Adam, thanks for being here. Let's start right away with the big media rights deal you guys did. I know you're somewhat limited in what you can say because of the pending Warner Brothers discovery lawsuit, but maybe just walk us through what it was like to come to the conclusion to choose your partners and, you know, effectively end what was almost a 40-year relationship with Warner Brothers discovery. That had to have weighed on you with inside the NBA and just the longevity of the relationship. We both chose our partners, but our partners chose us. I would say it's a marketplace, and we went through a long period, even before the exclusive negotiating period, where we had dozens of conversations with our current partners talking about what was working in the deal, what changes we might like to see, how we all saw the future landscape for media rights. Then we entered into exclusive negotiating

period. There was a point in time. It's been widely reported. There was a view that bringing a third party to the table made sense during the exclusive negotiating period because we had goals we were trying to achieve, and I think there was a view that we could achieve those goals by adding a third partner, which we're also consistent with our current partners. That's how Amazon ended up coming to the table, and I'd say we all worked hard to get to a deal, um, with us in Warner Brothers Discovery. We weren't able to, and of course, we could with Disney and essentially Amazon as well. I mean, there were still things that needed to be discussed even beyond the exclusive negotiating period, but there was just never a meeting of the minds between us and Warner Brothers Discovery, and it was, to your point, a longtime relationship. It wasn't a longtime relationship with the people

currently running Warner Brothers Discovery, at least in terms of that partnership. All of us were well known to each other. But things change over time. I would say we're back with NBC. We had a longtime partnership with them as well. We went out of business with them, and now we're back in business with them. So I think that's just part of what happens in any given media negotiation. Everybody has different goals at different times. Do you think there was a real chance to get a deal done with Warner Bros. Discovery, or was the package that NBC brought to the table, having a broadcast network when Warner Bros. Discovery doesn't have a broadcast network? Was that just a better fit for you? Because of the litigation, I can't get into the specifics, but I will just say, absolutely. There was a very good chance we were going to come

to a deal with Warner Bros. Discovery. And we negotiated hard with them over several months, and they negotiated with us. And as I said, we just couldn't reach a deal at the end. But that was before we had the extensive negotiations with NBC. One more question on that, because you mentioned the relationship and how that was new. How important, because, you know, as a fan, when you see this, it's all about the numbers, right? It's all, you know. Well, NBC outbid Warner Brothers Discovery or Disney throughout, you know, a huge bid. How important is the relationship between you and the leaders of these companies when it comes to agreeing to a deal? I wouldn't make it so specific in terms of me and my relationship with them. But I would say in terms of the partnerships, they become very important. And of course, at the end of the day, those

partnerships do get reduced to personal relations. But it's I'm part of it. But there is a group of executives at the media company, and there's a group of executives at the league, and for any successful partnership. And I don't think this is unique to media. You work together to solve problems, and particularly when media is changing so quickly, technology is changing, and you're doing long-term deals. We've had long-term deals in the past. We just entered into an 11-year deal. So the one thing that you can be certain of is that things will change and that when things change, ideally in these partnerships, people aren't pulling out the contract and saying, page eight, paragraph three. You're saying you understand the spirit of what you were trying to accomplish there, and that you're willing to adjust based on changes that might have been unpredictable. But so, and when you're actually looking at the

contract, that's a sign that the partnership isn't going as well when people are bringing in the lawyers, and it's part of doing business as well. But absolutely, relationships matter. I guess just one quick follow-up on that. I would say, though, that part of the reason that the other side might be bringing up the contract is maybe just due to the secular forces of their business, rather than the relationship with the NBA, or am I overstepping there? I'm not sure I understand the question. In other words, it's a lot easier to say, Hey, who cares about the contract? if your business is doing well. If you're losing millions of cable subscribers every year and you don't have a steady fallback, and suddenly money is an issue now where it wasn't an issue before, then maybe you start pulling out the contract. I'm not going to speak for them.

