Netflix co-chief Ted Sarandos defended the company’s proposed $82.7 billion (£61 billion) acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery assets on 23 February, saying the deal would add capacity and drive growth in film and television production. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Netflix would be buying a studio and distribution arm it currently lacks, while accusing a rival bid of cutting capacity. The comments came as Paramount was given a deadline to submit a final competing offer and after former US president Donald Trump publicly demanded Netflix remove Susan Rice from its board.
Key takeaways
- Netflix has tabled an $82.7bn offer for WBD studios and streaming assets; the rest of WBD would be spun off separately.
- Paramount presented a competing $108.4bn bid for the entire WBD corporation, backed by a reported $40bn personal guarantee from Larry Ellison.
- Sarandos said Netflix would expand market capacity and cited Paramount’s announced intention to cut $6bn from its business under its plan.
- Netflix reports 59 productions active in the UK, with roughly 17 non-British projects filming there, highlighting its local footprint.
- Donald Trump publicly urged Netflix to remove board member Susan Rice, framing the dispute in political terms though Netflix treats it as a commercial matter.
- MPs have asked UK regulators to consider a competition review, warning of potential harm to consumers, creators and cinemas.
Background
The bidding battle for Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) has pitted Netflix’s focused offer for studios and streaming platforms against a broader approach from Paramount. Netflix’s proposal, worth $82.7bn, targets the studio and distribution elements while leaving other WBD divisions to be spun off. Paramount’s counter is a full-corporation bid reportedly valued at $108.4bn and underwritten in part by a $40bn guarantee from Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.
Consolidation in media has long worried regulators and creators because horizontal mergers can reduce competition between studios and distributors. UK lawmakers have voiced concerns that either deal could concentrate market power, potentially affecting content diversity, production budgets and cinema revenues. Those political and regulatory pressures are unfolding alongside commercial negotiations and public interventions by influential figures.
Main event
On 23 February, Ted Sarandos reiterated Netflix’s stance on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, arguing that Netflix would increase industry capacity by adding studio and distribution capabilities it does not currently own. He contrasted this outcome with what he described as Paramount’s immediate cost-cutting plans, asserting that those cuts would shrink the industry rather than grow it.
The corporate fight briefly took a political turn when Donald Trump publicly demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from its board, saying the company should “remove her or face the consequences.” Sarandos downplayed the intervention, describing the transaction as a commercial matter rather than a political dispute and noting the prevalence of social-media commentary from the former president.
Paramount has until the end of the day on Monday to lodge its best and final offer to compete with Netflix’s bid. The two proposals differ structurally: Netflix bids for specific assets (studios and streaming), while Paramount aims to acquire the whole corporation including TV networks, raising distinct regulatory and competition questions.
Analysis & implications
If regulators approve Netflix’s asset-focused acquisition, the deal could reshape production and distribution dynamics by consolidating a major streaming platform with a large studio and catalogue. Sarandos argues that such vertical integration would let Netflix invest in more projects and take risks on unconventional British stories, citing recent UK hits as examples. That could mean increased commissioning and potentially larger international reach for UK-made titles.
Conversely, a full-scale acquisition by Paramount could produce a different market structure. Industry observers warn that combining major studios horizontally might prompt cost-cutting and reduced diversity of content, especially if overlapping operations are folded together. Sarandos specifically warned that Paramount’s publicly discussed $6bn cuts would shrink the market for creators and consumers.
Regulators in the UK and elsewhere will weigh these trade-offs under competition law: asset sales that enhance vertical integration are evaluated differently from mergers that reduce the number of independent producers. The presence of high-profile political commentary, such as the demand concerning a board member, may increase public scrutiny but does not change the underlying economic assessment that competition authorities must perform.
Comparison & data
| Bidder | Offer value | Scope | Notable backing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netflix | $82.7bn (≈£61bn) | WBD studios and streaming platforms (rest to be spun off) | N/A |
| Paramount | $108.4bn | Entire WBD corporation including TV networks | $40bn personal guarantee (Larry Ellison) |
These figures frame the choices facing regulators: Netflix’s lower, asset-specific bid focuses competition questions on the studio/streaming market, while Paramount’s higher, whole-company bid raises broader horizontal-consolidation concerns. Separately, Netflix cites 59 active UK productions as evidence of local investment; MPs worry consolidation could still reduce competition and harm cinemas.
Reactions & quotes
Corporate leaders, politicians and creators have reacted along predictable lines, with supporters emphasizing investment and critics warning of consolidation.
“We’re buying a movie studio and a distribution entity that we don’t currently have.”
Ted Sarandos, Netflix co-chief (BBC Radio 4 Today)
Sarandos framed Netflix’s bid as an expansion of capability rather than a takeover that removes competition, noting the company’s ongoing British productions and commissioning choices.
“Remove her or face the consequences.”
Donald Trump (social media)
Trump’s brief, public intervention targeted Netflix board member Susan Rice and injected a political element into what executives insist is a commercial negotiation. Netflix described the transaction as a business decision and downplayed the political rhetoric.
“This could lead to a substantial lessening of competition with damaging consequences for consumers and the UK creative industries.”
UK MPs (letter to regulators)
Parliamentarians have urged a formal competition review, citing potential risks to consumers, creators and cinemas if market concentration increases following any transaction.
Unconfirmed
- Precise details of Paramount’s planned $6bn cost cuts and how those would be implemented have not been fully disclosed and remain subject to company confirmation.
- The direct regulatory outcome and exact remedies, if any, that UK or other authorities might impose on either bid are not yet determined.
Bottom line
The Netflix–WBD bidding contest pits two very different strategies against each other: an asset-focused, vertically integrative offer from Netflix and a full-corporation, horizontally consolidating bid from Paramount. Each path carries distinct risks and potential benefits for creators, audiences and the UK production ecosystem; regulators will need to assess those trade-offs carefully.
For the sector, the immediate consequence is heightened scrutiny — from lawmakers, competitors and the public — and potential shifts in commissioning, distribution and studio economics depending on which bid, if any, prevails. Stakeholders should watch forthcoming regulatory filings, final offers and any required remedies to judge the likely long-term effects.
Sources
- The Guardian — (News media: report on bids, statements and political reactions)
- BBC Radio 4 Today — (Official: interview with Ted Sarandos)