I'm not sure Fox knows what they've purchased.

[RP]

This an absolute mess they have purchased. The writers, the producers and even some of the workers make WWE a product that is not sustainable in the ratings. There is no way this product is worth what they paid. I have to believe there is an out clause for Fox. Fox has to have some sort of cancel clause that would save them a few billion. No way Fox just went into this deal trusting WWE. If so, they clearly have not watched the product at all.

[Simple Fan]

It's hasn't been about the product for a while. It's all about WWE's philanthropy now. They give WWE money and WWE does stuff like the Conners Cure segment tonight to make it look good.

[RP]

Fox is in the ratings game. Not the charity game.

[Simple Fan]

Fox is in the ratings game. Not the charity game.

They pay out the ass for NASCAR as well which has been dealing with their own ratings drop similar to WWE.

[RP]

They pay out the ass for NASCAR as well which has been dealing with their own ratings drop similar to WWE.


yep and if you read the news, that might be coming to a head soon.

[Simple Fan]

Current deal still has 2 years on it. Most fans are looking forward to it being up because that'd be the best chance to change up the schedule. Really couldn't see Fox dropping NASCAR but I won't be shocked if they do.

[Simple Fan]

Actually the deal is until 2024 which ends the same year WWE's deal with Fox ends.

[RP]

I dont know the details of that deal. I do know they lost a ton of money today because the Brickyard ( one of there bigger races ) was rained out on Sunday and got ran on a Monday afternoon and no one really knows about it.

Either they guaranteed a ton of money to NASCAAR or that deal could be ended soon.

[Simple Fan]

That deal won't end before its up. NASCAR has rain delays all the time its just part of the deal. Fox doesn't even carry that race NBC does. Like WWE they have deals with both and Fox only carries the first half the season.

[Destor]

I said from the onset fox was getting a bad deal.

[Emperor Smeat]

NBC should be the one more worried since they paid more for RAW than FOX did for Smackdown. RAW has been way more abysmal for quality this year than Smackdown.

If USA Network didn't suck at producing new big and lasting hit shows, NBC probably pays WWE a lot less or at least puts the pressure on WWE to make RAW better. Instead WWE can pretty much coast for the new few years knowing USA Network won't drop them from the valuable Monday primetime spot.

[erickman]

NBC should be the one more worried since they paid more for RAW than FOX did for Smackdown. RAW has been way more abysmal for quality this year than Smackdown.

If USA Network didn't suck at producing new big and lasting hit shows, NBC probably pays WWE a lot less or at least puts the pressure on WWE to make RAW better. Instead WWE can pretty much coast for the new few years knowing USA Network won't drop them from the valuable Monday primetime spot.

yeah fox is getting the better deal as long as they keep smackdown to 2 hours

[xrodmuc316]

There is no out for Fox, it was a bidding war where WWE had all the leverage.

If anything Fox will move Smackdown to FS1 or FX, but the whole reason Fox gave the contract to WWE because they want live programming.

[Loose Cannon]

are the ratings actually good compared to other shows today though? I feel like the old way of watching tv is dying anyway so maybe it's a decent deal in 2018? I think watching weekly wrestling is a dying form of entertainment, but i got to think Fox or NBC is getting some kind of other kickback from other areas the WWE is profitable in.

I really don't know what a high rating is considered in 2018 for a weekly tv show, but i would think tv ratings are dropping overall, right?

[Loose Cannon]

also i wonder if the WWE will eventually just air the shows on the network instead of using one of the networks.

[Big Vic]

WWE is usually behind Love and Hip-hop and Football.

Maybe NBA too.

[Innovator]

Right after the Board ousts Vince for giving up half a billion dollars a year

[Simple Fan]

also i wonder if the WWE will eventually just air the shows on the network instead of using one of the networks.

Not when the major networks will pay more than what they make from WWE Network subscriptions.

