Wrestling & UFC TV Ratings, PPV buys, and Financial Information (Version 2015)

[Slyfox696]

The following .zip file contains information on TV ratings for WWE's Monday Night Raw, ECW, NXT, Superstars, and Smackdown shows. It contains TNA Impact ratings. It also has WCW Nitro and Thunder TV ratings, as well as original ECW TV ratings. It includes TV ratings for Clash of the Champions and Saturday Night's Main Event. It also has WWE PPV buys for every show of the last several years, as well as revenue generated from those shows, and also contains as many PPV buys from previous years that I could find. Finally, it contains WWE financial information, including merchandising revenue from the year 2002 through current day. The .zip file also now includes buy rates for the MMA company, UFC, as well as TV ratings for various UFC shows.

All of this information is presented in the form of Microsoft Excel/LibreOffice spreadsheets, with the information organized as neatly as possible. I have finally included sources for this information, which is located in a text document. Some information has comes from sources which have been since removed from the web due to their age, but I will help the best I can.


To access this file, just left click on the link and save the file. You can use 7-zip, WinZip, WinAce, or if you have Windows XP, or higher, you can just right click on the file and click "Extract". If you have any problems accessing or downloading this file, let me know.


Updates in Version 2015:

1) WWE Network Information added into WWE Misc. Financial Information
2) From now on, WWE PPV spreadsheet will include note about launch date of WWE Network
3) Price and revenue generated columns removed from WWE PPV file for future years, due to WWE Network
3) 2014 data added


Click the Spoiler tag for updates made in previous versions.

Spoiler

Updates in Version 2014:

1) 2013 data added


Updates in Version 3.22.2013:

1) Moved shows which are no longer on the air to a separate directory to make it easier to find ratings for current shows.
2) I do not plan to continue updating UFC TV ratings. If anyone is interested in doing so, I'll be happy to add them in.
3) More unification of display of data.
4) 2012 data added


Updates in Version 7.0:

1) Added yearly WWE profits
2) Updated all 2011 information


Updates in Version 6.0:

1) Much nicer display on spreadsheets. All type should be the same, removed all borders from information, each page on each spreadsheet starts you at the top of the page. Just a much nicer and cleaner look all around.
2) Add TV ratings for various UFC shows.
3) Added ratings for WWE NXT.
4) Updated all information

Updates in Version 5.0:

1) Added UFC PPV Buyrates for most UFC PPVs
2) Fixed a couple of typographical errors


Updates in Version 4.0:

1) Updated ratings
2) Updated PPV Buyrates
3) Addition of WWE Superstars television program


Updates in Version 3.0

1) Updated ratings
2) Live Event Statistics
3) Revised numbers and figures in Financial Information
4) Total Domestic PPV Buys added into Attitude Era years

As before, if you have any questions, feel free to ask, and I will try to answer them as best I can.


Note 1: On the Financial Information spreadsheet, you'll notice "Fiscal" and "Transition". The WWE used to have their fiscal year end in April, I believe, so when you see "Fiscal 2000", that means that information covers from April 1999-April 2000. In 2006, the WWE changed to just using a standard year to measure their finances, so when you see "Transitional 2006", that represents the 8 months or so from the end of Fiscal 2006, to the end of December 2006 (so, approximately, May 06-Dec 06). Starting in 2007, the information is just from January-December.

Hope that makes sense, if you actually care.


Note 2: If you do not have Microsoft Excel, and still wish to view the information, you can. Download LibreOffice for free, and it contains a Spreadsheet program which you can use to view this information. Starting with Version 7.0, I use LibreOffice to Create and Edit the Spreadsheets.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Talk about a fountain of information. I had wondered about data like this.

I had no idea UFC attracted anything near 800,000 buys for an event .....although the drop to 310,000 just a few months later is a bit frightening, no?

Also, I was under the impression the Rhonda Rousey match had drawn more buys than any other UFC card, which was obviously incorrect.

Thanks for bringing us this, Slyfox.

 

[Slyfox696]

Talk about a fountain of information. I had wondered about data like this.

I've been doing this for years. A little later this year than normal, but I finally decided to sit down this morning and spend the few hours necessary to round it up. I'm glad you appreciate it.

I had no idea UFC attracted anything near 800,000 buys for an event .....although the drop to 310,000 just a few months later is a bit frightening, no?

