administration could lead to a protracted, high-stakes legal battle over free expression. The network asserts that the F.C.C. action could have “a chilling effect on First Amendment-protected free speech on the eve of the 2026 elections” and affect which political guests — if any — talk shows will book.

The central role of “The View” is testament to the enduring influence of an old-fashioned broadcast television program that the ABC anchor Barbara Walters started 29 years ago, describing it “as a kaffeeklatsch with more caffeine.” People in both parties say the show continues to hold significant political power — even as streaming, podcasts and social media take up more attention.

Advertisement

“The View” draws 2.7 million viewers a day, more or less the audience it has had for a decade, according to Nielsen.

“It would be easy for our side to say, ‘Who watches that junk?’” said Tim Graham, a senior leader of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has long been critical of the show. “But the answer is: Many people.”

Representatives for “The View” declined to comment, or to set up interviews with the hosts or anyone involved in the production.

Ms. Walters’s intention, as she said on the premiere episode in 1997, was to make the show destination viewing for a broad swath of women “of different generations, backgrounds and views.” The show’s panel has long included a conservative presence to balance the progressivism of its longstanding hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.

Mr. Trump, who was good friends with Ms. Walters, used to be a regular guest, once seeing the show as a great platform to promote himself, his business and his family. During a March 2006 appearance, Mr. Trump, sitting next to Ivanka Trump, notoriously mused, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” (“Who are you, Woody Allen?” Ms. Behar blurted, sending Mr. Trump into a fit of laughter.)

Advertisement

Weeks later, Melania Trump gave the show her first interview after the birth of her son, Barron, revealing details about the delivery (“very, very easy”) and informing viewers that Mr. Trump had elected to stay out of the delivery room. Sometimes Mr. and Mrs. Trump even appeared together: In 2010, they made a joint appearance when Mrs. Trump promoted her QVC jewelry line.

But “The View” also set the scene for a foundational Trump feud — with the former host Rosie O’Donnell, starting in 2006. She called him a “snake-oil salesman”; he called her “a slob” and worse.

The final break in the relationship between the show and Mr. Trump came shortly after he entered politics. He clashed with Ms. Goldberg over his description of Mexicans as “rapists” in 2015, and he declined invitations from “The View” thereafter. He made 18 appearances in all.

The hosts became more critical of Mr. Trump over the past decade, and he attacked them back. The two Republicans on the panel — a first-term Trump spokeswoman, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and the longtime strategist Ana Navarro — are frequent Trump critics. And the anti-Trump critics are even tougher.

“It is unbelievable to me,” Sunny Hostin, a host, said this week, “that there are still people — despite the fact that they don’t have health care, despite the fact that the Department of Education has been gutted, despite the fact that they can’t afford to buy eggs — they are still with their guy.”

Advertisement

Conservatives accuse the show of interviewing mostly Democrats. This spring, the Media Research Center released a report titled, “The View Kicks Off Midterm Year With 27 Liberal Guests to 1 Republican.” (The study included celebrities in its tally.)

In its filing with the F.C.C., ABC noted that guest appearances did not reflect the full range of invitations. The network said the show had invited numerous Trump allies over the past two seasons, including Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Lindsey Graham, Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — all of whom declined.

ABC’s lawyers said bookings were “based on newsworthiness, anticipated audience interest and their potential to ‘make news’ on the show.”

The administration has escalated its attacks over the past year. In July, it released a statement rooting for the show’s cancellation, after Ms. Behar compared Mr. Trump unfavorably with former President Barack Obama.

The seriousness of the F.C.C.’s inquiry into “The View” came to light when ABC responded forcefully to it this week. The agency is looking into whether the show was improperly operating outside longstanding broadcast rules requiring entertainment programs to provide equal airtime to candidates for the same office.

Advertisement

ABC’s lawyers noted that “The View” had received a news exemption from the agency in 2002 and that the exemption had not been challenged in the 24 years since.

Their response, which became public on Friday, accused the F.C.C. of violating the network’s First Amendment rights and indicated that they were prepared to take the case as far as the Supreme Court.

