SPOILER ALERT: This post spoils Ted Lasso Season 4 Episode 4, titled “Greyhounds’ Day Off.”

Getting a women’s soccer team off the ground takes its challenges, which Keeley Jones (Juno Temple) and Rebecca Welton (Hannah Waddingham) have begun to realize four episodes into the fourth season of Ted Lasso.

From the “Higgins Report” disclosing some devastating numbers and probabilities about whether the team could profit to their different mindsets of going about business, the pair have clashed over decisions. Rebecca has had to say no to many a Keeley pitch, and Keeley has, in turn, had to get creative.

In Episode 4, Keeley’s eagnerness is on full display when she and Rebecca witness Zelda Southport (Tracy Ullman) speak at a conference. Rebecca’s desire to remain demure and not show their cards wins out, and she ends up googling Zelda and finding some red flag results. Rebecca accidentally calls Keeley “naïve” after the publicist and burgeoning businesswoman wants to enlist Zelda in their mission of getting the women’s team more funding and attention, but the pair make up in the Nelson Road stadium seats one night.

“We were chomping at the bit to go into that scene, weren’t we?” Waddingham said of the reconciliation between the female friends.

“Totally. It’s so interesting when I think about that now. We didn’t even have to talk about what it was. We just had to run our lines together” Temple added. “Which is such an interesting and a beautiful thing to be able to say.”

Complete with pink fuzzy blankets and thermos mugs, Rebecca apologizes and voices how she feels bad that she has to shut down many of Keeley’s ideas, but Keeley takes it in stride and says it’s okay, embracing the way it makes her think of another way to “get things done.”

With friends like Iowa Attorney General  Brenna Bird, does Paramount and David Ellison really need enemies?

In an op-ed penned for the conservative Daily Wire Tuesday, the Hawkeye State ally of Donald Trump is threatening to take California to the Supreme Court. Declaring that “California is once again trying to be the country’s regulator,” Bird wants to stop the antitrust lawsuit from the Golden State, New York and 10 other states against Paramount’s $111 billion purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery.

“Just like California should keep its hands off America’s bacon, California needs to understand that it doesn’t get to decide what Americans can choose to watch or stream,” the reelection seeking Bird states of the state and its AG Rob Bonta.

“If California believes a transaction that 68 regulators approved is nevertheless illegal, it is free to make that argument,” she notes, lamenting the $7 million a day ticking fee and more Paramount will have to start paying WBD shareholders starting October 1. “But it should make it in the one court with the authority to bind all of us, and it should make it now, before the bill for the delay comes due,” Bird claps, leaving out any reference to the Empire State’s Letitia James and other AG.

Yet, for all her rallying to the ParaBros cause, as well as some variations on what Bonta and gang are actually alleging in the March 2, 2027 trial starting case before a federal judge in Oakland, Bird doesn’t seem to have actually filed anything with SCOTUS.

It also seems hard to see how even if Iowa did take California to the conservative majority Supreme Court, how they could get a hearing before next spring or even October, with the John Roberts-led high court not back in session until October 5.

However, let’s sidestep Bird getting a perch on SCOTUS’ fast tracked interim relief docket (AKA the emergency docket or shadow docket) for a second, and look at a possible route under the provisions of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Even if the case fell within the “original jurisdiction” criteria and passed muster with the Justices, any ruling would likely still be drawn out — likely beyond the March 2027 trial already on the calendar. In the rare case SCOTUS picks up such a state to state battle, it would generally appoint a “special master’ to review the matter before getting directly on it.

All of which, like Paramount CEO Ellison accused Bonta in an August 4 NYT op-ed, makes Bird’s flag planter reek of politics.

Bird, who filed a brief in 2024 support of the former Apprentice host’s ultimately successful bid to gain significant immunity from prosecution for acts taken while POTUS, sidesteps most of the meat of the actual antitrust suit the 12 states and the WGA are pursuing. A suit that Bonta, in an August 10 guest column for Deadline, paints as “a straight up antitrust enforcement case. One that is very cut and dry.” Instead, Bird, while giving the DOJ the benefit of the doubt, moves to blast Bonta and colleagues as “more hostile to this pro-competition merger than Europe and China.”

The ‘To Save American Movies, I’m Taking California To The Supreme Court’ entitled piece in the Ben Shapiro-founded outlet insists a ParaBros combo is good for high streaming subscription paying Iowans, competition and the movie and TV businesses. “The merger could create a company to compete: an estimated $6 billion in savings to reinvest, and a public commitment to release at least 30 movies in theaters every year. More movies mean more entertainment — and more competition means lower prices,” Bird says.

There is no mention by Bird of the $80 billion debt load a ParaBros will carry, the ongoing blame game settlement talks (or lack thereof) skirmish, nor the $1.88 billion bond Paramount desires to offset the “extraordinary losses” the court challenge poses.

Bird also makes no mention of possible layoffs or other cuts from a Paramount and WBD melding. Cuts that every such M&A deal has seen. Cuts that the likes of the WGA SAG-AFTRA and theTeamsters warn of. Cut that reports in both late June and last week to the LA County Board of Supervisors warned could see thousands pink slipped, and cost the region billions in wage and hundreds of millions in tax revenue.

Touting a Hollywood that few who live here may recognize, the Iowa AG chooses echoes the findings of earlier this year from Trump’s DOJ approving the merger. To that, right now, she says “more movies are being made, and more workers are being hired.”

While seemingly concurrently stressing that a joint “Paramount+ and HBO Max together are smaller than Netflix, smaller than Disney and smaller than Amazon,” Bird also throws out there that “a successful Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would change that.” Later in the op-ed, the long time pol says: “That is the opposite of a monopoly problem.”

Singing the tunes of the growing MAGA chorus that seeks to turn Bonta into the new Nancy Pelosi punching bag, Bird asserts “California is just dreaming up something radical” to go to war with Trump and his admitted “good friends” David Ellison and his Oracle founding father Larry Ellison.

“California argues that the Department of Justice waved this through as a political favor to Paramount’s owners,” Bird wrote Tuesday in a smudging of what is actually in the July 13 filing by the colalition of blue states. Then someone should explain how the Department managed to get approval in China, Europe, Canada, and the other 60-plus jurisdictions. When regulators in 68 jurisdictions with different laws, different politics, and no stake whatsoever in American elections all reach the same conclusion, the outlier is not the consensus.”

Again, no filing seems to have occurred today so far at the Supreme Court from Iowa or Bird. Rob Bonta and Brenna Bird’s office do share the fact that neither of them responded to Deadline’s request for comment on the Iowa AG’s threat.