Amount of WWE's Saudi payoff revealed....kind of

[sek69]

They tried to hide it as best they can without running afoul of financial rules, and there's likely other things stuffed in that category as well, but it appears they got over $40 million for the show. Now that could be the lump sum for the year or just the amount they got for the Greatest Rumble, but either way it's pretty clear why WWE was so eager to sell the women down the river.

 

From the Observer site's synopsis of the Q2 report that dropped today:

The huge increase in revenues comes in what is listed in the media category as $60.6 million listed as "other," up from $11.9 million. Other is listed as "Other forms of media monetization reflect revenues earned from the distribution of other content, including, but not limited to, scripted, reality and other in-ring programming, as well as theatrical and direct-to-home video releases."

The key aspect of this change is likely the Saudi Arabia deal. The company noted they have a confidentiality clause in their deal and thus did not discuss the nature of that agreement past that it was a ten-year deal that included an annual show.

 

[El-P]

Don't be so damn negative people. WWE are actively helping women around the world. The Saudis probably allowed women to drive because Stephy convinced them to do so. And now that they are running the very first all-women PPV ever in the universe, AJ Styles' daughter can go to college and shit.

[fxnj]

At the end of the day they're a business and they have families to feed. I doubt very many of the people giving them flack would actually turn down a $40 million payday for one night's work just to make a political statement.

[Loss]

Part of the agreement involves the public execution of Sami Zayn in 2019, but I suspect no one has told him yet.

[El-P]

49 minutes ago, fxnj said:

At the end of the day they're a business and they have families to feed. I doubt very many of the people giving them flack would actually turn down a $40 million payday for one night's work just to make a political statement.

Actually, taking the money and doing propaganda work for a criminal regime IS making a political statement.

(don't even get me started on the hypocritical "they have family to feed" bullshit, it's just about making shitloads of money, no matter how dirty it is)

[Loss]

My issue with WWE (in general, with this being just one example) is their insistence on both having their cake and eating their cake.

They not only want to bring back Hogan, but they want to do it with no consequences. They want to induct Owen Hart in their HOF (which they could do anytime they wanted), but they haven't because they also want Martha Hart to publicly support it. They want to be seen as progressive on women's rights and gay rights while also working with foreign and domestic interests that aren't. If they showed a willingness to suffer any consequences for anything ever, they'd be a lot more tolerable, even when making terrible decisions. But they consistently think they deserve all of the good and none of the bad on, well, everything.

[TonyPulis'Cap]

1 hour ago, Charles (Loss) said:

My issue with WWE (in general, with this being just one example) is their insistence on both having their cake and eating their cake.

They not only want to bring back Hogan, but they want to do it with no consequences. They want to induct Owen Hart in their HOF (which they could do anytime they wanted), but they haven't because they also want Martha Hart to publicly support it. They want to be seen as progressive on women's rights and gay rights while also working with foreign and domestic interests that aren't. If they showed a willingness to suffer any consequences for anything ever, they'd be a lot more tolerable, even when making terrible decisions. But they consistently think they deserve all of the good and none of the bad on, well, everything.

100%.

Indeed, feel like that underpins a lot of the on screen product and the 50/50 booking - as much as possible everyone wins! (whilst the flip side is that everyone has to lose of course...). The whole lack of consequences thing even translates to things like Cena's booking for quite a few years - lose a match/something bad happens - never mind, we don't want there to be any negative consequences! - shrug it off and onto the next thing!    

[fakeplastictrees]

As I read Charles' post, I started to think how all of that applies to the on-screen product as well. Vince McMahon is truly the ultimate worker and carnie. He figured out a long time ago that a simple formula of more smiles (PR) + more content (Product) = fewer questions and ultimately no consequence.

[Loss]

His directive at the beginning of the decade that WWE needed to just start being nice to the media seemed like an overly simple solution to a tough problem as far as their image goes, but it has worked very well. They get a decent amount of media now, most of which is either paid for or is just journalism that can't cut too deep because of the need for access. Perhaps we'll look back on the 2010s as the beginning of post-consequence.

[Mad Dog]

On 7/27/2018 at 10:07 AM, Charles (Loss) said:

My issue with WWE (in general, with this being just one example) is their insistence on both having their cake and eating their cake.

They not only want to bring back Hogan, but they want to do it with no consequences. They want to induct Owen Hart in their HOF (which they could do anytime they wanted), but they haven't because they also want Martha Hart to publicly support it. They want to be seen as progressive on women's rights and gay rights while also working with foreign and domestic interests that aren't. If they showed a willingness to suffer any consequences for anything ever, they'd be a lot more tolerable, even when making terrible decisions. But they consistently think they deserve all of the good and none of the bad on, well, everything.

