Indeed, F1 soon discovered that the market had shifted under their feet. They took meetings with everyone only to learn that the traditional media companies were in the same boat as ESPN. No one came close to meeting F1’s asking price. The streamers showed interest initially, but the only company that progressed to serious talks was Apple, which happened to have its own F1 movie due out in the summer. That movie, it turns out, surpassed box office expectations. And as Dylan Byers reported yesterday, Apple has now told the league that they would pay between $150 million and $200 million per year for F1’s U.S. rights. ESPN, which remains interested, hasn’t moved much off its initial offer from half a year ago. Indeed, Apple appears to be in pole position.

The Apple deal would offer the largest windfall, but it’s not a slam dunk. All major leagues, even the NFL and NBA, navigate the same revenue-versus-relevance quandary in the modern sports market. Is MLB or MLS thrilled with the exposure that they’ve received from their Apple TV+ deals? It’s an open question, and one reason why large cable players and broadcast networks have remained in the negotiating mix despite their challenged business models. Right now, in fact, there’s little internal consensus among executives about where F1 should go. Some advocate for the Apple deal because the U.S. is a secondary market for the sport, which is much bigger globally, and they want to optimize for cash—a money job, in other words. F1 teams, after all, get as much as 60 percent. Detractors, however, worry that the sport will lose visibility behind Apple’s paywall, diminishing its Brad Pitt bounce. Plenty cited MLS’s deal, now in its third season, as a cautionary tale. Naturally, F1’s commercial clients also have an opinion: LVMH just cut a 10-year, $1 billion sponsorship deal with F1, and the Arnaults certainly don’t want to see those races vanish in the lucrative U.S. market.

ESPN’s offer also has limitations—and not just the price, which is far below Apple’s $150 million. Parentco Disney would make ABC and ESPN available for the marquee races but offer limited TV windows for others. An undetermined number of races will be streamed exclusively on the ESPN app, which is scheduled to launch this fall. There’s a risk in that, too. It’s worth recalling, of course, that F1 left NBC for ESPN in 2018 as part of a three-year deal that paid it an average of just $10 million per year. Back then, the sport was willing to bet on its own growth, and that bet paid off when ESPN’s next deal reached an average of $80 million per year. It may be willing to make the same bet again.

On the NFL’s media deals: “If the NFL is successful in going to market ahead of MLB, it may be the shrewdest move since Brett Yormark had the Big 12 jump ahead of the Pac 12 to re-up with Fox and ESPN, ultimately leading to the implosion of what used to be known as the Conference of Champions. It seems premature that the NFL would consider this before they get a firm commitment on an 18th game from the NFLPA, which doesn’t seem to be a discussion that will happen until 2026. At the same time, it doesn’t seem like there’s really anything MLB can do to prevent this nightmare scenario from happening.” —A grizzled sports business veteran

On WBD’s AEW deal: “Last issue, a reader wondered why TNT Sports would do an AEW deal for $180 million per year, and not pursue a Formula 1 deal for the same amount. Between AEW’s two weekly programs, TNT Sports gets approximately 208 hours of live wrestling programming per year for TBS, TNT, and HBO Max. There is value in adding an additional 200+ hours of live programming per year to the ‘Please don’t relegate us to the premier holy-shit tier’ sales pitch with distributors. No red flags, rain delays, postponements, or collective bargaining lockouts with professional wrestling.” —A Varsity subscriber On the idea that it’s becoming more difficult to be a sports fan: “I agree with Bob Costas. The eternal reach-versus-revenue equation is haunting every major league. This diaspora of rights creates more audience friction, even for an under-35 Millennial consumer like me. Sports fandom is rooted in socialization and community, historically. But as the audience economy fragments further alongside media rights, it becomes less about one monoculture and more about the rise of endless niche subcommunities. No empire lasts forever, and I think we’ll see the NFL’s dominant popularity lessen (though never be fully dismantled) over time. If our nation’s national pastime can become a relic in desperate need of modernization, then anything is possible.” —A Puck subscriber On soccer viewership: “You wrote that TNT Sports’s viewership for the FIFA Club World Cup is ‘more or less on par with average Premier League viewership in the U.S.’ The Club World Cup TV numbers are 29 percent lower than what the Premier League did this season. Not exactly close.” —A ruffian On A.I. and tennis: “I’m no blind defender of our A.I. overlords, but players have been calling for more precise line-calling technology for years (e.g., Coco Gauff has been a proponent of E.L.C. and expanded video review, which the U.S. Open also has). Of course, it’s not perfect. But the Hawk-Eye system is far more accurate than humans—and line-judge errors have produced plenty of match-delaying incidents over the years—so, nostalgia/empathy for those being ‘replaced’ aside, I get why we’re here.” —A journalist Caitlinsanity: “Great pod with Christine Brennan. Really enjoyed it. I’ve been a WNBA fan from day one, and it’s a shame what the league is going through.” —A sponsorship executive

Have a great weekend. See you on Monday from Sonoma.

John