Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

Netflix-Warner Bros acquisition deep dive

Author

Rohit Malhotra
December 18, 2025

In partnership with

đź‘‹ Hi, it’s Rohit Malhotra and welcome to the FREE edition of Partner Growth Newsletter, my weekly newsletter doing deep dives into the fastest-growing startups and S1 briefs. Subscribe to join readers who get Partner Growth delivered to their inbox every Wednesday morning.

Latest posts

If you’re new, not yet a subscriber, or just plain missed it, here are some of our recent editions.

Partners

You can (easily) launch a newsletter too

This newsletter you couldn’t wait to open? It runs on beehiiv — the absolute best platform for email newsletters.

Our editor makes your content look like Picasso in the inbox. Your website? Beautiful and ready to capture subscribers on day one.

And when it’s time to monetize, you don’t need to duct-tape a dozen tools together. Paid subscriptions, referrals, and a (super easy-to-use) global ad network — it’s all built in.

beehiiv isn’t just the best choice. It’s the only choice that makes sense.

Interested in sponsoring these emails? See our partnership options here.

Subscribe to the Life Self Mastery podcast, which guides you on getting funding and allowing your business to grow rocketship. 

Previous guests include Guy Kawasaki, Brad Feld, James Clear, Nick Huber, Shu Nyatta and 350+ incredible guests.

Netflix - Warner Bros acquisition

Introduction

The Netflix-Warner Bros. deal isn't your typical streaming consolidation—it's a masterclass in what happens when a platform company realizes its biggest weakness isn't content volume, it's content permanence. Netflix absorbed an entire century-old studio for $82.7 billion, not as a content acquisition but as an existential hedge.

On the surface: regulatory approval pending, $59 billion in temporary bank debt, a rival $108 billion hostile bid from Paramount. But look closer, and it gets more interesting.

Netflix didn't win by outspending everyone or launching flashier originals. It won by owning the layer nobody else was fighting for—the franchise layer. The enduring IP that lives beyond algorithmic churn: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the DC Universe, HBO's entire prestige catalog.

While every streamer raced to pump out more content faster, Netflix recognized a brutal truth: hits fade, but universes compound. Disney has Marvel and Star Wars. Universal has Jurassic Park. Netflix had... Stranger Things and a mountain of shows people binged once and forgot.

The leadership—Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters—had lived inside the streaming wars long enough to see the inflection point. Growth was slowing. Competition was intensifying. The era of "spend $17 billion a year on originals and pray something sticks" was ending. What Netflix needed wasn't more content. It was moats—stories with decades of brand equity that no competitor could cheaply replicate.

And here's the brutal efficiency: Warner Bros. was bleeding. AT&T had dumped it onto Discovery in 2022, leaving the combined company with $40 billion in debt and collapsing cable revenue. Discovery couldn't pull off a miracle. Warner wasn't selling because it wanted to. It was selling because it had no choice.

Netflix plugged directly into that desperation. Four years of positive free cash flow, an investment-grade credit rating, and the distribution infrastructure to turn Warner's legacy library into global streaming dominance. Not because they raised the most or had the flashiest pitch. Because they solved the hardest part of modern entertainment—and made it sustainable enough that regulators might actually let it happen.

But there's a twist: Paramount just threw $108 billion on the table. And if they win, Netflix owes Warner a $5.8 billion breakup fee.

Why Warner Had No Choice

Warner Bros didn't end up on the auction block because of bad luck. It ended up there because of bad math—compounded over two disastrous ownership changes in less than five years.

Let’s start with AT&T. In 2018, the telecom giant paid $85 billion to acquire Time Warner, betting it could own both content and distribution. Except AT&T had no idea how to run an entertainment company. Within three years, drowning in $180 billion of debt and losing ground in the 5G race, they realized they'd made a catastrophic mistake.

So in 2022, AT&T found someone willing to take the problem off their hands: David Zaslav and Discovery Networks.

Zaslav's pitch was simple. Discovery alone—Food Network, HGTV, reality TV—could never compete with Disney or Netflix. But Discovery plus WarnerMedia? HBO, Warner Bros. studios, DC Comics, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter. That was a different story.

