Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
US, Ukraine Sign 10-Year Security Agreement; Tesla Shareholders Look Set to Award Musk Roughly $50 Billion; US Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Pill Access; Ukraine Offers Enlistment-for-Parole Deal to Prisoners; Footballers' Unions Start Legal Action Against FIFA; Poshmark Contends with Taste for Savings and Sustainability. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 13, 2024 - 16:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:21]
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Fresh records made on Wall Street this Thursday, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ hitting fresh highs.
Those are the markets and these are the main events: A major show of support for Ukraine at the G7 Summit in Italy as Washington and Kyiv sign
10-year security agreement.
Elon Musk says Tesla shareholders have approved again his multi-billion- dollar pay package from 2018 after it was struck down by a judge. The company's annual meeting starts this hour.
And what's your side hustle? The CEO of Poshmark will join us to talk online retail, and the growth of the second gig.
Live from New York, it's Thursday, June 13th, I'm Julia Chatterley, in for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
A good evening once more.
Moscow is warning of "painful retaliation" after the G7 agreed to loan Ukraine money backed by the profits from frozen Russian assets. G7 leaders
making that decision in Italy at their annual summit. The loan will amount to $50 billion, money that Kyiv desperately needs.
US President Biden and Ukraine's President Zelenskyy just signed a 10-year security deal thereto. They praised the new loan in their joint remarks
afterwards.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This week, the G7 signed a plan to finalize and unlock $50 billion on the proceeds of those frozen assets,
put that money to work for Ukraine. Another reminder to Putin, we are not backing down; in fact, we are standing together against his illegal
aggression.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: America supports both fair compensation for the damage caused by Russian strikes and working out ways
to ensure that frozen Russian assets are used to protect and rebuild Ukraine
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHATTERLEY: Nic Robertson is in Italy for us.
Nic, a poignant moment seeing the two men there signing that deal and it is a welcome show of support after painful months for the Ukrainian people,
but I am sure the president himself was wondering as he was signing it, 10 years is a long time.
What happens to these kinds of agreements, whether it is the G7 or NATO, in fact, if there is change in leadership across the G7, including at the
White House this year?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, the loan that is being provided for through using profits of frozen Russian assets actually
is something that is future-proofed in a way. There is a big effort to get this done here.
The leaders have signed off on it. The technicalities aren't quite there, some of the mechanics behind making out some extra funding and providing
additional securities around it isn't quite there, but the rush is on because they want to get that money, that $50 billion in President
Zelenskyy's hands before the end of the year. It is a loan, they will have an obligation to pay it back, but if he has that money by the end of the
year, nothing -- any change in presidency or any new president rather in the United States can do to bring that money back.
Obviously, when it comes to things like the agreement, the security agreement that the United States has agreed with Ukraine, that is
potentially something that a new and different US president could change early in the new year, but these security pacts have been designed so that
they are a bundle.
Remember, Zelenskyy wanted to get right under the NATO umbrella a year ago at the NATO Leaders Summit, he wanted that Article V, that level of
protection, an attack on one is an attack on all. And they said, look, no, but what we are going to do is every country in NATO is going sign an
individual bilateral security agreement with you, just as the United States has done today, Japan signed it already, 14 other countries have signed
theirs.
So if you take away one like the United States, albeit the biggest and most powerful and most significant one, you're not left with nothing. You're
left with 30 other security pacts.
So, you know, as much as they can, the systems that are being put in place now our future proofed, but they're not future-proofed against anything or
rather everything.
So it is a concern and it is on everyone's minds here -- Julia.
[16:05:06]
CHATTERLEY: And Nic, I think part of the challenge here has always been first, you get the agreement and then hopefully the money flows wherever it
is coming from.
Do we have any sense to your point about the $50 billion loan arrangement if they do manage to get that agreed and all the paperwork done, how
quickly they can get the money flowing to Ukraine? And how it might be utilized?
ROBERTSON: So obviously, the United States has agreed to it. The leaders of the G7 have agreed to it. The structuring for it will be done between the
United States and the EU so there has to be buy-in from the 27 different European Union leaders, and there have been some holdouts in terms of
support for Ukraine in the past, like Viktor Orban from Hungary.
But I think the anticipation at the moment is, this can be done by the end of the year and the funds can be made available by the end of the year.
That's certainly the feeling here right now, but there is no time to lose because the mechanics of politics in Europe can be as slow as it can be as
President Biden found out in the United States and President Zelenskyy thanked him for, for both chambers of Congress agreeing, both parties
agreeing to move the US supplemental funding that $60 billion through after many, many months of delay.
