Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Netflix Buys Rights To WWE's 'Raw,' Its First Big Live Event (bloomberg.com) 80

Posted by msmash from the boom dept.
Netflix has acquired the exclusive rights to Raw as well as other programming from World Wrestling Entertainment, marking the streaming service's first big move into live events. From a report: Raw will air on Netflix in the US, Canada, Latin America and other international markets beginning in January 2025, after the expiration of the WWE's domestic deal with Comcast. The company will also become the exclusive home outside the US for all WWE shows and specials, including Smackdown and NXT, as well as pay-per-view live events like Wrestlemania, SummerSlam and Royal Rumble. The pay-per-view events will be included at no additional cost for Netflix customers.

After attracting more than 200 million customers by offering films and TV shows on-demand, Netflix has now committed to offering three hours of live wrestling a week starting next year. The company hopes the deal will bring in millions of loyal WWE viewers and provide a boost for its fledgling advertising-supported plan. Netflix has been dabbling in live events for the last year, airing a live comedy special, as well as a golf match, but this is the first long-term rights deal. The WWE is the latest major live event to shift from cable TV to streaming. Ultimate Fighting Championship, which like WWE is owned by TKO Group Holdings, offers many of its matches on ESPN+, while the National Football League sold Amazon the rights to Thursday Night Football. A playoff game on Comcast's Peacock just delivered the largest streaming audience for any professional sports event in the US. The deal 10-year deal is valued at more than $5 billion, CNBC reported.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Buys Rights To WWE's 'Raw,' Its First Big Live Event More

Netflix Buys Rights To WWE's 'Raw,' Its First Big Live Event

Comments Filter:
  • The fictional ESPN8 is on the rise, the contents Ocho is landing on the streamers and digital content companies this week. Now both WWE, Barstool (Power Slapping eastern Europeans) have a very definite valuation or income stream from a partner as part of another company even if they did not merge. Bring on the lumber sports.

    • If it's almost a sport, we've got it here!

      Making a real dodgeball league with themed teams (Lumberjacks! BDSM!) would be far more entertaining than all of the subtitled foreign crap Netflix shows now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      The fictional ESPN8 is on the rise, the contents Ocho is landing on the streamers and digital content companies this week.

      In the movie "Sorry to Bother You [imdb.com]", there are advertisements on TV for a show called "I Got the Shit Kicked Out of Me". It's a reality TV game show where the contestants, yup, get the shit kicked out of them for laughs and cash. It's a part of the social commentary of the whole film - like the advertisements in RoboCop - but doesn't feel that far removed from our present day.

  • How... (Score:3)

    by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Tuesday January 23, 2024 @09:48AM (#64181727) Journal

    How is that worth $500M per year?

    Even at the $20 subscription level, this means they think they're going to get or retain at least 25 million months of subscriptions per year just for WWE? What?

    • How much is one month of Netflix, vs what WWE events cost on pay per view channels back in the day?

    • ven at the $20 subscription level, this means they think they're going to get or retain at least 25 million months of subscriptions per year just for WWE? What?

      Viewership numbers [itnwwe.com] are readily available. You can do the numbers if the money will work out.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      To reinforce your point, it looks like WWE has been declining in popularity and currently manages to get about 1.5 million viewers. This is further largely comprised of people who basically get to watch it for "free", so it's not even indicating the market for people wanting to spend actual money for the sake of WWE in particular. Also, it says there's no exclusivity for the US market, which I am pretty sure is the majority of those viewers, so those viewers are not even going to *have* to buy Netflix if t

    • It's apparently attributed to HL Mencken. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]
    • The goal here is to draw in younger viewers who can theoretically become lifetime subscribers. Wrestling does still appeal a lot to kids after all.

      Besides that yeah I don't see how the ratings justify it even globally. Raw brings in about 1.8 million viewers and that's with an unusually good show.

      Still if it gets them access to a critical demographic that could be necessary for long-term survivability.

