Disney alleges that Connolly, who boasts over two decades of experience at the entertainment conglomerate, including a recent pivotal role as head of platform distribution, remains contractually bound to Disney until at least March 2027.
According to Disney, Connolly had signed a renewed three-year deal in November 2024, which specifically included a provision designed to limit his ability to depart the company prematurely. In response to his move, Disney is requesting both preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent Connolly from violating the terms of his existing agreement. YouTube has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit.
Connolly, who officially left Disney earlier this week, is slated to oversee YouTube’s relationships with major media firms and spearhead its expanding live sports offerings, according to a source familiar with the matter. This strategic hire by the Google-owned platform underscores its increasingly aggressive focus on sports content, a move mirrored by rivals such as Amazon and Netflix. YouTube's ambitions in this lucrative sector were clearly demonstrated in 2022 when it secured a substantial $14 billion deal to stream National Football League (NFL) games.
The timing of Connolly's departure and YouTube's attempt to bring him on board is particularly sensitive for Disney. The entertainment giant is actively preparing to launch its own standalone ESPN streaming platform, a development that further highlights the escalating competition for dominance in the digital sports broadcasting market. Disney's lawsuit asserts that Connolly possesses intimate knowledge of its distribution deals, financial details related to content licensed to YouTube, and its negotiation strategies, particularly concerning YouTube, which could be prejudicial to Disney if he were to join a competitor.
This case marks another significant flashpoint in the intensifying battle among tech giants and traditional media companies vying for a leading position in the highly valuable sports streaming arena. The outcome of this legal dispute could have broader implications for executive mobility and competitive practices within the rapidly evolving media landscape.