The merger closed in April 2022. Warner Bros. Discovery inherited nearly $40 billion in debt and walked straight into a perfect storm.

Cable TV revenue—the cash cow funding Warner's operations for decades—collapsed faster than anyone predicted. Cord-cutting accelerated. Ad dollars evaporated. HBO Max and Discovery Plus haemorrhaged billions trying to compete with Netflix's scale. Warner Bros. Discovery reported a staggering $2.1 billion loss in Q4 2022 alone.

Zaslav tried everything. Slashed content spending. Purged HBO Max's library. Even shelved a nearly-completed Batgirl movie—$90 million—for a tax write-off. Wall Street called it "cost discipline." Hollywood called it butchery.

None of it worked. By mid-2025, the board faced a truth nobody wanted to say out loud: Warner couldn't service its debt, couldn't compete in streaming, and couldn't wait for cable to stop dying.

The plan: separate the studio business from the dying cable networks, spin off Discovery Global by Q3 2026, and sell Warner Bros. to whoever could afford it.

Warner wasn't selling because it wanted to. It was selling because the alternative was bankruptcy. When Netflix showed up with $82.7 billion, Zaslav didn't negotiate. He said yes before someone changed their mind.

Why Netflix Actually Needs Franchises

Netflix dominates streaming with 280 million subscribers and $36 billion in annual revenue. The most-watched platform on the planet. But it has a problem that money alone can't solve: everything it builds disappears.

Stranger Things was massive. Then it ended. Squid Game broke records. Then the hype faded. Wednesday, Bridgerton, Money Heist—all hits. None of them are the franchises you'd build theme parks around or defend in a boardroom for the next 20 years.

Compare that to Disney: Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and Universal: Jurassic Park, Fast & Furious. Amazon bought MGM just to own James Bond. These aren't shows. They're universes - multi-decade IP engines that print money across theatrical, streaming, merchandise, and licensing.

Netflix has been trying to manufacture that magic for years. Spending $17 billion annually on originals, hoping something sticks beyond the algorithm's 28-day relevance window. But cultural endurance doesn't work that way. You can't brute-force a mythology.

And the streaming wars are shifting. Growth is slowing. Every major player now has a service. The land-grab phase is over. What comes next is consolidation and differentiation—and Netflix's competitive moat was never content quality. It was distribution scale. But scale without sticky IP is just expensive churn.

Warner Bros. solves that in one transaction with franchises like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and The DC Universe. This isn't a content deal. It's an insurance policy against irrelevance.

It also gives Netflix something it's always lacked: theatrical credibility. Warner Bros releases 15-20 films a year in cinemas. Real studios, real infrastructure, real relationships with talent who still care about seeing their work on a 40-foot screen.

Netflix spent a decade killing the old Hollywood model. Now it's buying what's left—because it turns out, owning the future means owning the past. And Warner Bros is the past. All of it.

How Netflix Plans to Pay

$82.7 billion is not a number you just wire transfer. It's a financial engineering project—one that requires Netflix to blow up its balance sheet in ways it hasn't since the pre-pandemic content spending binge.

Here's the breakdown: $23.25 per share in cash and $4.50 in Netflix stock with a total equity value of $72 billion. Add Warner's existing debt, and the enterprise value hits $82.7 billion. The stock portion includes a collar—if Netflix's share price swings too far before closing, the exchange ratio adjusts to protect both sides.

To fund the cash portion, Netflix is taking on $59 billion in temporary bridge loans from Wells Fargo, BNP, and HSBC. That's short-term debt designed to close the deal fast. Once the acquisition clears regulatory approval, Netflix plans to refinance the bridge into something more sustainable: up to $25 billion in corporate bonds, $20 billion in delayed-draw term loans, and a $5 billion revolving credit facility.

The rest? Cash flow. Netflix generated $6.9 billion in free cash flow last year and expects that number to grow post-merger. The plan is to use operating income to pay down debt aggressively while the combined entity scales.

