What networks really would want RAW?

[mookeighana]

BACKGROUND (you can skip this part)

 

In the fact, in the 2nd Quarter Conference Call, Vince McMahon had this exchange with an analyst (full transcript available at http://seekingalpha.com/article/1597822-wo...all-transcript) essentially laying out that he expected they could double their domestic TV Rights Fees (for RAW/Smackdown)..

 

George Barrios

The primary drivers of this growth includes the potential launch of a WWE Network, the re-negotiation of our four largest content agreements in the U.S. and international markets and the execution of our digital strategy developing digital products such as gamification and mobile gaming. Regarding our potential network in the U.S. our market research and analysis indicate the potential for a meaningful subscriber base and the significant economic opportunity. As in the U.S. we believe that a network and other distribution models also represent a sizable opportunity in international markets. The renewal of key content agreements is another primary source of future earnings growth. Over the next 18 months we expect to renegotiate our four largest television agreements in the U.S., the UK and India.

 

Benchmarking our rights fees to the fees paid for other original scripted series and to the fees paid for sports programming indicates that our license agreement has significant upside potential. Recently announced content agreements only strengthen our view. These recent deals such as NASCAR with NBC Sports, the Rose Bowl, and U.S. Open with ESPN, the NFL with Verizon and (indiscernible) with Netflix reinforce our view that the proliferation of distribution alternatives is driving up the value of content especially compelling content with broad appeal.

 

Richard Ingrassia - ROTH Capital Partners

Okay, thanks Vince. And then a question on TV, if the USA and the Sci-Fi contracts are at the end of next year, when do you expect to begin negotiating those nuance and given all of the cash disputes these days and some of the ridiculous rates being paid for some pretty low rate at live sports. How do you possibly come away from those deals with anything less than double what you’re getting paid today?

 

Vince McMahon

I don’t know I think you answered the question, I have no idea if we told of them but again I think our content is far more compelling to any one particular sport really that is available because there is nothing available. This the last great franchise if you look at it from a sports family and I think that sports networks will look at WWE in terms of the entertainment value then it brings to their sports networks, you can’t deny the numbers my god they’re huge. So to have that in terms of the sports folio different than what we’ve had in the past it opens up far greater revenue opportunities for us. So, you’re right in terms of lesser sports getting a huge rights fee we’re poised more than anything more than any shows that’s out there certainly from a conglomerate standpoint to garner what we would hope to be double or who knows.

...

Brad Safalow - PAA Research

Okay. And then the last question I had was on some of the comments Vince that you made about television rights fees and what you feel would be an appropriate mark-to-market as far as at least doubling. I just want to be clear that you guys are going to be held to that standard I mean that’s based on the contracts in play here we’re talking about $75 million to $100 million of incremental EBITDA if you did in fact double your television rights fees. So I just want to make sure that I understand what you’re saying is that’s what you’re playing for here.

 

Vince McMahon

I’ll allow you to put a hammerlock on me if we don’t.

A few months ago, George Barrios presented at the Citi Global Conference (link to presentation):

 

George Barrios wrote:

Number one, we should see us making announcements about those four contracts that I talked about over the next 12 to 18 months.

Number two, we should see us announce network carriage agreements and track the penetration as we reach those agreements in those markets.

Number three, we should see us launching new digital products and having success with them.

Number four, improve performance in our film portfolio.

What four contracts?

 

The second key growth driver for us is our four largest content agreement, RAW in the U.S., SmackDown in the U.S., our content agreement in the U.K., and our content agreement in India. Those four represent roughly two thirds of our entire television licensing business and they will be renegotiated over the next couple of years...

Why India?

 

India continues to be one of our largest television markets and one of our focuses is growing our consumer products business there.... Our top five markets include the U.S. the U.K., India, Mexico, Germany, so it rotates from time to time, but all across the world and from a platform perspective, they range from -- our revenues range from 17% to 29% from our different platforms....

Why Mexico?

