- Casino operator Penn National Gaming agreed to buy a minority stake in Barstool Sports for $163 million, a deal that now values the popular sports and pop culture blog at $450 million.
- Since sports gambling was legalized in 2018, media and gambling companies have been rushing to enter the market.
- By combining their forces, media companies get access to revenue streams outside of advertising, while gambling companies get access to new consumers and a broader reach.
- While some believe this model will spread, others note that Barstool has a unique following and ability to monetize its audience that sets it apart from others.
Penn National Buys Barstool Stake
Casino operator Penn National Gaming announced Wednesday that it bought a $163 Million stake in sports pop culture blog Barstool Sports, valuing the media company at $450 million.
In a press release, Penn National said that they had acquired a 36% stake in Barstool, adding that in three years the casino operator will “increase its ownership to approximately 50% with an incremental investment of approximately $62 million.”
Penn National will now be the “exclusive gaming partner” of Barstool for “up to 40 years,” according to the press release.
Penn National will also have “the sole right to utilize the Barstool Sports brand for all of the Company’s online and retail sports betting and iCasino products.”
Barstool founder Dave Portnoy separately announced the deal in a video on Twitter, where he talked about how he started Barstool as a “gambling rag” 17 years ago, and how the company has a deep history connected to gambling.
“We just needed a company with a shared vision,” he said. “That vision is Penn National Gaming. They have one of the biggest infrastructures in the country for gambling. They have sports tracks, they have casinos, they’re all over the country.”
“They have the infrastructure, we have this rabid audience, this fan base craving it,” Portnoy added.
“Together, we’re going to create an omnipresent approach to gambling, on-premise, off-premise: Barstool casinos, bars, pizza places, you name it, we’re going to build it. All fueled by the Barstool media engine.”
Win-Win for Media and Gambling Companies
The deal is a significant step for Barstool and Penn National, but it is also representative of a broader change in the gambling industry.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that sports gambling was legal in the U.S., giving individual states the power to decide if they wanted to legalize.
According to the Wall Street Journal, 20 states and DC have legalized sports gambling. While some of those states only allow it to take place in casinos, others do permit online betting.
Since the decision, there has been a rush by both the gambling industry and media companies to capitalize on that new market, specifically when it comes to online gambling.
Those efforts have proven to be incredibly lucrative. According to the American Gaming Association, gamblers have placed $15.8 billion in sports bets and generated $1.1 billion in revenue for sportsbooks since the Supreme Court ruling.
Online betting has been the most profitable in states where it is allowed like New Jersey, where nearly 84% of the $4.58 billion the state brought in from sports wagers last year came from online bets, according to the Journal.
The thing that is so unique about this market is that media and gambling companies do not have to be competitors. When companies like Penn National and Barstool combine their resources, both benefit.
Working jointly is good for companies like Barstool because digital-media companies primarily depend on advertising revenue. But combing forces with a gambling industry giant allows them to diversify their revenue streams.
It is also beneficial for big gambling operations like Penn National because media companies give them access to their large, young audience.
For example, Barstool sports has 66 million monthly unique visitors. By pairing with a popular company like Barstool, Penn National— which is very lucrative but not very well known— can grow its profile nationally while simultaneously cutting down on costs.
This saves gambling companies money because attracting new customers through normal means like advertising Facebook and Google can be expensive.
According to filings from the sports betting company DraftKings, the company paid an average of $406 for each new customer acquired in New Jersey in the first half of 2019.
Future of Sports Gambling
While some predict that this model will be used for other media and gambling company pair-ups in the future, others are not so sure.
In an article for Forbes, writer Daniel Marcus argued that from the get-go, Barstool, “has been willing to leverage its’ rabid and loyal fan base into other revenue opportunities outside of the traditional advertising model.”
Marcus notes that Portnoy has always mobilized Barstool’s fans in a unique way, like through selling merchandise and convincing fans to actually buy that merchandise in a way other companies have not.
