The Fight to Control Warner: Ellison’s Power Project vs. Netflix’s Strategic Ambition

Hollywood is no longer shaped by audience demand but by competing political blocs and foreign capital. Netflix’s $82.7 billion bid for Warner Bros. triggered immediate scrutiny, with President Trump signaling he would “be involved” as regulators examine the streamer’s expanding market power.

Within hours, Paramount, backed by Larry Ellison, RedBird, Gulf sovereign funds, and Jared Kushner, countered with a hostile $77.9 billion all-cash bid. What began as a studio auction has become a partisan contest for control of America’s most powerful storytelling engine. Unlike Netflix’s bid for the studio and HBO streaming assets, Paramount is attempting to acquire the whole Warner Bros. Discovery enterprise, including its linear networks.

---

A Sale Transformed Into a Political Struggle

What began as a strategic content acquisition quickly turned into a battle for influence in Washington. On December 5, 2025, Netflix announced its agreement to purchase the studio and streaming assets of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for an enterprise value of $82.7 billion — a deal widely described as Netflix’s ticket to cultural prestige and sustained production scale.

But the reaction in Washington revealed just how high the political stakes had grown. Within hours, former President Donald Trump signalled he would “be involved,” directing advisers to monitor the deal’s antitrust implications. Lawmakers from both parties voiced concern over the size and influence of a combined Netflix–Warner entity, particularly its potential impact on competition, theatrical distribution, and content diversity.

Just as quickly, the script flipped: Paramount Skydance, backed by Larry Ellison, RedBird Capital, multiple Gulf sovereign-wealth funds aligned through the Abraham Accords network, and Affinity Partners (linked to Jared Kushner), launched a hostile $77.9 billion all-cash bid for the entire WBD. What started as a bid for studios and streaming has morphed into a full-scale assault for control of news networks, global distribution, and media influence.

The stakes could not be higher. The winner stands to control HBO, Warner’s storied film and TV library, global distribution channels, and decades of cultural capital. This tug-of-war isn’t just a contest for assets, but a struggle over who defines Hollywood’s future: a global streamer guided by algorithms, or a politically connected media bloc wielding financial and geopolitical power.

---

The Coming Distribution Winter

Regardless of the winner, the industry faces a three-phase realignment:

1. Radical reduction in theatrical output, as buyers cut expensive bets to stabilize balance sheets.
2. A retreat from global licensing, with library content locked behind walled-garden platforms.
3. A collapse in bargaining leverage for independents, as fewer buyers with more political motives dominate the marketplace.

For international distributors, the Warner sale is a harbinger: Hollywood’s output will consolidate into fewer franchises, fewer films, and fewer territories. The majors will adopt a “content austerity” model—less volume, higher prices, and limited licensing.

The irony is unavoidable: after decades of warning that Netflix would destroy Hollywood, the legacy studios destroyed themselves by trying to copy Netflix. Now the only entities capable of rescuing them are tech giants, sovereign funds, and political financiers, which are reshaping the industry into something unrecognizable.

As these seismic shifts accelerate, understanding the real economics of streaming has never been more essential. FilmTake’s SVOD Rate Reports, which are derived from confidential deal structures and licensing rates that major platforms rarely acknowledge publicly, offer the most reliable window into how valuation benchmarks are actually set across North America, Europe, and key international markets. The data reveals how dominant streamers have quietly reset global pricing expectations, a reality that distributors and producers must now navigate with far greater precision.

---

See What Streamers Pay in Major Markets

Develop, Budget, Negotiate, and Forecast with Precision.

---

Netflix’s Bid: Strategic Ambition Meets Political Resistance

Netflix’s proponents insist the deal is straightforward: pair the world’s largest streaming platform, now approaching 280+ million global subscribers, with the crown jewel studio that created the modern franchise. Netflix wants HBO’s brand cachet, Warner’s theatrical infrastructure, and a pipeline of known IP to offset its chronic struggle to produce breakout hits.

Despite its streaming dominance, Netflix has a persistent problem: it remains unable to produce globally popular films consistently. Its most-watched movies skew toward middling commercial thrillers, while its award-focused titles, “Roma,” “The Irishman,” and “Maestro,” may garner critical praise but negligible viewership. On the series side, its high-water mark remains its pioneering first entry, House of Cards, more than a decade ago.

By absorbing Warner, Netflix would instantly inherit Hollywood’s most reliable hitmaker, accelerating its pivot back toward theatrical releases and giving it distribution leverage it has never possessed. Yet this sound logic clashes with political optics. The Obama-aligned founders of Netflix face a Justice Department now openly discussing “market share concerns,” and a White House that has signaled ambivalence at best, and active resistance at worst.

---

Paramount’s Counteroffensive: Cash, Influence, and Geopolitical Capital

The Ellison family’s tight political alignment with Trump, which is reinforced by Larry Ellison’s role as the IDF’s largest private donor and his deepening ties to Israeli power networks, combined with Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds routed through the Abraham Accords framework, gives Paramount a degree of political insulation that Netflix cannot approach. These same alliances recently culminated in an Israeli-aligned operative being installed atop CBS News after the network’s takeover, underscoring how closely the Ellison–Trump–Israel axis now intersects with American media ownership.

David Ellison has promised sweeping changes to CNN, a long-running target of Trump’s ire, and has reportedly communicated directly with senior White House officials during the bidding process. Larry Ellison, one of Trump’s closest billionaire supporters, immediately called the president to warn that a Netflix-Warner tie-up would “hurt competition.”

The capital structure also reveals the geopolitical stakes. Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and Kushner’s Affinity Partners have agreed to provide equity while waiving voting rights to circumvent CFIUS scrutiny. In effect, Paramount is offering Warner a political growth strategy, not an industrial one, a realignment of America’s largest news and entertainment properties under financiers and sovereign funds with a clear ideological vision.

---

A Decision That Will Shape Global Distribution

The impact on global distribution is enormous regardless of the outcome.

If Netflix wins, it gains:

• A near-unmatched film and series pipeline to reinforce its subscription model.
• Instant expansion of theatrical distribution, resolving its chronic inability to convert streaming hits into box-office revenue.
• A content moat deep enough to sideline mid-tier competitors (Peacock, AppleTV, and even Prime Video’s lower-engagement original slate).

But this consolidation would further reduce licensing opportunities for independents. Netflix already internalizes its verticals. Absorbing Warner would shutter a century-old practice: selling premium content into external windows across Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

If Paramount wins, the consequences shift in the opposite direction:

• A politically aligned media empire combining Paramount, Skydance, TikTok’s U.S. operations, and potentially CNN.
• A recommitment to legacy licensing, since Paramount lacks Netflix’s global reach and must monetize content through third-party distributors.
• Surging influence of Israel and Gulf sovereign wealth funds in Hollywood’s greenlighting and foreign sales strategies.

Both outcomes accelerate the death of the middle market. Independent distributors, already squeezed by shrinking Pay-1 values and collapsing linear networks, will see fewer opportunities in either scenario.

---

FilmTake Away: Hollywood’s Future Will Be Decided in D.C., Not California

The Netflix-Paramount showdown for Warner is not a bidding war—it is a referendum on the future of Hollywood. The choice is between an algorithmic empire seeking total vertical integration and a politically aligned media bloc backed by foreign sovereign wealth. Either path cements the end of the independent studio era and accelerates the transformation of entertainment into a partisan instrument.

Hollywood is no longer for sale; it has already been sold—the only question is to whom, and for what purpose.

---