 

One that always strikes me is Mexico, almost 80% of the homes in Mexico are either hard core fans, casual or lapse and in fact if you look at the data so far, we are about through 14 markets or so. Mexico has the highest percentage of hard core fans. So we are really excited about the opportunity there...

Sports Fee vs Scripted Fees

Just in the U.S., we've done a lot of benchmarking of both scripted dramas as well as sports packages. On the scripted drama side, you see roughly $0.20 to $0.40 per viewer hour being paid for scripted drama. So that really takes us how many hours as it gets shown by the network and how many viewers does it generate per hour and when you do the math, it's roughly $0.20 to $0.40.... Similarly on sports-rights packages, whether it's NASCAR, the recent NHL deal, the recent EPL deal, the recent U.S. Open tennis deal, MLB, it's basically the values float somewhere between $0.40 and $1.25 per viewer hour. Sports versus scripted drama has one great characteristic, so lot of hours and it's live, so it's somewhat DVR approved, a lot like WWE content....

Just for comparison, here is a TV Rights vs PPV revenue chart I made awhile ago.

 

THE QUESTION (here's my real question)

They didn't want to talk about what they get per hour per viewer, but keep in mind that before 1999, they were making about

In 2012, they made $139.5M in TV Rights Fees split $88.9M domestic and $50.6M int'l (and a paltry $1.4M in TV Advertising).

 

Besides USA for RAW, what networks are likely to make a significant bid?

 

Dave Meltzer made an argument on the 8/29/13 Wrestling Observer show that should Fox Sports 1 (FS1) continue to only draw a few hundred thousand viewers for the majority of their programming, they might be incented to make a big play for a property like RAW. His rationale was that bringing 3-4 million viewers to the channel weekly plus appealing to fans that should have a natural cross-over with UFC would be very much line with their goals.

 

What about Spike? Where does Smackdown go next? Which arm can we hammerlock?

 

Can they really expect to bring in an increase of $25M-$40M more in domestic TV Rights from this round of negotiations? Could USA decide to drop out of bidding akin to what Spike last time did when it was clear they weren't going to win and thus left WWE looking weak and forced to dance with the only girl left at the party?

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Fox Sports 1 seems like a good fit, but it all depends on what their numbers look like after they start showing actual games (college football and baseball). If they're still terrible, I suppose they could make a play. But my guess is they'd rather conserve resources to make a run at getting NBA rights a few years from now.

 

"Conserve resources" is probably a poor term to use when talking about FOX, but you get my drift. I don't think they'd make a play for wrestling unless they truly felt it would help them land rights to the NBA, and I don't see how dumping a pile of cash on Vince's doorsteps helps land the NBA.

[Matt D]

Could any of this mean just more content such as Superstars and Saturday Morning Slam? I love the C shows these days.

[mookeighana]

FS1 still seems like more a natural fit than NBCSports or ESPN2 since they can try to justify luring WWE fans to lure some to watch their UFC shows. I still don't think Vince wants to be part of a Sports network and would rather try to squeeze the cash from entertainment channels like USA (or Spike). I could see him having more interest in moving a secondary property like Smackdown to FS1.

[flyonthewall2983]

Only way I could see this happening is if Vince and Universal butt heads over something like the dog show again. How well did the WrestleMania prime-time special draw for NBC btw?

[mookeighana]

Only way I could see this happening is if Vince and Universal butt heads over something like the dog show again. How well did the WrestleMania prime-time special draw for NBC btw?

For the Mania special on NBC, which re-aired the Rock vs. Cena match, it won the night for networks with 18-34, Males 18-34, Males 18-49 and children under 11. In the 18-49 demo, it was up 39% from what NBC has been doing in the slot with mostly rerun programming, but the 0.6 in that demo is hardly spectacular, and down 33% from the same show last year.

[cm funk]

FS1 still seems like more a natural fit than NBCSports or ESPN2 since they can try to justify luring WWE fans to lure some to watch their UFC shows. I still don't think Vince wants to be part of a Sports network and would rather try to squeeze the cash from entertainment channels like USA (or Spike). I could see him having more interest in moving a secondary property like Smackdown to FS1.