I'd only say money's always an issue. I mean, these are businesses. And ultimately, though, when you're coming together, both sides are trying to do well for their business, but also take a long-term view of the partnership. I mean, but there's so many extensions, you know, there's so many contingencies as you go in terms of at any point what you might be looking at. It's hard to generalize there. And again, I won't put myself in their shoes, they're, you know, they're a well-managed company that's trying to navigate their way through the future, and some properties make sense at some points, others don't. They obviously made lots of public statements along the way about how not just they view the NBA, but how they viewed, you know, sports and, you know, generally, and how they viewed other properties.

Did potentially losing that inside the NBA show weigh on you as you went through this? Or look, it's just a studio show, and it doesn't really matter in the long run. I would never say it's just a studio show. You know, we take all those things into consideration. I would just say I didn't weigh losing inside the NBA more than we necessarily weighed losing that long-term partnership with TNT. I just say, you know, there's lots of factors. We weren't able to reach a deal. Speaking of things that have changed, we've seen a surge in popularity with the WNBA. Who did their media rights deal with you in partnership with the NBA? In hindsight, given the unbelievable surge in ratings and attention, was that a mistake? Should they have done their rights deal separately? Well, first of all, we are all one integrated business. So you know, when you say they, they is us, right?

Yeah, we're all one organization. I guess the question is, should we collectively have gone out and had separate discussions around the WNBA? I would say, in essence, we did. And we're always testing the market. I mean, to say the market may be in a different place than it was at the time we were negotiating. We'll see. There's still additional WNBA deals that we're going to do, so we'll see whether the marketplace suggests there's different valuations than the ones we did. I'd say, in the aggregate, with the deals we already did, plus the deals that the WNBA now is going to do. The remaining packages you're looking at roughly a six times increase from the current rights fees. Could we have done even better than that? I'm not sure. Again, we'll see. There's also resets. So I think you're aware of, built into the existing

deals. So that I think both sides knew going into these would see whether, you know, these negotiations began long before this season. So we hadn't experienced this season's ratings yet, but there had been upticks along the way with the WNBA. And I think there was an acknowledgment from both sides that to the extent that we, the market was better or different than we were predicting, both sides agreed they'd sit down in good faith and make adjustments. One more media rights question, but this one from the RSN standpoint, the regional media rights, that business model seems to be in disarray. What is the end solution in your mind that would be best for the NBA? I'm not sure you know what we've told our teams and media companies as well is that once we got our national deals done, we were going to study the

situation extensively. That's what we're doing now. I mean, we know the starting point is roughly 18 of our teams are dealing with regional sports networks that are now either defunct or in bankruptcy. So it's not it's a difficult situation, I'd say largely not because of the value of the rights. And there's no reason that local rights shouldn't be worth as much as national rights. In fact, historically, local rights are worth more than national rights, because just here we are in New York, there's more concentration of Knicks fans here than there are nationally. But the issue is largely because it's it's it's still mainly cable, right? That's that's the essence of those deals. And the world's changed. And now you're seeing streaming services picking up a lot of the viewership. And to the extent that the teams are locked in, I would

say to more of a historical model or so is those RSN. There needs to be change. If you look at where we went nationally, I'd say that's a pretty good indication of what's going to happen. That is, more of the games will become available on streaming, we dramatically increase the number of broadcast exposures in our new national deals. I think that on a relative basis, local sports has become, has, has risen in the hierarchy in terms of the market share they can command in terms of the interest they can command. I mean, just think about where you began with the Liberty and the WNBA. I'm just mentioning Liberty here in New York. I mean, they've moved up in the pecking order, relative to other forms of programming and, and all of sports have. So we'll work through it. I'm still a believer that there's a special connection