So no one expects us to be easy or quick, but they do expect to have it by the end of the year.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, an extraordinary achievement, it feels, just to reach some kind of an agreement and how some at least of those frozen Russian assets
can be used because that's been clearly a huge challenge up to now.
Nic, great to have you. Thank you, Nic Robertson there from Italy.
All right, turning now to Tesla, we should know in a matter of minutes whether its shareholders have approved an astronomical pay package for CEO,
Elon Musk.
Musk has already said he has the votes to receive around $50 billion worth of Tesla stock options. Now, a Delaware judge had struck down his
compensation plan back in January. She said the process of awarding it was deeply flawed. Tesla shares rallied, however, on Musk's announcement
closing four percent higher.
The results of the vote are due to be announced this hour of the company's annual general meeting.
Anna Stewart has more details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER (voice over): It sounds like the trailer of a blockbuster movie, featuring fast cars and starring robots.
Well, it is not. It's a teaser for a corporate AGM, but given it involves Elon Musk, it is far from boring.
ELON MUSK, CEO, TESLA: At Tesla, we build our cars with love, like we really care.
STEWART (voice over): This was Musk at the 2018 AGM after the board agreed an unusual compensation package that gave Musk no salary or cash bonuses or
equity that vests by the passage of time. Instead, Elon would get a 100 percent at risk performance award with a huge price tag now worth around
$50 billion in Tesla shares if Musk hit a series of performance milestones, which he did.
But a few months ago, the payday was canceled by a judge in Delaware.
DAN IVES, ANALYST, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: This is a game of high-stakes poker. It all started with the Delaware court ruling that essentially voided
Musk's $56 billion pay compact of 2018. But Musk hit all the issues, all the milestones that he needed to in taking Tesla above $1 trillion.
UNIDENTIFIED: On June 13th, we will hold our annual shareholders meeting.
STEWART (voice over): The Tesla board is now asking shareholders to reinstate Musk's pay package and to move Tesla's incorporated home away
from Delaware to Texas.
IVES: Musk is Tesla, Tesla is Musk -- heart and lung. And ultimately shareholders need Musk. And if Musk starts to spend less time at Tesla,
that's a bad thing for Tesla, and I think that's the issue right now at stake.
STEWART (voice over): Musk has other companies he can focus on like SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company, and X, formerly known as Twitter. And Tesla
shareholders may want his attention if Tesla is to evolve from electric vehicles to humanoids, robotaxis, and artificial intelligence.
So, coming soon to an AGM, Thursday --
UNIDENTIFIED: Your vote decides the future of Tesla.
STEWART: Anna Stewart, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: And of course, we're waiting for the results of that vote. But our next guest, Charles Elson, served as vice chair of the American Bar
Association's Committee on Corporate Governance. He has been an expert witness in cases of corporate governance, too for decades.
[16:10:04]
Now, he filed two influential briefs arguing against Musk's pay package. As a result, he had to resign as a consultant for the law firm Holland &
Knight, which represented Tesla on occasion, too.
Holland & Knight has denied that it was pressured by Tesla to part ways with Elson. Tesla has also denied that it bullied the law firm, saying that
it was raising a potential conflict of interest.
Now, CNN has reached out to both Tesla and the law firm and has not received a response as yet.
And Charles Elson joins us now.
Wow, Charles, it is a little complicated.
I want to hone in first on your objections to this pay packet because this is crucial for today. If this is signed off by the shareholders and I know
you will argue it matters how many or what proportion did. Will it be a frustration for you? Because you did argue back in your initial brief back
in 2023 that Elon Musk's interests are already aligned with shareholders based on the sheer size of his holdings in Tesla's stock already, he
doesn't need more.
CHARLES ELSON, FORMER VICE CHAIR OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S COMMITTEE ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: Exactly, that was the point. In other
words, an award to as CEO is designed to incent them, to reward them from past performance, incent them, that that was what this is all about.
But giving someone another significant slug of the company, ten, fifteen percent et cetera to someone who already had 20 percent doesn't have
incentive in my view, that their incentive is party there given the fact they own so much of it.
In other large companies where you have the sort of founder there with large holdings, they take very little, a dollar a year, whatnot, because
their incentive is to create the value of their investments in the company.
It is about the most direct form of capitalism you could come up with. And in this one, it was the judge then, I think correctly so that because of
that, it was not an incentive, it was effectively a gift and that's okay. Companies can give money away, but there has to be unanimous shareholder
approval to do it. Why? Because Delaware law and hopefully law of many states protects investors, protect minority investors, too.
You can't give someone's money away without corporate purpose unless they ascent to it. And if you don't, you ultimately put the whole system at
risk.
