PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Mike Johnson on 2021-08-12 10:00:00

Hey Mike in a recent Q and A you mentioned there was no chance of a hard split and Smackdown branded PPV's being on Tubi because of the Peacock agreement and that NBC could get involved legally because that isn't what they agreed to pay for with the Network going to Peacock. My question is could Fox right now take the same argument with their deal for Smackdown because of the Peacock deal coming along after they had signed on the dotted line and taking content that was generated for Fox programming?

The only way FOX could take that argument is if their contractual agreement with WWE provided them with the right of first refusal for Smackdown content to stream on a non-FOX platform, which obviously it did not, since it was airing on the WWE Network to begin with.  FOX's error was that it didn't have a clause that prevented the content from betwork being licensed away to a third-party for streaming, since when the FOX deal was originally done, no one was considering the idea that WWE would license the entire Network off to a different entity.  So, it's a loophole that allowed WWE to do that and further ingratiate themselves with NBC Universal. 

If and when the FOX deal comes up for renewal, one would think FOX may try to change the parameter of the deal.  But, at that point, the issue would be that NBC is paying millions for the entire WWE streaming product, so perhaps WWE creates new programming or PPVs to get around that, or perhaps it becomes a big sticking point.  That's the issue when you are trying to service two different TV masters. 

Now, could FOX pursue something legally stop WWE from streaming Smackdown now on Peacock?  I say probably not, because they'd have to show damages in court and the problem with that is, they would have to show that putting the episodes up FOUR WEEKS LATER somehow hurts the live broadcast because it's on Peacock when the entire time before WWE's NBC Universal pact, they had zero issue with it being on the WWE Network.  I just don't see that argument holding water.  It's more likely to be an issue if and when the next round of negotiations come up.

Why is CM Punk saying he won't be in Chicago at AEW?

Why won't your parents let you open the presents before your birthday?

If Dante Martin's performance on Dynamite doesn't make him a star, what on Earth will? His work in the six-man tag was absolutely astonishing.

Lots of things.  A great angle.  Great promos.  He's a hell of an athlete and a performer, so I'd agree with you that he's on his way.

If AEW Rampage will be an equal sister show to Dynamite, will one hour be enough? I'm afraid that with the 9/10 p.m. show time, as well as the one hour duration, it may eventually lose steam after a while. You'd think you'd want a healthy two hours to make it the Smackdown to Dynamite's Raw.

I think one hour is fine.  If AEW and TNT want to expand it later, they always can, but the reality is that there is TONS of pro wrestling programming that feels like it's bloated because they HAVE to fill x amount of hours every week.  If Rampage can be a slick, fast hour of content, it will leave people wanting more.  No one needs a 2021 version of WCW Thunder in their lives.  Less is more.

Didn't Brian Knobbs have a GoFundMe before?

Yes, there was another medical issue a few years back.

If you enjoy you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!

KasynoHEX Polska


Top Online Casinos in South Africa by CasinoHEX