Google Antitrust Redux, Debate Predictions, and Guests Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe

Kara Swisher: As marketing channels have multiplied, the demand for content has skyrocketed. But everyone can make content that's on brand and stands out with Adobe Express. You don't have to be a designer to generate images, rewrite text, and create effects. That's the beauty of generative AI that's commercially safe. Teams all across your business will be psyched to collaborate and create amazing presentations, videos, social posts, flyers, and more. Meet Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content. Learn more at adobe.com slash express slash business.

Kara Swisher: Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door. Expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like Tea Time You. Mmm. Or this Tea Time You. Or even this Tea Time You. Said you hear about Dave. Or even Tea Time Tea Time Tea Time You. Mmm. So update on Dave. It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great.

Kara Swisher: Not all journalism is the same. Take The Guardian. Our coverage has something unique. Fierce independence. Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say. So we're free to report the whole picture. We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe. Expose corruption wherever we find it. And give fresh perspective on everything. From wellness and soccer to culture, the climate and more. Read, watch and listen to the guardian for free at theguardian.com.

Kara Swisher: Hi everyone, this is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

Scott Galloway: And I'm Scott Galloway.

Kara Swisher: Scott, I'm in San Francisco. I'm here in San Francisco. Guess what I'm doing today?

Scott Galloway: What are you doing today?

Kara Swisher: Well, besides eating delicious oysters and enjoying gorgeous restaurants with my brother yesterday, I'm going to the Apple event today after this, going down to Cupertino to their—

Scott Galloway: Oh, another headset?

Kara Swisher: It's a new phone. It's a new phone.

Scott Galloway: Well, okay. How new is it?

Kara Swisher: We'll see. I'm going to see. I'm very excited, actually. I used to go to Apple events all the time when Steve Jobs was around, and I haven't been to one in a long, long time. They're actually very fun to see what happens. There's not too many in-person anything anymore. So I'm super excited to drive down there and watch the whole shebang, whatever they put on. I'll be visiting some of their executives. It should be fun.

Scott Galloway: So my 14-year-old, I would say next to football games, it's like the event he's most excited about. He loves it. He talks about it. He said, supposedly, they're coming out with this and this. And, Dad, have you upgraded to the new iOS? They really have done an amazing job of turning it. I think that the first corporation—auto companies used to be really good at creating announcements around the 2024 model. You know, Chrysler LeBaron, and they'd pull a soap thing off with some hot girl and an old white guy. Microsoft used to do it. "Here's the new LeBaron."

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: But they haven't done a very good job of that anymore. And Apple's—I'm trying to think of another company that figures that away. Tesla's about to do one at a Hollywood studio. Their RoboTaxi doesn't exist. You know, they're trying to do like, "Look at us" kind of stuff. Tesla does quite a few of them.

Kara Swisher: Actually, you know who does a really good job is the shoe industry with their drops and fashion a little bit.

Scott Galloway: Oh, the drops. Yeah.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, the drops.

Scott Galloway: My son will get us all signed up for Nike or StockX, and he says, "Okay, now when we try and get the latest, you know, whatever it is," so he can resell it somewhere. On Thursday, he bought tickets to, I think it's SneakerCon, and he met all of his friends there, and they spent seven hours at a sneaker conference. He plays their trivia games and wins sneakers, and then he goes there and sells sneakers. They just absolutely—

Kara Swisher: I think that's cool. I'm weirdly excited. Do you know what I'm weirdly excited for? Your birthday.

Scott Galloway: Oh, thanks.

Kara Swisher: It's this weekend. I'm flying my little ass across the Atlantic Ocean.

Scott Galloway: When do you get to Edinburgh to join up with all of a sudden oatmeal savages?

Kara Swisher: Right, exactly. Did you send in your kilt measurements?

Scott Galloway: I sent in my kilt measurements. I'm getting a kilt. It better be a good kilt. They're tartan coated by how long I've known people.

Kara Swisher: Oh, how interesting.

Scott Galloway: I'm bringing my lesbian boots too. They said boots. I have to wear boots with them.

Kara Swisher: Lesbian boots?

Scott Galloway: I'm bringing lesbian boots. They said boots.

Kara Swisher: Okay. Your wife has a very strict bunch of rules that you sent us, at least 97 emails about boots are part of the entire.

Scott Galloway: No, she's definitely pretty, yeah. I'm just showing up. I heard all of this is happening. I'm very excited to do all the things. DJ, whiskey tasting, axe throwing, horseback riding, golfing, all that good stuff.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I'll try not to hurt you too much. There's tea at Balmoral. There's all sorts of very Scottish things. One of my friends is leading a bike ride to the Trossachs or whatever. Yeah, it should be very Scottish.

Scott Galloway: I want a display of strength. I want a feat of strength contest of you throwing things. I'm not drinking before dinner because I'm worried about being too emotional. That is my demonstration of strength and willpower. I'm going to give a speech then. I'm going to do a speech and make you cry. That's going to be my goal.

Kara Swisher: Anyway, I'm excited. I'm excited. I'm excited for Aberdeen. When do you get to Aberdeen?

Scott Galloway: Friday morning. It's like a nine-hour drive to your castle, whatever. Anyway, I'll get there. Don't you worry.

Kara Swisher: I was going to drive. Are you going on a horseback?

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Nine hours? It's far away. It's in the middle of nowhere. I feel like I'm in a Channing Tatum movie and I'm going to end up drugged and murdered or something.

Kara Swisher: That's the point. I'm an organ merchant and this is some high-quality organs that we're selling.

Scott Galloway: There's all these movies like this recently. *Blink Twice*. Welcome to my game. *Speak No Evil* is another one. It's like isolating people in a rural area and then killing them, that kind of thing.

Kara Swisher: Is Amanda excited?

Scott Galloway: I'm more flattered she's coming than you are.

Kara Swisher: Yes, she is. She bought a gown for your thing. She bought a gown. So this is how much people are ready to party. And we invited 53 couples. 51 are coming. We were planning on 35. The other two, I don't know, something like a funeral, some lame excuse. But everybody is so ready after the holiday. And not only that, I think the key is we said no kids. Everyone is so sick of their kids over the summer. Guess who's taking care of my kids? Louis Swisher. So he and his girlfriend are coming down. But everyone's like, "Alcohol, Scotland, and no kids. I'm in."

Scott Galloway: I'm in. Exactly. Exactly. It's actually not that far a flight. Anyway. You're going to meet 100 of my closest friends, Kara. Get ready.

Kara Swisher: Okay. I can't wait. Well, we've got a lot to get to today before that, including Google's latest antitrust trial getting underway, our predictions about the presidential debate, which is coming up Tuesday night, the night of this, when this appears. Plus our friends at Pivot, our sports legends, Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird. I'm bringing in some of the big guns here. They've joined the Vox Media family with their podcast, *A Touch More*.

Scott Galloway: They called it *A Touch More*?

Kara Swisher: *A Touch More*. It's very sexy. They're very sexy.

Scott Galloway: It is. I know. That's my point.

Kara Swisher: They're a sexy pair. We'll find out why they call it that.

Scott Galloway: They're very attractive, although I don't notice things like that in a professional context, Kara. I don't even notice it.

Kara Swisher: No, that's correct. Anyway, but speaking of people who are not people we find sexually attractive, the court battle over Rupert Murdoch's media empire is set to begin in Nevada this week.

Scott Galloway: Oh, hot, hot.