He also said that while other media companies have leaned into premium subscription models, Barstool has always supported growth without doing so.
“For those assuming this deal will trigger some sort of domino effect that will benefit the other sports media entities that are currently in play, I wouldn’t count on it, as few of them have proven they are able to effectively monetize their audiences beyond advertising,” he wrote.
While Portnoy has been effective at reaching his fans, he has also been a controversial figure. In August, he came under fire after he threatened to fire Barstool employees who talked to union activists in a series of tweets.
He was later forced to remove the tweets in a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board.
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (Forbes) (Business Insider)
CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart Helped Fuel the Opioid Crisis, Jury Finds
While all three chains have vowed to appeal, this ruling is a massive win for plaintiffs who argued that opioid manufacturers and retailers violated “public nuisance” laws when contributing to the opioid epidemic.
Jury Sides Against Retailers
A federal jury in Cleveland agreed Tuesday that CVS Health, Walgreens, and Walmart — three of the country’s biggest pharmacy chains — are responsible for contributing to the opioid crisis in two Ohio counties.
This is the first time that the retail arm of the drug industry has been held accountable for opioid overdoses and deaths. It’s also the first time a jury has been used to decide in a major opioid lawsuit.
Previously, only manufacturers such as Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson faced settlements or penalties, though the latter narrowly escaped $465 million in opioid fines in Oklahoma earlier this month after the state’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling.
Many plaintiffs in thousands of similar lawsuits all across the country are seeing the Ohio jury’s decision as an optimistic sign — especially since most of them are using the same argument. Plaintiffs in Ohio alleged that either opioid manufacturers or retailers violated “public nuisance” laws by ignoring harm caused by opioid abuse that later snowballed into a full-fledged public health crisis.
Retailers Vow to Appeal
Unsurprisingly, all three chains have promised to appeal Tuesday’s verdict.
There is precedent to think this decision could be overturned. For example, the now-overturned J&J lawsuit first successfully used the public nuisance argument in lower courts, but during an appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court thought the plaintiff’s argument was too broad.
That said, every state has different public nuisance laws, so there may not be a clear-cut answer as to what actually could happen with all these cases.
Despite a pending appeal, the judge overseeing Tuesday’s Ohio verdict will make a determination on how much these companies must pay after additional hearings in the spring.
While the retail arm has largely avoided settling up to this point, if this case ultimately does not go their way, it could open the door for future settlements if they decide that route is less costly than going to trial.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Associated Press) (The Wall Street Journal)
Biden Authorizes Release of 50 Million Barrels of Oil From U.S. Reserve To Ease Gas Prices
Experts believe the release will, at best, provide temporary relief to extremely high gas prices but only if other countries tap into a significant amount of oil from their reserves as well.
Biden Taps Into Oil Reserves
President Joe Biden authorized the release of 50 million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve on Tuesday in an attempt to bring down staggeringly high gas prices.
“American consumers are feeling the impact of elevated gas prices at the pump and in their home heating bills, and American businesses are, too, because oil supply has not kept up with demand as the global economy emerges from the pandemic,” a White House announcement reads. “That’s why President Biden is using every tool available to him to work to lower prices and address the lack of supply.”
As of Tuesday morning, the national average of gas sat at $3.40, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA). While down slightly over the last few days, the national average for November remains the highest it’s been since 2013.
Despite the announcement, Americans shouldn’t expect to see an immediate drop in gas costs. In fact, gas prices are unlikely to be impacted much in the coming weeks since the government’s reserve only stores crude oil, which will need time to be refined into gasoline.
Many analysts expect gas from the reserves to start reaching consumers’ pumps around mid-December, but even then, it will likely be used up in around a week. Last year, the U.S. used about 8 million barrels of gas from the reserve a day.
Those two factors are likely major contributors to why this news didn’t do much to calm the oil market. Following the announcement Tuesday, the benchmark oil price in the U.S. — measured by West Texas Intermediate crude futures — actually rose.
Last week, Biden asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into “mounting evidence of anti-consumer behavior by oil and gas companies” amid rising gas prices.
Price Concerns Persist
In its announcement, the White House said the U.S. release is being taken “in parallel with other major energy consuming nations, including China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom.”
A number of analysts cited by various news publications have predicted that this kind of multi-country release is the only chance the U.S. actually has of meaningfully impacting gas prices.
“The bottom line for motorists is this moves the needle — but barely, and maybe not for a very long period of time,” Patrick De Haan, an industry expert at Gas Buddy, explained to The Washington Post. “It’s certainly something, but how much that something is will be contingent on how much the other countries put in.”
It is currently unclear how much oil the other countries plan to release, though Indian officials have said the country will release 5 million barrels from its reserve.
Efforts could also go south in the long-term if the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) pushes back. It previously warned of a possible response if Biden decided to make this type of release, with the organization arguing that the U.S. has no real justification for needing to tap into its reserve.
“There’s a threat this could lead to a risk of prices being elevated for longer if OPEC holds back meaningful production increases as a result,” De Haan told The Post.
Overall, the release of oil is a tricky situation for Biden. He was already facing stacking criticism from Republicans for recent inflation and supply chain bottlenecks. Even now, many have said the release of 50 million barrels isn’t good enough on its own.
On the other side, Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) have argued that tapping into the reserve could provide temporary relief.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Business Insider) (Fox Business)
Looters Launch Coordinated Attacks on High-End Stores Like Louis Vuitton in Chicago and San Francisco
It’s unclear if the multiple attacks in each city are connected, but police have described the events as coordinated and planned.
Raid on San Francisco’s Union Square
Dozens of individuals looted at least 10 stores in San Francisco’s Union Square on Friday, though that’s far from the only seemingly organized raid that occurred over the weekend.
Cell phone video from the incident shows multiple people running into a Louis Vuitton store and emerging with armfuls of merchandise. KGO-TV reporter Dion Lim shared images of the store picked clean in the aftermath, with its windows shattered. Burberry, Fendi, and YSL were among the other businesses she said looters targeted.
Video shared by Twitter user @CARLITOSGUEY shows San Francisco police officers swarming a Mustang outside of the Louis Vuitton store and beating its windows with their batons. They then pull someone from the passenger’s seat and pin that person to the ground.
At a news conference on Saturday, police told reporters they “were confronting an armed individual” in the Mustang. That vehicle, along with another, has now been seized by the department. Police also said they have so far made eight arrests connected to the incident.
Police Chief Bill Scott has called the attack “concerted,” saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that this was not unplanned.”
In total, over $1 million in merchandise was stolen.
Other San Francisco Raids
Friday’s raid was quickly followed up the next night when around 80 looters ransacked a Nordstrom near San Francisco. All but three thieves managed to evade authorities.
At least two store employees were assaulted during the attack, including one worker who was pepper-sprayed by looters, according to a press release published Sunday by the Walnut Creek Police Department.
Like the previous raid in Union Square, police described this attack as “clearly a planned event.”
On Sunday night, yet another raid occurred at a jewelry store in Hayward, which is about 30 miles outside of San Francisco.
As of Monday afternoon, investigators have not been able to confirm whether these attacks are connected, though in recent years — and especially in recent months — they have become increasingly common.
For example, in May, Walgreens said it closed 17 Bay Area stores because of rampant shoplifting.
“We are exploring every single possible criminal charge related to the conduct,” San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin said Saturday. “We will use every tool in our tool belt.”
Chicago Louis Vuittons Raided
The attacks in San Francisco follow a similar event that happened in a Louis Vuitton store in the suburbs of Chicago this past Wednesday.
During that heist, a group of 14 seemingly unarmed individuals ran into the store in broad daylight and began stockpiling merchandise sitting on shelves.
So far, police have not made any arrests; however, they said they have retrieved one of the three vehicles the looters used as getaway cars.
They also confirmed that no one was injured during the attack but that $120,000 in merchandise was stolen.