EXPLAINED | Why Are Thousands of Disney Jobs at Risk Despite Rising Sales?

Disney’s next round of cuts could put thousands of jobs at risk even as its business grows.

The owner of Disney+, ESPN, film studios and theme parks is reportedly asking some managers to identify 20% in annual cost savings. The plan, reported by Bloomberg on November 2 in the US, combines potential layoffs with other expense reductions. Part of the savings would be reinvested elsewhere in the company. Disney declined to comment to Bloomberg.

That leaves a question bigger than the eventual headcount: why does a company with rising sales keep deciding it needs fewer people?

Is Disney planning to cut one in five jobs?

That is not what the report says.

The 20% figure concerns annual cost savings sought from some managers. It is neither a company-wide workforce target nor a confirmed reduction in every department’s budget. Savings could include jobs and other expenses.

A payroll cut also does not translate neatly into the same percentage reduction in headcount. Roles have different costs, and an organisation can save money by reducing outside spending or combining operations.

The final number of jobs, the timetable and a complete breakdown of affected teams have not been publicly established.

Which parts of Disney face the squeeze?

Reports point to reductions across multiple divisions, including television and the movie studio, with the burden differing between teams. An exact ranking of which operations will lose the most jobs is not available.

There is already a television overhaul in the background. On October 1, Reuters relayed a Wall Street Journal report about consolidating divisions and organising the business around streaming customers. Units named included ABC Entertainment, 20th Television, Hulu Originals and Freeform. Reuters separately reported recent cuts concentrated in technology and human resources.

Those earlier changes provide context. They do not establish a final list for the newly reported round.

Why is television such a pressure point?

Because the business that paid reliably for television is changing.

Traditional channels receive money from advertising and from distributors carrying them in television packages. When households cancel those packages, a process called cord-cutting, the audience and the payments supporting that system can shrink.

Streaming gives Disney a direct relationship with viewers, but brings its own bills. It must fund programmes, operate the service, attract subscribers and persuade them to keep paying.

Running several teams built around older channel brands can also become harder to justify when programmes increasingly reach customers through shared digital services. Combining those teams may reduce duplication. Whether a particular merger improves the work depends on how it is executed.

But aren’t Disney’s numbers improving?

Yes. Its latest published results complicate any claim that the company is simply collapsing.

For Q3 FY26, the quarter ended June 27, Disney reported revenue of $25.25 billion, up 7%. Income before tax rose 14% to $3.65 billion. Its entertainment subscription-streaming business reported operating income of $712 million, compared with $329 million a year earlier. That streaming figure is a company-defined measure of operating performance.

A growing company can still cut costs because its activities are changing, because some businesses perform better than others, or because management wants stronger returns.

Growth describes what happened to sales. It does not tell every department how many people it will employ.

Is artificial intelligence taking these jobs?

Disney is pursuing AI, but the available evidence does not identify how many jobs in this proposed round would be replaced by it.

In August, chief executive Josh D’Amaro described AI-assisted work in pre-production and post-production, the stages before and after filming. He argued that technology could improve creative work and efficiency while keeping people central to storytelling.

That is management’s position. It is not evidence that every reduction comes from AI, or that savings can be achieved without affecting creative capacity.

Combining departments, changing television operations and reducing other expenses are separate possible sources of savings.

Why cut costs while putting more money into entertainment?

Because management wants to change where the money goes.

Disney says a successful story can earn money through cinemas, streaming, merchandise and attractions. In August, it pointed to Toy Story 5 passing $1 billion at the global box office. It also acknowledged that The Mandalorian and Grogu and the live-action Moana had fallen short of its cinema expectations.

Its argument is that a franchise can create value beyond its first release. That makes investment decisions more complicated than counting ticket sales.

The risk is that cutting experienced staff weakens the organisation producing those future successes. Savings are easier to count immediately than the creative opportunities a company might lose.

How does this affect Disney’s business in India?

India’s television and streaming operations have a different ownership structure from Disney’s wholly owned US businesses.

In November 2024, Star India and Viacom18’s media businesses came together in a Reliance-controlled joint venture. Disney held 36.84% at the transaction’s completion. JioStar subsequently launched JioHotstar in February 2025 by combining JioCinema and Disney+ Hotstar.

The new global layoff report therefore cannot be treated as an announcement of equivalent cuts at JioStar, or of changes to Indian subscriptions.

For Indian production companies, creators and technology suppliers, the relevant question is whether Disney changes commissioning and purchasing decisions. Any specific cancelled contract or local job loss would need separate confirmation.

What happens next?

Disney’s full-year and Q4 FY26 results are scheduled for November 17. They will provide newer financial evidence than the June quarter currently available.

The next useful disclosures would establish the jobs affected, restructuring costs and where the promised reinvestment goes. Over time, viewers and investors will be able to judge whether a leaner operation keeps producing programmes and experiences people will pay for.