Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What regulatory approvals and divestitures were required for the Disney acquisition and how did they shape Fox Corporation's post-sale business?
Executive summary
Disney’s acquisition of much of 21st Century Fox closed after winning approvals from the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission and multiple national regulators; regulators required Disney to divest 22 U.S. regional sports networks (RSNs) and certain Latin American sports assets, among other commitments, to secure clearance [1] [2] [3]. Those divestitures and the carve‑outs left a smaller, separate public company — Fox Corporation — that retained broadcast network assets (Fox broadcast, Fox News, FS1/FS2 and related holdings) and shaped Fox’s post‑sale focus on live news and sports distribution and direct monetization via assets like Tubi [4] [5] [6].
1. The approvals that mattered: multi‑jurisdictional clearance and a U.S. consent decree
Regulators in the United States, the European Union and countries including China, Brazil and Mexico examined the deal because it combined two global media content portfolios; Disney’s filing and subsequent notifications show the transaction required Hart‑Scott‑Rodino clearance in the U.S. and multiple non‑U.S. merger reviews [7]. The European Commission explicitly approved the acquisition of parts of Fox under the EU Merger Regulation but did so on the basis of commitments Disney offered to address competition concerns [2]. The filing and reporting also note a consent decree and DOJ involvement, and that the DOJ required Disney to divest a set of sports assets to resolve potential competitive harm [1] [8].
2. The headline divestitures regulators insisted on: regional sports networks and Latin America sports
The largest, recurring regulatory condition cited across reporting was the mandated sale of the 22 U.S. RSNs that Disney would have controlled through its purchase of Fox’s cable assets; the Department of Justice required those RSNs to be divested before the deal could close [1] [8]. In addition, regulators in Brazil and Mexico required Disney to divest Fox Sports operations in those countries — conditions specifically mentioned as remaining hurdles that Disney addressed to get final approvals in those markets [3] [9]. Those sales were coordinated across jurisdictions: Brazil’s competition authority (CADE) required divestiture of the Brazilian Fox Sports channels and coordinated evaluations with Mexican and Chilean authorities [9].
3. What Disney kept and what it bought: selective asset transfer
Disney acquired film and television studios (Twentieth Century Fox film units, TV creative units, FX Productions), National Geographic Partners, Fox Networks Group International, Star India, and stakes in streaming and distribution ventures including parts of Hulu and Tata Sky — subject to the regulatory clearances noted in filings [1]. The transaction included substantial cash and stock consideration and assumed significant debt; the companies also negotiated amended agreements and expanded commitments to secure regulatory approval [7].
4. The carve‑out that became Fox Corporation and its strategic consequences
What Disney did not buy — and what was spun off to shareholders as a standalone company sometimes called “New Fox” or Fox Corporation — included the Fox broadcast network, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, FS1, FS2 and the Big Ten Network [4] [5]. That corporate outcome left Fox Corporation concentrated on live news, sports broadcasting and related ad‑driven businesses, rather than the studio and international cable assets Disney acquired [4] [5]. Subsequent reporting and filings show Fox Corporation later emphasized streaming and AVOD growth (e.g., Tubi) and retained assets central to live viewership [6].
5. How regulatory remedies reshaped market structure and strategies
Regulatory remedies were narrowly tailored — forcing the sale of sports networks rather than breaking up studios or imposing broad structural changes — reflecting authorities’ focus on specific local competitive overlaps [8] [2]. The required RSN divestitures prevented Disney from acquiring dominant local sports distribution positions in the U.S., preserving competitive options for sports carriage; similarly, Latin American divestitures addressed market concentration there [1] [3] [9]. Critics argued these remedies left Disney with a global content powerhouse; proponents said the targeted sales protected consumer choice in local sports markets [8] [3].
6. Limitations, disagreements and what available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention the full list of buyers for each divested asset in every jurisdiction, nor do they provide granular post‑sale financial performance comparisons of Disney vs. Fox Corporation beyond high‑level filings (not found in current reporting). Some reports frame the deal as creating a global content powerhouse and cite potential competitive concerns; others highlight that targeted divestitures were sufficient to gain approval — the provided materials show both viewpoints but do not present a definitive market‑share impact analysis across streaming and box office segments [3] [8].
Conclusion — regulators cleared a sweeping asset transfer by requiring targeted divestitures and commitments that addressed local competitive risks; those conditions both enabled Disney to build a larger studio and streaming footprint and left Fox Corporation concentrated on live news and sports, shaping the distinct post‑sale strategic paths of the two companies [1] [4] [6].