This is much bigger than Mr. Musk. The idea is that if a minority holder feels that their money is given away with no corporate purpose, the next
time, they may not invest and I think that this really would stifle capital investment.
If you didn't need their money, why did you go to them to begin with? And I think that that's the point that the Delaware judge was trying to make and
I think that's really the bigger story here.
There is a lot of noise floating over how to affect this case, an awful lot but noise, but it really comes out of that very simple fact. If it's a
gift, then you've got to get everyone's approval; if not, then the majority does rule. But she found that it was a gift and that's the issue here.
CHATTERLEY: So, to your point then, what we are looking for today is a unanimous shareholder decision, whether this is a payout or a pay package,
or a gift under Delaware law is as you're arguing. If it is unanimous, then that's okay, but it does mean in your view in the second brief that you
filed that this does mean a shift in position, at least in Delaware law, and it opens up this suggestion that big decisions, including enormous
billions of dollars' worth of gifts, perhaps can be given without every shareholder agreeing.
So in some ways, if you're a very small shareholder in this company you kind of don't get a say because the majority rules and that is what you're
fearful of, beyond the Musk and Elon and Tesla situation?
ELSON: Yes, precisely. I mean, that's the whole point.
I don't think it is going to be unanimous. We've already heard from a number investors who have said they are not going to vote in favor of the
package. In fact, it is difficult to ever get unanimity in a large corporation. That's why companies are very careful when they create a
compensation package that in fact has the rational incentives to it, that are necessary.
Now, if there is an incentive to it and it really works, yes, a majority can approve it, but because it had business purpose, the problem here is
the judge found that it didn't.
And awarding yourself massive amounts of equity by a board that the judge found was not independent of Mr. Musk, the board the judge found
effectively he was negotiating with himself. The board is there to protect all the investments, not one or two, everyone's.
And she found that they failed and I think that's really the issue here. I don't think he is going to walk away from a 20 percent investment in the
company, though it is now down to I guess, about 13 percent. My gosh, that's an enormous amount wealth. Is he really going to walk away and say,
oh, sorry. I'll let that go down the drain. I don't think so. That's the point.
CHATTERLEY: That goes to your point about the fact that his incentives are already aligned with shareholders because he is one.
What about the fact very quickly that we had an investor there saying, look, he hit the milestones. He deserves the money. The fact that you have
stakeholders in a company, you have workers and if they don't like it, they can resign. You have consumers if they don't like it, they cannot buy your
products, and if investors don't like it, they can sell the stock quite frankly, they don't have sit there and be marginalized, even to your point.
[16:15:18]
And what we saw today actually was the share price rising four percent on the belief as Elon Musk said, that he got the pay package. What if the
majority of investors just want him there and think he is owed the money, Charles?
ELSON: I would -- I would again disagree, protection of the minority is really critical and in fact, if it was vetted correctly, if there was
appropriate disclosure and it was in fact, an incentive, that might have been a different story.
But when it becomes a gift, that's something no one bargains for. And I think that that's really the key to it.
Listen, there are certainly people I think who think he is terrific and he has been very creative and very entrepreneurial. And done some amazing
things.
But no company is based around one human being. We have a vice president of the United States in the event that the president becomes incapacitated.
Every business does think about what happens next and to build an entire company around one person when a company should be going on indefinitely,
at least its shareholders expected that when they bought into the stock, is I think on an important part and gather for it, I would not have agreed
with that particular approach.
You can't build something around one human being. There has to be accountability and that's what's missing in this package, and that's I
think ultimately a real problem for that company. They're going to have to live with that point.
CHATTERLEY: I think the Tesla share price also argues to your point that you get the good and the bad with a leader like Elon Musk.
Very quickly, can I ask you, just for completeness about your resignation from the law firm. Do you feel like you were treated unfairly and this was
a case of a law firm choosing between someone who's got many years of experience in the field and a law expert and a monster corporate
relationship. It wouldn't be the first time.
ELSON: That's a good question. Look, I've been there 30 years. I enjoyed my association with them. I wish them the very best, but I had a choice
between obviously protecting their economic interests, which is important to them, I understand that, and more importantly, protecting my academic
integrity and the end, I had to protect my integrity and they protected their economic interests.
And that's the way sometimes the system works. I might have reacted differently than they, but that was the decision they made and I thought
leaving would solve their problem to keep the client and it would solve my problem, I could keep my academic integrity because I think this is an
issue that goes way beyond Elon Musk.
As a lifetime academic, I think that's what we do. We advocate for effective performance, a good performance.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, and you stood by your principles on this point. Charles, good to chat with you, sir, and of course they are welcome to pass comments
and send it into us whenever they choose.
