Posted by TNA Wrestling News Staff on Dec 31, 2012
TNA Attendance Drops, Hulk Hogan Update & More

TNA Attendance Drops, Hulk Hogan Update & More

— As we noted earlier here on the website, Hulk Hogan was recently offered a big money deal by Multimedios in Mexico to take part in one wrestling match. Hogan turned down the offer saying there was “no way he would consider wrestling again.” This comes just a week after Hogan made comments where he said at 59 years old he wanted to be champion again in TNA. Is anyone really surprised by Hogan contradicting himself?!

— You can now follow me (Ryan Clark) on Facebook and Twitter. My Facebook account is located at and my Twitter account is at My Facebook page is “maxed out” for friend requests but you can still subscribe to get my updates. Hope to see you soon!

— Last November (2011), the average attendance for a TNA live event was 975. This year it is only 581, a 40.4% drop overall. WWE also saw a big drop in attendance in 2012 going down from 5,429 to 4,786, a 12% drop overall.

— You can email me (Ryan Clark) at If you’ve got a newsbit please pass it along. We’ll try to confirm it and then post it here on the website with credit to you.

Post a Comment

22 Responses to “TNA Attendance Drops, Hulk Hogan Update & More”

  1. James5871 says:

    He dosent want to wrestle in Mexico

    • Philly_Cheese says:

      He doesn't want to wrestle in a place where he's actually forced to you know, wrestle… Last time he was in a match in TNA it was pretty much sting carrying him, and hogan attempting to brawl, pretty badly at that.

      • Dirk1n says:

        You think he's just lazy or something?
        Hogan is an injury away from being paralyzed, he can't even drop the leg anymore, have you seen him struggle to walk?

  2. hangers says:

    I wouldn't go to a show to see the man wrestle.. Meet n greet, yes, but he cant work a match anymore..

    As for the live shows, are they actually making any money doing them at all? The ones in the UK make money as they keep going back for more but a crowd of 500 people just isn't worth it, is it?

    • ariesstormjoe says:

      if they were able to move to the uk they'd be getting decent crowds all the time imo.

      poorly advertised in america.

      • Philly_Cheese says:

        They're on a poor network in the US that does little to no advertising for them. TNA probably in all likelihood draws far bigger crowds in the UK than they do in the states. Also noted that many of the shows are free access at universal, and they probably charge per head in the UK.

  3. OzzfactorDro says:

    Would anyone happen to know if TNA is in the red or black and/or their financial situation? From what I read on here, it sounds like it's a matter of time before TNA goes bust. Tell me it isn't so! I gotta have TNA!

    • Dirk1n says:

      It was reported a while back that TNA were turning a profit, there weren't any details as TNA is a private company so that kind of info doesn't get released
      A profit could be $5, so I wouldn't read too much into it

    • ariesstormjoe says:

      tna wont be going bust imo. simply because who owns them. which is panda energy. and panda energy likely wont go bust either. if panda energy really supplied tna with cash, production, advertising they would be doing well but they dont. they keep tna in a situation where they may not make a lot of cash but they dont lose a lot of cash either. if panda energy did spend on tna that isnt necessarily a good thing but theres more chance of sucess.

  4. TwIsTeD_EnEmY says:

    2 more regurgitated new stories, then a bit about wanting new stories.
    Man things must be dry

  5. tnadude says:

    @RyanClark – HE WAS JOKING! Seriously – it was a joke. Why do you constantly try to make something where there's no story? It's old dude. Really old. There's a reason I go to tnasylum(dot)com more and more. Just do your job and report the news, please. Otherwise, you risk losing the last few loyal visitors you have.

    For the record – I'd give my right arm to see Hogan v. Andre again. Hogan in his prime was heads and shoulders above everyone else I've ever watched. Technically, no. But the energy and excitement was something to behold.

    But he doesn't have it any more. As others have said, he is one bump from paralysis anyway. He's better off outside the ring and he knows it.

    • pepsilover2008 says:

      Crap meant to give you a thumbs up, i'm getting sick of it too. Most of the time this site just copies and pastes info from other sites anyways. I'm think it's time to leave this site as well.

  6. Matt Hardy says:

    This is a catastrophic drop for TNA. It is back to basically what they were doing when they first started running house shows. WWE's drop is bad too and is indicative of the bad economy (despite all the lies about recovery), and the state of the wrestling business as a whole. Losing almost half your business, is catastrophic though, and is not a good portend for TNA as a company. It all goes back to product that fans actually want to pay to see. In some ways TNA has become better over the last couple of years, but it is in relation to how bad it was for much of 2008 through early 2011. In most ways, TNA still delivers a worse product that what they did when they first getting national exposure, which means they are not a realistic alternative. Fans with less disposable income, means you have to be on top of your game to get that business and actually offer something. If the competition is Coke, you better be Pepsi or you are a cheap knockoff with a very small share of the market.

