TPWW Forums - View Single Post - DISCUSSION - What was the total profit for the WWE in years 1999, 2000, and 2003?

**Heyman** · 05-02-2004, 08:51 PM

DISCUSSION - What was the total profit for the WWE in years 1999, 2000, and 2003?

I guess what I'm trying to ask, is if the WWE made more money last year, then they did during their "so-called" prime in 99/00.

In 1999 - Ratings for the WWE were quite high, but they didn't have "Smackdown" until September (therefore, they only had like ONE TV show per week). WCW and ECW were also still alive, which was better for the wrestling business in terms of competition.

In 2000 - The WWE had both Raw and Smackdown, and ratings were high. Has WWE New York. However - because the rosters were still unified at the time, they didn't do as many House Shows. WCW and ECW were also still alive, which was better for the wrestling business in terms of competition.

In 2003 - The WWE have Raw and Smackdown as independent shows. While ratings and fan interest is lower, the WWE does more House Shows. This allows them to travel different parts of the World at the same time for 'tours', etc.

The reason why I am ASKING this question, is because I really want to know if the WWE are actually benefitting (financially) from the roster split.......which allows them to have more House Shows and possibly more PPV events in the future.

My GUESS

-2000 was the highest in terms of total profits. 1999 had higher profits than 2003, despite only having one LIVE TV show per week, and despite having less House Shows.

What Point am I trying to Make?

-Are the WWE actually benefitting IN ANY WAY from the roster split......and separate rosters for House Shows?

It all sounds so DAMN simple (which is why I've talked about this to DEATH in the past), but why can't the WWE just make things like they were in year 2000?

-Two TV shows per week, but one roster.

-The same House Show schedule (the current House show schedule may be much easier on the wrestlers, but was it REALLY that unbearable back in 2000?)

In year 2000, there was no OBSESSION in creating new stars as we see today. The fans naturally decided to they wanted to cheer.....and those wrestlers were pushed as result.

End the Monopoly

Why can't Vince just cut down the roster? (the same size it was in 2000). Get rid of guys who YOU WILL NEVER USE. Seriously - does the WWE have any actual use for guys like Rikishi, Billy Gunn, Test, etc.?

-Get rid of them, and let them go to another promotion.

Competiton is a good thing

With all of the 'released' wrestlers from the WWE gone to a different promotion, maybe another wrestling promotion can actually get a TV deal....and provide competition. And that's not a bad thing! It's good for the wrestling business......which in effect, is GOOD for the WWE.

p.s. Sorry if this topic is EXTREMELY repetitive, but it just sounds WAY too simple and obvious IMO.

05-02-2004, 08:51 PM	#1
Heyman Father of Hinduship Posts: 21,083	DISCUSSION - What was the total profit for the WWE in years 1999, 2000, and 2003? DISCUSSION - What was the total profit for the WWE in years 1999, 2000, and 2003? I guess what I'm trying to ask, is if the WWE made more money last year, then they did during their "so-called" prime in 99/00. In 1999 - Ratings for the WWE were quite high, but they didn't have "Smackdown" until September (therefore, they only had like ONE TV show per week). WCW and ECW were also still alive, which was better for the wrestling business in terms of competition. In 2000 - The WWE had both Raw and Smackdown, and ratings were high. Has WWE New York. However - because the rosters were still unified at the time, they didn't do as many House Shows. WCW and ECW were also still alive, which was better for the wrestling business in terms of competition. In 2003 - The WWE have Raw and Smackdown as independent shows. While ratings and fan interest is lower, the WWE does more House Shows. This allows them to travel different parts of the World at the same time for 'tours', etc. The reason why I am ASKING this question, is because I really want to know if the WWE are actually benefitting (financially) from the roster split.......which allows them to have more House Shows and possibly more PPV events in the future. My GUESS -2000 was the highest in terms of total profits. 1999 had higher profits than 2003, despite only having one LIVE TV show per week, and despite having less House Shows. What Point am I trying to Make? -Are the WWE actually benefitting IN ANY WAY from the roster split......and separate rosters for House Shows? It all sounds so DAMN simple (which is why I've talked about this to DEATH in the past), but why can't the WWE just make things like they were in year 2000? -Two TV shows per week, but one roster. -The same House Show schedule (the current House show schedule may be much easier on the wrestlers, but was it REALLY that unbearable back in 2000?) In year 2000, there was no OBSESSION in creating new stars as we see today. The fans naturally decided to they wanted to cheer.....and those wrestlers were pushed as result. End the Monopoly Why can't Vince just cut down the roster? (the same size it was in 2000). Get rid of guys who YOU WILL NEVER USE. Seriously - does the WWE have any actual use for guys like Rikishi, Billy Gunn, Test, etc.? -Get rid of them, and let them go to another promotion. Competiton is a good thing With all of the 'released' wrestlers from the WWE gone to a different promotion, maybe another wrestling promotion can actually get a TV deal....and provide competition. And that's not a bad thing! It's good for the wrestling business......which in effect, is GOOD for the WWE. p.s. Sorry if this topic is EXTREMELY repetitive, but it just sounds WAY too simple and obvious IMO.