Kara Swisher: As a reminder, Murdoch wants to alter the terms of his succession to allow his son Lachlan, who he is most aligned with politically, to keep sole control. The case is being kept top secret, but a coalition of media organizations including the *New York Times* and CNN has petitioned the court to open up the proceedings. It's ridiculous. They're trying to keep it quiet. But it's not the only battle the family is currently facing. Activist investor Starboard Value wants to dissolve the News Corp's dual class structure, challenging the Murdoch family's control over the *Wall Street Journal*. I would agree. What's going on? The end of his life. I thought he'd make it out compared to other rich assholes. You know, he seemed to not fight with his kids the way that happened at Viacom with Sumner Redstone and many, many other rich people. But it seems like that's what's happening. Three of the kids didn't go to his wedding, his recent wedding. And Lachlan is all by himself. And just for people who don't know, when Rupert dies, the four of them make decisions together equally, and he's trying to change that. Go ahead, Scott. I'd love to hear what you think.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, where I go on this is not to the business side. It goes to, like, I'm setting up a trust right now. And it's actually more complicated than you think. When do they get money? I mean, these are high class, you know, white people problems. But if and when do they get money? Who has decisions over it? And Morgan Housel had a great—he said something that really struck me. He's like, "All my friends have the same bullshit line. I'm putting them through college and then that's it. They're cut off because the reason I'm successful is I had to." And then one by one, none of them do that. They all help their kids out because here's what happens: your kids are good kids. They're trying hard. And because the cost levied on young people through education, student loans, housing is so extraordinary, if you want them to have any reasonable semblance of a facsimile of the life you're leading right now, you end up helping them out. And it becomes a problem because it's easy for them to get addicted to that, used to that. Anyway, so I've just given up and I've said, "Okay, I'm throwing in the towel. I'm going to put some money aside for my kids." But I've been thinking a lot about the following, and I'll bring this back to the Murdochs. I want the structure of it such that one brother is never favored over the other, such that the kids never feel an onus to get along with me or their mom to try and get money. Because this ruins families. And I think he is failing when he has pit one kid against the other three siblings.

Kara Swisher: It was fair until now.

Scott Galloway: It was. That's my point. Yeah. His last parting moment is to create agita and dissension between siblings. So I don't—first off, I don't know how Starboard can declassify a company unless they agree. I don't know how that works. At the *New York Times* for a hot minute when I was a shareholder and on the board there, I thought, "How do we declassify the board?" And the reality is they usually have trusts. Unless they agree, it doesn't get declassified. So I don't know how that would actually happen.

Kara Swisher: Why are they doing it? Why is Starboard trying to do this?

Scott Galloway: Oh, easy, because then the company's in play.

Kara Swisher: Right. If it can't happen, why are they doing it? I don't know. I guess I don't know. I've never seen a dual class shareholder company that can be declassified unless the people who own the voting shares agree to it. But I've never seen a situation where unless you get those controlling shareholders to agree to it, that they'll actually be able to declassify. But once you declassify, in this instance, they would probably sell off some of the low growth assets, go buy others, maybe get more focused on cost cutting. There's all kinds of things that people probably look at these assets and think they can unlock value around.

Scott Galloway: Yeah.

Kara Swisher: So where do you think it'll go? Because what's really interesting about this, what I was reading, is that this one probate court judge is going to decide this, without any kind of how and why or anything else. And I think it should be seen so people could see it. But this is Murdoch going for it, right? He's hoping he can influence this probate court guy and sort of live past his death, right? That's what he's trying to do. He's trying to control things past his death with his feckless son, Lachlan. I know you think more of Lachlan, but I think if he said in the first place and agreed with his ex-wife to give each of them an equal standing, it should stay that way. I don't know. And they're arguing it's not good for us. He's arguing it is good. I want to foist this right-wing lunacy on them and help them kind of thing.

Scott Galloway: Well, first off, all the kids are good looking and that's important. Secondly, the keyword here is all of these assets were put in what's called an irrevocable trust. And the keyword there is "irrevocable." And the reason you get tax benefits and assets can grow tax deferred is that the person who put them in that irrevocable trust can't pull them out, can't sell them, gives up some control in exchange for tax benefits. He is basically saying, "No, there's a loophole and I'm going to make an irrevocable trust revocable." And that is, he's going to change the terms and give all the voting authority from four people who equally shared control to just one. And the only loophole his lawyers have been able to find, what they're going to try and argue, is that it is in the best economic interests of the trust to make this change. So his argument is going to be—but this comes down to, in my view, a political argument. And that is he's going to have to convince a judge that the other three are poor fiduciaries for the value of the trust. So I need to give it to the one sane one. And I would imagine that the other siblings are going to argue, "No, we have just as much business insight. This thing will have just as much opportunity for economic growth as under this guy." All this is, is that Rupert has decided he wants these assets to be firmly under the control of someone who is much more conservative in their political ideology. And I don't know if political ideology can trigger or justifies the irrevocable trust being revoked. They have to connect a conservative viewpoint or Lachlan's specific skills to economic value. And I think that's a tough bridge to cross.

Kara Swisher: We'll see what happens. I think it should be open, though. It would be interesting to see their dynamics. Very quickly, major Democratic Wall Street donors, speaking of hip-checking people, want Vice President Kamala Harris to replace FTC Chair Lena Kahn and SEC Chair Gary Gensler if she wins in November. The donors reportedly complain that Kahn is impeding the technology sector and Gensler tucks down to Wall Street. Members of the FTC can only be fired for inefficiency or neglect. The president could designate another commissioner as chair. SEC chairs often resign when there's a change in the White House. Mark Cuban says he's asked Harris to put his name in for the SEC. Should he get a spot?

Scott Galloway: That would be interesting. He's sort of doing a modified Elon. Mark's a thoughtful guy.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I agree. I would love to see him. I'd actually like to see Mark run for governor. I think that's what he should do. But I think he would be great there. The only problem is I think Mark was a little unfair on the SEC. He was the subject of probes and it became very—I don't know, I think the SEC is understaffed. And unfortunately, the SEC slowly but surely has become an agency that protects management more than it protects investors. Most of the regulations around disclosure are meant to protect management, not investors. So I'd like to see an overhaul of the SEC.

Scott Galloway: But having said that, I think Lena Kahn and Jonathan Kanter are instrumental, and they actually have a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. And these flares shot across the bow of these incredibly powerful companies have not gotten in the way of the markets touching all-time highs. They checked back a little bit recently, but the majority of customers, vendors, even former employees will say these companies have become too powerful and it squelches innovation. And these two, especially Lena Kahn, have done a good job of ensuring that we might in fact affect what would be the second largest tax cut in history—the first is of China and the US made up—the second largest tax cut in history globally would be if we oxygenated the ecosystem by lowering rents on companies, advertisers, and consumers and parents by not ensuring these companies continue to form stronger and stronger monopolies. So, yeah, what do you know? Tech bros want to be able to continue to consolidate the market around their stock holdings, but this is not good for consumers. So I think she just nods and ignores them, would be my advice.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, that's true. I agree. I think she will ignore them. Gensler might be replaced just because that's what happens, but it would be interesting to see Cuban in a position of authority like that. I think he should be on a commission. I don't mind Elon on a commission as long as he doesn't have real power. It's fine for them to be on commissions. I think Mark—I don't know, he sold his team. I'd like to see Mark in an executive role. But just around Gensler, I like Commissioner Gensler. I've always been impressed with them. But I heard from a lot of people, including people I really trust around crypto, that he has been slow, delayed and obfuscated and created more confusion in an environment that needs clarity. And a lot of smart people—people who I would describe as part of the crypto Taliban—think that he hasn't been helpful in establishing rules of the road that are good for everybody, that there's a state of chaos and confusion in the market that's not helpful to anybody.

Scott Galloway: So I don't feel as if I have the domain expertise to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to Commissioner Gensler.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, he's got a mixed—he'll be replaced. She'll pick her own. There's so many different people if she wins. And if Trump wins, he'll immediately replace him. That's how it's going to go. I think Gensler won't have that job. But Lena Kahn has fans on the Republican and the Democratic side.

Scott Galloway: She does.