[Destor]

are the ratings actually good compared to other shows today though? I feel like the old way of watching tv is dying anyway so maybe it's a decent deal in 2018? I think watching weekly wrestling is a dying form of entertainment, but i got to think Fox or NBC is getting some kind of other kickback from other areas the WWE is profitable in.

I really don't know what a high rating is considered in 2018 for a weekly tv show, but i would think tv ratings are dropping overall, right?
Yes the ratings are very good. top 3 on all of telivision every night they air.

[slik]

I think Friday night is a bad night for SD but we'll see how it goes

[Emperor Smeat]

are the ratings actually good compared to other shows today though? I feel like the old way of watching tv is dying anyway so maybe it's a decent deal in 2018? I think watching weekly wrestling is a dying form of entertainment, but i got to think Fox or NBC is getting some kind of other kickback from other areas the WWE is profitable in.

I really don't know what a high rating is considered in 2018 for a weekly tv show, but i would think tv ratings are dropping overall, right?

Somewhat.

RAW's yearly decline is usually higher than the average for tv but since it has no off-season, its still a very reliable show for weekly content. When there are better things to watch on tv, RAW struggles to be on top and when its a slow week, RAW usually does well in rankings.

Smackdown has struggled to stay competitive in the live era but has the same advantage as RAW with being a very reliable weekly show. If FOX could produce weekly cooking contest episodes for Friday nights, they'd have no need for Smackdown since that show generated like 2x-3x of what Smackdown does.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think FOX knows exactly what they paid for. I'm sure there is an out clause for them if the ratings drop outside a certain number of what is observable overall in television. For example, if TV is going down 8% each year, then if WWE's ratings drop 8%, it would probably be unreasonable to back out of the deal. But if WWE goes down 20% versus TV's 8%, then surely FOX can be like "Yo, you're not holding up your end."

I mean, that would just make sense to me, but I don't understand contract law.

[#1-norm-fan]

Fox is freaking out because they're struggling in the ratings. So they spent a billion dollars on a show that gets identical ratings to the show they already air on Tuesday nights. And they're gonna put that show on Friday nights. I know it's got added value because it's live and year-round. But that's hilarious.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think there is genuine hope, even though no one has come out and said it, that the move to network TV is going to boost WWE. If they can get 2 million viewers on cable, then they should be able to get at least that many on network, even with the day change.

[#1-norm-fan]

I don't know. The gap between cable and network isn't what it used to be. For the most part, people either have cable or they don't watch live TV at all nowadays.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yeah, I agree, but I'm sure the people sitting in boardrooms at FOX aren't sitting around talking actively about how they are redundant.

[Mr. Nerfect]

And Raw managed to spike a rating for Raw 25 or whatever it was called earlier this year, and no one came back, because it sucked. And WWE did try for that. I honestly don't know if they can even be good anymore.

[Mr. Nerfect]

With kayfabe being dead, they can't push stars, because the fans cotton on and organize themselves to boo. The fans have decided they like certain guys, and those guys aren't stars. And that climate makes things very off-putting for people coming in. They've really pickled themselves.

[Emperor Smeat]

Fox is freaking out because they're struggling in the ratings. So they spent a billion dollars on a show that gets identical ratings to the show they already air on Tuesday nights. And they're gonna put that show on Friday nights. I know it's got added value because it's live and year-round. But that's hilarious.

Not to mention they are also going to be spending huge sums on both regular promotion with their normal viewers and cross-promotion with their sports viewers hoping a big chunk end up watching SmackDown. If they get WWE to produce more shows to cover the gap UFC caused, that's even more money being spent in the end since the current contract only covers Smackdown.

Pretty much need a big jump in both viewers and weekly rankings for the long term or else its just money being flushed down the drain.

[#1-norm-fan]

And Raw managed to spike a rating for Raw 25 or whatever it was called earlier this year, and no one came back, because it sucked. And WWE did try for that. I honestly don't know if they can even be good anymore.

I wouldn't say they tried for that. It seemed like a prime example of "Let's just bring in legends and do nothing else."

