Posted in: Fox, Opinion, Sports, TV, TV, USA Network, WWE | Tagged: fox, Smackdown, USA Network, wwe

FOX CEO Murdoch: Don't Blame Us, Blame WWE SmackDown Viewers

FOX CEO Lachlan Murdoch's explanation as to why they parted ways with WWE SmackDown was as passive-aggressive as we were expecting...

Back in September, one of the biggest questions coming out of the merger between the WWE and Endeavor's UFC (now TKO Group) was answered when the news hit that the WWE and NBCUniversal had reached a five-year deal domestic media rights deal that saw SmackDown move from FOX to USA Network beginning in October 2024 (with the WWE set to produce four NBC primetime specials per year). The news did not include Monday Night Raw, which is set to run on USA Network through September 2024 (with a number of potential suitors reportedly in play). Since that time, a lot of folks have been wondering why FOX would walk away from the professional wrestling company after what will end up being a five-year relationship that was originally a focal part of FOX's overall sports efforts. Well, it would seem that we've gotten some insight into what factored into that decision – and it comes courtesy of FOX CEO Lachlan Murdoch. And once again, we have another example of how something involving "FOX" or "Murdoch" can't help but come across as passive-aggressively condescending & insulting – this time, to the WWE Universe.

"How we analyze the WWE renewal, we look at all of our sports portfolios the same way and all new rights the same way. On the basis of analysis – on both advertising points of view – we weren't hitting advertising numbers due to the audience of WWE for our return on investment to be above the level we would accept. Also, we didn't attribute enough retransmission revenue to WWE either," Murdoch shared during an earnings on Thursday. "It made sense for us to move on from that. They've been a great partner for many years, but quite simply, we're very disciplined, and the ROI didn't meet our discipline parameters. We wish them luck, and we've moved on from them." The biggest takeaways from that? Murdoch definitely sees FOX as the one that did all of the heavy lifting in this relationship – with not nearly enough in return for them to stay vested in it.

But it's this line that really stuck out: "We weren't hitting advertising numbers due to the audience of WWE for our return on investment to be above the level we would accept." Now, I know there are a number of ways to speak "business-ese" out there, so there's always room for interpretation – but as we read it? Murdoch is saying that the WWE audience isn't running at an average income level that would allow FOX to bring in more higher-end companies (translation: companies that will spend more on advertising). So it's not so much that the viewers weren't there as much as it was that they weren't taking home nearly enough in pay to make them attractive to the advertisers that FOX wanted to offset what they paid for SmackDown – if I'm reading that correctly. Again, I'm sure both sides can produce a ton of data to make their respective cases – but this is more about approach and attitude. In this case, we're left wondering why Murdoch is sounding more like the bitter ex when he's the one who reportedly did the breaking up. There were ways to answer that question that didn't need to go the route that Murdoch did.

Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!

Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!