Kara Swisher: Well, Kanter will be replaced, but because they have an attorney general who picks that—whoever, if it's Trump, he probably will stay. If it's Kamala Harris, to complete some of these deals, which we're going to talk about next. So let's get to our first big story. The next antitrust showdown between the Department of Justice and Google is set to get underway this week in a Virginia courtroom. There's a second case, people haven't realized this. Following its recent win in the online search case, speaking of Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ is trying to prove that Google used monopolistic tactics in its ad business to drive up prices for customers. They're claiming Google locked in publishers and advertisers to its product and forced websites to develop workarounds in response. Let's talk a little bit about the case that the DOJ is bringing here. I'll note that testimony is expected from representatives of news publishers, including News Corp, Vox Media, and The New York Times, and recorded depositions. Google has not been on a winning streak here. Talk about what you think about it.

Scott Galloway: I think this is another data point of consumers. The jig is up. They're like, "OK, Apple, you can pretend to care about kids. Why do you keep blocking agencies and authorities from trying to put in place technology that protects kids? OK, Google, you claim that you're good for the world, but you continue. You not only control the sales side of the market, but the buy side and make the market. So you have total information, meaning you can actually elevate the market and not have to be competitive in terms of what advertisers pay." I mean, people have said, "OK, OK, Meta, anyone that strikes you as any sort of competitive threat, you buy them or you create a dynamic where they're put out of business." And also this notion that anything in the offline world gets punishment. All right, if I traffic in drugs or I traffic women, young women or minors, or I facilitate the transaction of funds through a bank to support terrorism, I go to jail. But if it's done under the auspices of a digital platform, "Oh no, it's speech." I think people are just fed up. And this jazz hands. Everything is speech. So the worm has turned. And this is yet another example of that. Because what you see is these companies are growing much faster than the market. I mean, do you have any idea what is actually happening? LA is becoming a nice weather Detroit.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, wow, that's a great way to put it, Scott. That's a great way to put it.

Scott Galloway: And guess what? When Google, TikTok, and Meta are adding to their top line and the economy is growing 3% a year, that means somebody else is losing a shit ton of money.

Kara Swisher: Let's talk about how the digital ad industry changes if things don't go Google's way. One analyst estimated that the loss could result in Google paying at least $100 billion in damages to advertisers. We're not even talking about Hollywood in that regard. But these are media companies that sometimes own quite a few different things. So does that happen? The money gets returned? Like, it's been sucked out of the ecosystem in Hollywood. And also within advertisers and media companies, does it get pushed back to them? So this comes down to what will be. So they've been found guilty of monopoly maintenance. Now the question is, what will be the remedies? That's the other case. This is an ad case, right? That's the search one. Just so you know, the judge in the Google search antitrust case they lost late last week said he plans to deliver his remedies by August 2025. He's indicated he'll consider new AI search competition from companies like OpenAI and Microsoft. Talk about those. Talk about the advertising impact if they lose, and then talk about the search one.

Scott Galloway: Well, the remedies. So the remedies in either case, assuming in the second case they're also found guilty, which I think they will be—I think the public opinion has changed and judges and legal scholars now feel like there is cloud cover to find these guys guilty. And I do think that people are saying, "OK, now there's precedents and there's just all sorts of evidence that there are not only monopolies, which is not illegal, but they abuse their monopoly power." But the remedies come down to a few options. The first one is a fine. I think they have generally decided that fines don't work. What happens is they appeal the fine, and based on precedent of previous fines, the fine gets diminished dramatically. They pay it out over time. And these companies make so much money that it is hard—now, they could, but they haven't so far—to come up with a fine big enough. And it takes them years. It gets whittled down. There's structural remedies, and that is you could break the company up. There's behavioral remedies, which I think is the most likely outcome here. And that is they say, for example, in the search case where they were paying to be the default choice in search—Google was paying Apple billions a year—they say Apple has to do a better job of explicitly offering other search opportunities. The other remedies I think are less appealing. There's an oversight remedy where they stick a regulator in there that walks around, that is the least popular person in the snack room saying, "No, you can't do that." And then changes to the algorithms or business models, which quite frankly, I don't think the government has the domain expertise to implement and supervise. I think this is going to be around. I doubt they're going to break them up. I would love to see a structural remedy here. I bet it's going to be a behavioral remedy.

Kara Swisher: I don't know. They are thinking of the—you know, OpenAI is introducing a search product. Oddly enough, I went to dinner with Casey Newton last night, our friend Casey Newton, and we were walking in the street and a car pulls up and it's Sam Altman and it's like, "Hey guys." And he goes, "We have a cool product coming out soon." And he was obviously talking—I think he was talking about search—and then he drove off.

Scott Galloway: What kind of car does he drive? And was he with a hot dude? I'm more interested in the gossip than anything else.

Kara Swisher: I'm not going to go into that. But the car was a big car. It was a big car. It wasn't an electric car, I don't think. A big car. It was a big car. It was a big black car. And he was driving it up the street in the Castro. But he's coming out with a search thing. There's obviously search competitors. So this guy is going to have to acknowledge the changing market in search, right? He's going to have to—you can't have a remedy given there's competitors, if there's competitors coming necessarily. Of both of them, what do you think the likeliest one will be? First search and then advertising. Or what would you like to have? Scott Galloway as Judge Galloway.

Scott Galloway: Oh, I've been jonesing since I wrote my book, *The Four*, available now on Amazon in 2017. Which, by the way, is about to be—I didn't want to bring this up because I know you won't, but has been greenlit as an original scripted series on Netflix.

Kara Swisher: I know that. I was going to bring it up at the end, but go ahead.

Scott Galloway: Oh, here? Well, never mind. I don't want to talk about it. I don't like to post, so I'll let you bring it up.

Kara Swisher: Scott has sold, everybody, Scott has sold a movie to Hollywood. It seems to be involving Sheryl Sandberg. It seems to be.

Scott Galloway: That is not true. It's not about Sheryl.

Kara Swisher: No.

Scott Galloway: It's not about Sheryl. Rosamund Pike is not playing Sheryl. No, no, no. I mean, granted, it might be about a female executive that has lied longer than any executive in history.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, okay.

Scott Galloway: But it won't be. It's not about Sheryl. It's a mashup of a bunch of people.

Kara Swisher: Congratulations, Scott. I'm very excited for you to be at GoHollywood now that Hollywood is over, Kara. I'm sorry, I outgrew you. I outgrew you. I already sold my book. I sold my book to Hollywood. I haven't sold it to Netflix yet. All I want is to shack up in Malibu with Emily Ratajkowski.

Scott Galloway: I just want it to get made. I've been trying to sell this bitch for seven years.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, you tried to drag me into it. I didn't want to get Sheryl Sandberg mad at me.

Scott Galloway: I did. I did. I tried to get you involved. And you're like, "No, I'm going to do my own thing."

Kara Swisher: I'm going to do my own thing. Can I go to the Emmys with you?

Scott Galloway: Yeah. I don't know. I'm wearing my kilt. As you know, I'm most likely taking Patty Stonecipher, but...

Kara Swisher: All right, very quickly, remedies. I would love to see—I think the best thing for the economy, I love breakups. If you look at the history of breakups, whether it's the aluminum guys, the steel guys, the phone guys, you never look back and think, "Oh, we fucked up breaking those companies up." They oxygenate the environment. They're good for shareholders. They're good for employees. More people want to rent labor. They create more tax revenue, more innovation. We found out that when we broke up AT&T, that dormant or fallow in AT&T or Bell Labs was optics, fiber, cell, all this shit. They didn't want to compete with their long distance lines, which they had a monopoly on. I would love to see a breakup. If I had to bet, it'll be a behavioral remedy that says, "Okay, Google, you have to make it much easier for consumers to pick another search engine." Search engine, okay.

Scott Galloway: And then for the advertising? I don't know. I don't feel like I have the domain expertise. I say you separate them. You can't be the buyer and seller in a market. What's the old DoubleClick or whatever it is? They might have to spin that off.

Kara Swisher: Spin that off. Yeah. I think a nice fine, a nice fat fine would be good. $100 billion.

Scott Galloway: They don't work.

Kara Swisher: $100 billion would be very welcome by publishers after enduring. I don't think they legally can figure out a way to live with a $100 billion fine. Along with behavioral remedies and stuff like that.