between local providers in many cases, and those fans. I think there's a bit of a competition to call it for sort of the default channel. And I think, again, that people begin with their local sports teams. There's broad-based interests beyond that. But, you know, again, we're here in New York. You sort of begin with how did my local teams do? And I think that creates enormous opportunity for one of these distributors to start commanding, you know, commanding that attention called the home page. Where does a viewer start in the market? And I think to the extent that those local local rights become available and you have competing platforms all interested in them, that ultimately the marketplace will speak. And I think at the end of the day, we're going to see, you know, proportionate value for those local rights, you know, on a similar basis that we saw

for national rights. So it sounds like you'd prefer that like an ESPN or an Apple would come in and act as that aggregator rather than you taking back the rights. Well, I may be acting as the aggregator, but most importantly, there's going to be unique offerings for local viewers. That's really what I'm saying. Whether that those local rights are being offered by a national or global service or a service that's only local, we'll see. I think that the current model are essentially regional sports networks, which are by definition, have rights that are only available in that market. You could just with all the technology now available, you could see a broader based service where there are certain rights that are only available to people who live in the New York market or live in the Washington, D.C. market. So technology only offers more possibilities. So I'm bullish long term on the value of these rights.

Let's talk about the state of the league. This is the time where I flatter you because if you think about the league now, you've got LeBron James and Kevin Durant and Steph Curry still playing at a high level. You have international stars Nikola Jokic and Luka Doncic and Giannis. They're all competing for MVPs every year. You're coming off a year where, you know, arguably the league's most storied franchise is the world champion. You just came off a rights deal where you tripled the rights. WNBA is soaring. Is this where we are right now? Do you think that the NBA is in the best place it's been since you took over as commissioner? The NBA is in a great place. I mean, you know, it's hard to rank moments in part because a little bit you and I are trying to predict the future. So let's see what happens this season.

I mean, what's so incredible, I think, about sports is that you can't predict the future. And I think part of what you're seeing in the NBA is also an increase called in randomness, increase in parity. I mean, you know, one thing we can add to your list of compliments about the league is we've had six different teams over the last six years. Well, is that an accomplishment because there's a certain amount of fans that say we prefer Dynasties, we think that's the way that. I say those are the fans of those teams. Yeah, I mean, it's, the data is absolutely crystal clear that more competition you have, the more it drives interest in the league. If you have a 30 team league and you only have four teams that are competing for championships, of course, the fans of those teams love that, and the fans of those teams that have been

historic dynasties have disproportionate amounts of fans. Not surprisingly so. The change will happen over time. But we think competition is great. That's ultimately what we're providing to our fans. And I think that the system that's now in place, part of it is, some of it's random in terms of injuries and players, surprising fans and the magic of players coming together. So that's all part of it. But I also think there's system elements, and part of what's happened over time is, the collective bargaining agreement has been designed in a way to try to create more parity. By the way, it doesn't mean that the league doesn't like dynasties. I think it, and I think the fans, fans are the same way. It goes to how those dynasties are created. It goes to process rather than outcome. And I think what people want, fans of all teams, is

a process where there's roughly equal number of chips per team, where if I believe, you know, I'm a fan of a team, and I believe if that team is well managed and that team has its fair share of good luck, that they have a decent chance to win championships. I think that's it's corrosive over time, if you have large groups of fans whose teams, it's like, okay, I'm I'm rooting for my hometown team, but I know statistically they have almost no chance of winning. That's not fun for anybody. All right. I want to ask you a question based on that answer of something that I know has irked a particular segment of the NBA fan base for years, and that is a decision that your predecessor made in 2011 to veto the Lakers trade for Chris Paul, which I think you could argue fundamentally altered the

league's competitiveness from that point forward. The players that were involved in that trade, I think at that point kind of needed to be traded because it was now out there that the teams wanted to trade them. In hindsight, do you think that that was the right decision? Honestly, I don't know. I'd only say at the time. Just to clarify, David Stern vetoed that trade, not as the commissioner of the NBA, but as the interim, in essence governor who was overseeing New Orleans. And he made a decision that he didn't think that trade was in the best interest of that team. It became very public. But I have to assume there's plenty of situations where a GM goes to ownership and says, I'd like to make this trade, and ownership says, I don't want to make that trade. It's just in this case, it became very public and it