This.

 

I don't see Vince taking his flagship show off of basic cable. FS1 is clearly making moves to compete with ESPN, and eventually will be a prestigious channel, but they aren't there right now. Their launch was kind of rough with the cable companies, and UFC is taking a hit by being part of it. It will balance out for UFC because FOX is invested in them, but yeah. I guess if they threw enough money at WWE, RAW would definitely help their numbers and speed up the process, but I don't think Vince is inclined to go in that direction. I think he stays on USA, and I think the way the landscape is now he probably gets an increase on the value of the property, but he'd leave money on the table to stay on basic tv.

 

It's interesting that the RAW and SD contracts are both coming up at the same time. They've been packaged together with NBC/Universal (along with WWECW/NXT) but WWE has shown a willingness to go and put shows on tv with competing companies lately. They have way too much product on tv right now IMO (and I think UFC has created the same problem for themselves), and they still have the WWE network in mind......whatever happens will say a lot about where the company is right now

[mookeighana]

FS1 still seems like more a natural fit than NBCSports or ESPN2 since they can try to justify luring WWE fans to lure some to watch their UFC shows. I still don't think Vince wants to be part of a Sports network and would rather try to squeeze the cash from entertainment channels like USA (or Spike). I could see him having more interest in moving a secondary property like Smackdown to FS1.

This.

 

I don't see Vince taking his flagship show off of basic cable. FS1 is clearly making moves to compete with ESPN, and eventually will be a prestigious channel, but they aren't there right now. Their launch was kind of rough with the cable companies, and UFC is taking a hit by being part of it. It will balance out for UFC because FOX is invested in them, but yeah. I guess if they threw enough money at WWE, RAW would definitely help their numbers and speed up the process, but I don't think Vince is inclined to go in that direction. I think he stays on USA, and I think the way the landscape is now he probably gets an increase on the value of the property, but he'd leave money on the table to stay on basic tv.

 

It's interesting that the RAW and SD contracts are both coming up at the same time. They've been packaged together with NBC/Universal (along with WWECW/NXT) but WWE has shown a willingness to go and put shows on tv with competing companies lately. They have way too much product on tv right now IMO (and I think UFC has created the same problem for themselves), and they still have the WWE network in mind......whatever happens will say a lot about where the company is right now

 

While the idea of RAW on a Sports network seems like an odd fit, so did moving from USA to TNN and they did that.

Plus, as has been pointed out by others, they're on Sports Networks overseas and haven't ever batted an eye about it. There is an increased willingness that they'll follow the money, and they really want those increased rates. For Vince, having FS1 in the bidding is crucial because otherwise I don't see how they can leverage USA to give them more dough, at least not more money in the ranges they're asking for.

 

As for network synergy, it's been a mixed bag. I think the last time every single show (except syndicated stuff) was on a single network was 2000-2005 though since Smackdown rejoined RAW's parent network in 2010, I guess you could say the last three years have been one major parent network for their A & B shows. They've had some C-level shows since 2009 floating around on other networks.

 

TV review: Oct 2000-Oct 2005 was TNN-SpikeTV/MTV/UPN (Viacomm). In 2005, RAW returned to USA (NBCUniversal), Sunday Night Heat went to WWE.com but Smackdown moved to Fridays on UPN (Viacomm). 2006 they added ECW to SciFi (NBCUniversal) and moved Smackdown to CW (CBS/Time Warner). 2008 they moved Smackdown to MyNetworkTV (Fox). 2009 they added WWE Superstars (WGN America - owned by Tribune) and 2010 Smackdown moved to SyFy (NBCUniversal). 2012 added Saturday Morning Slam to CW (CBS/Time Warner) and Main Event to Ion (Pax).

 

The more I think about it, the more willing I think Vince is to fracture Smackdown and RAW into two different networks, at least for some time. Especially with the potential of WWE Network still looming down the line. I think he prefers to make the money play, and sees his 3-4 million viewers as the cudgel he can yield effectively to squeeze cash out of during this negotiation.