Scott Galloway: Well, it could be a combination. It could be a combination. But again, the meta news here is that people are—what has happened in the last 30 years? The number of journalists has been substantially reduced. And the number of PR comms execs who now come up to me and interrupt me all day long at the Democratic National Convention to introduce me to some VP at a fascinating new technology company, or can get me a few minutes with the CEO of a ride hailing company. Why would I want to meet with this person who brightens up a room by leaving it? So the ratio of spin and bullshit and our impression that these companies are noble and really concerned about the world and proud of their progress and want to make the world a better place—the jig is up.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I think the worm has certainly turned. We'll see if it continues to turn. Anyway, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we speak with our friends of Pivot, Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird. I'm bringing the big lesbians in, Scott.

Scott Galloway: From Pushkin Industries, I'm Jonathan Goldstein and *Heavyweight* is back. The new season is bigger than ever. Bigger hopes?

Kara Swisher: Spin that off. Yeah. I think a nice fine, a nice fat fine would be good. $100 billion.

Scott Galloway: They don't work.

Kara Swisher: $100 billion would be very welcome by publishers after enduring. I don't think they legally can figure out a way to live with a $100 billion fine. Along with behavioral remedies and stuff like that.

Scott Galloway: Well, it could be a combination. It could be a combination. But again, the meta news here is that people are—what has happened in the last 30 years? The number of journalists has been substantially reduced. And the number of PR comms execs who now come up to me and interrupt me all day long at the Democratic National Convention to introduce me to some VP at a fascinating new technology company, or can get me a few minutes with the CEO of a ride hailing company. Why would I want to meet with this person who brightens up a room by leaving it? So the ratio of spin and bullshit and our impression that these companies are noble and really concerned about the world and proud of their progress and want to make the world a better place—the jig is up.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I think the worm has certainly turned. We'll see if it continues to turn. Anyway, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we speak with our friends of Pivot, Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird. I'm bringing the big lesbians in, Scott.

Scott Galloway: From Pushkin Industries, I'm Jonathan Goldstein and *Heavyweight* is back. The new season is bigger than ever. Bigger hopes?

[Ad Break - Heavyweight Podcast Promo]

Narrator: I keep waiting for this moment when he says, "Mom, I get it. I'm sorry." Bigger dreams. Tom Hanks wants to meet with you. This is a real chance. And bigger heartbreaks. I thought it would be my movie moment. And maybe he would even whisper in my ear, "I've always been in love with you." Check out new episodes of Heavyweight on Apple Podcasts.

[Ad Break - LinkedIn Ads Promo]

Narrator: Discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them. But it's not just person to person, it's the same connection that's needed in business. And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections. But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals. According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company roles, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place. So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself. Just go to linkedin.com slash pivotpod. That's linkedin.com slash pivotpod. Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

[Ad Break - Thumbtack Promo]

Narrator: Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

Kara Swisher: Scott, we're back. We're going right to our friends of Pivot. Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird are legendary athletes, Olympic champions, and have been dubbed by GQ the most beloved power couple in sports. How many of them there are? But anyway, they're also hosts of the new Vox Media podcast, *A Touch More*. Welcome to the family, Megan and Sue.

Megan Rapinoe: Hi.

Sue Bird: Hi. Thanks for having us.

Kara Swisher: How's it going? How's the podcasting going?

Megan Rapinoe: We are just learning on the fly. It's fun. We're like figuring it out.

Sue Bird: Yeah.

Kara Swisher: All right. So let me start with that. The show was originally launched on Instagram during COVID. Explain what you are doing here with the podcast first.

Megan Rapinoe: Well, yeah, it started, I guess one edition of it, which was just we were in the pandemic, stuck in our apartment. What's something we could do together that would be fun? So we decided to go on IG Live every Saturday at whatever time, seven o'clock. We were drinking, we were having fun, we're talking about current events, all the things. And then fast forward a couple years, somebody was like, "Hey, would you guys want to do live shows?" So we're like, "All right, let's try to do that." And then it kind of morphed into what it is now as a podcast, which is definitely more women's sports bent, where culture, politics, fashion, all the things meet women's sports. And we're just kind of figuring it out from there.

Sue Bird: Shooting from the hip on a lot. It's kind of fun.

Kara Swisher: Did you feel like everyone has a podcast? You have to have one?

Sue Bird: Honestly, that's probably what kept us out of it for so long was that everybody has podcasts. We're like, "Oh, we don't want to be that."

Megan Rapinoe: I can't tell you how many people will just randomly say, "Oh, man, does everyone have to have a podcast now?" And now I'm like, "Yeah, we do too. But listen to ours."

Sue Bird: Yes. But listen to ours.

Kara Swisher: So why did you call it *A Touch More*? Where's the name from?

Megan Rapinoe: You want this one? It's all yours.

Sue Bird: Honestly, we were in the pandemic. We were probably like six weeks into the pandemic. Our lives at that time were totally interrupted. We couldn't really work out. We didn't know if it was airborne or not. We didn't know if the Olympics were happening or not. So we're trying to stay in a certain level of shape, but obviously can't. Trying to train and do all the things, but really just eating and drinking in our apartment and having cortisol levels through the roof like everybody else. And at one point—

Scott Galloway: Yeah, it sounds like Scott, but go ahead.

Sue Bird: At one point, Sue looks at me and she's like, "Do I have I gained weight? Do I look like—" You want to jump in?

Megan Rapinoe: The same. No.

Sue Bird: Yeah, and I was like, "No, I mean, I don't know, maybe a touch more, but like, no."

Megan Rapinoe: Oh yeah, I know. Total fail. You were set up. I misread the situation from the start. I'll own it. Apparently honesty is not the best policy, but here we are.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, "A Touch More." It comes from Sue. You are, of course, a WNBA legend, having played with the Seattle Storm for 19 seasons. That's an astonishing thing. But the WNBA is having a remarkable season with record viewership and attendance, thanks in large part to rookies like Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, who's now out for the season after an injury. I just love your assessment of what they should be doing to build the enthusiasm. And Megan, I'd love you to jump in, because it's sports, how to get people to do more sports. The New York Liberty has seen 130% year-over-year increase in season ticket membership. They've raised their prices, as have a number of WNBA teams. And I also want to mention Sue joined the ownership group for the Seattle Storm earlier this year. Why don't you start, Sue?

Sue Bird: Sure. I mean, my answer to this question is that we already did it. We already did it. The product on the floor has never been better. It has continued to be the rock of the league throughout the course of my career and then now. So that part, check that box. I think the businesses, obviously we get a lot of help from the NBA, but now each individual team's business is being run with the future in mind, right? Not just how we're going to get by this year. So the foundation has been built for many, many years. And now what you're seeing is we finally, through all the work we've done, yes, in the last 28 years, which is a league existence, but also more so in the last like four or five years, now we're at this point where the way I like to look at it, we have crossed this imaginary line of celebrity that usually male athletes automatically cross the minute they're drafted, the minute they play. For some reason, the WNBA was held back. We know those reasons. A lot of them end with an "ism." And so now that we've crossed that line, you're seeing that people are looking at us differently. They're looking at the league differently. When they get offered WNBA tickets, not just celebrities, general people in general, but when they get offered, now it's like, "Oh yeah, let me check that out." Whereas used to be like, "Eh, is it worth it?" So somehow we have crossed that line and now that we're on the other side, I just imagine business is going to continue to boom. The only thing that we talk about a lot is wanting people, whether it's corporate partnership networks, you name it, we want them to look at our potential. We've gotten to that point. We've proven it. We're here. We've done the thing. We've done the thing without your support. Now imagine what it would look like if we had your support. So if people can see our potential, that's where the business is going to take off in another direction.

Kara Swisher: So Megan, if you could comment, because in all, I mean, it's the same thing that's happening with soccer and other things, but talk about that invisible line of celebrity and what it does. Like, what do you think has happened? Is it because, say, your team did so well or people were looking at women's sports in general? Though they separate out men's sports pretty easily.