Still, the math is brutal. Netflix currently carries about $15 billion in debt. Post-acquisition, that number jumps to roughly $75 billion. Bloomberg Intelligence calculates the merged company's net debt-to-EBITDA ratio at 3.7x—manageable for an investment-grade company, but high enough that Morgan Stanley analysts are already warning about potential credit downgrades.

Moody's affirmed Netflix's A3 rating but shifted the outlook from "positive" to "stable," citing increased acquisition risk. If the deal stumbles—or if Paramount's hostile bid forces Netflix to raise its offer—those ratings could drop to BBB, increasing borrowing costs across the board.

The good news? Analysts believe Netflix can de-lever quickly. Expected EBITDA growth should push the leverage ratio down to the mid-2x range by 2027. "Netflix has earned the right to take on an acquisition of this size," said Jim Fitzpatrick of Allspring Global. "Their balance sheet has plenty of capacity."

Paramount's Hostile Bid

Just as Hollywood was digesting Netflix's $82.7 billion offer, Paramount Skydance dropped a bomb: an all-cash bid worth $108 billion—$26 billion higher than Netflix's offer.

Netflix only wants the studio business—Warner Bros., HBO, HBO Max. Paramount wants everything. Including the dying cable networks that Warner is desperately trying to spin off into Discovery Global.

Why would anyone voluntarily take on cable TV in 2025? Because for Paramount, cable isn't a liability—it's the foundation.

Paramount still makes most of its money from linear television. CBS, MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, BET, local sports networks, and hundreds of affiliate stations keep the ecosystem alive. Adding Warner's cable assets—CNN, TNT Sports, Discovery channels across Europe—would give Paramount enormous leverage in advertising negotiations, sports rights bidding, and distribution deals with providers.

It's a scale play. If cord-cutting is inevitable, Paramount wants to be the last network standing—the one with enough content and reach that cable providers have to carry them. Owning CNN alone would make Paramount a kingmaker in news distribution.

But there's a problem: Warner Bros. Discovery doesn't want to sell the cable business. That's why they're spinning it off into Discovery Global as a separate publicly traded entity. The deal with Netflix is structured to close after that separation, meaning Netflix only inherits the profitable studio assets.

Paramount's bid throws that timeline into chaos. If Warner's board accepts the higher offer, Netflix walks away—but not empty-handed. The definitive agreement includes a $5.8 billion breakup fee that Warner would owe Netflix if another bidder wins.

That's not a deterrent. That's a golden parachute. Paramount would absorb the fee, pay the higher price, and still come out ahead if they believe the combined entity can survive the cable decline.

The question now: does Warner's board take the sure thing with Netflix, or chase the bigger number and risk regulatory hell with Paramount?

What Could Go Wrong

Buying Warner Bros. is the easy part. Running it? That's where Netflix's entire thesis could collapse.

Netflix moves fast. Ship content, measure engagement, kill what doesn't work. No executives screening cuts for months. No focus groups. No legacy baggage. Warner Bros. is the opposite—a century-old studio with union contracts, guild structures, complex co-production agreements, and a creative culture where directors still have final cut and stars negotiate gross points on theatrical releases.

Netflix has never operated at that scale. It's never managed theatrical distribution pipelines. It's never navigated talent relationships where A-listers expect red carpets, Oscar campaigns, and multi-month release windows. The Irishman got a limited theatrical run. Frankenstein played in select theaters for two weeks. That's not how Warner releases The Batman or Dune.

And the film industry knows it. Cinema owners in the U.S. have already called the merger an "unprecedented threat" to theatrical exhibition. "Netflix's stated business model does not support theatrical exhibition," said Michael O'Leary, president of Cinema United. An anonymous group of high-profile filmmakers sent an open letter to Congress warning that Netflix could "destroy" the theatrical movie business if the deal is allowed to proceed.

Netflix's pitch included a pledge to continue theatrical releases. But why would anyone believe that? The company spent a decade conditioning audiences to wait two weeks for movies to hit streaming. Why pay $20 for tickets and $15 for popcorn when you can watch it at home before the reviews even drop?

Then there's HBO Max. Why would Netflix keep a rival streaming platform alive when it could just fold the content into its own service? That would mean one less subscription for consumers—but likely a price hike from Netflix to compensate.