[Mr. Nerfect]

They're not going to be able to get sports fans to take WWE seriously. Those days are gone. And they can't hook too many kids, because kids aren't as stupid as WWE makes them out to be. They seriously only have the hangover fans left that consume wrestling in that way, because it's habit or whatever.

I have a feeling that because they're on FOX, they're going to go to the lowest common denominator. Like, not smut, but just in terms of "Who watches sports on FOX? Idiots. Okay, how do we hook idiots..."

[Mr. Nerfect]

I wouldn't say they tried for that. It seemed like a prime example of "Let's just bring in legends and do nothing else."

Oh, that's what I think they think trying is.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Well, if Vince McMahon isn't trying, it's because he's trying not to try. Like, if he tries, then he has to keep trying to put on a good show. He's in a bulk volume mass content creation business now. The less effort into producing WWE television, the better. So maybe they won't try when they go to FOX? Like, maybe the shows will be headlined by Maryse vs. Brie Bella, and that's just the way they want it?

[xrodmuc316]

Fox can't cancel Smackdown, they are on the hook. They can move Smackdown to cable, which I assume happens after the first year.

Fox isn't Fox as you are thinking of it anymore. They sold almost everything to Disney, and only kept a few assets with the plan being live sports as their biggest calling card.

They gave WWE a $billion because that is what the market demanded. They know exactly what they are getting, something that gets bigger numbers than UFC, something they can cross promote, and something that fits into their new live sports oriented business model.

Fox is basically paying a little less than $4 Million a week for 2 hours of live television.

By comparison, Fox pays $2 Million per 30 minute episode of Family Guy, which only has 22 new episodes per week and had almost identical ratings as Smackdown during the last year.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm fairly certain that FOX would be able to cancel SmackDown, lol. I'm fairly certain there would have to be an out clause, regardless of how badly FOX wants all those other things. If I really need a new lawn mower, I still get one with warranty. Given their fascination with sports, unique sporting events would also mean that there would need to be some sort of preemption clause in the contract too. It's not like just because FOX badly wants SmackDown, they were like "Lol you now own Friday nights on FOX, go nuts." That's just a bit much.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Like, if they started cross-promoting SmackDown with the football on Thursday, and people started writing in to FOX saying "Get this gay wrestling away from my football," eventually FOX would have to say "Yeah, this isn't working, guys." And they'd have to retain some sort of right to say that, because anything else is madness and affects all your other products too.

FOX will try with SmackDown. They'll do all those things. But if it doesn't work, I'm sure there are ways they can shun WWE completely because WWE didn't live up on their end. What if Vince just decided that SmackDown should now be a cat going out to the ring and shitting each week? What's to stop him?

[xrodmuc316]

I'm fairly certain that FOX would be able to cancel SmackDown, lol. I'm fairly certain there would have to be an out clause, regardless of how badly FOX wants all those other things. If I really need a new lawn mower, I still get one with warranty. Given their fascination with sports, unique sporting events would also mean that there would need to be some sort of preemption clause in the contract too. It's not like just because FOX badly wants SmackDown, they were like "Lol you now own Friday nights on FOX, go nuts." That's just a bit much.

I am saying their out would be moving Smackdown to a cable channel.

If WWE had multiple offers, they had the leverage. Why would WWE sign the contract with those provisions? Answer is they wouldn't. It's why the best athletes get perks like no trade clauses in their contracts, because they have the leverage.

Regardless, Fox in on the hook for that money. If they really wanted to get out of it, they could offer WWE a buyout, but they would still need WWE to agree.

As for your cat example, that would be WWE breaching contract, that's a whole other situation.

And cross promotional would be in Fox's best interest, but they don't have to. That is also far different then just saying "you are cancelled so we are going to stop paying you."

[xrodmuc316]

A legit scenario might be WWE accepts a buyout of $.75 on the dollar, and has the right to get a new tv deal immediately.

Say after one year this happens, Fox buys out for $600 Million of the remaining $800 million of the deal. WWE could stretch that out 4 years, $150 Million a year, and sell Smackdown to say ESPN for a big discount, say only $60 Million a year, a steal for ESPN, and WWE comes out with an extra $10 Million a year.