Megan Rapinoe: I mean, I think it's a combination of a lot of things, but I think just in general, the sort of changing tide in the country even. I mean, even through the pandemic, obviously the WNBA's work and getting Reverend Warnock and Senator Warnock elected. But it's also like, I honestly feel like the people with the money, and we normally know who those people are, ran out of excuses or things that they could sort of blame on not investing in women's sports. And now all of them are flocking. It's like Bob Iger bought into the team in LA, Angel City FC. So I feel like we can't say that it's not fun anymore. We can't say that everyone's gay and we don't like that anymore. Being overtly racist isn't really that cool anymore. And so I feel like in a lot of ways, it just kind of crossed this threshold. I think social media was a big part of that. Players could get their own stories out, different ways to disseminate media. I think that increased TV viewership, increased investment from not only existing ownership groups, but new ownership groups coming in. And it's actually like, "OK, fine, we'll stop discriminating. We'll just see how the business goes." To your point about the potential, men get invested on potential and what they might do eventually all the time. That's sort of the baseline. For women, it's like you have to do the thing, catch lightning in a bottle. And then even then, sometimes they're like, "Well, I mean, are you going to do it again?" And I feel like women's sports just constantly keeps doing it again and again and again. I think 2019 World Cup was huge for that, having an American team be able to capture the zeitgeist in that way, the WNBA. Obviously, we saw how prominent women were in the Olympics across all different sports. So I feel like it's just in general a changing tide in the country, but it's also a really good business that has massive upside that is already as successful as it's been under the foot. So imagine if you took the foot off and actually gave it some water.

Scott Galloway: Megan, it's so good to see you. Congrats on the pod. Just a quick piece of advice. Just I would not have a partner in podcasting. That's where shit really comes off the rails. But anyways, that's just my suggestion. I'm fascinated by, I'm like Kara, I'm not really into sports, but I got very into the Premier League living in the UK because my sons are super into it. And I've actually been thinking a lot about it as a business. And I'm convinced that within a decade, the Premier League is going to be the biggest export, the biggest British export. I'm just fascinated or shocked, whatever the term is, by how strong these brands are globally. There's something like 30 million Man U fans in Indonesia.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, that's crazy.

Scott Galloway: What is it about football, having played the sport so well for so long, that these brands have become so global? The Dallas Cowboys, I mean, the New England Patriots, okay, they have some fans in Argentina, but not a lot. And yet these football clubs, especially in the Prem, have turned into global brands. They've gone global. Do you have any thoughts on what it is about football and specifically the Prem and these brands that have resonated globally?

Megan Rapinoe: I mean, the whole world plays football. And I don't know if when America started, we were just like, "Let's just make our own thing and keep it here in America and it'll be bigger than everybody else." We'll call it football and it'll be bigger than everyone. The hubris of that, because obviously people play basketball elsewhere in the world. Nobody plays American football. But the rest of the world plays football. It's unbelievably accessible. You just need a ball or you tape a bunch of stuff together and make that your ball and you can play anywhere. I think the history, just how long these teams have been around. And I think the week-to-week storytelling that you get, and then it's like week-to-week, month-over-month, season-over-season, generation-after-generation, you're passing down this heritage of being an Arsenal fan or being an Everton fan and what that means. It's like your way of life in England. And then the billions of people around the world play soccer. And that's been the best league, the most invested in league, the top league for a very, very long time. Soccer's just great, too.

Scott Galloway: Outside of this, this is more a question for both of you and brings Sue in. I think of different leagues or different sports as asset classes. Some are increasing in value, some are decreasing in value. Outside of the WNBA or football, where you both are going to have a bias, what sports, as you look across the landscape, or what leagues do you think are increasing the most in value and also decreasing the most in value? I've heard the NFL has an aging problem, for example, or its viewers are aging. Any thoughts on which assets are increasing or decreasing?

Megan Rapinoe: I think it's, I mean, I feel like in male sports, honestly, the screw has been turned and is being turned to milk every little last thing. And they're thinking, "Okay, can we get augmented reality?" And obviously the betting has been huge. But yeah, I mean, I think all women's sports is on the up because it's been so underinvested in and there's such an investment gap. There's so much room to grow across media platforms, live platform, like all of it. I mean, the NFL just seems to rake in money, but I just have to believe at some point, that's just going to run out. I mean, at some point it's not going to be okay that however many percentage of the players have brain damage. That just feels like unsustainable.

Sue Bird: Yeah. Oftentimes when I think of this question, not worded the way you worded it, I'll look at the NFL, the NBA, whatever it is, and I'll be like, "What's going to take this down or what's going to decrease this value or what's going to change player salary?" You keep waiting and it doesn't happen.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, it doesn't.

Sue Bird: I don't think it will. I think just to Megan's point, other assets are going to grow and reach those levels, hopefully.

Kara Swisher: Why did you, talk about you joining the ownership group for the Seattle Storm. How did that entail? Did they ask you in? Did you put a lot of money in? How did it work?

Sue Bird: Yeah. So, I mean, I played there. Even though it's 19 seasons, I was actually there 21 years, two seasons I was injured. So obviously my entire adulthood essentially was spent in Seattle. I felt like I already had ownership of the team in some ways. So later in my career, a conversation with a friend, "Do you want to coach? Do you want to do this? Do you want to do that?" And she was like, Diana Taurasi, she was like, "I want to own." And I was like, "Yeah, that's what I want to do too." So it was kind of a seed that had been planted. So when I retired, they did approach me. It ended up taking give or take like a year and a half, two years to get it done. Not because of anything other than just me being in retirement and wanting to take my time with these types of things. But yeah, they wanted me involved. I wanted to stay involved. So there is a little bit of a heartstring reason. Like I would never, I can't see myself owning at the time, especially owning, being part of another ownership group. But then it was like, "Wait a minute, this is a good business decision. This is a good investment." And yeah, I did have to put money in. The WNBA has, I mean, the ways in which my businesses, just everything got vetted. I was like, "But it's just me. I'm not gonna do anything shady. It's just me." But they really get in there with a fine-tooth comb. So they weren't just gonna give equity for free. I had to buy in in a very real way. I mean, for me in a very real way, maybe not for the rest of the ownership group, but for me in a very real way. And I look at it as a great business. I mean, I'm getting in early and I feel very thankful for that. And that's actually part of my pitch, or it had been for such a long time, telling people who were questioning or had questions around the WNBA, I'd be like, "Get in now, because in five to 10 years, A, the price will be too high, and B, you'll look like a genius looking back on it."

Kara Swisher: Right. But how, Megan, you have not bought into it. You've created so much value by you and your team. How do you look at it because most players don't have a piece in anything, right?

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, that's definitely something that I want. The club that I played for in Seattle, Seattle Reign, just went through an ownership change, part the Sounders group, part Carlisle group. So that was kind of a long process of getting them all through. And I'm hoping that those conversations start to open up. I definitely want to and think that I deserve it. I do think there's been a lot of value creation. And oftentimes, female athletes don't get to participate in that real upside. I mean, even just the valuations of teams sold over this last three, four, five year period, obviously without the likes of myself, Alex, the rest of the national team, that just doesn't exist. So I feel like we don't always get to retroactively get what we deserve, but hopefully those conversations are happening soon.

Scott Galloway: So we talk a lot about organizations that have the perception that does not match reality. Apple is not as kind and as gentle as their image. I think higher education is basically the enforcer of the caste system, not a bunch of noble people sitting around a fire petting their Labrador. I would argue that one of the greatest enforcers of systemic racism is the NCAA. That they have figured out a way that old white guys coaching make millions of dollars and young, mostly non-white people on the floor for the purity of the sport don't make shit. And probably the only three or four years they're gonna have an opportunity to make that kind of money. I'm curious what you think about the NCAA and the fulcrum between amateur and professional athletics, and if in fact it's nothing but a thinly veiled ruse to maintain all of the spoils for older, mostly, quite frankly, mostly white individuals. Your thoughts?