Charles Elson, thank you for talking to us, sir. We appreciate it.
Now, Elon Musk also facing a lawsuit over discrimination and sexual harassment at his rocket firm, SpaceX. The lawsuit was brought by eight
employees who were fired back in 2022. They allege in the suit that "Musk's conduct of interjecting this juvenile, grotesque sexual banter into the
workplace had the wholly foreseeable and intentional result of encouraging other employees to engage in similar conduct."
Clare Duffy is with me now. Clare, what more are some of these former employees claiming in this lawsuit?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yes, Julia, these employees claim that they were illegally fired for their involvement in 2022 in writing this
letter that raised concerns about sexual harassment and gender discrimination within SpaceX, and this lawsuit like that letter
specifically takes aim at Elon Musk's habit of making crude sexual innuendos in posts on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and they
say that because he is CEO, his posts were looked at as official company documents and they influenced the way that other people at the company felt
they could behave.
For example, it point to one tweet from 2021 where Elon Musk says that he has plans to start a new university called the Texas Institute of
Technology and Science, which of course would have a euphemistic acronym referring to women's bodies.
I want to play for you what one of these former employees told our Laura Coates last night about the influence of Elon Musk's tweets in the company.
Let's listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAIGE HOLLAND-THIELEN, PLAINTIFF IN LAWSUIT: SpaceX will retweet Elon Musk's Twitter and he will retweet them and so it becomes impossible to
separate his personal nonsense from the actual day-to-day life of an actual working environment where engineers are working hard and trying to get
things done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DUFFY: Now, the suit claims that because of this culture created by Elon Musk's tweets, other employees at the company felt comfortable doing things
like naming a part of one of the companies rockets, the up skirt camera.
[16:20:07]
It also alleges that Elon Musk himself ordered the firing of these employees after they wrote this letter which had asked other executives to
disavow his tweets.
And Julia, I should say that we've reached out to SpaceX for comment. They did not respond, but a former executive of this company formerly claimed
previously, I should say claimed that these employees were fired for cause.
So we will have to see how this one plays out in court.
CHATTERLEY: We certainly will. Clare Duffy, for now, thank you so much for that.
Okay, coming up for us, the US Supreme Court, rejecting a call to restrict access to a common abortion drug. The latest on that unanimous decision
after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back.
And to a major US Supreme Court decision concerning reproductive rights. The justices rejecting a call to rollback approval of a widely used
abortion drug. Mifepristone is available through mail, even in states where access to abortion is strictly limited.
The case was brought by some groups and doctors opposed to abortion rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the courts unanimous opinion: "A
plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue."
Jessica Schneider is in Washington of us. It is a significant setback, Jessica, for the anti-abortion movement across the country.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It is, especially coming two years, Julia, after they had that big win when the Supreme Court overturned
Roe v. Wade.
But on the flip side of that, the decision today is being applauded by the Federal Drug Administration, even though this is just really a technical
procedural win for supporters of abortion rights, and that's because the Supreme Court did unanimously decide this case, but it was really just to
dismiss a lawsuit that was brought by anti-abortion doctors.
If those doctors had prevailed here, it really could have severely restricted the availability of this pill that's used in more than half of
all abortions nationwide and it is really a drug that has become increasingly more widely used in the two years since abortion rights have
been restricted in several states around the country.
So what the Supreme Court did in this unanimous opinion, they said that the group that brought this lawsuit, a group of doctors, anti-abortion doctors
they said they didn't have the necessary legal standing. That's the legal right or the real injury to actually bring this case and the Supreme Court
said that's because the doctors don't prescribe mifepristone. They don't use mifepristone. They just didn't have the basis to bring this case.
[16:25:07]
These doctors had questioned the Federal Drug Administration's ability to even approve this drug and also its ability to make changes to the drug in
recent years that made it more available via the mail, via telehealth, also allowing women to use it up to 10 weeks of practice pregnancy; previously,
it was just seven.
So by dismissing this case, this is a major win for abortion rights groups. One thing it doesn't do, Julia though, it does not close the door to future
lawsuits.
So while its now, mifepristone is status quo, it is safe for now, there could be other groups who might have the legal right, the legal standing in
this case that could still in the future challenge the legality of mifepristone in the coming years. For now, though, everything is the same,
it will remain widely available nationwide.
So this abortion case taken care of for now, pretty much dismissed. We are still waiting for about two dozen more cases, Julia. They should be
released in the coming two weeks and it does include another case dealing with abortion rights and the legality of an Idaho law that pretty much
completely restricts abortion, and then of course, the big one that were waiting for, whether or not presidents, notably Donald Trump, whether
former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any action while they're in office and that is the big one because that will determine the
fate of these remaining criminal cases against Donald Trump.