Fox then gets 2 hours of TV back they can fill with something else that will get the same ratings, and not be a live show. Fox would be more likely to keep Smackdown on the books and win cable on Friday nights then just walking away.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Lol, I don't think you really understand what I am saying.

They probably would move SmackDown to cable, but they would also be pissed that they are paying that much for a cable show. WWE had leverage, but leverage doesn't mean that you get to make whatever crazy demands you want, haha. WWE would sign a contract with those provisions because I'm fairly certain they would be pretty standard contract things. If you can't provide the service we want, you are breaching your part of the contract. I am talking about breaching. I am sure that there is something in the contract that outlines what SmackDown is and what it is supposed to do, and how it will be identifiable when it is not doing those things.

Buying out would be necessary if WWE held up everything they were contractually obligated to. I'm sure there are review years after maybe the first 2 or 3 years where FOX gets to, with enough notice, let WWE know that they aren't going to be going forward with SmackDown anymore, regardless of how well or badly it is performing, and that this would result in some sort of cancellation fee or something.

But I doubt Vince McMahon got a contract saying "Here is $1 billion for 5 years guaranteed even if it stinks and you can't fill a bingo hall, haha lol." There are expected terms and conditions that FOX would have been insane to allow WWE to waive.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm sure they would get paid out if they got cancelled, but I think it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that "FOX can't cancel SmackDown."

[Simple Fan]

xrod is correct, about the only thing they could do is move Smackdown to FS1. It'd probably be better for Fox on FS1 to start but with the network TV they are probably hoping for a bit of a ratings boost. Fox needs the content and has the money to pay for it.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I want to hear BigCrippyZ out on this, because he actually knows what he's talking about, lol. Why would WWE have the leverage to making it so they cannot be canceled, but somehow don't have the leverage to ensure that they aren't kept on network television. That doesn't seem to make any reasonable sense, lol.

I don't know how FOX signs a contract that doesn't allow them to cancel SmackDown if their ratings drop 85% or something. There would be some expectation of service on WWE's part. As I said, I imagine that it would need to be demonstable in a measurable sense in relation to other television, or with a line that WWE is not realistically going to reach. <1.5 million people or something. There's no way FOX is paying for a complete flop. A relative flop, sure, but not one that kills their Fridays. Which SmackDown is not going to do, even if it doesn't light them on fire.

This would all be under the proviso that WWE can be expected to generate a viewership of at least that size. It would have been insane for WWE to promise any more, but it would also be insane of FOX pay for "live entertainment" that no one ends up watching. Come on now.

And I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a review period of the contract.

[Simple Fan]

I'm sure they would get paid out if they got cancelled, but I think it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that "FOX can't cancel SmackDown."

It'd be like them canceling the NFL or NASCAR. The lawsuits and court proceedings would probably take longer than the deal its self. WWE is just a content provider, its Fox's job to air and promote it how ever they so choose. It's 5 years and chump change to Fox, I doubt they'd even consider canceling Smackdown.

[xrodmuc316]

I'm sure they would get paid out if they got cancelled, but I think it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that "FOX can't cancel SmackDown."

You are right, I am saying they can't cancel it free and clear like when they cancelled say The Last Man on Earth.

But they are on the hook for the contract, the money, and airing 2 hours of Smackdown somewhere.

If they want out of it, it will cost them and they will have to get WWE to agree to the terms of a buyout, maybe even to the point that they have to wait until WWE has a new network lined up.

As for provisions, yeah they probably have some, but again they would have had to be agreed to by WWE. An 85% drop in ratings, WWE would agree to that because they know they are going down to a .2 rating, so it's a non issue.

[Mr. Nerfect]

There's a difference between saying they probably wouldn't consider doing it and that they can't. I don't expect SmackDown to get cancelled, I'm just saying that if FOX is really disappointed with them, there would have to be measures put in place so that they can do it, because television needs to be adaptable like that, because you're dealing with advertisers and affiliates as well. It would be genuinely insane for FOX to not have that built into their contracts in a very permanent way.