got messy. And so I don't want to speak for David whether. Were you involved in that decision-making? I was. I was there. I was in the room. But he, but he, he owned it. He made that decision, and I don't remember at the time other people in the league office saying it was a bad idea, but I did learn from that. I mean, for example, when the league was running the Los Angeles Clippers well-known incident after I became commissioner, because I was in the room and watched that situation unfold where David was acting as the interim owner, I appointed a guy named Dick Parsons who, you know, former CEO of Time Warner, very distinguished executive to be the interim governor of the team. And the process was, and we made clear to the other teams, Dick Parsons is in charge of the Los Angeles Clippers. Dick Parsons is in charge from a team

standpoint of deciding ultimately, who to draft, who to trade for, who to sign. Right, not Adam Silver. Not Adam Silver, so at least process wise, we all learned from that situation. I think David would have said the same thing. It was a very unique situation where you had the league overseeing one of the teams. As you look at your regular season gameplay, is there a rule change that comes to mind that you are thinking about? Are you satisfied with gameplay today? Are there too many three pointers? I wouldn't say there are too many three pointers. And when people say that, I question whether to the extent that they would find a mid-range jumper a more appealing shot. I mean, I think people like to see variety. There's no question about it. I think you and I both remember not so many years ago when people said there were too many dunks.

Sure. And so I guess that's right. People want a diversity, there's in plays and shot selection. I think where there's an opportunity in the near term to improve the game, it isn't necessarily with a rule change. It's some changes potentially in officiating. And I think it's where take tennis, for example, where technology called Hawk-Eye, which is now owned by Sony, where they've removed at the US Open the line judges. It's all automated, and you see the animation tick, tick, tick. The ball comes down, it's in or out or on the line or wherever else. Right, the crowd claps. Yeah, but and the players, even if they disagree with the call, like you just play on? Yeah. There's nothing you can do. Exactly. And I think in our case, put aside some subjective decisions by officiating, which were always working to improve

better training, etc., that there's a large category of decisions. Call them objective but are very difficult to make. For example, ball goes out of bounds off a player, so at any given time there are 100 fingers on the floor, other body parts as well that the ball can go off of to go out of bounds. Sometimes the officials are able to rely on replay, but that slows the game down a lot. And even then, even looking at replay, you're limited to the angles you have and still may be a difficult call. Um, you know, there's foot on the line, things like that. So in addition, in addition to the ball going out of bounds, we're hoping through Hawk-Eye type technology that we can automate those calls. So it would just be Laker ball you'd quickly play on. Sure, there'll be some animation that will quickly

show. So it's not a black box. What's what the AI is demonstrating. Because remember in Hawkeye, it's sometimes people watch it, think it's just a video replay. It's not video, it's an AI recreation of the ball hitting. And I think if we could take that category of calls, automate them. Number one, just think of being an NBA official, how much, how difficult your job is. So you're both watching the player, you're watching the player's hands, you're watching to see if there's a foul. You're also trying to figure out who the ball went out on, you're looking at their feet to see if they stepped out of bounds. So I think one, it would better enable them to do their jobs in terms of getting the subjective calls, but it would also increase, it

would also improve the flow of the game. I'm like, I think we're in a good place in terms of the overall time of the game. It's roughly two hours and 15 minutes right now, but I think what people like to see and part of what the attraction to basketball is the pace. And nobody wants to be getting bogged down. Multiple replays. Players are standing there waiting and even talking to players in a lot of situations. Of course, they want the call to go in their favor, but part of them, particularly when it's not. Maybe if it's in the last, you know, 30s of the game, it's worth the extra time to make sure they get it right. But over a long game, most players and coaches would just say this is a game of runs, momentum, etc. We don't want to stop, get cold, be watching