[Cox]

What about Raw moving to FX? I think FX is probably a little too prestige at this point to take on Raw, but if Fox made an offer to put Raw on FX and Smackdown on FS1, I could see that enticing Vince.

[Bierschwale]

FX would probably now mean FXX, which is actually kind of feasible as a branding move, except that I have no idea what its availability situation is at this moment.

[cm funk]

Yeah, FXX might be a good fit. I'm not really sure what the deal is with that channel. They moved The League and Always Sunny to it, which are two of the most popular FX shows and those shows are definitely "taking one for the team" because it's going to hurt their ratings....and if that's the demo they're after with the channel RAW might be a good fit (I for example, an early 30's WWE fan, love those shows). But I haven't seen any publicity for the channel, no idea what kind of coverage it will have with the various cable providers, and those are like literally the only 2 shows on the channel (on the website they advertise those 2 and 2 new shows)......no idea how they're going to fill all the rest of the hours. I assume syndi repeats and repeats of stuff FOX owns like Married With Children and stuff like that.....but really, no clue.

[Hollinger.]

FXX is built around comedy. They bought syndication rights for Parks and Rec, Arrested Development, Sports Night, How I Met Your Mother, Freaks & Geeks, Spin City, and a few other big shows.

[flyonthewall2983]

I can't see USA wanting to give it up. They've branched out into original programming but have not had a breakout critical/audience hit like a Breaking Bad that would maybe justify them wanting to go in a different direction on Monday nights.

[JerryvonKramer]

Chris, do you happen to know what portion of their $139.5M TV rights money comes from Sky here in the UK? I mean they've pretty much had a rolling contract since 1987 and I can't imagine that Sky have any real competition for that content (it's everything, Raw, Smackdown, the C-shows, Vintage, everything).

 

Do Sky actually pay WWE for that content or just give them a split of advertising revenue? If they do pay a fee, I can't imagine it can be much. Sky spent £2.28 billion for rights to EPL coverage for the next three years, so how much more of their outlay can realistically be left over? I've always kinda been interested in the WWF/E's business model over here. For years they even showed the PPVs for free.

 

But let's say Sky pulled out of showing WWE anymore, for some reason, I don't know who would come in and for how much. Probably BT Sports now, but beyond them there's no way BBC, ITV or Channel 4 go in for it, Channel 5 doesn't have that sort of money, and basically all other channels are piddly little digital ones with no budget. All of which suggests that the WWE's UK contract can't be very lucrative.

 

Is there a breakdown of TV rights revenue anywhere?

 

EDIT: Oh I see you mentioned this:

 

in TV Rights Fees split $88.9M domestic and $50.6M int'l

I reckon if they show in 25 countries, they might get $2million from each one, or something like that.

[cm funk]

I can't see USA wanting to give it up. They've branched out into original programming but have not had a breakout critical/audience hit like a Breaking Bad that would maybe justify them wanting to go in a different direction on Monday nights.

They've had some big hits. Monk was really popular (especially with women) and is now in syndication. It's actually the most watched drama in cable history and won a lot of Emmys. Burn Notice is popular, good ratings and is in syndication. Psych is in syndication. Those shows are all lighthearted and comedic though. They're after more of a network type, PG-PG13, broad audience than channels like FX and AMC which cater to a more mature and I think male audience.

[flyonthewall2983]

Those shows are all good and have done well enough, true. And I can't say if those are the types of shows that can co-exist on the same network as professional wrestling, but I have a hard time seeing it on the same network that produces shows like the ones on FX or AMC.

[jdw]

Vince McMahonSo, you’re right in terms of lesser sports getting a huge rights fee we’re poised more than anything more than any shows that’s out there certainly from a conglomerate standpoint to garner what we would hope to be double or who knows

 

In 2012, they made $139.5M in TV Rights Fees split $88.9M domestic and $50.6M int'l (and a paltry $1.4M in TV Advertising).

 

[...]