Megan Rapinoe: I totally agree. I think it's like people love to tell this fairy tale of the purity of the sport and for the love of the game. I mean, we have people all the time for us in soccer, especially when we were going through our equal pay battle. They're like, "We really want you to get paid, but we kind of love that you guys still just do it for the love of it. And the men, they just get paid so much and they don't even care." And I was like, "Oh, no, no, no. I want to be paid as much as them. Give me that problem to solve myself. Also, that's not really true." But it is. It's a way to control. I think especially for women, we talk about the purity of the game. What are we really talking about here? It's weirdly hypersexual in some kind of way where you have to be controlled and demure and grateful and all that. And I know not even the TikTok trend. I'm not on TikTok. I don't even know how it works. But I totally agree with you. And then the NCAA, that's just a billion dollar business that has essentially free labor or low cost because you're paying for their school and their housing and stuff like that. But they don't get to participate in any of the upside and the whole business is based around them. So, I mean, it's obviously a little wild, wild west with the NIL and people are upset about it. And I always find it funny when the coaches are upset about it.

Scott Galloway: Can you talk about the NIL?

Sue Bird: Yeah, I love the NIL. I think, I mean, I'm definitely biased in this conversation. You could argue NIL impacts women's basketball more than any other sport. Football, a lot of other male sports. Yeah, they're going to make money now via NIL, but they were going to make money when they got drafted anyways. So yeah, I guess there's a certain scenario where a player who doesn't go on to have a long professional career gets to capitalize in college. But generally speaking, those guys go and make money. For women, women's basketball is probably the most popular women's NCAA sport. And now they get to participate in that in a real way. And for me, again, bias, they're now going to take all of that brand money. What it does when you have those partnerships in college, you're now creating a brand yourself. Look at Caitlin Clark. Look at Paige Bueckers. Look at Angel Reese. You knew them in college, and now you're going to follow them to the WNBA. So I love NIL for other reasons.

Kara Swisher: So just to press pause, NIL, as I understand it, is name, image, and likeness. It became an issue when one of my heroes, Ed O'Bannon, who did not go on for a great career, but was an amazing athlete, his image was used on a bunch of online video games, and he wasn't getting a single penny. So can you talk a little bit about why that's important? Has it impacted the two of you? Are you starting to collect royalties and money from your images being used in other mediums?

Sue Bird: No. When the Ed O'Bannon case got decided, I want to say I was outside of whatever years they chose. Like I didn't, it was only like a statute of limitations kind of a thing. So I was outside of that, if memory serves.

Kara Swisher: I would think FIFA would be all over you.

Sue Bird: NIL is really just college.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, it's mostly specific to college.

Sue Bird: So NIL for us, we call that marketing.

Megan Rapinoe: Thank you, I didn't know that.

Sue Bird: We're like, "Oh, I have a marketing deal. Oh, I signed with CarMax or whatever we're talking about." So NIL is just specific to the amateur. And yeah, the NCAA blocked all athletes from being able to capitalize on their name and likeness. So if their jersey was sold, they didn't participate in that. If they were used in any kind of anything with the school, with the NCAA tournament, they couldn't participate financially in that. And so now there's ways where they can negotiate their own deals with brands, their own deals in different ways. They get paid for those things now, which never existed.

Kara Swisher: Which you built and created the situation so they could get this, but you don't benefit from it.

Sue Bird: I mean, yeah, every former athlete, yeah. Because listen, why do you watch college sports? It's because of the athletes, and they're the ones with the big names. What I always find interesting is when, and NIL does this a little bit, or just the conversation around being an amateur and is this fair? Because what college coaches in a lot of universities, where they go is, "Well, how do we do this in recruiting? How is this fair? If one school has more money and they can offer that, or whatever the case may be, this whole idea of fairness." And what I hate is how athletes, we're susceptible to conversations around fairness. We're very susceptible, right? We live in a world where we're just trying to make it fair. We get drug tested to make it fair. I always joke, it's like, if Megan and I were playing on separate teams and we were in a tournament and our semifinal, if my semifinals game was at 5 p.m. and Megan's was at 1 p.m. and then the next day was the final, athletes would be like, "Oh, they got four more hours of rest." Like that's how in the weeds we get on this fairness. So I just hate because I feel like they take advantage of athletes when they try to put the, "But it's not fair. How are we going to recruit?" Because we all want it to be fair. That's like our whole livelihoods are based on that. And so I just don't like how they tap into that with this NIL conversation. Because for coaches, nobody's worried about their money. Nobody's worried when they transfer, which takes us into a transfer portal, which is a whole other bag of worms.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Okay. Let me change this topic. We talk a lot on our show about the negative impact of social media on kids and teens, but it's an issue for athletes as well. You recently talked on the podcast about the trolls that athletes face. Megan said the negativity shouldn't be the default, but it is. Do you think you guys are very active on social media? Do you think the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to athletes on social media? And talk a little bit about how you use it yourself.

Megan Rapinoe: I think it's such a personal thing. And I think there's stigma sort of both ways. There's stigma about using it and then looking in the comments, but then being affected by it. And then, of course, if you don't use it, there's business implications to that. I mean, the way I use it, I feel like after kneeling, when I kneeled with Colin Kaepernick in 2016, social media was obviously a thing and around. And I just feel like I understood right away that I don't even think there was the amount of trolls or bots that there is now, obviously. But I was like, "This is just troll. This is just bullshit. People are just in here saying the crazy thing." And so I don't really get it.

Scott Galloway: I don't include it for you, Donald Trump, but go ahead.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah. Yeah, I don't really like get in the comments. I feel like I use it as a way to express myself. I'm not really looking to get anything back from it necessarily, whether it's comments or whatever.

Sue Bird: But Megan's unique in that.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, I am very unique in that. And I was also like, I came to it a little bit older. I feel like my brain wasn't formed around it like kids are now. I really feel for them. It's so woven into the fabric of their upbringing and their social understanding of how to be. And it's really difficult. I always just suggest athletes don't get in your comments, be in the real world. You have people around you, friends, family, advisors, all the things, stay in that world. But also I understand that sometimes that's impossible to do, but it's kind of a hellscape in there.

Sue Bird: Yeah, it's a fake place with real consequence. And so I think you always have to have some sort of balance in that. Whenever you feel like that balance is out of whack, you got to find a way to recenter it. Because I do think, again, coming from the lens of a women's athlete in this country, especially a basketball player, especially with the WNBA, it has 100% helped us grow. It has helped individuals have brands. It has helped us get messages out. It has helped us bring awareness to certain things. Without it, I don't know if the league is where it is right now. So it's hard for me to say that it's a bad thing, but then also it's a cesspool. So you have to find that balance. And that is the tricky part.

Megan Rapinoe: I feel like that's where I'm hopeful that every eight-year-old right now is taking, they have like a, it's like social studies, English, social media. But it's also like I find it really frustrating. There's the, and you guys talk about this all the time. This is well known, the media companies and the internet companies have done almost nothing to stop what they know is happening. And now it's like, yeah, I mean, cat's kind of out of the bag. Like, how do you roll back, whether it's bots or trolls or just the devolving of conversation or decorum or norm or kindness that is now just the norm on the internet? Like, the norm is just to, whatever kind of quip you can get back, whatever kind of little negative thing that someone can type, whether it's a fan or someone on social media or whatever it is, that seems the default. But it's like, where's their responsibility?

Megan Rapinoe: Like, I understand we're consuming this product.

Sue Bird: Yeah, we've been wondering for a while.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, and it's just like, yeah, so that's a whole other conversation. So it's fascinating, or I should say I don't understand and think it's a bad idea when couples go into business together. I feel as if it's putting all your eggs in one basket.

Kara Swisher: Thanks. The eggs were already there. Mine are actually frozen. But I guess the question is a lot of people do it and it works out really well for a lot of people. Do you have any best practices or rules to try and maintain the health of the business and your personal relationship given that you obviously just so involved with each other during work hours and non-hours?