multiple angles on replay. So I think we could see in the near term. We're not there yet this season, but we're investing a lot into it, into these technologies, working with Hawkeye and other companies. If we could automate that category calls, I think it would improve the game. But no four-point line in the near future? No, not in the near future. We're not thinking about that. Um, let's talk about expansion a little bit. Can you give us sort of a timeline on what I assume is Las Vegas and then Seattle as the two major locations? I would just say possibly. I mean, we're not limiting expansion to any cities at the moment, and we're not locked in on any cities either. I mean, what we had been saying for the last few years is we want to get a new collective bargaining agreement done with the players, which we

did. We wanted to get our new media deals done, which we now have. At the last board meeting we had with our teams, which was in late September. We, in essence, said we're not ready to have an in-depth conversation on that topic yet. Interested in the owner's point of view on whether it makes sense to expand? And the league was going to begin an internal process working with consultants as well, trying to understand the dynamics of expansion. I mean, as I've said this multiple times, that expansion is the equivalent of selling equity in the league. If you have 30 partners now and you have 32 partners, even in terms of these media deals we just entered into, you now have new partners you're dividing the money up with, but also you have international, international opportunities. We have a league in Africa, for example. The NBA even owns a large part of the WNBA.

What's the value of those interests that you're selling to new partners? So part of it is math and trying to make those calculations in terms of the projections. The next part is the potential dilution of talent. You have to think a lot about that, by the way, because the expansion issue is front and center in the WNBA as well. And then so you have to determine even use WNBA, for example, where there's enormous interest in expansion franchises right now. How much talent is there to go around in the near term? I mean, there's a lot of girls and young women playing basketball, so there's no question it's going to grow over the years. But same in the NBA. You want to make sure you're fielding 30 very competitive teams. So we'll look at that as well. And then I think in terms of markets you want to make

sure you're adding markets that are additive to the league. And clearly, you know, opportunities in Seattle, opportunities in Las Vegas. Those are two of the markets we're looking at over time. Mexico City comes up a lot, you know, Vancouver. We used to be in Vancouver. Many other cities have said if we were to begin an expansion process, that they want to throw their hat in the ring, and they would be interested in potentially getting a team. So I think we have to look at all those factors. Probably that takes us at least till the spring. If we were going to give any, begin any sort of process, we'd be looking more around then. So we're several months away. There was a recent story in the New York Post talking about your WNBA sort of evaluations, where it seemed to say that there was a certain group of owners that were expressing frustration with you, that the WNBA

teams were not worth more than they are now, in part because of the way, how much control is owned by the league. Was that story correct? Are you working with owners to try to address that issue? Yeah, I, there was a lot of different points in that story, so it's hard to say correct or not correct. I would just say the answer is yes. We're working with WNBA owners, WNBA owners that also own NBA teams. And then more broadly, the NBA owners on what the right valuation of WNBA teams are going forward, what the best way is to operate that league. It's very integrated now with the NBA. There's aspects over time under Commissioner Engelbert's direction where there's still fairly integrated. They share the same office space with the NBA. But under her direction, we've added some separate departments, like, for example, where they're

doing their own marketing. Right now, they have their own basketball operations department. So it's a balance of things. But I'd say we're collectively looking at all those issues, figuring out the right way to operate going forward. We've got an election coming up in a couple of weeks. Um. We do. Are you concerned at all about, uh, some of the players or coaches in the league speaking out after the result of that election is made? No, I mean, I'm not more concerned than I think any American is right now about the divisiveness in our country. And I think our players, our coaches, um, at least a large percentage of them, of course, are Americans and choose to participate in our process. By the way, non-Americans playing in our league, operating under the rules of this country also have their free speech rights. So I actually think it's healthy for people to speak