 

Can they really expect to bring in an increase of $25M-$40M more in domestic TV Rights from this round of negotiations?

Vince was talking about close to 90M in additional US rights, not 25M-40M. Sine he was talking about 4 contracts, and the 2 international ones are buried within the 50M of international rights, the only way they get "double" out of those 4 combined is if the US 2 go up close to double.

 

John

[mookeighana]

Chris, do you happen to know what portion of their $139.5M TV rights money comes from Sky here in the UK? I mean they've pretty much had a rolling contract since 1987 and I can't imagine that Sky have any real competition for that content (it's everything, Raw, Smackdown, the C-shows, Vintage, everything).

 

Do Sky actually pay WWE for that content or just give them a split of advertising revenue? If they do pay a fee, I can't imagine it can be much. Sky spent £2.28 billion for rights to EPL coverage for the next three years, so how much more of their outlay can realistically be left over? I've always kinda been interested in the WWF/E's business model over here. For years they even showed the PPVs for free.

 

But let's say Sky pulled out of showing WWE anymore, for some reason, I don't know who would come in and for how much. Probably BT Sports now, but beyond them there's no way BBC, ITV or Channel 4 go in for it, Channel 5 doesn't have that sort of money, and basically all other channels are piddly little digital ones with no budget. All of which suggests that the WWE's UK contract can't be very lucrative.

 

Is there a breakdown of TV rights revenue anywhere?

 

EDIT: Oh I see you mentioned this:

 

in TV Rights Fees split $88.9M domestic and $50.6M int'l

I reckon if they show in 25 countries, they might get $2million from each one, or something like that.

 

It's possible they mentioned a specific contract renewal in one of the SEC filings, but I nothing concrete is sticking in my brain right now.

 

Here's a reference image. You can see how much the deal to return to USA resulted in them ending their TV advertising revenues (in the US, they retained a small bit for Canada) and how it was a net decrease for them, although the story of TV Rights is always portrayed as being just a rocket to the moon.

[jdw]

THE QUESTION (here's my real question)

 

Besides USA for RAW, what networks are likely to make a significant bid?

 

Dave Meltzer made an argument on the 8/29/13 Wrestling Observer show that should Fox Sports 1 (FS1) continue to only draw a few hundred thousand viewers for the majority of their programming, they might be incented to make a big play for a property like RAW. His rationale was that bringing 3-4 million viewers to the channel weekly plus appealing to fans that should have a natural cross-over with UFC would be very much line with their goals.

I get the general premise of what Dave is saying. But that also generally was the case in the last go around: Raw and SmackDown were pulling in higher viewer numbers than most stuff on cable. There were loads of cable channels pulling in far fewer viewers. Not too many of them stepped forward to offer big money to the WWE at the time. Rates only went up a bit.

 

Vince and the WWE are trying to take the novel approach that, "Hey! We're Sports!" at a time when sports rights are through the roof, often for programing that on average draws less viewers than the WWE. That has two issues:

 

* pro wrestling doesn't pull in the ad money that Sports does

* no one in the TV industry sees the WWE as the equiv of Sports programing

 

The first is just reality. We all know it, and have talked about it for years.

 

The second is reality too. The tv industry sees it as the equiv of Duck Dynasty, except that it's not hot like Duck Dynasty is right now. There also always is a chunk of advertising money chasing around whatever is hot at the moment, then quickly bailing out of it to what's hot next. WWE programing isn't getting that money.

 

A third issue:

 

* sports executives are pushing Sport and Real Sports Entertainment, not Fake Sports Entertainment

 

They will gladly push First Take because it relates to the Sports they're pushing. In fact, it helps hype the sports they're carrying ("Free Te-Bow!" -Skip Fucking Bayless). Fake Sports Entertainment doesn't push FS1's Real Sports.

 

Do viewers win out? Sure... except that pro wrestling is different, and we've yet to see a mad rush of people vying for the programing to drive up the WWE's rights like this:

 

Old Contract: $23.0M per year

New Contract: $83.3M per year

= 362% growth

 

It's because it's Pro Wrestling.