The network maintains that the mix of its guests should not be the government’s concern. “Of course, government officials are free to express their own views about ‘The View,’” ABC’s lawyers said in the filing. “But they cannot utilize the coercive powers of the state to punish viewpoints with which they disagree.”

The show has long been under a political microscope, not only because of what its hosts say but also because of the makeup of its audience.

The two highest-rated media markets for “The View,” according to Nielsen, are Philadelphia and the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City market in Michigan’s industrial corridor — both in swing states. The show also draws strong audiences in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Chicago and New York, Nielsen said, as well as in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Kansas City, Mo.; and Hartford, Conn.

Advertisement

That audience is made up of a prime voting demographic; two-thirds of its viewers are 65 or older, and nearly 90 percent are over the age of 50. Seventy percent are women. And 60 percent of its viewers are white and a quarter are Black, according to Nielsen.

“Women are one of the most important swing segments of the electorate,” said Daniel Suhr of the Center for American Rights, the conservative legal group that in March urged the F.C.C. to deny “The View” an exemption from the equal-airtime rules as a “bona fide” news program.

Having hosts who “constantly bash the president and the party” on a show that draws such swing voters, Mr. Suhr said, “has a real effect on our politics.”

Lis Smith, a Democratic strategist who has long seen “The View” as an important stop on any major candidate’s campaign schedule, said she thought conservatives were mainly picking on the show to whip up the faithful against a favorite media target. But, she added, “The View” does have its uses for Democrats.

“They reach a large audience of women, and Democrats need women to turn out to vote to win,” she said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Mattel investor campaigns to take the company private

Published

on

Mattel investor campaigns to take the company private

A large investor in Mattel is asking the toy maker to sell itself to a big investor and take its shares off the stock market.

Southeastern Asset Management, which oversees 4% of Mattel’s stock, said in a letter released Thursday that the company would be better off if owned by a private equity firm, a toy competitor or a media company.

Mattel stock price was $15.41 as of Friday morning, up 2% from closing on Thursday. Its shares have fallen more than 20% this year.

Southeastern said Mattel’s current strategy would make shareholders wait too long for the company’s stock price to reach $30.

“We do not want to wait longer for that to be realized,” Southeastern said in the letter, addressed to Mattel Chief Executive Ynon Kreiz. “We would prefer you lead the effort to explore strategic alternatives given your industry knowledge and relationships.”

Advertisement

Mattel said in a release Thursday that it appreciates and will consider the perspectives shared by Southeastern and other shareholders. The company said it will maintain its focus on squeezing more profit from the many famous toys and other intellectual properties it controls.

“Our Board of Directors and management team are committed to acting in the best interests of all Mattel shareholders,” the company said in the release.

Southeastern sent the open letter to Mattel’s board and other shareholders on Thursday. It was originally sent to Kreiz in mid-March, shortly before the company announced it was laying off 65 employees.

Mattel has laid off hundreds of employees in the past year and a half.

The company’s shares and profit took a dip after it announced weak holiday sales in 2025, in part due to disappointing Barbie sales.

Advertisement

Last year, its net sales were about $5.3 billion, down 1% from the year before.

Southeastern suggested three potential buyers.

Private equity firms, which have expressed interest in Mattel for years, could help provide financial stability, the shareholder said. If the company delisted, it wouldn’t have to worry about quarterly reports or annual expectations, Southeastern said.

Another toy company could also be a potential buyer, the shareholder said, noting that Mattel and Hasbro have been in talks for years.

“We believe synergies between the two companies would be material, creating a stronger player in a global industry,” Southeastern said.

Advertisement

Mattel also has valuable intellectual property that could interest large media companies, Southeastern said.

The three buyer options aren’t mutually exclusive and could be combined, the shareholder said.

“We are grateful for your leadership that stabilized the business during a difficult period,” Southeastern said in the letter. “We believe that now is the time for the company to explore strategic alternatives.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending