There’s the newish trend of granting a lot of access, but then there are two competing forces at play: You want to tell viewers the full, warts-and-all story, but you also are partnering with leagues that may want a more positive story to be told. Is that a problem for you? Yes, sometimes those things are in conflict. I feel like I have enough wherewithal and credibility to say there are certain things we can’t agree to. But the reality is that in sports storytelling, you’ve always been dealing with league I.P. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etcetera, all control the use of their footage. So there are guardrails on all of these projects, and it’s incumbent upon the producer and director to have all the hard conversations up front, and to make sure you’re working with people who are totally aligned with you in the story you’re telling, and how you have to tell the story. There have been a lot of projects that have either been brought to us, or we’ve explored, where the balance wasn’t right. As independent producers, we have agency, and we don’t do it. Everybody has the line they’re willing to walk up to, or not walk up to. I feel very good about the choices we’ve made, when we’ve made deals with leagues or teams or subject matters, in that we’re always telling an honest story. But not every project is the same. When we made O.J.: Made in America with Ezra Edelman, the subject was not involved. So each of these projects has a different goal and ambition.

You’ve placed shows on Netflix, Max, ESPN, etcetera. When you’re starting a documentary, or any kind of nonfiction series, are you thinking about what platform the project is tailor-made for? That’s not necessarily the driving force. I work really closely with an amazing team, and we’re mostly focused on the story, and whether we have conviction around telling said story. And then the second question, because we are running a business: Is there a market for it? It does feel like each of those platforms has sort of developed their own style and brand. We’ll commit to making things, and start making them, before we go to market with it. But often, we’ll have in the back of our minds, like, Oh, it would be amazing if this ended up on HBO. That was something Simmons and I said to each other a lot about Celtic City before we did a deal with them. ESPN is a linear network, and of course has a streaming component. What’s something you’ve made that you’re saying, Yeah, that’ll be perfect for ESPN? We did a show called Full Court Press, with Peyton Manning and Jamie Horowitz at Omaha Productions. For the second season, Kristen Lappas, Hannah Beir, Alexa Conway, and Nikki Spetseris made an amazing show following this year in women’s college basketball. They picked three phenomenal players—Flau’jae Johnson, Hannah Hidalgo, and Kiki Iriafen—and tracked their journey. ESPN is the perfect platform for that. They have such a commitment to women’s sports overall, particularly to women’s college basketball. The fans are there. That show can sort of seamlessly integrate into so many other things they’re doing. Then, we’re doing this Kansas City Chiefs show with them, which will come out around football season. And again, ESPN has so many ways to talk about that show, and to find the right audience for that show across a number of platforms. So, those are two great examples of projects that felt immediately like, This is an ESPN show. You started Words + Pictures after you left ESPN, and you’ve done a lot of nonfiction shows. Where do you see the biggest growth potential for your company? We work with a limited set of buyers, and the minute you do something with one of those partners that they’re unhappy with, or you’re not paying attention to, you lose your good will. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve done this, or what you’ve done in the past, you have to prove yourself every time. With that in mind, one of the tension points in the business is: How much do you do, and how much can you scale? One of the reasons I wanted to leave what was a great job, and great circumstances, at ESPN, was because I aspired to tell stories outside of sports. So that’s a natural growth initiative for us. I also think you’re seeing a shift in live events, from traditional networks that have big infrastructures, to streamers, who haven’t built those infrastructures, and it’s not clear if they ever will. So I view it as an opportunity in the market to become a really credible provider of big live programming. Another thing that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about is where brands play in all of this. You’re seeing a lot of traditional marketers who are maybe spending less of their budget on traditional 30-second advertisements. So I’ve been thinking about how they play in the content space. It’s a really interesting time because everything’s changing. The market’s really hard, but there’s opportunity. If you can figure out new models for people, that’s how you can be really successful.

On Goodell’s decision to turn down Sen. Cruz’s invitation to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee: “If I were Goodell, I wouldn’t go in front of Congress, either. He would just be asked about the NFL’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies by grandstanding Senators like Ted Cruz, followed by bad-faith questions about white cornerbacks. What does he really have to gain?” —A Varsity subscriber On cable’s implosion: “MLB Network isn’t going anywhere. Oh, and your O’s stink, too.” —An MLB fan On the journalist who doubted I knew what “inamorata” meant: “You so need to give that journalist crap. You definitely could (possibly do) know the name of Emily Ratajkowski’s swimwear line is Inamorata. And Jordon Hudson almost certainly does, so I loved the original callout. Tell that journalist to hush, because your Marchand jokes have enough esoteric alcohol references to support being educated.” —A Varsity subscriber

See you tomorrow, John