Sue Bird: Well, we're figuring it out. We're figuring it out on the fly. We talk about a lot of our business stuff with our couples therapists, and I'm sure in our individual therapy as well. I know I do. We have really great people that work with us, and we're trying it. It could go up in flames. And if it does, we're going to pull this clip and be like, Scott was right. And it could all just come shattering down. But I feel like, I don't know, we're also enjoying it, and it's fun. And we get to talk about something that we really love in women's sports, which is something obviously we both played. And it's such a big part of our relationship. And we're just out here giving it away.

Megan Rapinoe: Yeah, I think the time management of it all is maybe the most difficult. Like, when are we working? When are we not? Because a lot of our lives is what you're seeing on this podcast. Like, this is what we talk about in our day-to-day lives. So at times it's like, okay, when do we shut this off? When are we just chilling? Because that's the only time for me personally where it gets blurry or kind of like, oh, I don't want to talk about this right now. We just talked about it for the last 12 hours. But then simultaneously, this is what you see right now is like, this is it. This is our lives. We just happen to have a camera and a microphone in front of our faces.

Sue Bird: But then at the same time, as athletes, our whole lives have been that. So this isn't like a new dynamic.

Scott Galloway: Right.

Sue Bird: We're not like getting used to being on air or doing something weekly. Weekly is almost easy. I mean, we had to go to practice every day.

Megan Rapinoe: Right. That was annoying.

Sue Bird: Right. This is easy.

Scott Galloway: Just an observation. Therapists say they can tell within the first session in counseling for couples if it's not going to work out, if there's an eye roll. When you guys were talking about it, you were looking at each other and I got the sense you wanted to touch each other.

Megan Rapinoe: Oh, touch each other.

Scott Galloway: You wanted to like grab hands or, so.

Megan Rapinoe: I get your thumbs up.

Scott Galloway: No, but your body language, I hope people watch the video because your body language during that moment was very mutually affectionate.

Kara Swisher: Scott, the therapist is going to give you things. I never touch Scott. So that does not happen with Kara.

Scott Galloway: Oh, you got to give him a hug every now and then. There's no passing glances of affection.

Kara Swisher: No, no. No, there's a lot of affection. I listen to you guys all the time. There is a lot of affection there.

Scott Galloway: There is.

Kara Swisher: Let me, we have just a couple more questions. You both endorsed Kamala Harris back in July in one of the first big fundraising Zooms. What do you think about the role of the, Megan you in particular have been more political. Again, I noted you were wrangling with Trump and he comes back, he's probably going to try to wrangle more with people like you or you in particular. How do you look at your political role? Because you jumped right in there. You didn't even look backwards when you were doing those things?

Megan Rapinoe: I mean, I feel like, and I think this is actually how it's supposed to be, like, you're supposed to participate in whatever kind of way. I always say, like, politics interacts with you whether you're into it or not. You drive on the streets and you're governed by your politicians. And so you might as well get involved. And I feel like this is the way that I can. I obviously am a famous person and played sports and I have a number of followers. And sometimes I listen, sometimes I don't. I don't know what they're doing. But for me, I'm going to say it. I'm going to try to, in some way, make the world a better place. And I think particularly against the sort of authoritarian, sexist, strongman type of Trump. But there's been others, too. And there's been others in my life and in sports and all that. I just know I have a place of privilege and security and safety. Like this doesn't affect my daily life when I say something bad about Trump. But this really affects people's daily lives, whether that's through hate crimes or policy or whatever it is. So I just feel a sense of responsibility, to be honest, as a citizen, as an American citizen, to do my part in whatever way that is. And I think the more people do that and step out and say, the more community they'll find and the more people that they can actually have a real interaction with. And I mean, I think we all saw the first term of the Trump presidency and it was a total disaster and it ended with a coup. So that's just a tiny taste of...

Kara Swisher: What will you do if he wins? How do you look at your role?

Megan Rapinoe: God, it's just terrifying. I mean, I think we just have to continue to fight. And I think probably the next thing after he wins would be going hard on the midterms and trying to change. Like, there's no other way. This is the system that we're in. We need to keep talking about it. We need to keep educating ourselves and people. And we need to keep voting people in who reflect the values that we have personally and as a society. I mean, that would really suck. That would really be hard. I vividly remember 2016. I was in San Jose and Santana Row in November and waking up to the reality of not just that Hillary lost and I was obviously supportive of her and really wanted that and having the first woman president, but also just that most of the country was like, grab them by the pussy is okay. And I don't think everybody really understands how scary that is for us and for a huge portion of the population. So to me, it just seems second nature to be involved. And I think everybody has a responsibility to do that. But I also think that I have some kind of influence and I might as well use it to do something good.

Sue Bird: If I could just add something from the athlete's perspective that I've learned. So our world, we know so intimately, similar to how you know your world so intimately. So soccer, basketball, we know it to the depths. I can't tell you how many articles I read that are just wrong. I can't tell you how many takes that I see that are just blatantly wrong, just wrong, literally, like factually wrong, all kinds of wrong. And I think I've known that for a very long time. I'm sure everybody in this conversation has. And that's when I realized from a political standpoint, oh, I can't just believe every article. I can't just believe every take. And that really, I think, ignited something in me on the education knowledge standpoint. So listen, everybody has whatever platform they have, whether it's 10 million people or one person. And I just feel like in my little world, I just try to be as knowledgeable as possible and understanding as possible. And I just try to share that with people around me who might not be doing as much deep diving. And I think that's how you can also have impact.

Scott Galloway: You're absolutely right. One of the things that drives me crazy is when they tell the athletes or celebrities, stay in your lane. I'm like, it is their lane. They're citizens. It's like, why do you get to talk about politics and not them?

Kara Swisher: But you do get a lot of pushback as either a celebrity or an athlete when you do something like that. All right, Scott, last question. What is your approach to kids and sports? Like what do you do with respect to... I apologize. Do you guys have kids?

Megan Rapinoe: No.

Sue Bird: No.

Kara Swisher: Good. Okay. So what advice would you have?

Scott Galloway: Only Kara has the militia. Kara has the kids.

Kara Swisher: The way you both said that in unison, like, no, thank the Lord. Anyways, what would your approach be for... I'm very conflicted because I played sports. I think it's a wonderful thing. I want to encourage my kids, but I don't want to be that obsessed parent. I see real negatives around, quite frankly, some kids who are amazing athletes and how their entire childhood is almost given up oftentimes to pursue the dad or the mom's dream, not theirs. So how would you counsel parents who, say, have a gifted athlete around the level of encouragement slash pressure you put on your kids to get? Because there's just no getting around it now. In today's world, if you want your kid to be a professional athlete, at the age of three, they got to be swinging a ping pong paddle that looks like a tennis racket. It's insane how competitive and early they have to start. What are your thoughts?

Sue Bird: I think first and foremost, and this was something my parents did with my sister and I, I'm a twin, and we both played together growing up, was they let us be the driver, so to speak. Like, if you want to do it, we'll do it. But we're not going to be, A, forcing you to do it or B, dragging you around and spending all our time, energy, and money to do that. So let the kids sort of be the driver in those decisions. Calm down. And if you are yelling at your kids games, yelling at your kid, putting these expectations on, you need to check yourself and probably into rehab. Just check yourself into rehab because there's something serious going on. It's just like at the end of the day, especially when they're so young, I understand what you're saying, Scott. Like you have to have them in this club team and this traveling team. And otherwise they're so left behind. But I think what ends up happening is 99.9% of the kids' experience is now ruined because there's only one kid going pro. Most likely your kid is not going pro. Maybe they're going to play college and that would be a huge accomplishment, but most likely that's not what's happening. So what are the benefits that we are actually looking for here? And I just think like not putting pressure on them. There's pressure enough for kids, particularly with social media and what they're feeling in that realm. And they're going to put pressure on themselves. Let them just enjoy it and have fun and try to be the protector, is the right word, but be the example that you would like to see from the world for your kid. If you're the first person putting pressure on your kid and all of that undue influence and all over them, that's what they're going to kind of see reflected back in the world. So I would just say, and also most likely your kid's not going pro. So relax.