 

I'd enjoy seeing that change. It always was odd that pro wrestling did great ratings but weaker stuff did better money. But... we'll see if it changes.

 

 

What about Spike? Where does Smackdown go next? Which arm can we hammerlock?

Does Spike care?

 

Could USA decide to drop out of bidding akin to what Spike last time did when it was clear they weren't going to win and thus left WWE looking weak and forced to dance with the only girl left at the party?

My guess is that the WWE isn't going to piss off USA until they either have USA locked up on renewal or sign with someone else. It also doesn't look like the WWE has badmouthed USA like they kinda-sorta were with Spike.

[jdw]

Fox Sports 1 seems like a good fit, but it all depends on what their numbers look like after they start showing actual games (college football and baseball). If they're still terrible, I suppose they could make a play. But my guess is they'd rather conserve resources to make a run at getting NBA rights a few years from now.

 

"Conserve resources" is probably a poor term to use when talking about FOX, but you get my drift. I don't think they'd make a play for wrestling unless they truly felt it would help them land rights to the NBA, and I don't see how dumping a pile of cash on Vince's doorsteps helps land the NBA.

I'm not sold that FS1 is a good fit. Fox has ducked getting a piece of the WWE *forever*. There's zero doubt that the WWE has long wanted to get Fox at least in the door to make serious bids, if only to drive up what they could get out of USA or anyone else. But let's be honest: SmackDown is on freaking SyFi, which is about the most non-WWE channel it could be on. Fox just hasn't given two shits about having Raw or SD over the years. Which is worrisome if they suddenly want it to be a part of their weekly programing. It's not really a sign of someone who is all that committed to you, and instead will take a bite now and pitch you to the curb as soon as they can: Real Sports content arrives to fill up their hours and draw reasonable viewers for them.

 

But I totally agree with the second item: NBC and Fox are looking at the NBA as one of the last two big sports packages still out there to buy this decade, with the Big 10 being the other. There are smaller ones: Notre Dame football, Champions League soccer, etc. But the NBA is the biggest, with one big gun (ESPN) having a piece they don't want to lose to Fox or NBC, and a smaller gun (TNT) who is desperate to keep their #1 sporting content. It's going to take a lot of money to drive off ESPN or TNT.

 

The WWE's rights aren't that much money in the big picture: even doubled up to $170M a year, that's small compared to what the NBA will go for. But it is more money. ESPN and TNT are already looking to offload their NASCAR next year to NBC (who has their part of the contract starting in 2015). They would just as soon cut their losses now rather than lameduck it, and save that money for something else... in addition to bleed NBC's fund as well.

[jdw]

While the idea of RAW on a Sports network seems like an odd fit, so did moving from USA to TNN and they did that.

 

Plus, as has been pointed out by others, they're on Sports Networks overseas and haven't ever batted an eye about it. There is an increased willingness that they'll follow the money, and they really want those increased rates. For Vince, having FS1 in the bidding is crucial because otherwise I don't see how they can leverage USA to give them more dough, at least not more money in the ranges they're asking for.

I don't think Vince gives a shit about "FS1" bidding. He cares about "Fox" bidding. He really doesn't care too much about which Fox channel he airs on.

 

John

[jdw]

There's also a slight FS1 problem that people are overlooking:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/FOX-S...-network-030513

 

FOX Sports 1 Programming Highlights

 

COLLEGE BASKETBALL – Dozens of exclusive prime time games on Monday and Thursday nights, plus Saturday and Sunday coverage of the Big 12, Pac-12 and Conference USA.

I'd add in the New Big East as another hoops property they have.

 

ESPN loves them hoops on Monday, a/k/a Big Monday:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballn...chedule-is-here

 

That's January through March when the conference part of the schedule kicks in... or more importantly, Monday Night Football is over.