    • How is that worth $500M per year?

      Even at the $20 subscription level, this means they think they're going to get or retain at least 25 million months of subscriptions per year just for WWE? What?

      I don't know squat about wrestling but it looks to be year-round with a bit under 2 million [gerweck.net].

      Of course, I think those numbers are US only, and the deal is just for broadcast in the US but is exclusive outside the US, but it gives some ballpark idea.

      So $500/(12*$20) ~= 2 million annual subscribers, seems kinda legit.

      This will certainly help US subscriptions and there's gotta be some non-US viewership who will need to subscribe if they want to watch.

      It's also a great defence again the people who turn their sub

    • How is that worth $500M per year?

      Even at the $20 subscription level, this means they think they're going to get or retain at least 25 million months of subscriptions per year just for WWE? What?

      The economics aren't just about attracting new customers. It's also about constantly refreshing with new content to keep existing customers. You're also forgetting it's live... there may be ad sales even for no-ad customers.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Mordain ( 204988 )

      Can't read the article but does it include pay per view for the major events? That would certainly be worth it.

    • Consider the possibility... that none of these asshats running the streaming services know what the hell they are doing.

      Several of the services are tied to movie studios who cannibalized their own films' box office numbers, in part due to a lack of alternatives during the height of Covid-19, but mostly by pumping beaucoup bucks into many excellent productions for their streaming services that have made people wonder why they would leave their comfortable home theater systems to go back to the hell that is o

      • Oh! And I didn't even feel like getting into what WB (Max) has been doing to their own catalog of content, because that's a level of stupid that transcends everything else I mentioned.

      • Disney, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon all have ratings and profiles can be locked to certain maximum ratings. It doesn't matter if they make an X-rated MCU film; if the kids' profiles are set to cap out at something less than PG, they're not going to get a single swear word other than maybe a rare hell or damn.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        made people wonder why they would leave their comfortable home theater systems to go back to the hell that is other people.

        Must be nice to have a home theatre. That implies you're living in a house likely in a suburb.

        Because that doesn't work in an apartment - a subwoofer is a great way to get noise complaints from your neighbour. Plus, having a big screen is a bit of a problem if you don't have space for it.

        There are plenty of people who for one reason or another don't have that luxury and going to a theat

        • Except that there are alternatives to give you a theater-like experience there, too, that avoid the size and noise complaint issues you're talking about - like 3d headsets.

  • Predicted correctly. Netflix would eventually enter the live sporting event business

    • It would honestly be so much better if they had more sports. We need to change the way sports are broadcast. So many of them are kept behind an exclusive subscription and even further restricted by things like local blackouts. They are losing their fan base because they make it so difficult to watch the games.

      • Don't count out the ability of sports leagues to contract Netflix to lock out anyone who had a billing address within the blackout zone in the last 90 days.

  • Oh good (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Gay-but-in-the-closet Americans can quietly lust after hunky men, whilst telling their wives to shut up. On Netflix.

    Well worth it, I'm sure.

  • From the same stuff that ruined Sci-Fi (Score:4, Funny)

    by Talon0ne ( 10115958 ) on Tuesday January 23, 2024 @10:00AM (#64181759)

    Thanks Fake Wrestling for wrecking my Sci-Fi channel (Sg1, SgA, BSG Fridays) and now you're gonna suck the budget from Netflix and ruin them too.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

      By that logic, you can whine about any type of entertainment you don't like drawing away resources from the type of entertainment you do like...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Thanks Fake Wrestling for wrecking my Sci-Fi channel (Sg1, SgA, BSG Fridays) and now you're gonna suck the budget from Netflix and ruin them too.

      The thing is, SG1, SGA, BSG had full runs... In fact I'd argue that BSG should have been shorter (the last season was terribad, all the good ideas should have been sandwiched into the 4th) and SG1 went on for 2 seasons too long (should have spun it out into a different series), SGA was pretty much the perfect length, leaving you wanting just a little bit more.