So, a lot still going on with the Supreme Court, but definitely a big win for abortion rights advocates today with this mifepristone case.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, and I will say in the write-up that we did on this as well at CNN, the data that we had analyzed showed that mifepristone was even
safer than some common low-risk prescription drugs, including penicillin and Viagra, just to counter what the doctors were saying in that they'd
have to deal with some of the complications of this drug, which is partly why they brought the case.
Jessica, great to have you with us. Thank you for that. Jessica Schneider there.
All right, coming up after the break, Ukraine is short on manpower, so it is turning to recruiting prisoners to help make up for it.
In exchange, the conflicts are being granted early parole, the details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:55]
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Julia Chatterley. There's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when we'll explain why
football players are suing FIFA claiming they're being overworked. And with the cost of living soaring some young fashionistas are turning to online
side hustles for extra cash. I'll speak about that with the CEO of Poshmark, but before that, the headlines this hour.
A sham trial. That's what the "Wall Street Journal" is calling Russia's decision to prosecute its reporter Evan Gershkovich. Russian authorities
say they're ready to put him on trial for espionage charges more than a year after he was jailed. The U.S. government has designated Gershkovich a
wrongfully detained.
The FAA is taking partial responsibility for Boeing's recent safety issues, including a door plug blowout in January. The head of the agency telling
senators that when it comes to Boeing, the FAA had been, quote, "too hands off." Mike Whitaker added he will visit Boeing's factory in South Carolina
on Friday as the FAA takes a more proactive approach.
Millions of people in South Florida are facing the risk of dangerous flooding for a third straight day. Torrential downpours over the past few
days have turned streets into canals in the Fort Lauderdale in Miami regions. Widespread rain is expected through Friday. Some areas could
receive more than 60 centimeters or two feet of rain in total.
And returning now to one of our top stories. The United States and Ukraine agreeing on a 10-year security pact at the G summit in Italy. President
Biden says the U.S. will stand with Kyiv against "tyranny," quote, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calling Russia a real global
threat. The G7 also agreed to lend Kyiv $50 billion backed by the profits from frozen Russian assets.
With Ukraine outnumbered, too, on the frontlines, it's now offering prisoners early parole in exchange for military service. CNN got an
exclusive look at their recruitment efforts.
Clare Sebastian has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Think twice before coming to us, says this battalion commander of Ukraine's 3rd Assault
Brigade. We are really tough.
This is Ukraine's newest effort to solve a crippling manpower shortage on its frontlines. CNN gained exclusive access inside a Ukrainian prison as
inmates are given the chance to choose another path.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through text translation): It so happened that during a fight I killed a person. I foolishly killed a man. I have a wife and
children, I want to protect my wife, my kids, my family.
SEBASTIAN: The vetting process is stringent, yet less than a month since President Zelenskyy signed the law allowing some prisoners to apply for
early parole to join the armed forces, Ukraine's Justice Ministry says from almost 5,000 applicants, nearly 2,000 prisoners have been released to
fight. Basic training already underway.
For 28-year-old Dmytro, the decision was personal.
DMYTRO, UKRAINIAN CONVICT RELEASED TO FIGHT (through text translation): Two missiles hit my house. I had two small children and a wife. Nobody
survived. At that moment I was already in prison in Kharkiv. I am here not only for revenge but also for people who are suffering.
SEBASTIAN: Ukraine is keen to differentiate its prison recruitment effort from that of Russia. The late Yevgeny Prigozhin drafting thousands of
inmates into his Wagner paramilitary group. The so-called meat grinder assault on Bakhmut that cost thousands of lives.
DENYS MALIUSKA, UKRAINIAN JUSTICE MINISTER: We selected the best prisoners we have and those who volunteered to participate in the mechanism we passed
them through all legal and health care checks.
[16:30:10]
SEBASTIAN: The Justice Ministry says so far the experiment is going well.
MALIUSKA: My understanding is that the MRL is far better than and any other conscripts. They receive good salary, respect, uniform, better living
conditions.
SEBASTIAN: And yet, for some of these men who may be on the frontlines by the end of summer, this was not an easy decision.
VITALLY, UKRAINIAN PRISONER WHO WANTS TO ENLIST (through text translation): My family is very worried. To be honest, they don't support me. It's a
choice because now the situation at the front is difficult.
SEBASTIAN: A chance to turn around their own fortunes and they hope the fate of their country.
Clare Sebastian, CNN, London.
