WWE ‘wants to kill off AEW by the end of current TV deal’

[tiger_rick]

2 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

It won't be AEW that destroy WWE, it'll be WWE.

It'll be the greed, the cocky nature of their approach to being 'the' brand in wrestling, and a complacency that has clearly already set in.

It all depends on how much they bore their audience in the end. It's theirs to lose, and the more they focus on this kind of stuff rather than just putting on a decent product, the more they'll bring the shit on themselves.

Will AEW capitalise any more than they have done over however many years? Probably not. I don't necessarily think a fall in WWE's ratings or business would automatically transfer over to AEW. It doesn't really work like that anymore.

Nothing will destroy WWE. It's completely failsafe. It's an incredibly rare business with an established live product that you only get from sports with elements of Reality TV that should always be intrinsically linked to popular culture. It's is a clear leader in it's marketplace across the entire world, has a back catalogue with value and has proven it can survive every scandal known to man. They are roaches.

Why, given all that, they are so utterly precious about anyone else taking up a small market share - without being completely under their control, that is - I don't know. AEW are never "beating" WWE. They don't get nearly the ad revenue, the column inches (or modern equivalent) or are anywhere near the public conscience. You'd have to be especially insecure to spend so much time being concerned with them instead of just being the best version of yourself. Still, I suppose Triple Vince remembers when they were beaten by WCW and can never let that go.

[LaGoosh]

43 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

Nothing will destroy WWE. It's completely failsafe. It's an incredibly rare business with an established live product that you only get from sports with elements of Reality TV that should always be intrinsically linked to popular culture. It's is a clear leader in it's marketplace across the entire world, has a back catalogue with value and has proven it can survive every scandal known to man. They are roaches.

Very true. They are probably the only form of entertainment I can think of that has offered a pretty fucking terrible product for the vast majority of the past two decades and somehow increased their profits and maintained a large audience every year. It's insane.

Edited August 15, 2025 by LaGoosh

[DavidB6937]

42 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

Nothing will destroy WWE. It's completely failsafe. It's an incredibly rare business with an established live product that you only get from sports with elements of Reality TV that should always be intrinsically linked to popular culture. It's is a clear leader in it's marketplace across the entire world, has a back catalogue with value and has proven it can survive every scandal known to man. They are roaches.

Why, given all that, they are so utterly precious about anyone else taking up a small market share - without being completely under their control, that is - I don't know. AEW are never "beating" WWE. They don't get nearly the ad revenue, the column inches (or modern equivalent) or are anywhere near the public conscience. You'd have to be especially insecure to spend so much time being concerned with them instead of just being the best version of yourself. Still, I suppose Triple Vince remembers when they were beaten by WCW and can never let that go.

Oh, in terms of actual destruction? Yeah, I'd definitely agree.

But we know business can go up and down. And even though the last few years have reached financial highs for them, I do believe there's got to be a 'down' eventually - not necessarily a massive one, but we know quality can dip and people can easily decide to go and watch other stuff. Again, not necessarily even AEW or whoever. 

I just think if things start going downhill, it'll be of their own doing because they're too focused on stuff that really doesn't matter like AEW.

The highs of the last few years were based on some decent talent and strong storylines that people were genuinely invested in. If they don't find that again and they tread water for too long, it's always possible people will lose interest again and fall off. Or maybe they won't. I guess we don't really know what the vast majority of viewers are even looking for. Maybe they don't care anymore.

[Chili]

How much have they got at the moment. Raw, Smackdown, NXT, Evolve, those WWE ID deals (Brit wres wristband vibes), AAA to potentially control the market in Mexico as other companies also dare to exist and TNA as a satellite company they don't own as they don't want to get into any legal bother with a monopoly. Anything else? Just thinking about how absolutely horrible NXT UK was.

Edited August 15, 2025 by Chili

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

2 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

Other than from Dave Meltzer, is there any credible source for the sensationalist headline of WWE wanting to 'put AEW out of business'? Counter-programming alone does not support this view.

I don't accept the premise of your question Arch. Meltzer is not a credible source, hasn't been for years. 

Are there any credible sources. No. Would WWE want to fuck over AEW. Yes. Is counter programming any different to McDonalds opening up a new store next to a Burger King. No. Would TK try the same thing if the roles were reversed. Yes. Is it been spun as the worst thing that's ever happened to fit the "WWE Bad" narrative. Yes. 

I do think that TNA is number 2. Quite literally it is an unflushable turd of a promotion that refuses to disappear into the sewage pipe of history, and at this point it would probably survive a direct nuclear strike. 

[SuperBacon]

1 minute ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

Are there any credible sources. No. Would WWE want to fuck over AEW. Yes. Is counter programming any different to McDonalds opening up a new store next to a Burger King. No. Would TK try the same thing if the roles were reversed. Yes. Is it been spun as the worst thing that's ever happened to fit the "WWE Bad" narrative. Yes. 

[tiger_rick]

6 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

Very true. They are probably the only form of entertainment I can think of that has offered a pretty fucking terrible product for the vast majority of the past two decades and somehow increased their profits and maintained a large audience every year. It's insane.