This is my biggest issue with them. If you want to go to Saudi Arabia, okay, you're a business so go for the money. But you don't get to do that and then constantly jerk yourself off about how you're revolutionizing women's wrestling. You can do one or the other. You can either be all about the money and act accordingly or you can toot your own horn about how progressive you are and stick to your morality.

[fxnj]

Funny how no one blasting them has actually said they would turn down the $40m if in WWE's shoes. It's one thing to criticize, but entirely different to actually be in the position of getting such an offer. Just about big business out there has blood on their hands in some way, even a lot of small ones as well. It's just a fact of business that you're likely going to find yourself having to go against your principles in the short-term so you can have a hopefully positive impact in the long-term. You could probably lots of questionable things done by Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's a horrible guy when he's investing all that wealth to charity. People are looking this in terms of black-and-white of either they are evil for going or they are good if they didn't go. The fact is that 1 night in Saudi Arabia does not negate the other 364 days a year when they are pushing a progressive vision that's the exact opposite of Saudi Arabia's, nor does it negate how they invested that $40m in paying the female performers as if they worked the show and the message that implies.

[sek69]

WWE is pretty much the only company in wrestling that is in the position to turn them down though. It's one think if it was Impact doing these shows where that kind of money is legit life changing for people in and around that company. WWE doesn't need Saudi money, they just got a billion dollars for their TV deal so they have never been in a better position to say "you know, we're really not cool with being used as a PR agency for a brutal regieme just so Vince has more money to blow on his silly football league". 

If I was running WWE, I would absolutely say the money recieved would not be worth the negative connotations of being associated with them. It's also fair to say I might not feel the same way if I was running literally any other wrestling company. 

[SomethingSavage]

1 hour ago, sek69 said:

If I was running WWE, I would absolutely say the money recieved would not be worth the negative connotations of being associated with them. It's also fair to say I might not feel the same way if I was running literally any other wrestling company. 

Negative connotations don't amount to a net loss of $40 million though. Vince accepting the offer and taking the money is basically him calling the bluff of everyone who might bitch & act outraged. Because, if it doesn't affect him in dollars & cents, does it ultimately bother him at all?

The answer is clearly no. Vince is as mindful as ever when it comes to PR and the image of his company. He wouldn't have accepted this deal without weighing the pros & the cons. Obviously, he ultimately decided that he could get away with it and face only minimal (and manageable) consequence.

It's still early, but so far? There are no signs that he made a poor decision, to be honest.

[sek69]

He's also taking advantage of being in an industry that is able to skate under the radar of press scrutiny for everything short of murder-suicide.  

[SomethingSavage]

Sure. But again, that's him hedging his bets & recognizing what he believes he can & can't get away with...

[El-P]

This. No one gives a flying fuck about pro-wrestling (and WWE, no matter how hard they try to picture themselves as something other than, are still just pro-wrestling). That's why this stuff or the ridiculous "independant contractor" fuckery flies under the radar. We're still at the age of carny. It's corporate publicly traded charity-as-PR carny, but it's still carny.

[Loss]

2 hours ago, fxnj said:

The fact is that 1 night in Saudi Arabia does not negate the other 364 days a year when they are pushing a progressive vision that's the exact opposite of Saudi Arabia's, nor does it negate how they invested that $40m in paying the female performers as if they worked the show and the message that implies.

(1) It hasn't been confirmed that they paid the women as if they worked the show.

(2) It's not accepting the money or not accepting the money. As others have said, it's hard to think of a wrestling company in history that wouldn't have taken the money. It's the hypocrisy and desire to have it both ways, like the guy who runs around on his wife and then won't shut up about monogamy.

[El-P]

20 minutes ago, Charles (Loss) said:

(2) It's not accepting the money or not accepting the money. 

Well, actually, it is about accepting the money to begin with. I don't care what anybody says. I got so uncomfortable watching that Saudi show that I'm done with any WWE product (I do follow some of the hilarity such as the audience chanting the clockwork at the last PPV thanks to the board and listening to Meltz a bit). The hypocrisy only makes it worse, but doing actual propaganda work for a regime that put homosexuals in prison because they are homosexuals and stone women to death (among other things of the same ilk) just is enough for me. There's no rationalize this bullshit.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

 

7 hours ago, fxnj said:

Funny how no one blasting them has actually said they would turn down the $40m if in WWE's shoes. It's one thing to criticize, but entirely different to actually be in the position of getting such an offer. Just about big business out there has blood on their hands in some way, even a lot of small ones as well. It's just a fact of business that you're likely going to find yourself having to go against your principles in the short-term so you can have a hopefully positive impact in the long-term. You could probably lots of questionable things done by Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's a horrible guy when he's investing all that wealth to charity. People are looking this in terms of black-and-white of either they are evil for going or they are good if they didn't go. The fact is that 1 night in Saudi Arabia does not negate the other 364 days a year when they are pushing a progressive vision that's the exact opposite of Saudi Arabia's, nor does it negate how they invested that $40m in paying the female performers as if they worked the show and the message that implies.