I'm sure they have clauses that would allow them to do that with the NFL or NASCAR too. It all sounds very standard to me. With "live sports" you want to be able to provide a league or a company or promotion or whatever you want to call them with reassurance, but you also want to be able to treat them as content too. And if content doesn't do it's job effectively, it's actually kind of a big deal for the networks, so they would have to have something that can cover their ass, even if they really, really want that content.

[xrodmuc316]

It'd be like them canceling the NFL or NASCAR. The lawsuits and court proceedings would probably take longer than the deal its self. WWE is just a content provider, its Fox's job to air and promote it how ever they so choose. It's 5 years and chump change to Fox, I doubt they'd even consider canceling Smackdown.

Exactly, a half hour of Smackdown cost Fox about $1 Million. Yeah a billion sounds like a lot, but a billion over 5 years. $200 Million per year for 104 hours of content is nothing to Fox.

That is actually FAR cheaper then everything else they air.

[Simple Fan]

Canceling Smackdown would cost them more money than just letting the contract run out. Plus they'd just have to give money to someone else for that timeslot since they don't have a studio to create shows themselves anymore. They're basically in it for the advertising money now with the live sports.

[Mr. Nerfect]

You are right, I am saying they can't cancel it free and clear like when they cancelled say The Last Man on Earth.

But they are on the hook for the contract, the money, and airing 2 hours of Smackdown somewhere.

If they want out of it, it will cost them and they will have to get WWE to agree to the terms of a buyout, maybe even to the point that they have to wait until WWE has a new network lined up.

As for provisions, yeah they probably have some, but again they would have had to be agreed to by WWE. An 85% drop in ratings, WWE would agree to that because they know they are going down to a .2 rating, so it's a non issue.

I'm not saying cancel it free and clear. I'm saying that they can cancel it. Of course there would have to be a fee or something. I'm sure even The Last Man on Earth got something in order to pay off expenses, talent contracts, etc. Like, obviously not the full amount, but that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, haha.

Yeah, or they can use the loopholes and revision periods that I am sure are placed into the contract, lol. I feel like I am repeating myself, but I am sure that it would be insane of FOX to just decide 2 months in, after fantastic ratings, that they don't want SmackDown anymore. But I'm sure there are periods (I would guess it would be somewhere in the middle of the run), where FOX can say "Look, we aren't going to be showing SmackDown after this day, here's (x) amount that we agreed to if we decide we are going in a different direction with (x) amount of time and after honoring (x) amount of time on the contract."

Of course the provisions would have to be agreed to by WWE. That's what a contract is, lol. I'm not saying that WWE is lamenting at the idea of these provisions -- I think they are pretty standard stuff. If you show starts failing, we get to bail. That no one expects WWE to flat-out fail, given they have a 20-year history of doing 2 million viewers or whatever is exactly my point. That's why it seems ludicrious to suggest that it wouldn't be in there. That's what FOX is paying for -- 2 million eyeballs every Friday. If they get 1.8 or 1.9, I'm sure that's within the scope. But if WWE starts doing even a 1.4, I'm sure FOX can say "Come on now, that's not what we paid for."

[Simple Fan]

Can they cancel it? Yes. Does it make econmomical sense to cancel it if it gets to that point? No. They'd just move it to FS1 where it'd be the highest rated show every week.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Canceling Smackdown would cost them more money than just letting the contract run out. Plus they'd just have to give money to someone else for that timeslot since they don't have a studio to create shows themselves anymore. They're basically in it for the advertising money now with the live sports.

Being in it for live advertising money is exactly why they would be able to cancel it. It being expensive to cancel is exactly why there would be clauses and provisions in the contract that make it possible and removing some of those costs, haha.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Can they cancel it? Yes. Does it make econmomical sense to cancel it if it gets to that point? No. They'd just move it to FS1 where it'd be the highest rated show every week.