(END OF VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: Now a group of football players' unions are accusing FIFA of over-working players. They're taking legal action against football's
governing body over the packed season schedules saying FIFA has refused to engage or negotiate. At the center of the controversy is FIFA's expanded
club World Cup.
Patrick Snell is in Atlanta for us.
Patrick, for footie fans, this is a fiesta. It's fabulous. You can't get enough football, but I do often wonder and I've actually wondered for years
whether they even get an offseason anymore for some of the best players.
PATRICK SNELL, CNN WORLD SPORTS: Yes, Julia, spot on. I was just looking at that. You know, with things in place right now, it is possible that next
year we'll see some players just not getting any kind of offseason at all. You're quite right. So much going on in the world of football at the
moment. The next month, you know, for the armchair fan, it's going to be an absolute jamboree, isn't it?
We've got the European championships in Germany. The Germans playing the host. They take on Scotland Friday in the Allianz Arena in Munich. But we
also got the Copper America here in the U.S. ahead of the Olympic tournament in France, not to mention, of course, then the start of a new
domestic campaigns in and around Europe. And don't forget this time next year, so much of the focus will be on that first expanded FIFA club World
Cup involving now 32 teams.
So you got these scenarios then that some players as I said facing a yearlong activity in terms of playing and training schedules. The English
Pro Football Association and the French Players Union accusing FIFA of violating players' rights and potentially E.U. competition law by creating
a calendar that it says is, quote, "overloaded and unworkable."
Now according to world players union FIFPRO Europe, FIFA has failed to meaningfully engage or negotiate and have unilaterally continue to program
a competition expansion despite the opposition of player unions.
Now, CNN has been proactive in reaching out to the world governing body for football, FIFA, trying to get comment on the legal action. This is a really
hot button issue, and I do want to hear now from someone who we spoke to our own Amanda Davies at the recent Globe Soccer Forum in Sardinia,
speaking with Maheta Molango, who is the chairman of the pro-football association. Take a listen to what was said because it's highly
significant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHETA MOLANGO, CHAIRMAN, PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS' ASSOCIATION: Maybe like 18 months ago, you still had some skeptical fans would say, come on, you
know, you're well-paid, you're millionaires, you're privileged. Why don't you stop complaining and get on with it? But all of a sudden now, 18 months
down the line, you see that it has become now an industry problem. It's no longer about a few unions or few players complaining. It's just even the
fans, even the most skeptical fans saying I want to see my player playing because if I don't, I lose games, if I lose games, I'm sad. So for the
first time I think we're no longer talking about the problem of players. We're talking about the problem of the industry and we'll talk about the
situation that is basically killing, killing the game, killing the product for those who want to call it a product.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNELL: A thought for the football, no question. Molango adding in a statement Thursday that too many within the sport act like it is exempt
from the normal requirements of employers and employees. Players are not being listened to and they want to see action. As their union we have a
duty to intervene and to enforce their legal rights as employees. Ultimately, that time has now come.
So, the big question, Julia, is it possible at least that the 32-team club World Cup could be rescheduled back in May? FIFA saying it would not
consider rescheduling due to start in mid-June next year ahead of it. Then we got the 2026 Men's World Cup, which is going to be played in America,
Canada, and Mexico. So watch this space. I said it's a hot-button issue. People are weighing in with their opinions and it's one that's not going to
go away I can tell you as we get near to this sporting summer of spectacular football. But as I say, the players' interests and voices have
to be heard and they are being heard.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, and it doesn't matter how much they're being paid, quite frankly, if they're exhausted it puts strain on them or they're more prone
to injury, quite frankly, so yes, this is going to run and run, I think. We'll reconvene on this.
Patrick, great to have you with us. Thank you. Patrick Snell there.
All right. More than half of Gen z and millennials have a side hustle. One way they're making extra money, selling things online. I'll have the CEO of
the e-commerce Web site, Poshmark, to discuss, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:42:37]
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. As the planet's oceans continue to warm, hurricanes are getting stronger and causing greater damage in regions like
the Caribbean Islands.
Today on "Call to Earth," we head to Puerto Rico where a simple nature- based solution is helping restore the island's vital first line of defense.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the north shore on the main island of Puerto Rico. An idyllic destination for sun-seekers, it's
also prone to natural disasters.
ROBERT MAYER, DIRECTOR, VIDA MARINA CENTER FOR CONSERVATION AND ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION: We're here in Isabela, Puerto Rico, on the north western tip
of the island, in an area that has been devastated by hurricanes in the past few years. We had dunes here. The dunes were totally devastated by the
storms and we are restoring those ecosystems.