 

Basketball season actually starts in November, and if FS1 is looking for TV content and a bit more stretched to find stuff, they might be more than happy to air hoops games in November and December as well. They have 4 conferences to draw from, though if you look at the Big Monday schedule for ESPN this year, the Big 12 is all over it. That very likely is an exclusive for ESPN: no competitor channel will air national games on Monday opposite ESPN. But they still can draw from the PAC, the New Big East, and Conference USA. The PAC really likes to play games on Thu/Fri and Sat/Sun, with an occasional Wed game thrown in. But perhaps Fox tempts them. The Big East would be all over being on Monday to flip the bird at ESPN.

 

Problem?

 

Games don't already end on time. ESPN's Big Monday is 7pm & 9pm ET. How does one fit an 8-11pm Raw into that?

 

You don't.

 

Vince doesn't want to be on delay or moved to another day from Jan-Mar, or worse Nov-Mar.

 

Fox has already blocked off Monday and Thursday as their key exclusive nights for NCAA Hoops, straight up against ESPN's Big Monday. Raw doesn't fit into that.

[jdw]

FXX is built around comedy. They bought syndication rights for Parks and Rec, Arrested Development, Sports Night, How I Met Your Mother, Freaks & Geeks, Spin City, and a few other big shows.

Here's the FXX announcement:

 

http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/fx-officia...ch-in-september

 

Here's the FX push at about the same time:

 

http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/fx-greenli...-limited-series

 

They're going heavy with drama and new programing on FX over the next few years:

 

FX president John Landgraf projected that FX would double its original offerings to 25 original series within the next few years to achieve parity with ABC, NBC and CBS.

Granted, what he doesn't mention is that FX series are short-run:

 

13 - Sons of Anarchy

13 - Justified

13 - American Horror Story

13 - The Americans

13 - The Bridge

 

That's the number of episodes in the most recent season of each of the current dramas on FX. Pretty much all of them have always had 13 episodes seasons. Network tends to go in the 22-24 range now. So "25 original programs" for FX isn't the same in terms of eating up the programing schedule/slot as it would be on the networks... perhaps even more so if the "FX" up there means both FX and FXX, with about 12 shows per channel.

 

You could fit Raw and Smackdown onto one of these. I'm not sold that Fox would want to run WWE content on either of them. Perhaps on FXX, but there's a big drop in households:

 

90M USA

72M FXX

 

I've seen as many as 98M listed for USA, but NBC's own website has 90:

 

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/NBC_Universal_Cable_Networks

 

The last time the WWE went to a network that had less households, they blamed it for years of ratings drops.

 

John

[jdw]

EDIT: Oh I see you mentioned this:

 

in TV Rights Fees split $88.9M domestic and $50.6M int'l

I reckon if they show in 25 countries, they might get $2million from each one, or something like that.

 

Their last 10-K:

 

Television Rights Fees

 

Each year, more than 8,000 hours of WWE’s television programming can be seen in more than 145 countries and 30 languages around the world. Our broadcast partners include: BSkyB in the UK; Ten Sports in India, and J SPORTS in Japan, among many others.

They're in more than 25 countries. They probably get good money from some of them, and perhaps pay to get on in other countries simply to advertise their PPV. The average would be meaningless given that number of countries.

[WingedEagle]

While the idea of RAW on a Sports network seems like an odd fit, so did moving from USA to TNN and they did that.

 

Plus, as has been pointed out by others, they're on Sports Networks overseas and haven't ever batted an eye about it. There is an increased willingness that they'll follow the money, and they really want those increased rates. For Vince, having FS1 in the bidding is crucial because otherwise I don't see how they can leverage USA to give them more dough, at least not more money in the ranges they're asking for.

I don't think Vince gives a shit about "FS1" bidding. He cares about "Fox" bidding. He really doesn't care too much about which Fox channel he airs on.

 

John

 

No concerns about the placement of FS1 on the dial vs. USA? Assuming its an issue, how much extra do they need to pull in in rights to compensate for a channel that's not as easily found as USA and the consequences for ratings / PPV that it may cause? Obviously we're at the stage where TV money is probably more important than PPV, but I'd think this issue is at least batted around in discussion.