TNA Wrestling Expected To Scale Back Number Of Pay-Per-Views

Following TNA’s announcement on Thursday that Lockdown will be held in March of next year rather than April, a lot has been speculated about the company’s future on pay-per-view. Dixie Carter has publicly said TNA was looking to reduce the number of pay-per-views they did each year.

In May 2012, Carter said (comments here) she doesn’t feel the company needs 12 pay-per-views a year and that they were negotiating their pay-per-view contracts. When asked about the ideal number of shows, she said six to eight was a possibility.

The general assumption is with Lockdown being moved up that shows are going to be nixed in favor of the new format. The move didn’t happen this year as TNA was already locked into contracts with cable and satellite providers.

Connect With WNW

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn!

  • channesson

    Maybe it’s me but wrestlemania is in April and so if ppl had to choose everyone chooses wrestlemania. So maybe TNA decided to move up to march when wwe doesn’t hold a ppv..

  • izblack

    I actually think this is something that the WWE should do

    • snap

      I agree. WWE has already trimmed a PPV or two from their schedule and shaving a few more off would really help make PPVs mean a bit more with a longer break in between to build a story and maybe even advertise a full card before the eleventh hour..

  • Sam Steffen

    wwe should do the same thing

  • PainOfDemise

    Smart move for them, since their ppv's suck in buys department anyway.

  • Winnipeg

    It would be Good for us if wwe did that but on the other had thats lost revine for wwe considering Hell in a cell sold 200k buys. So think about it. I usually only order 4 to six wwe ppvs a year anyway and a tna one here and there. About two this year. The only way wwe will cut out ppvs is if people stop buying them.

    • vmagic

      Yes but maybe if wwe cut back on pay per views then buys might actually go up and they wouldnt lose anything. Sometimes less is more.