ASHER: Professor Robert Mayer is the director of an organization called Vida Marina at the University of Puerto Rico, Aguadilla. It aims to
strengthen the resilience of the island's coastline particularly its sand dunes which are natural barriers to flooding and storm surge.
MAYER: Restoring degraded ecosystems, especially coastal ecosystems, is very important. Not only because we are very vulnerable to the effects of
climate change, but because these are ecosystems that are used by other species, other species like sea turtles, birds. We have invertebrates and
we were seeing a degradation of these ecosystems just increasing at an alarming rate.
ASHER: Today, the team is installing what they call biomimicry matrices, planks repurposed from shipping palettes that are placed vertically into
the ground. This helps rebuild dunes by mimicking natural processes to trap sand.
MAYER: We have the trade winds that are pretty, pretty strong and they carry a lot of sand. Since we don't have any structures here, most of that
sand falls on the roads and from the roads it disappears this will help us promote formation of a dune similar to what we had before the storms.
ASHER: After Hurricanes Irma and Maria battered Puerto Rico just two weeks apart in 2017, followed by a destructive winter storm in 2018, Vida Marina
was called into action, identifying 23 priority sites in desperate need of restoration.
[16:45:11]
By 2021, they had successfully restored all 23 sites using this system.
MAYER: What we see here is approximately three meters of sand accumulation.
ASHER: Severe weather events are not the only threat to the coastal regions here. Mayer says that the illegal extraction of sand, recreational
vehicles, horseback riding, and beachgoers are all contributing factors to significant beach erosion. To help protect the dunes, wooden boardwalks are
now constructed and signs redirect foot traffic from sensitive areas.
Community outreach, education, and building a network of local volunteers are also critical to beach protection efforts.
MAYER: So we are trying to train a new generation of ecological restoration practitioners, which is so important in this decade.
ASHER: Vida Marina says that to date it's rebuilt and restored nearly 35 kilometers of sand dunes along the north shore, simple solutions taking
cues from nature and the supportive communities that are proud to call this island home.
MAYER: We see more respect as time goes by. We've seen less tracks of ATVs on the dune, less sand extraction. We think we're getting through. We have
created a buzz around sand dune restoration, which wasn't the case 20 or 30 years ago. Things have changed and that's very rewarding.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: So pretty. Let us know what you're doing to answer the call with the hashtag, "Call to Earth." We'll be right back, stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
Now as the cost of living rises, more people are turning to side hustles to pad their wallets. A recent survey from LendingTree says more than half of
America's Gen Z and millennials have a job on the side. On average, they're bringing in $1,253 a month. Almost 30 percent of them are selling goods
online through Web sites like Poshmark. The online marketplace lets people all over the U.S. and Canada buy and sell new and second-hand items.
Manish Chandra is the CEO of Poshmark and he joins us now from New York.
Manish, great to have you on the show. Does that fit with the activity --
MANISH CHANDRA, FOUNDER AND CEO, POSHMARK: Thank you for having me.
CHATTERLEY: Welcome. Does that fit with the activity that you're seeing on the platform? I guess I'm asking you, who is a Poshmark buyer and a seller?
CHANDRA: We literally cover the entire gamut of the country. We have representation in over 90 percent of United States zip codes as our sellers
and they span the range from Gen Z all the way up to boomers. And both men and women are buying and selling on the platform.
CHATTERLEY: In equal measure, men and women. That's interesting. Or is it majority women?
CHANDRA: The majority is still women, but men is a very rising big part of our demographic. In fact, many of the things I'm wearing are all from
Poshmark.
(LAUGHTER)
CHATTERLEY: Is that so?
CHANDRA: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: Interesting. OK. Can you give me a sense of what proportion are millennial and Gen Z?
CHANDRA: Millennial and Gen Z is probably more than 50 percent, 60 percent of our population.
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
CHANDRA: With Gen Z obviously growing in usage and millennial, you know, is sort of where we started. And then we've also seen a lot of penetration in
older demographics like baby boomers. But when you think of resale and thrifting, the young population is definitely turning to it both as a
source of fashion, but also a way to save Mother Earth.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, interesting. So this sustainability angle comes in as well. Does it match with what we're seeing in the economy as well? Have you
been busier and seen more volume and flow on the platform as we've seen prices rise? And I guess in times of economic slowdown, too, if people are
looking to supplement their income.
CHANDRA: Yes, inflation has certainly played a big role in terms of how people are thinking about fashion. Number one, you know, Poshmark gives
them a way to save on fashion and also find things that, you know, they can use every day. I was just talking to someone who was saying that they can
find stuff that comes from Italy for less than $10 sometimes on the platform. And at the same time, you can save stuff on the designer fashion.