      The problem is the severe dearth of new SciFi after the late 2000s. Even today we've 3+ new Star Trek series but only 1 is any good and that's real

  • make sports an paid addon not forced into the base (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday January 23, 2024 @10:04AM (#64181769)

    make sports an paid addon not forced into the base rate.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Sumo is free on NHK World (satellite and YouTube), and much better than WWE.

    • make sports an paid addon not forced into the base rate.

      Alternately, those sports subscribers end up subsidizing your non-sports viewing.

    • This. One of the key benefits of being a streaming customer vs. cable is you weren't forced to subsidize the (typically high) fees sports charged to the broadcaster. Not happy that a significant chunk of Netflix's programming budget is going to this. It's either going to come from funding for things I might actually watch, or is going to be charged to me through higher fees (which have already doubled over the last 5 years).

    • Exactly!

      I like the fact that I can choose to not be gouged for sport content. It saves me a lot of money.

      Back in the bundled cable TV days, most of the monthly subscription fee went toward "news" and sport channels. Neither of which I have to pay for any longer. I would like to keep it that way.

  • .. the Iron Sheik, Rowdy Roddy Piper and, of course, Captain Lou Albano, back together again.

  • Interesting it costs $5 billion to get a subset of wrestling for ten years, but they could outright buy Paramount Global for just $10 billion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      And that franchise only seems to be able to pull in 1.5 million viewers across all their outlets, and Netflix gets to share those eyeballs with other people.

      This looks to be incredibly foolish.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        And that franchise only seems to be able to pull in 1.5 million viewers across all their outlets, and Netflix gets to share those eyeballs with other people.

        This looks to be incredibly foolish.

        Adding sports coverage always is. When non-sports networks add sports, they invariably go rapidly downhill, with programming quality taking a nosedive, because the cost of sports sucks up their entire budget, so they have no money to spend on anything else.

        Sports is a black hole cost-wise; you can always throw more money at it to get more coverage, but unless you're actually willing to spend the money to compete with established sports networks, you'll always end up losing to them, because they'll aways sp

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Junta ( 36770 )

          The only way I think sports can be a fairly attractive asset is in ad-supported or pay-per-view contexts. People want to watch the events live, and so while you only have so many people, those people are tuning in mostly every week to see it. If there are ads, well, no point in skipping them, because it's live and the ad break coincides with a break in the action.

          For an 'all you can watch' streaming offerings, it seems a bad match. You need total number of viewers and don't care as much about whether the

  • This is the beginning of the end of Netflix.

  • So Netflix is paying $5 billion, but who is going to insert their commercials into the breaks? Does WWE also take that revenue as well? I'm guessing the no-commercials Netflix subscription doesn't apply to WWE and sports? No insight from me, just questions.

  • Sort of a bold move for Netflix. I'm having trouble how they could possibly add gay/trans/woman "empowering" context to this?

    Or is this sort of their effort to 'reach out' to the customer base that's repelled by their dogmatic programming? What they imagine is the sort of content people who aren't deeply invested in leftist orthodoxy must want to see?

    • They managed to both offend and insult you. Nice.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Sort of a bold move for Netflix. I'm having trouble how they could possibly add gay/trans/woman "empowering" context to this?

      Huh? WWE already has all that. There have been female wrestlers for decades now stomping around being as tough as the guys and you cant tell me a bunch of oiled up muscle men rolling around grabbing each other doesnt scream homosexuality. As for trans, have you not seen some of the outfits the men wear? I imagine some of the men would fit right in on Drag Race.

      It's all built in already and has been for decades.

      • you cant tell me a bunch of oiled up muscle men rolling around grabbing each other doesnt scream homosexuality.

