>>17675589You don't understand simple concepts like context and applicability. You've decided that nothing else - not profits, not revenue, not expanded tv deals, NOTHING - matters except for your two hand-picked matters of
> "mainstream appeal"and
>"crossover potential""Mainstream appeal" is almost purely subjective, but to the extent you could objectivize it, I would think a $5,000,000,000 deal with the largest streaming service on the planet would qualify as mainstream appeal. Your back-up plan, knowing how faggoty you are, will be to imply (but never specify) that because WWE isn't over X amount of viewers it therefore lacks "mainstream appeal", but that's meaningless. Companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars are not going to pay $500,000,000/year to a company they don't feel has mainstream appeal at some level. They may be banking on fanatics to make the deal positive, sure, but every fanatic was at one time or another a normal person.
As for
>"crossover potential"It's another almost purely subjective designation that has no remunerative threshold. "Crossover" in most colloquial contexts would mean something like having a Family Guy tie-in or WWE wrestlers featured at the NFL Draft announcing picks, which last time I checked...oh wait, WWE did have wrestlers at the NFL Draft announcing picks. Because they have crossover appeal, even on a network like ESPN (Disney/ABC) that doesn't have an official relationship with WWE.
We already know your next fag move is going to be to just quote everything and say some retard comment about putting in effort replying to your shitpost/fagpost, that's fine. As we've been over multiple times, this is like exercise to me. You can make the argument that arguing with fucking retards with no self-esteem or dignity and who lack the temerity to defend their arguments is beneath me, which it definitely is, but alas I have the time to spend so here I am
Don't bother responding unless you're going to be a non-fag about it
