Is WWE a monopoly?

[dkookypunk43]

A seemingly simple question with many facets to it. Do you think WWE is a monopoly, Why or Why Not?

[goc]

Monopoly - the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service

 

Considering how many other professional wrestling companies there are that seem to be successful and making money, and there are guys who have turned down WWE offers to remain in those promotions it would seem hard to classify WWE as a monopoly.

[Loss]

I would say yes simply because they have no serious competition.

[Matt D]

It's sort of like CVS if there was no other major national chain pharmacies and they were just competing with a few very small regional chains and ma and pa pharmacies?

[sek69]

Technically no, since as Loss noted there are other places for people to work and some make as much or more than they would working for WWE. They are more of a defacto monopoly in the sense that no one can really compete with them on a national level, and any other company is only one talent raid away from being wiped out if WWE feels the need to do so.

 

To be fair, it's not a recent development. The only reason there's ever been any actual competition to Vince is because Ted Turner showed loyalty to the company that helped build his empire.

[tim]

It isn't a strict monopoly but its success definitely owes in large part to its monopoly power. Only promotion with a strong TV deal (and stations are generally unwilling to give potential competitors a similar deal) keeps it by far the most visible and accessible promotion despite fairly significant fan discontent. It has a much stronger brand than any potential competitor owing largely to its age, media exposure and recognizably. These are the sources of its enormous advantage over its competitors and they don't have to do with the quality of their existing product, management, etc.

 

I do think there exists a good opportunity to challenge WWE and make good returns if anyone had the will to hire guys with the right minds for presenting wrestling the the money to back it right and put it on a major platform. AMC seems to me to be a channel such a project would want to aggressively try to get on. But none of this will probably ever happen. Somehow WWE's two major competitors, WCW and TNA, ended up impressively incompetent.

[Grimmas]

It isn't a strict monopoly but its success definitely owes in large part to its monopoly power. Only promotion with a strong TV deal (and stations are generally unwilling to give potential competitors a similar deal) keeps it by far the most visible and accessible promotion despite fairly significant fan discontent. It has a much stronger brand than any potential competitor owing largely to its age, media exposure and recognizably. These are the sources of its enormous advantage over its competitors and they don't have to do with the quality of their existing product, management, etc.

 

I do think there exists a good opportunity to challenge WWE and make good returns if anyone had the will to hire guys with the right minds for presenting wrestling the the money to back it right and put it on a major platform. AMC seems to me to be a channel such a project would want to aggressively try to get on. But none of this will probably ever happen. Somehow WWE's two major competitors, WCW and TNA, ended up impressively incompetent.

The talent is out there, just no one has the money or the intelligence to challenge.

 

TNA had Spike and money, but were too stupid to make a ran at anything.

[sek69]

Even if TNA had a clue, WWE would have raided their talent of anyone worth a damn the moment they posed any semblance of a threat to them.

[Johnny Sorrow]

But that's not a monopoly. Offering people more money and a larger stage is just how entertainment works.

[sek69]

But that's not a monopoly. Offering people more money and a larger stage is just how entertainment works.

 

Right. Which is why I said WWE isn't a monopoly in a previous post.

[Seabs]

Anyone claiming they don't have a monopoly on the wrestling industry doesn't fully understand what a monopoly of an industry is. goc's definition is the first thing that comes up if you google define: monopoly and while it is A definition of a monopoly it's not the only one and it's the most suitable one for this context. What you're referring to is an exclusive monopoly which is known what a monopoly is referred to as in a economics context. So that by that definition technically they're not. The more suitable use of the term here is a business/law monopoly whereby the market leader has raised the barriers to entry so high for anyone else to compete them. Nobody has the capital and/or the infrastructure to compete with WWE in the wrestling industry, hence monopoly. Typically monopolies are recognised when they start charging overly high prices to customers that drive away competition but that's kinda murky with wrestling and the core product being free to watch on TV. But you can point to WWE spiking ticket prices for Wrestlemania for instance and customers still paying whatever they set the prices out. But that's also a lot of supply and demand and like I said a kinda murky way of looking at the question. The better angle to look at that from is probably the standard of production values and wrestler's contracts they've established. And that if anyone tries to compete with them for a wrestler's services WWE can quite easily just overpay and drive competition away. The fact that they've upped the talent acquisitions (or raids as some call them) from competitors in recent years in monopolistic behaviour as well. Monopolistic behaviour tends to have a bad stigma attached to it which is sometimes true but often misinformed. WWE are a monopoly and it's not good for the industry and obviously less consumer choice is always bad for the consumer but at the same time WWE are also part of the entertainment industry and trying to grow to be a bigger player in that industry. So in trying to be competitive in one industry they're also displaying monopolistic behaviour in another.

 

TL:DR 100% yes assuming you don't use a very literal economics definition.

[NintendoLogic]

On a national level, absolutely. It's not just about market share. It's also about barriers to entry. To be a nationally successful promotion, you need TV in a good timeslot on a channel people actually watch, which is pretty much an insurmountable obstacle. Part of that is due to TNA poisoning the well, though.

[Jimmy James]

No, but they are clearly engaging in anti-competitive practices.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm more interested if a company can truly compete with WWE on the level that WCW did in the 90's, and what would be necessary to do so in order to avoid the traps TNA and others have fell into.

[Matt D]

Shoot Vince Russo on sight?

[Seabs]

Lots of money, a good (not great) TV deal and a booker who can present acts as must see attractions before anything else. It's not impossible but it's whatever comes before it. Someone might come in with the money to make it work but then the chances of them getting good TV is slim and even if you get both of them there's barely any talent that would have great mainstream appeal and draw the audience numbers required to maintain a good TV deal which in other words means drawing outside of the audience pool who watch wrestling for good wrestling. The investor would likely also have to be somewhat of a recognisable name in order to attract interest of the right people.

[stro]

My initial thought is yes, but when you break it down, there are more guys making a good living outside of the WWE system than there have been in many years. There are three other promotions on national TV in the US, there are lots of local shows on all over the country, guys like the Young Bucks make their own schedules, call their own shots, and make more than most WWE guys are making.

 

There are more promotions around the world that are hotter and making more money than there have been since the 80s.