Jump to content

Sky/WWE New 5 Year Deal


Five Alive

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No WWE Network for us then!

 

They've already stated the the Network will be launching here. We probably will just get a blackout when its PPV-time.

 

There is no way that they launch the network without the PPV's.

 

I assume all PPV's moving to the pay channel is because they will be available ONLINE ONLY for subscribers through the network - which is the same system as they are using in the states.

 

Edit:

 

Actually, all PPV's now on Sky Box Office will drive people towards the network as it will in America -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick addition to that point... From the Hollywood Reporter:

 

WWE also recently announced that it would next month launch a subscription-based, online-only video network, the WWE Network, in the U.S. It will also expected to become available in select international markets, including the U.K., late in 2014 or early in 2015.

 

Asked if the network caused BSkyB any concern that it could cannibalize the WWE audience, Meier said the company sees it as "extremely complimentary" to other WWE content offerings, such as its TV shows. "We have partners that see it similarly. They see it as a major boost to the brand, the fan engagement and to their own viewership."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I'd genuinely like to know how many Sky Sports subs are wholly dependent on their WWE coverage.

For example, in my house as I dip into WWE when I hear of something good, it wouldn't be the end of the world compared to if they lost the Premier League rights for example.

Its strange as presumably the WWE rights fees have risen for every deal they make, but I can't imagine the ratings for the shows are what they were in the late 90's or even early 90's for that matter (granted, less people had Sky then). Compare this to Darts or Football which has maintained or even grown its audience.

Having said that, one glance at the schedule and how many hours WWE occupies across the 3 sports channels should tell you how important Wrestling is to Sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am assuming that Sky won't be losing out on a lot of money then (depending on what the WWE/Sky share out is), when ppv buyrates in the U.K. inevitably fall due to the launch of the Network in the U.K.

 

Sky & WWE seem relaxed about it, and I can't imagine they're dumb enough not to have considered these factors and discussed them with WWE.

 

They seem cool with it, publicly, so I'd take that as a good sign. If they'd kicked up a fuss about it, that would have been a lot more problematic and may have delayed the Network further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its strange as presumably the WWE rights fees have risen for every deal they make, but I can't imagine the ratings for the shows are what they were in the late 90's or even early 90's for that matter (granted, less people had Sky then). Compare this to Darts or Football which has maintained or even grown its audience.

Having said that, one glance at the schedule and how many hours WWE occupies across the 3 sports channels should tell you how important Wrestling is to Sky.

 

Currently, the live RAW on a Monday night 1-4pm averages 130-160,000, at least it has over the past month.

 

This is more than it did 5 years ago, but less than it did 10 years ago.

 

The Attitude era heyday, RAW was doing in the region of 280,000 to 300,000 some weeks.

 

The difference is, back then, there was only one showing of RAW a week on a Friday night and it wasn't repeated. There is far more WWE tv programming on Sky now, repeated multiple times throughout the week. Plus tv has changed, and then there's the internet. There's even some episodes of WWE on Sky-on-Demand now.

 

So the numbers will always be down on what they were back in the heyday.

 

The fact Sky donate so much of their schedule to the show, and the fact that it is usually one of the top rated shows of the week on Sky Sports channels, behind football and occasionally darts, and now that they've spent 3 times more on it than they did 5 years ago - all of that indicates it is a very valuable property to Sky.

 

Plus they were never going to let BT Sport get it, not after losing the CL/Europa rights. It would have continued the idea that Sky was losing everything and BT was on the up acquiring everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
The Attitude era heyday, RAW was doing in the region of 280,000 to 300,000 some weeks.

Has that got anything to do with Raw not being live early in the morning, so more people watched it at 9pm compared to watching it 1 to 4 today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
The Attitude era heyday, RAW was doing in the region of 280,000 to 300,000 some weeks.

Has that got anything to do with Raw not being live early in the morning, so more people watched it at 9pm compared to watching it 1 to 4 today?

 

Yeah, but its probably got more to do with it not being anywhere near as popular as it was. I'm amazed so many people watch it live tbh, unless that counts people who Sky+ it (fast forward, the way half the UKFF watches Raw i'd imagine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
How important is WWE in the ratings to Sky Sports? What beats it? Football does. Darts probably does. Rugby, both codes?

 

I might be getting this horribly wrong, but I remember reading something about Union audiences being up 90% on BT from what they were on Sky, and I think that was around 1 million. Whatever they were, they've gone up huge on BT and were certainly not doing significantly less than WWE beforehand. It's common knowledge that League outdrew Union on Sky too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...