But what makes Poshmark unique is you can also take your closet online and turn it into a side hustle and actually make money on the side, and support
your income that way.
CHATTERLEY: Have you seen people on the platform rising or raising their prices for the goods that they're selling as we've seen prices rise or has
it stayed pretty much the same? I guess it matters for your ability to make money, too, based on the cut that you take.
CHANDRA: Yes. No. I think we've seen actually the reverse. We've seen people discounting prices to help people across the platform. We launched
live selling last year. And one of the things we launched in live selling is an auction format, which allow people to bid on the item and actually
have the items start at a low price and you can find a market price to that process. And that's been an exciting way to shop in Poshmark as well.
CHATTERLEY: That's like taking a leaf out of eBay's book. Can I ask about security? Because on an anecdotal basis I've heard people saying that when
they've either been selling or looking to buy, they've been contacted on the side by people, perhaps looking to do a deal on the side or just
something, you know, not necessarily sinister, but just using the contacts that they're making. The other thing of course is data privacy in this
moment. How do you manage those things for users on the platform?
CHANDRA: Yes. Well, we have two things that we are doing. One is content management, which is continuing to monitor content both using AI and ML and
also human moderation. Second thing is we always advise people to do transactions through the platform. We provide both buyer and seller
protection and make sure that you're protected across that transaction. So those are two simple ways by which any big -- anybody can avoid in terms of
just anything that's happening in a bad way under -- you know, in the reselling world.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, and the same thing I guess goes for counterfeit goods or even stolen products perhaps that people are selling on the platform. How
far do your responsibilities in this regard extend in your mind? What do users need to know?
CHANDRA: Well, I mean, we absolutely want and take every action that we can possibly against counterfeit. So we have, again, online content management.
We have moderation systems, and then four more premium items, $500 or higher, we provide physical authentication. They are actually first shipped
to us. We authenticate them and then shipped to the buyer.
CHATTERLEY: Are you profitable, Manish?
CHANDRA: Yes, we have a very profitable model that we've sort of leveraged into and certainly, you know, I would say we are profitable today.
CHATTERLEY: And does AI help you become more profitable and enable you to cut costs? What does AI mean for you?
CHANDRA: We're certainly using AI in very creative ways. I don't know if I can ascribe AI to our profitability yet, but we certainly see it as very
key to our future growth. We launched something called Posh Landslide last year, which allows people to shop by look. We're also looking to AI to help
people sell faster and sell better, and then certainly we also look at live streaming as a huge way of growth for Poshmark.
CHATTERLEY: How do you monetize live streaming? Because you mentioned earlier that there are sort of real-time virtual events that you've
launched, these Posh parties, which I do think is interesting, but how do you and can you directly monetize what you're describing as sort of a
community field to shopping?
[16:55:17]
CHANDRA: Well, our monetization model has been super simple. You know, we partner with our sellers. Our sellers take 80 percent of what they sell,
and we, you know, take the rest and we apply that same model to live selling. What we are doing today is really bringing the power of community.
So even if you don't know how to go live, you can participate and connect with other sellers to this concept we call Posh Party Live.
And it brings a whole bunch of sellers and buyers together. And they can all buy and sell around a specific theme. Could be summer dresses, could
be, you know, a specific style like, you know, some of the more trendy styles, grandpa, eclectic grandpa. And you can have all of those styles
coming together with Poshmark and Posh Party Live.
CHATTERLEY: Well, you certainly know how to do it because I love the jacket-shirt combo and if that came from the platform, you're certainly
flying the flag.
Manish, great to chat to you, sir. Thank you so much.
CHANDRA: Thank you for having me.
CHATTERLEY: Manish Chandra there, the CEO of Poshmark.
All right. Coming up, we'll have the final numbers from Wall Street right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHATTERLEY: And the S&P 500 and Nasdaq extending their rallies today, both closing at fresh record highs. Look at that. All it took two-tenths and
three-tenths of 1 percent. We also got wholesale inflation that fell on a monthly basis, a sign of possible relief in the upcoming months for
shoppers, too. And it follows that slightly weaker-than-expected inflation yesterday. So that's good news.
Let's look at the Dow components to modest gains for Apple, but that was enough to edge the company passed Microsoft on Thursday to become the most
valuable firm in the United States. Home Depot and JPMorgan were on top today as you can see. Boeing finishing in the red. Reuters saying the
plane-maker is investigating a manufacturing problem on some of its 787s. Disney slightly lower, too, amid a new 15-year development deal in the U.S.
state of Florida.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Julia Chatterley. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
