>>13198560People *can* get broadcast channels via satellite for free, but most are Cable/Satellite package deals. Most people willing to pay $40/mo for 15 channels will just pay the extra $20/mo to have another 100+ cable channels. Subsequently, Broadcast relies much more heavily on advertising dollars and cable relies on carriage fees.
Without access to the raw data (no pun intended), it's hard to know just how many WWE fans watch AEW and vice-versa. If AEW were the only wrestling show left on cable, then USA would keep ~900k or so subscribers -- most homes with TNT/TBS also have USA.
But seeing as though Comcast owns NBC/USA, and there's no way AEW would keep 100% of their WWE co-fans, that means upwards of a million fans cancelling their Cable TV at $60-80/mo, which would be a nightmare for Comcast even if their share was only 1/3 of that amount.
In the end, Comcast/NBC needs us obese, sweaty, poor WWE fans more than we need them