    • Philly_Cheese says:

      It's not really so much income, as it is people losing interest in wrestling. Unfortunately the product as it stands with TNA is ok at best, they're doing good but not at their best. WWE on the other hand has their PG rating, which people over 18 have lost interest in. It's not so much that TNA is regarded as a knock off or anything like that, they're more like ECW before it was bought out by WWE, considered small and unfortunately unknown about by many.

      • Matt Hardy says:

        Sure they are viewed as a cheap knockoff. A WWE Wanna be, WWE light, WWE retirement home, WCW 2.0 and all the other negative monikers that TNA has garnered for itself over the years.. Like it or not, that is the impression that most wrestling fans have about TNA. They have much more exposure at this point than ECW ever did, but most fans just don't view it as an alternative that they were willing to spend their money on like they did with ECW. The bad economy only makes it worse.

        • tnadude says:

          Fans didn't spend money on ECW either. Otherwise, you make a few solid points. One other thing: like it or hate it, but PG sells. How? Because adults will pay to take their kids, and that's saving Vince right now.

          • Matt Hardy says:

            Fans didn't spend money on ECW? Did you even follow ECW? They sold out just about everywhere they went and did better house show numbers than WCW and averaged around 90,000 buys for their PPVs. That is a far cry from WWE, but it was a viable business. It is only because they had trouble getting a viable network outlet and keeping ppv because of the nature of their product, the fact that it was budgeted on a shoestring with little financial backing and the fact that Paul Heyman was a terrible businessman and a little more than just shady, that they went out of business. They were actually profitable on their books up until it closed, but the money was not readily available, which is a problem a lot of businesses run into.

          • Leg Drop Jobber says:

            I spent a damn fortune on ECW. People on this board hate to admit that a "little bingo hall promotion" actually did better in it's 8 year existence than TNA has in the last decade. I can only imagine if ECW had the financial backing TNA has.

          • Matt Hardy says:

            Same here. It was the promotion that got me back into wrestling after I had virtually given it up as a teenager in the early 90's. I bought everything ECW I could get my hands on. Tapes, ppvs and shows, when they came around. It really was a unique and marketable promotion, and it all happened virtually on word of mouth alone. There is no question if they had TNA's financial backing, things would have turned out differently. Of course, there is always the question in my mind of what Paul Heyman would have done with that money LOL!. He might be sitting in prison if he had more money to screw around with, instead of the pittance that actually had to run ECW.

            That is what is so frustrating to me about the course that ROH has taken under Sinclair. They were absolutely a superior product to TNA. The sinclair deal at first looked like a breath of fresh air to the wrestling business, and a much needed influx of cash to a company on the verge of going from a big indie to really breaking out as a viable alternative, but it has not panned out. In many ways they seem to be going more on the cheap than Cary Silken was forced to do. The production values are worse than they were on HDnet and they haven't really done a lot to consolidate the best Indy talent or even secure most of their own core of talent. They can't blame the ratings either, for being cheap, because they have been good despite being on regional syndication and the attendance has been fairly on par with ROH has drawn over the years. They just don't seem to want to put any money in it.

          • Leg Drop Jobber says:

            Me and you have a thing or two in common. The "Rock and Wrestling Era" KILLED wrestling for me. I grew up discovering the "smash mouth" styles of the late 70's and early 80's. When wrestling got super-gimmicky and "pretty," I tuned out. By 1988 or so, I even gave up on the good ol' NWA. I'd still turn the TV on now and then to see what was happening, only to change the channel in disgust. That was all finally changed around 1996, when a friend of mine brought me a 2nd or 3rd generation copy of ECW's November To Remember '95. I was hooked! THEN the larger feds started mimmicking what ECW was doing by the LATE 90's. A very exciting time to be a wrestling fan. I don't think very many of these kids have witnessed too much ECW, as they seem very afraid of it.

            While I enjoy ROH and even TNA from time to time, it lacks the dynamic and CONSISTENCY that the "tiny Bingo Hall Promotion" managed to achieve in the 90's. Sometimes I once again turn the programming off, due to lame angles, lame gimmicks and most of all… "the lack of suspending my disbelief during a match."

            Promotions today make booking TOO COMPLICATED. The backstage stuff is ridiculous and the angles are just too outlandish. While TNA seems to be seriously focusing on "incorporating reality TV into their product," I happen to think they are failing miserably at it.

            That said, I have faith in the ROH product right now, considering Delirious has taken over booking. I expect good things out of that. The reason being, I watched the Delirious character grow before my eyes here in St. Louis with the GCW promotion. I watched the guy go from an inexperienced rookie, to a great character that the local fans loved to watch. If he can pull that off, I think there is a chance he can bring that intensity to ROH. They definitely have the talent to pull it off.

          • Matt Hardy says:

            "Promotions today make booking TOO COMPLICATED"

            Yes they do. They have forgotten how to do the basics and if you can't do that right, it doesn't matter. Nobody wants to watch fake shit that is treated basically like a joke. There is no foundation. That is what I loved about ECW. It had its share of crap, but it was all booked extremely well and it all made sense in the context.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More TNA Wrestling Headlines