        Can't tell you? It doesn't. There I just did. Seriously, there's nothing "gay" about it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Please, I'm certain if I went to a gay porn tube site I'd find well muscled men rolling around all oiled up much like there is straight porn with physically pleasing oiled ladies rolling around. I'm not saying WWE is just for gay guys but I could see why they would watch it as if there was an exclusively female version and the ladies were well built I would at least be curious.

          • Please, I'm certain if I went to a gay porn tube site I'd find well muscled men rolling around all oiled up much like there is straight porn with physically pleasing oiled ladies rolling around. I'm not saying WWE is just for gay guys but I could see why they would watch it as if there was an exclusively female version and the ladies were well built I would at least be curious.

            Possibly, I recall claims that in the early days of bodybuilding some of the bodybuilders would earn extra money "modelling" for rich gay men.

            But I think WWE is the same as 300, there's gay guys watching because they fantasize about saving sex with the big muscled guys covered with oil.

            But the core audience is straight guys watching because they fantasize about being the big muscled guys covered with oil.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              But the core audience is straight guys watching because they fantasize about being the big muscled guys covered with oil.

              And that doesn't sound like a gay fantasy to you? I guess we all have our own takes on things.

              • But the core audience is straight guys watching because they fantasize about being the big muscled guys covered with oil.

                And that doesn't sound like a gay fantasy to you? I guess we all have our own takes on things.

                Being a scantily clad well muscled man who is victorious in combat and surrounded by admiring attractive women?

                I guess we do have a different take on heterosexuality.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by skam240 ( 789197 )

                  Being a scantily clad well muscled man who is victorious in combat and surrounded by admiring attractive women?

                  You just told me they were entertaining a primarily male audience which I think is probably true as I've never met a female "pro" wrestling fan although I'm sure there are a few.

                  You seem awfully defensive here so let me assure you, I'm not saying WWE's little theater events are exclusively for gays. I just think it presents an odd fantasy for a straight guy to have as I've never fantasized about being oiled up to play grab-ass with a bunch of other dudes in my underwear to the enjoyment of a mostly male aud

                  • Being a scantily clad well muscled man who is victorious in combat and surrounded by admiring attractive women?

                    You just told me they were entertaining a primarily male audience which I think is probably true as I've never met a female "pro" wrestling fan although I'm sure there are a few.

                    I suspect you're correct here.

                    You seem awfully defensive here

                    You assume wrongly, I'm not a wrestling fan and have never seen more than short clips.

                    But I can empathize with folks who are fans.

                    so let me assure you, I'm not saying WWE's little theater events are exclusively for gays. I just think it presents an odd fantasy for a straight guy to have as I've never fantasized about being oiled up to play grab-ass with a bunch of other dudes in my underwear to the enjoyment of a mostly male audience. To each their own though!

                    Displaying your physical prowess in trial-by-combat is a pretty basic male fantasy.

                    Why do you think the Greeks competed in the nude? It wasn't about pederasty (I doubt their levels of homosexuality were higher than our own) and there weren't women allowed in the crowds so it wasn't even for them. Is was about a bunch of fit young guys showing off and

              • But the core audience is straight guys watching because they fantasize about being the big muscled guys covered with oil.

                And that doesn't sound like a gay fantasy to you? I guess we all have our own takes on things.

                Can't speak for today's wrestling, but for every muscled Hulk Hogan in the 80's there was a Bam Bam Bigelow or King Kong Bundy. For every scantily clad shorts wearer, there was someone wearing wrestling tights covering all their lower body. It's you who is over-emphasizing "gay".

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by skam240 ( 789197 )

                  It's a bunch of oiled up dudes playing grab-ass in their underwear with a bunch of other dudes to the enjoyment of a mostly male audience. It's kinda gay.

                  I know I'd at least try out watching an all female version of the show as that sounds kind of hot but I'll pass on whats there now as that's just not my thing.

                  • It's a bunch of oiled up dudes playing grab-ass in their underwear with a bunch of other dudes to the enjoyment of a mostly male audience. It's kinda gay.