Without trying to sound like too much of an arsehole, I think that's because they've presented their version of pro-wrestling for so long now that most people left watching, and enjoying in all in fairness, their product don't know anything else. I don't see loads of feedback to their stuff outside of here but, I do see plenty of "great match" or "great promo" shouts for stuff that is so far removed from the really great stuff they themsleves used to do - without even comparing to any outside company - that it can only be that they've completely reset what wrestling is and people are happy with it. I know it's one of the best matches ever but the way Austin & Bret worked at Mania 13, and tons of other great matches in the few years before and after that one, is just night and day to the modern stuff. Promos are the same. I haven't seen a great WWE promo in almost 10 years. And very few in the years before that. Hundreds of perfectly acceptable, well remembered and delivered promos, but nothing with any heart or feeling. But, if you've completely forgotten what those promos sound like or feel like, I can see why you'd be happy with what you hear each week.

I feel like plenty of us on here remember. We recall and reminisce all the time. We probably still watch old stuff regularly. Personally, and now I will sound like an arsehole, I think I just have high standards. And that's just referring to the TV product. We're a tiny percentage of those who watch (or don't watch) though. That's why Netflix say 3m watched Raw and < 100k watched any old shows they've thrown on there.

[The Gaffer]

It's interesting hearing the usual, merited talk of TNA being impossible to kill when - for me - the one thing that could have killed them has already happened. 

Throughout its ups and downs and various incarnations, I registered TNA on an existential level purely by them not being owned by WWE.  

My brain just doesn't do that now. They're a WWE colony with TNA Impact skins and assets patched into the game. TNA is dead. 

Edited August 15, 2025 by The Gaffer

[Carbomb]

A thought occurs that there's a slim, outside chance they could be making a rod for their own back with TNA by helping them so much. Yes, they're controllable at the moment, but unless TKO buys them outright, they could end up getting enough of a profile to pull away from WWE once they're confident they've got a significant-enough chunk of the market share.

[Chili]

7 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

A thought occurs that there's a slim, outside chance they could be making a rod for their own back with TNA by helping them so much. Yes, they're controllable at the moment, but unless TKO buys them outright, they could end up getting enough of a profile to pull away from WWE once they're confident they've got a significant-enough chunk of the market share.

But it's TNA, they'd somehow absolutely fuck that up and STILL be around for another few generations.

[Guest]

It's worth noting, since we're in source territory that a) Meltzer didn't break the news about TNA moving to Wednesdays, Jon Alba did and b) Meltzer is much better sourced and reliable on the reporting of the business stuff than he is on the backstage/actual product stuff. But even if he wasn't, c) he's far from alone out on this limb of WWE's strategy.

Quote

I’d normally agree - particularly since it’s Meltzer, who’d believe that the sky was green if a wrestler he liked told him it was - but the use of TNA to target AEW makes it worthy of discussion I reckon - alongside the likely reasoning for it. 

Apologies, when I said "it's not news" I meant in the sense of "It's not a surprise" not "we shouldn't bother talking about it". It was more a response for Stanton than the thread more generally.

 

Anyway, the funniest version of this story ends with Tony Khan buying TNA. 

[Chico Torres]

1 hour ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

I don't accept the premise of your question Arch. Meltzer is not a credible source, hasn't been for years. 

Are there any credible sources. No. Would WWE want to fuck over AEW. Yes. Is counter programming any different to McDonalds opening up a new store next to a Burger King. No. Would TK try the same thing if the roles were reversed. Yes. Is it been spun as the worst thing that's ever happened to fit the "WWE Bad" narrative. Yes. 

Weirdly MAGA corporation-defensive post here.

And of course Meltzer is a credible journalist and has been consistently for over 40 years, no one in the industry comes close.

[Snitsky's back acne]

I understand the 'counter booking' argument when live event revenue mattered and WWE would put on shows in the same city on the same day (or the day before), forcing the audience to choose where they spend their money. 

I also get it when WWE would put on a pay-per-view to counter a WCW pay-per-view as people would likely only choose to pay for one.

...but now everything is streaming surely it is redundant? Just watch one show and then watch the other. What damage is it doing? 

[LCJ]

55 minutes ago, Snitsky&#x27;s back acne said:

I understand the 'counter booking' argument when live event revenue mattered and WWE would put on shows in the same city on the same day (or the day before), forcing the audience to choose where they spend their money. 

I also get it when WWE would put on a pay-per-view to counter a WCW pay-per-view as people would likely only choose to pay for one.

...but now everything is streaming surely it is redundant? Just watch one show and then watch the other. What damage is it doing? 

That’s a fair point. Long gone are the days when Vince McMahon would threaten cable companies with withdrawing Wrestlemania if they chose to carry Starrcade. Technology and the way people access shows has moved on.

[RedTwoster]

1 hour ago, Chico Torres said:

And of course Meltzer is a credible journalist and has been consistently for over 40 years, no one in the industry comes close.

Off-topic slightly, but I don’t agree with this - I’d go as far as to suggest he may have distorted the history of the industry by believing the wrong people, failing to corroborate sources and frequently not attempting to get a right of reply.

An example would be when the Inside the Ropes guy Kenny McIntosh tweeted a screenshot from a WWE live show intermission, which read ‘WWE Intermission’, joking that it was the name of a new WWE UK PPV. Meltzer not only tweeted this as fact, but committed the cardinal sin (as he does so often) of failing to attribute the original source, which is common courtesy if it actually is true.

Then when it was pointed out to him that it was a joke, he tweeted again to point the finger at McIntosh.

That’s an example of silliness, and its ultimately harmless, but there are other examples of Meltzer doing things like this - including casting doubt on the credibility of women who made serious allegations against wrestlers. 

Clearly he’s been right in the past, but because of his own flimsy reporting methods, I don’t think you can trust everything he says - and as a result, it means decades of wrestling history have been reported in a way that might not resemble reality.