And I'm sure that when the revision period came up, they would cancel it, because they don't want to be paying $200 million a year or whatever for a show they wanted to spend that much on for network. And I'm sure WWE would recognize this ahead of time and also be looking for other networks to pay them a large sack of money, because I'm sure being moved to cable would feel exactly like losing your time-slot.

[xrodmuc316]

I'm not saying cancel it free and clear. I'm saying that they can cancel it. Of course there would have to be a fee or something. I'm sure even The Last Man on Earth got something in order to pay off expenses, talent contracts, etc. Like, obviously not the full amount, but that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, haha.

Yeah, or they can use the loopholes and revision periods that I am sure are placed into the contract, lol. I feel like I am repeating myself, but I am sure that it would be insane of FOX to just decide 2 months in, after fantastic ratings, that they don't want SmackDown anymore. But I'm sure there are periods (I would guess it would be somewhere in the middle of the run), where FOX can say "Look, we aren't going to be showing SmackDown after this day, here's (x) amount that we agreed to if we decide we are going in a different direction with (x) amount of time and after honoring (x) amount of time on the contract."

Of course the provisions would have to be agreed to by WWE. That's what a contract is, lol. I'm not saying that WWE is lamenting at the idea of these provisions -- I think they are pretty standard stuff. If you show starts failing, we get to bail. That no one expects WWE to flat-out fail, given they have a 20-year history of doing 2 million viewers or whatever is exactly my point. That's why it seems ludicrious to suggest that it wouldn't be in there. That's what FOX is paying for -- 2 million eyeballs every Friday. If they get 1.8 or 1.9, I'm sure that's within the scope. But if WWE starts doing even a 1.4, I'm sure FOX can say "Come on now, that's not what we paid for."

You are right, and I'm not arguing that.

I will refine my original statement.

Fox can't just cancel Smackdown unless WWE breaches the agreement without costing themselves the majority of the money agreed upon. In the case of this deal where there were competing offers, WWE surely received more favorable terms then says a pilot order. They did not get a standard contract. The 5 year length itself proves that.

[Simple Fan]

And I'm sure that when the revision period came up, they would cancel it, because they don't want to be paying $200 million a year or whatever for a show they wanted to spend that much on for network. And I'm sure WWE would recognize this ahead of time and also be looking for other networks to pay them a large sack of money, because I'm sure being moved to cable would feel exactly like losing your time-slot.



But WWE is to the point where they are finally getting in good with advertising. They're product has been declining during that time period to fans but not advertisers for some odd reason.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think the contract being "$200 million for 5 years, no questions asked" is a gross oversimplification of what these things would be. I'm sure these things would be very tiered and particular.

[Mr. Nerfect]

But WWE is to the point where they are finally getting in good with advertising. They're product has been declining during that time period to fans but not advertisers for some odd reason.

Well, because television sucks. But in the event that WWE turns sour with advertisers again, which is always a possibility, then I'm sure FOX reserves the right to cancel, because so much of the deal would be based on advertising. If WWE doesn't bring it, then what are they even doing there?

[Mr. Nerfect]

You are right, and I'm not arguing that.

I will refine my original statement.

Fox can't just cancel Smackdown unless WWE breaches the agreement without costing themselves the majority of the money agreed upon. In the case of this deal where there were competing offers, WWE surely received more favorable terms then says a pilot order. They did not get a standard contract. The 5 year length itself proves that.

I see nothing disagreeable in there. That's what I've been saying the whole time, really.

[Emperor Smeat]

But WWE is to the point where they are finally getting in good with advertising. They're product has been declining during that time period to fans but not advertisers for some odd reason.

WWE can thank both NBC and USA Network for that since both put in a lot of hard work to change the negative stereotype of wrestling in advertisers eyes. WWE pretty much just sat back and reaped the rewards.

Basis was USA Network and/or NBC realizing how disastrous the deal to make Smackdown into a live show was going to be for them in the long run unless drastic changes were made. USA Network was giving WWE a ton of money but was getting way less back in return from ads.