Bob Iger asks if Florida wants Disney to 'invest more, employ more people, and pay more taxes, or not?'

May 10, 2023 in "The Walt Disney Company"

Posted: Wednesday May 10, 2023 5:09pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

During this afternoon's quarterly earnings call, Disney CEO Bob Iger was asked how investors should think about the risk in both near-term and long-term business for Disney during the ongoing dispute with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

In a passionate response, a clearly frustrated Iger went into more detail about Disney's fight against Florida and gave more insight into special districts, tax, Disney's contributions to the state, and his view that Disney is being punished for speaking out against DeSantis' political policies.

Here is a transcript of his comments.

Regarding Florida I have got a few things I want to say about that, Phil. First of all I think the case that we filed last month made our position and the facts very clear and that is really that this is about one thing and one thing only and that is retaliating against us for taking a position about pending legislation. And we believe that in us taking that position we are merely exercising our right to free speech. Also this is not about special privileges or a level playing field or Disney in any way using its leverage around the state of Florida. But since there's been a lot said about special districts and the arrangement that we have I want to set the record straight on that too. There are about 2000 special districts in Florida.Most are established to foster investor development where we were one of them. He basically made it easier for us and others, by the way to do business in Florida and we built the business that employs as we said before, over 75,000 people, and attracts tens of millions of people to the state. So while it is easy to say that the Reedy Creek special district that was established for us over 50 years ago benefited us, it is misleading to not also consider how much Disney benefited the state of Florida. And we are also, we are not the only company operating a special district. I mentioned 2000 for the Daytona Speedway, it has one. So do the villages which is a permanent retirement community and there are countless others. So the goal here is, if the goal is leveling the playing field in the uniform application of the law or government oversight of special districts needs to occur or be applied to all special districts. There's also a false narrative that we have been fighting to protect tax breaks as part of this. But in fact we are the largest taxpayer in Central Florida paying over 1.1 billion in state and local taxes last year alone. We pay more taxes specifically more real estate taxes as a result of that special district. And we all know there was no concerted effort to do anything to dismantle what was once called Reedy Creek special district until we spoke out in the legislation. So this is plainly a matter of retaliation while the rest of the Florida special districts continue operating basically as they were. I think it's also important for us to say our primary goal has always been to be able to continue to do exactly what we have been doing there, which is investing in Florida. We are proud of the tourism industry that we created and we want to continue delivering the best possible experience for guests going forward. We never wanted and we certainly never expected to be in the position of having to defend our business interests in federal court, particularly having such a terrific relationship with the state as we have had for more than 50 years. And as I mentioned on our shareholder call we have a huge opportunity to continue to invest in Florida.I noted that our plans are to invest 17 billion over the next 10 years, which is what the state should want us to do. We operate responsibly. We pay our fair share of taxes. We employ thousands of people and by the way we pay them above the minimum wage substantially above the minimum wage dictated by the state of Florida. We also provide them with great benefits and free education so I'm gonna finish what is obviously kind of a long answer by asking one question. Does the state want us to invest more, employ more people and pay more taxes or not?

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

mkt3 days ago

The free speech claim was federal, the land use claim was state.

mikejs783 days ago

The federal case was not predicated on FL free speech law, it was based around 1st amendment jurisprudence and the US Constitution contract clause. The state case was based around state law but not speech state law.

Bullseye19673 days ago

I am not sure of the actual filing and I will admit that I am too lazy to look through all the filings you posted, Thank you, but I think it was a claim on FL law and not Federal. The Sol on "free speech" in FL is 3 years, but it is not limited in USC, And if this is right, it was what I quoted above. The clock is ticking. A federal court can not take action on a state law case if SoL has expired.

JoeCamel4 days ago

Saved them a bunch of cash

Chi844 days ago

The State was happy with the way things were. For many, many years.

mikejs784 days ago

My gut says that beginning in 2027 there will be legislation that slowly picks away at CFTOD and gradually returns control to Disney. It won't happen all at once - but I bet it will happen.