I believe two or three different Brock Lesnar headlined PPVs drew over 1 million.

As far as the drop, it's not really that surprising. UFC PPVs sell based on the drawing power of the headliners. Bigger name headliners (like Lesnar or GSP or Rousey) will draw better than some of the lesser known names who may still be a champion.

Also, I was under the impression the Rhonda Rousey match had drawn more buys than any other UFC card, which was obviously incorrect.

UFC 100 is the best selling card of all time, headlined by GSP and Brock Lesnar (arguably the two biggest draws in UFC history).

Thanks for bringing us this, Slyfox.

No problem, glad you enjoy it!

 

[Dave]

One thing I have found to be surprising is that the WWE have found themselves making much more money in the PG era than they ever did in the Attitude Era if these figures are correct, which I am sure that they are. With that in mind, is it any wonder that the WWE don't seem keen to go back to the way things were? Sure, things were less predictable and perhaps more entertaining. But can you really argue with money in the back? The bottom line figures show that the WWE are doing something right.

But is that down to better merchandizing? Is our down to better marketing and the WWE Network? Or is it inflation? Interesting figures with many interesting thoughts arising.

Thanks, Sly.

 

[klunderbunker]

One thing I have found to be surprising is that the WWE have found themselves making much more money in the PG era than they ever did in the Attitude Era if these figures are correct, which I am sure that they are. With that in mind, is it any wonder that the WWE don't seem keen to go back to the way things were? Sure, things were less predictable and perhaps more entertaining. But can you really argue with money in the back? The bottom line figures show that the WWE are doing something right.

But is that down to better merchandizing? Is our down to better marketing and the WWE Network? Or is it inflation? Interesting figures with many interesting thoughts arising.

Thanks, Sly.

It's a combination of those things and better sponsors. Look at last week's show for instance with the Apple Watches and Cadillac. Those are top level companies who probably paid good money to have their names mentioned. Couple that with stuff like Mountain Dew sponsoring the pre-shows and it's easy to see where a lot of the money comes from. You think they're touching that with a transvestite servicing Mark Henry and Val Venis running around?

 

[Dave]

It's a combination of those things and better sponsors. Look at last week's show for instance with the Apple Watches and Cadillac. Those are top level companies who probably paid good money to have their names mentioned. Couple that with stuff like Mountain Dew sponsoring the pre-shows and it's easy to see where a lot of the money comes from. You think they're touching that with a transvestite servicing Mark Henry and Val Venis running around?

I somewhat agree with you. I remember back in the Attitude Era that the WWE could boast some high profile sponsors. And for a company willing to get a product out there, surely they would want a bigger audience more than anything? The WWE used to do well in the key demographic that both Apple and Cadillac would be hoping to appeal to last Monday. How likely is it that a 9 year old John Cena fan would want a car?

 

[klunderbunker]

I somewhat agree with you. I remember back in the Attitude Era that the WWE could boast some high profile sponsors. And for a company willing to get a product out there, surely they would want a bigger audience more than anything? The WWE used to do well in the key demographic that both Apple and Cadillac would be hoping to appeal to last Monday. How likely is it that a 9 year old John Cena fan would want a car?

Not very, but it can appeal to the parents watching with their kids. Then again product placement has always been a kind of bizarre science where the audience and products don't seem to align, but what difference does it make if the checks clear?

 

[Slyfox696]

One thing I have found to be surprising is that the WWE have found themselves making much more money in the PG era than they ever did in the Attitude Era if these figures are correct, which I am sure that they are. With that in mind, is it any wonder that the WWE don't seem keen to go back to the way things were? Sure, things were less predictable and perhaps more entertaining. But can you really argue with money in the back? The bottom line figures show that the WWE are doing something right.

But is that down to better merchandizing? Is our down to better marketing and the WWE Network? Or is it inflation? Interesting figures with many interesting thoughts arising.

Thanks, Sly.

It's many things. First of all, the WWE has many new revenue streams they didn't have 15-20 years ago (such as merchandise like DVDs). Second of all, the Attitude Era was HORRIBLE for sponsorship. It just makes sense that when you have a riskier product, it's hard to find top sponsors. I remember, specifically, Coca-Cola pulling their sponsorship during the Attitude Era. Thirdly, today's product is a publicly traded company, so the books have to be more precise and the company can't take as many risks.

There are a lot of factors which play into it.