In his first public comments since Disney fired him as CEO in November 2022, Bob Chapek told CNBC he sees no reason for Disney-owned ESPN to add minority partners.

“Strategically, I don’t really see a benefit in bringing on yet another minority partner into ESPN,” Chapek said as part of the CNBC documentary “ESPN’s Fight for Dominance,” which chronicles the network’s digital strategy, published Thursday.

Disney CEO Bob Iger told CNBC’s David Faber in July that he’d consider selling a minority stake in ESPN to strengthen the sports network’s content or technology as it plans a new direct-to-consumer offering, which he later said would launch by fall 2025.

The company hasn’t yet announced a deal to sell a stake in ESPN. CNBC reported in August that the network had held talks with the major American professional sports leagues, including the National Football League and the National Basketball Association, about potential partnerships or investments.

Disney owns 80% of ESPN and Hearst owns the other 20%, a structure that’s been in place since 1996. By searching for a partner, Disney wants to enhance the content, distribution and marketing of the direct-to-consumer ESPN, which hasn’t yet been priced, Iger said during Disney’s August quarterly earnings call.

Striking a partnership with one of the professional sports leagues could help secure future live rights, though it may irritate other media companies that bid against Disney for packages of games. Bringing on a technology or telecommunications company such as Verizon or Apple could give ESPN broader distribution options by reaching larger customer bases.

Still, it’s unclear selling equity in ESPN is needed to strike an arrangement. ESPN President Jimmy Pitaro, who also spoke with CNBC as part of the documentary, downplayed the need for the sports network to sell a stake in its business to build a partnership with a league or another company.

“It’s not about equity,” Pitaro said. “It’s not about these partners taking an ownership interest in ESPN. That is something, as Bob [Iger] has said, that we are very much open to, but this is about partnership and accelerating the launch or the adoption of ESPN flagship.”

Disney’s ESPN is at a crossroads.

For more than 40 years, the world’s largest all-sports network has grown annual revenue by increasing cable subscription fees. ESPN first charged pay-TV distributors less than $1 per month per subscriber in the 1980s. In 2023, ESPN’s monthly carriage fee was $9.42 per subscriber, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence.

That business model is eroding. Since 2013, tens of millions of Americans have canceled their cable TV subscriptions, raising questions about ESPN’s future in an increasingly fragmented media landscape. CNBC spoke with multiple current and former Disney and ESPN executives about the network’s path ahead as part of the digital documentary “ESPN’s Fight for Dominance.”

ESPN reported domestic and international revenue grew just 1% to $4.4 billion in its most recent fiscal quarter. The network can no longer rely on price increases to make up the difference as the number of cable customers declines.

The company has a new two-part streaming plan to reinvigorate growth. First, this fall, Disney will make ESPN available outside the traditional cable TV bundle for the first time as part of a joint venture with Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox. The service, which does not yet have a price, will target noncable customers who want to watch sports but don’t want to pay $80 or $100 a month for a full bundle of networks.

Hermès is being targeted in a new lawsuit accusing the luxury retailer of selling its coveted Birkin handbags only to customers who have spent exorbitant amounts of money at the store on other goods.

The proposed federal class-action lawsuit, which was filed this week in San Francisco, alleges that Hermès is violating antitrust law by making customers buy other goods in the store before being granted the privilege of buying a Birkin bag from Hermès.

Birkin handbags, which are handcrafted from leather by artisans in France, can cost tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars on the secondhand market, and are seen on the arms of celebrities like Jennifer Lopez, Kim Kardashian and Cardi B. The handbags can only be purchased in a Hermès store, not on its website.

However, the lawsuit claims that the average customer can’t just walk into a Hermès store, find a Birkin on display and buy it. Rather, customers that are “deemed worthy” will be shown a Birkin in a private room.

Hermès sales associates are tasked with choosing customers that are qualified to buy Birkins, according to the lawsuit.

“These sales associates are directed by Defendants to only offer Birkin handbags to consumers who have established a sufficient ”purchase history” or “purchase profile” with Defendants or Defendants’ ancillary products such as shoes, scarves, belts, jewelry and home goods,” the lawsuit states.

While sales associates don’t receive a commission for selling Birkins, the lawsuit claims, they’re instructed to use the Birkin handbags as a way to coerce customers into buying other products, for which they receive a 3% commission.

Hermès did not immediately respond to a request for comment early Thursday.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status for all U.S. residents that, over the past four years, bought or were asked to buy ancillary products in order to purchase a Birkin.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages and a court order barring the selling tactics it claims Hermès employs.