Megan Rapinoe: That part. I would say what I learned throughout my career, but definitely looking back is don't mistake activity for achievement. And what I'm seeing with a lot of youth sports, a lot of my friends talk about it. Their kids are on entirely too many teams, going to entirely too many practices. And it's just for what? They're just being active. Like, what are they actually gaining? What are they learning? I feel like when I see even younger professional athletes, I can tell they don't know the game. And so I think from a parent standpoint, listen, some are going to have sports backgrounds, some aren't. Similar to what I was just saying about politics, educate yourself on maybe the best map, the best route for your kid. Maybe it's just one or two teams, not four or five, right? And then maybe you want an individual coach. I know a lot of people are doing that now. I never had that personally, but I can acknowledge that times have changed in terms of what's needed. I just think kids are doing entirely too much and therefore not learning anything. And that to me, that development part is getting missed out on and it's going to impact them long term. And then again, I mean what Sue said, you're probably not going pro. So what are you really trying to teach your kid here? Think about those lessons, not just are you putting the ball in the basket?

Kara Swisher: I actually was thrilled the day one of my sons said he didn't want to play baseball anymore. I was like, yay, I hate it. I hate it. It's so good you're not playing. Just so you know, Sue, I'm going to put out something whenever we see each other. My son Alex, who's quite tall, he's about 6'5", thinks he can take you in a game.

Sue Bird: Of what?

Kara Swisher: Basketball. He plays a lot. He does a lot of dunking. And he's like, she can't dunk like I can. And I said she can shoot.

Sue Bird: Let me get my eyes on this guy.

Kara Swisher: All right. Okay. I just want you to be aware.

Sue Bird: You going to have to. He's not the only 6' player I ever played against.

Kara Swisher: Well, I know that. You don't want to have... You were just saying you didn't want to have kids. I really need you to help me with...

Scott Galloway: Teach a Lesson.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, that's Billie Jean and Bobby Riggs part two with the same outcome. Not even... Anyway, just so you know. Anyway, thank you so much, Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird. If you want to hear more expert analysis of the business of sports from Megan and Sue, check out A Touch More podcast weekly on Wednesdays on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, and of course on the Vox Media Podcast Network. Thank you guys so much and welcome really, truly. Congrats, nice to see you.

Megan Rapinoe: I know you said you were going to take us. No way.

Kara Swisher: We wish you good luck. We're learning earnestly from you.

Sue Bird: Yeah, yeah, that's all right.

Kara Swisher: You can dunk on us if you want. Anyway, thank you guys so much. We really appreciate it and really good luck and everyone should listen. It's a great podcast.

Megan Rapinoe: Thank you.

Sue Bird: Thanks y'all.

Megan Rapinoe: Thanks for having us.

Kara Swisher: All right, Scott, one more quick break. What do you think of those two?

Scott Galloway: Super, super impressive. At both of them on the field and off the field. They're amazing and we're thrilled that they're with Vox.

Kara Swisher: Now we're going to be back for our debate predictions.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, the presidential debate is tonight. So, all right, give me your prediction for the debate. I'm not watching it. Neither are you, I think.

Scott Galloway: I'm not watching it, which is because, just to be blunt, I think chances are he's going to do better than people think. Her medium is being on an elevated podium with questions prepped by staff and basically she's playing what she was, district attorney slash attorney general. I don't think she's as good on her feet as he is. I'm hoping that he continues to show signs of being addled and cognitive decline. I got to be honest, Kara, I'm really worried about it. I think the expectations around her momentum have become too high. And I do think he's good. I think he's good on his feet. So I just can't watch it. I'm too nervous about it.

Kara Swisher: I feel nervous that she hasn't done more interviews and debates.

Scott Galloway: I do.

Kara Swisher: I think he's done like dozens, even if they suck.

Scott Galloway: They do suck up to him.

Kara Swisher: He hasn't done anything tough. He hasn't done a tough interview, but he's done a lot.

Scott Galloway: Right.

Kara Swisher: So he's out there doing things. And I think she needed to be more. I don't know. It's interesting. We'll see if she certainly is capable of it. She's fast. When she was in Congress, she was good against Pence. So she's got to have a lot of stuff ready to go and then move quickly, as a good courtroom attorney does, I think.

Scott Galloway: One of the reasons I wanted a competition, not a coronation, was I thought, realistically, she was the odds-on favorite. And that competition, the primary, produces really outstanding candidates who are battle-tested and are ready for almost anything because their colleagues have been shitposting them and going after them on the debate stage. And quite frankly, she's not combat ready. So we'll see. I'm pulling for her. I'm so nervous about the thing. I can't watch it. But I think the expectations because of the unbelievable momentum that she and her team have established create expectations where unless she resoundingly beats him, it'll be disappointing for her.

Kara Swisher: I think his, he has to, what I was saying on another medium was that he has to not repel women more, right? And she has to attract men. Women are with her by a number that's enormous.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, she's done. She owns the women vote. Old men and young women have already voted.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. So it's a question of whether he can stop repelling. Because he continues to. By the way, he may be out there, but every time he opens his mouth, he says something incredibly offensive. Whether it's, these people wouldn't be my chosen one for sexual harassment. Things like that. And of course, Vance is out there a lot, but he continues to say stupid things almost daily. Which, I don't think it matters. Although that would be an interesting debate. I do think that if he says something terrible, which is, I think, here's the issue that I think people need to pay attention to. The visual of her across from him, a woman, a woman of color, an attractive woman, is going to shake him, is going to trigger him. I don't know if he can stand it. He is helped by the debate the mics being muted. Her hope is he calls her a name, right? He calls her a name. Not nasty woman, something really unpleasant. That's not unpleasant enough for women, but that is the hope is that he gets so rattled by her. The other thing is he could appear too quiet, like too, too, there's, they want happy Trump, but there's also comatose Trump. You've seen it before, right? Where he did it at the economic club, that kind of Trump. And that shows lack of energy. So he seems old. That is his problem. She's just got to be as sharp as a fucking tack. She really does.

Scott Galloway: The one piece of advice I would have for the Harris campaign would be, stop falling into the same trap Democrats have been falling into for the last two years. And that is we spend all of our capital and energy talking about why he would be bad for America. She needs to totally focus on why she would be good for America. Almost like ignore him and outline her plans. Every time she talks, it should be divided into two things. The first median is the following. Fact check him. He just said inflation is out of control. No, it's not. It's the lowest in the G7. And your plans of tariffs and restricting immigration would be highly inflationary. Now, let me tell you about the three things we have planned. She needs, instead of, I wouldn't even go to the sexual abuse. I just wouldn't even talk about, don't get indignant. You're awful. That does not work. We know he's awful.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: Everybody knows that. She needs to outline. She needs to show a series of policies. She needs to come across as, in my view, a little bit wonky. Fact check, right? Okay, you claim it would be over in a day in Ukraine. This is what's happened in Ukraine. This is what we plan to do with our allies. These are the people I have talked to in NATO. This is what Supreme Allied Commander thinks. This is why Finland's extension of NATO across an 800-mile border across Russia is a good thing for us. She needs to come across like, I got this. It's got to be more in my opinion than happy nice not Donald Trump. It has to be a hundred percent I get this. Who is she? Are asking that? I got my hands on the wheel.

Kara Swisher: You know, I think it'll be an interesting show and it's important. But what's your prediction? I think she might, if she has a moment, it will be great for her. She could really use this to keep the momentum. She raised three times as much as he did. I think that's the statistic I'm looking at. Like, if you go out of your way to give money, it means you want to vote. How is she equal if she's raising three times as much money? Anyway, that's an interesting thing. Anyway, we'll see what happens and we'll talk about it on Thursday. But we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Okay, Scott, that's the show. We'll be back on Friday with more. Please read us out.

Scott Galloway: Today's show is produced by Larry Namens, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie and her Todd engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Emil Severio. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Kara, I will see you in Scotland.

[Ad break]