out. I would want them to do it in a respectful way. I think those are sort of the guardrails we always put on speech in this league, that ones where making sure you're respecting the listener as well, and I think there's also a time, place, manner restrictions classically. That's how people, you know, regulate speech that in this league that certainly if there were attempts to speak out hypothetically in the middle of a game, obviously we would step in. But to the extent that a player or a coach or any member, an owner for that matter, has access to media or social media and is expressing interest and points of views on our politics, I think it's perfectly appropriate. How much does international politics sort of geo the geopolitical scene in general affect your ambitions to grow internationally? You've experimented with China, there's been dabbling from an investment standpoint, perhaps with

Saudi Arabia. Um, do you find that that's a real clash and a barrier for you? Yeah, I would say, I mean, we've more than experimented in China. We played lots of games there, and we have a pretty significant business in China. I would not say we've dabbled with Saudi Arabia. I mean, we've been playing games in UAE and Abu Dhabi. You know, the last few years. Is there interest, though, from an investment standpoint? I would just say at the end of the day, you know, the way I look at it, we're an American company. You know, number one, we take our direction from the US government. I mean, largely the State Department. I mean, in addition to whatever advisories they give us, we also have direct conversations with U.S. officials about conditions in markets, whether it's

advisable that we be there. And number two, we look at what other similarly situated companies, entertainment companies are doing. I think I would be nervous if we were operating in isolation in any of these markets. So again, whether it's China or Gulf region, there's many, many other US enterprises doing business there. You know, some sports as well, but lots of media companies, entertainment companies, lots of industries. And number three, we look at what our direct experience is in those markets and whether what we're doing is, you know, consistent with the mission of this league, you know, which is improving people's lives through basketball and through sport. And so that's the litmus test for which we operate. And to answer your question directly. So we are directly impacted by global politics to the extent that the US government is saying don't do business in a particular market, or to the extent

that we ultimately and other private sector actors decide that those are not places we should be doing business. We, we, you know, take those things into account. But I would say, just lastly, there's very few forces right now in society that are universally working to bring people together. I would say sports is one of them. I was in Paris for the Olympics. I thought having all those countries represented, represented coming together for sport is a very positive thing for the world, and I think, I see the NBA as the same way that to the extent there is basketball number two sport in the world, that we came together in a really great way for the Olympics. You know that we do this for our equivalent of our World Cup for other global competitions, and that we can use basketball to connect people around the world. I think that's very positive. Two more questions.

Um, maybe three, uh, sports betting. We're approaching the ten-year anniversary of the op-ed you wrote in your time, sort of expressing how we should rethink and expand sports betting in this country. You've already experienced sort of a minor sports betting scandal. Um, are you worried? Do you think it's likely that we are on a path where the scandal involves a major NBA superstar? And are you already thinking about how you might handle that? So, number one, I think a regulated framework for sports betting is better than illegal sports betting, where there's no transparency into what's happening. And as I wrote in that op-ed piece, I guess a decade ago now, before the Supreme Court had overturned the federal prohibition on sports betting in most markets, I was more concerned there, that because of widespread use of the internet then for whether illegal or gray market betting that we knew

there was an enormous amount of betting going on, but we had no transparency whatsoever to know what was happening, where the money was moving, etc. So I think I'm, I like the fact that we're now dealing with regulated markets. My preference would not to be dealing with, I think it's roughly 35 states now and plus D.C. have legalized sports betting. My preference would be to not deal with all these different jurisdictions, some of which have very different regulations from state to state. My preference ten years ago, it still is, that there would be a federal framework for sports betting. So I begin there. And again, I recognize that that's not likely to happen anytime soon. So we'll deal with state by state. You know, is it possible there'll be a scandal? I mean, again, going way back before I ever wrote