                    I know I'd at least try out watching an all female version of the show as that sounds kind of hot but I'll pass on whats there now as that's just not my thing.

                    I've given up trying to understand why you think it's gay. I've also given up trying to understand what it would matter anyway.

    • Sort of a bold move for Netflix. I'm having trouble how they could possibly add gay/trans/woman "empowering" context to this?

      Or is this sort of their effort to 'reach out' to the customer base that's repelled by their dogmatic programming? What they imagine is the sort of content people who aren't deeply invested in leftist orthodoxy must want to see?

      Tell us you want to have gay sex without telling us you want to have gay sex.

      No one thinks more about gay sex than white Christian men.

  • Sorry (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    I lost track of the wrestling world when they switched their web site logo to a panda bear.

  • Maybe /.ers aren’t generally fans of pro wrestling, but honestly I’m happy to see that live sports are starting to embrace streaming more and more. How many years of stories on Slashdot discussed how cable had a stranglehold on sports, the one thing keeping most people from cutting the cord? Seems like those days may finally be ending.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      Maybe /.ers aren’t generally fans of pro wrestling, but honestly I’m happy to see that live sports are starting to embrace streaming more and more. How many years of stories on Slashdot discussed how cable had a stranglehold on sports, the one thing keeping most people from cutting the cord? Seems like those days may finally be ending.

      I think it's great that sports are embracing streaming. I think it's terrible that they're polluting existing streaming services, rather than having sports-specific streaming services. That's how we get back to exactly the same horrible state we were in under cable, where sports franchises demand ever-increasing money for rights, and networks spend ever-increasing percentages of their budgets rather than risk losing viewers by dumping their sports coverage, resulting in the downfall of everything else but

  • I. Don't. Need. This!
    Netflix needs to concentrate on good shows, not sports and games

  • nope (Score:3)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Tuesday January 23, 2024 @03:22PM (#64182653)
    That's a hard pass on the fake wresting....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      That's a hard pass on the fake wresting....

      The odd thing is, as someone who's practiced in a self defence system I've come to enjoy WWE more than other forms of "entertainment" fighting because at least WWE knows it's fake and will turn the entertainment part up to 11. Chairs, here's a whole stack of them, bears... sure, we've 20 minutes to fill so make it last.

      When you understand how to fight for your life, you realise just how much sweaty grappling UFC is.

      In other words, the more fake, the better. Real fighting is about 20 seconds of whoever

  • I was worried that they might have done something to make me regret cancelling my grandfathered account.

  • The few times I have had a glimpse at such events the audience seemed to be archetypal MAGA crowds. Is Netflix really trying to attract such audience? Well, money is money, and while I don't care about who watches this particular brand of circus show, I will most certainly care if its inclusion into the Netflix offerings has an impact on the other shows available in Netflix: funds that could have been used to acquire or develop quality shows are now devoted to that garbage. Which may make me reconsider my N

    • My wife and I are wrestling fans, on and off, and we're not conservatives. Us enjoying it in no way discredits your observation, I just thought I'd explain why we enjoy it.

      We're part time professional magicians and street performers, and "pro wrestling" has a history that is rooted in the American circus. It started out as genuine catch wrestling in the 19th century, which toured with the travelling carnivals. There would typically be a single wrestler who would challenge members of the crowd. In order to e

    • Who is the target audience?

      "Pro Wrestling fans" would be my guess...

  • Especially since Netflix has access to a massive amount of web server capacity. Some of that could easily be updated to serve live events, especially now with faster servers to show the events with very little "Internet lag."

    In fact, watch for Netflix to eventually start bidding on a number of more niche sporting events over the next 8-10 years.

  • Oh please, spare me. What a load of hogwash. I'm sorry, anyone who watches that fake nonsense has a serious screw loose.
  • Next up being forced to take high priced 'packages' to recoup the cost of those mega priced supporting events I dont give a fuck about.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. -- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

Close