Chi845 days ago

There's a battle being lost, but it's not really a PR battle and it only tangentially involves Disney.

mkt5 days ago

You’re right that there wasn’t a massive public rally to defend Disney. At least not in the way we often see with political figures or causes. But that doesn’t mean they lost the PR battle. It just means they played it differently. They didn’t need cheering crowds. They let the state’s actions speak for themselves. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether intentional or not - ended up being the loudest statement. Thousands of high-paying jobs. Gone. Local business groups noticed. Real estate noticed. Economists noticed. That stuck. Meanwhile, the “win” Florida claimed was largely symbolic - swapping one board for another - while Disney kept building, kept expanding, and retained the infrastructure and bond authority they needed. The machine never stopped. And let’s not forget: the only only people visibly waving flags on the property line during this entire episode? They were on the state’s side, and those flags bore symbols we all agree have no place in a civilized society. So no - Disney didn’t lose the PR war. They just didn’t fight it with soundbites. They let time and economic impact do the talking.

flynnibus5 days ago

Who came to defend Disney? Who lined up to call out DeSantis' action? Who lined up to point out the cabel action in the Legislature? Who used Disney as an example of what can happen? I'm not talking about who wrote stories to cover the news.. I'm talking about who put their name on the line to call out the injustice that was happening? How many people did you hear regurgitating the false propoganda about taxes? How many people did you hear thinking this RCID thing was some long running scam that was time to go? I'm talking about who the gen pop saw as in the wrong... most did not flock to defend Disney... they saw it as some corporate scam that finally was being taken down.. Disney was pretty much the target of the most direct, blatant, outright cheered political driven retribution I can think of in any recent memory... and the gen pop thinks DeSantis was eliminating corporate benefits and DEI non-sense. That's the PR battle Disney lost.

Prince-15 days ago

Oh Ronnie didn't need Disney's help to accomplish that. He was never going to be president.

MR.Dis5 days ago

Disney won in one respect, this incident totally destroyed a certain Govenors hope of ever being seen as Presidential material.

mkt5 days ago

That’s a fair framing if you’re evaluating from a strictly structural standpoint Yes, Disney no longer controls the board, and yes, they negotiated toward a new normal rather than scorched-earth resistance. But to say they “lost the PR battle”? I strongly disagree. Florida came off as punitive, erratic, and willing to jeopardize thousands of high-paying jobs over a political tantrum. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether coincidental or not - felt like fallout, and perception did the heavy lifting. That loss is now linked to the state’s actions. No press release needed. Florida is viewed as having cost the region several thousand high earners, along with their housing demand, business growth, and tax revenue. That’s not just bad optics. That’s third-world-level policy sabotage. Meanwhile, Disney kept building. The board that was supposed to rein them in greenlit a $17B expansion. Bond authority stayed. Infrastructure control stayed. Functionally, nothing stopped. Sure, the expansion brings jobs. But they're mostly tourism and hospitality roles. These aren't six-figure white collar transfers — they're hourly park positions. Florida traded a long-term white-collar boom for a short-term PR win and a few more popcorn carts. That’s not a victory. That’s a downgrade. If anything, Disney let Florida win the headline, then quietly walked away with the outcome. That’s not “dealing with the devil.” That’s knowing when to let the devil shake his fist at a cloud while you pour the foundation for your next park expansion.

LAKid535 days ago

Precisely

UNCgolf5 days ago

Indeed. And while I wish Disney had fought to the end, that was never likely. Publicly traded corporations just don't really operate that way. For example, I've represented corporate clients who had a good chance of prevailing against the government in regulatory investigations, but they would have spent more on the fight than they spent on the settlement -- so they settled. There's always going to be a cost/benefit analysis (which often involves more than just the potential legal fees) regardless of whether they think they're right. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Harvard is more likely to fight to the end in their current litigation (although that's certainly not guaranteed). They don't have to worry about shareholders, although they do have some other outside concerns.