that op-ed piece, there's been some very well-known scandals involving all sports, you know, college sports, pro sports, where there have been bad actors. So it's something that we're always watching for. Again, though, when it's regulated, when people. This is for the legal markets. You're asking me about when people have to give their credit card and personal information, there's a much greater chance you're going to catch aberrant behavior than if people are betting with illegal bookies. So to the extent that the action increasingly moves to regulated legal markets, that will reduce the likelihood that we'll see one of those incidents. The counterargument, I suppose, and I'll let you weigh in here, is that the Atlantic just a couple of weeks ago, in fact, shout out to the CNBC sport newsletter it's linked in there from a couple of weeks ago. They put out a story saying, look, the evidence

is in, and all of these regulated markets have allowed for more sports betting, and the result of it is bad for society. It's more bankruptcy, it's more targeting of low-income families. Is that a concern of yours at all? Yeah, of course, it's a concern. But I mean, there are lotteries in every state which are viewed as largely regressive. I mean, one data point to throw out there, you know, according to at least the online betting companies that were in business with the average bet is the, I should say, the median bet is $5. I mean, there's going to be problem gamblers. I think the question is to the extent there's a problem, problem gamblers and problem gambling, are you better able to capture it through a regulated market than an illegal market? I'd also say, I think whether or not there should

be more regulation around the marketing of sports betting. I think that's a fair question. We self-regulate right now. All the major leagues do in deciding we're not going to take more than a certain amount of advertising. I'd add to that one place where I see, putting aside additional regulation, that as you see more sports provided through streaming services, which allows for more functionality, more personalization, to the extent that people don't want to be bombarded with sports betting ads or don't want to hear anything whatsoever about sports betting, you're going to be able to go click and you're going to get a fee that has no sports betting. For people who are very interested in sports betting and want to hear commentators talking about probabilities and things like that, they'll be able to elect that. So I think ultimately technology is such that you can't turn the clock back.

I think that the issue is it's a global market. That's the other thing. We have to keep it, you know, keep an eye on that. You know, U.S. can do whatever they want to do about sports betting. But the internet is global. And that's what we saw before it was legalized in the United States, that you could Again, when I wrote that op-ed piece ten years ago, you could go on Google and put in bed NBA or bed, NFL or any property, and you could literally look at thousands of sites, and they had little credit card, you know, flags from major credit card companies, and clearly people, there was widespread betting. So, of course, I'm concerned to the extent there's a problem betting, and we should address that directly. I don't think going back and now saying sports betting is illegal in the United States is going to solve the problem.

Last question is a favorite of our producer, Jess Golden. What keeps you up at night? The West Coast Games. Yes, literally. How about after the West Coast games? It's getting pretty late then. I mean, I, I by nature, I'm a worrier. I think you asked it before about geopolitics. I think, you know, whether it's global politics, whether it's US politics, divisiveness is bad for our sport. I think it's bad for most businesses. You want to see people's willingness to deal with each other respectfully. I think to the extent that, um, played out on the sports field, you see, um, the political, you know, sports becoming more political, that worries me. And I know we've contributed to it. And I think that, you know, when we take a fresh look, I get it on one hand, I think that the participants have

their same rights that other citizens do. But I, outside of the framework of the court or the playing field, I still would, you know, encourage them to approach politics in a respectful way, to be good listeners, to be respectful of other people's points of view. So, but I would say I don't think those concerns are unique to sports. They worry me as an American. Yeah. Thanks, Adam. Thank you.

NBA Commissioner On The Media Rights Deal, New Technology And WNBA's Growth

Welcome to the official YouTube channel for CNBC. From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.

For real-time news updates from around the world, visit: http://www.cnbc.com

For CNBC's primetime TV lineup, visit http://tv.cnbc.com

For CNBC's International YouTube channel, visit: http://www.youtube.com/cnbcinternational

NBA Commissioner On The Media Rights Deal, New Technology And WNBA's Growth

NBA Commissioner On The Media Rights Deal, New Technology And WNBA's Growth

스크립트