Nah, Bill Gates is pretty horrible.  He’s just way better at PR than an oaf like Vince McMahon.  Gates has “donated” several million dollars to various media outlets that all essentially amplify the message of the benevolent billionaire and has served to create a positive perception of him.  The Gates Foundation and charter school organizations essentially took a wrecking ball to what was left of the US public school system and has left it, and teachers unions, in shambles (which they were recently forced to admit).  He has more wealth now than he ever has.  There’s no such thing as a good billionaire.  Some are just more obvious carny cartoonish scumbags like Vince and some are more savvy when it comes to media/propagandizing/personal brand-building like Gates, Bezos, etc.

[El-P]

8 hours ago, Zoo Enthusiast said:

There’s no such thing as a good billionaire.

This. You simply can't get those obscene amount of money while having an ethic. The 1% are fucking up the planet badly. (I know I know, PWO, I stop now)

[joeg]

I don't find the WWE to be as completely immoral as you guys seem to think they are. I just think that like any major corporation or professional sports league they are completely and totally amoral. If changing attitudes about women in sports mean that there's potential for women to draw money in the US, then they promote women's wrestling as a main event attraction because it makes money. If an oppressive Middle Eastern monarchy offers them a lot of money for a series of shows, then they do the shows because it makes money. I'm totally fine with that. What I have a tough time with is how on a regular basis something happens in WWE or on WWE TV and it is incredibly counter productive to them making money.  

[SomethingSavage]

12 hours ago, joeg said:

I don't find the WWE to be as completely immoral as you guys seem to think they are. I just think that like any major corporation or professional sports league they are completely and totally amoral. If changing attitudes about women in sports mean that there's potential for women to draw money in the US, then they promote women's wrestling as a main event attraction because it makes money. If an oppressive Middle Eastern monarchy offers them a lot of money for a series of shows, then they do the shows because it makes money. I'm totally fine with that. What I have a tough time with is how on a regular basis something happens in WWE or on WWE TV and it is incredibly counter productive to them making money.  

Yeah. That Seth Rollins push puzzled me, too.

 

 

[Beast]

Fans of WWE are now like fans of McDonald's, Coca-Cola or Apple. It's cool to like the product, but to feel the need to defend every thing they do as corporations is silly.

Yeah, the Saudi deal is making them a ton of money. But they don't need it and they're apparently not passing on any of that influx to the wrestlers themselves. And to bow down to the Saudis and leave all the women off the card and then turn around and run a an all-women PPV in America as some sort of progressive milestone is transparent and forced. Yeah, billion-dollar companies are going to do terrible things, but that's not an excuse in and of itself and the current WWE product isn't nearly good enough to choose to keep watching with your head in the ground.

It's so sad to me that WWE has never been stronger and yet the wrestling product has never felt less important. And now they're like bulletproof when it comes to business decisions and raiding the indies (cuz NXT is so awesome!!!!!) and pushing Roman for four years straight as Lex Express 2.0.

[jiraffejustin]

On 7/28/2018 at 8:27 PM, Zoo Enthusiast said:

 

There’s no such thing as a good billionaire.  

Maybe this is too off-topic, if so, I apologize. I am just curious about this thought, because I don't know if I agree with it or not. I just want to know how much money can a "good" person make? At what point do you become bad when you chase money? For instance, what would you do for X amount of money? I'm just curious, because it's always people underneath the people who are making the money that are throwing pebbles at them. And I don't know if it is right or wrong to do so, or if the people throwing those pebbles would take "shut-up and stop complaining" money if it was offered. 

 

I think there are a lot of things wrong with how the WWE handled the Saudi Arabia thing, but I can't honestly say I would have done anything any differently if I stood to make that much money from it. But I'll never be in that situation, so I don't know. 

[Zoo Enthusiast]

I don’t want to get much more off topic but billionaires aren’t generally “chasing money.” They are hoarding resources in a time when people are literally starving to death.  Amazon warehouse workers sometimes have to pee in bottles while Jeff Bezos pays them nothing and accumulates more and more wealth.  We’re all chasing money, my man.  Let’s chase the billionaires and take theirs instead of fighting one another for their crumbs.