And the monopoly question looms large. Fewer streamers means less competition. Less competition means higher prices, fewer choices, and exactly the kind of market consolidation that regulators exist to prevent.

What This Means for Hollywood

This isn't just a deal. It's a power transfer—the moment streaming officially conquered old Hollywood.

For a century, studios controlled everything. They owned the IP, the distribution, the talent relationships, the theatrical release calendar. Even when HBO and cable disrupted the model in the '80s and '90s, the studios adapted. They licensed content, collected checks, and maintained control.

Streaming broke that. Not gradually. Violently.

Disney bought 21st Century Fox in 2019 for $71 billion, absorbing X-Men and Avatar to feed Disney+. Amazon acquired MGM in 2022 for $8.5 billion, taking James Bond off the open market. Now Netflix is swallowing Warner Bros.—one of the original Big Five studios—for $82.7 billion.

The pattern is clear: legacy Hollywood is being systematically absorbed by platform companies with deeper pockets, global distribution, and no attachment to the theatrical model that built the industry.

Warner's sale is especially symbolic. This is the studio that released The Jazz Singer—the first talking picture in 1927. The studio behind Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, The Dark Knight. A company that shaped American culture for nearly 100 years. And it couldn't survive the transition to streaming independently.

If Warner Bros.—with Harry Potter, DC, HBO, and a library spanning a century—can't make it alone, who can? Universal is safe under Comcast. Paramount just launched a desperate counter-bid to stay relevant. Sony Pictures doesn't even have a streaming service.

The message is brutal: scale or die. You either own global distribution and billions in content spend, or you get absorbed by someone who does.

And it's not just studios. This consolidation is hollowing out the entire ecosystem. Fewer buyers for theatrical releases means less risk-taking. Fewer independent distributors means homogenized content. Fewer platforms means higher prices for consumers and less leverage for creators.

Hollywood isn't disappearing. It's just becoming a content division inside tech companies. The dream factory is now a server farm.

Closing thoughts

So who actually wins this?

If Netflix closes the deal, it becomes a full-scale Hollywood power—studios, theatrical distribution, a century of IP, and the global streaming infrastructure to monetize all of it. But it also inherits a cultural integration nightmare, potential antitrust scrutiny, and the risk that it paid $82.7 billion for assets it doesn't know how to operate.

If Paramount's $108 billion bid succeeds, Netflix walks away with a $5.8 billion breakup fee—not exactly a consolation prize—and Paramount absorbs both the studio's prestige and the cable business's slow death. That's a bet on scale saving linear TV. History suggests otherwise.

And if regulators block both deals? Warner goes back to bleeding money, streaming consolidation stalls, and the industry stays fragmented just long enough for another crisis to hit.

The truth is, nobody knows if this saves Warner Bros. or just redistributes its corpse. Nobody knows if Netflix can actually run a studio, or if it'll just asset-strip the valuable IP and let the rest rot. Nobody knows if this preserves theatrical cinema or accelerates its collapse.

What we do know: the old Hollywood is gone. The new one is being built by companies that see movies as content libraries, not art. And whether that's progress or extinction depends entirely on who's holding the camera.

Here is my interview with Seth Levine, the venture capitalist and co-founder of Foundry, and Elizabeth MacBride, international business journalist and founder of Times of Entrepreneurship. Together, they co-authored The New Builders and now their latest book, Capital Evolution, exploring how American capitalism is shifting

In this conversation, Seth, Elizabeth and I discuss:

  • What does Dynamic Capitalism mean in practice, and how does it differ from today’s prevailing model?

  • American economy is undergoing a profound transformation. What’s driving this shift at its core?

  • Is the rise of populism a symptom of economic inequality, or is it also reshaping the economy in its own right?

If you enjoyed our analysis, we’d very much appreciate you sharing with a friend.

Tweets of the week

Here are the options I have for us to work together. If any of them are interesting to you - hit me up!

And that’s it from me. See you next week.

What do you think about my bi-weekly Newsletter? Love it | Okay-ish | Stop it

Reply

or to participate.