Ask the Editor ASK THE EDITOR: "In a weird way, I almost feel like I'm watching a high end sweat shop." Jul 12, 2007 - 3:10:00 AM

CLICK FOR BIO

Email This Article- Contact Us - VIP Sign-Up - Back to Home Page

|

By Wade Keller, Torch editor

QUESTION: Jeff Barbieri of Folsom, Calif. writes: Hey Wade, I'm a fairly long time Torch reader and 36 year old business professional. One question that's been bothering me: Why doesn't ANYONE of clout in the WWE locker room (i.e. an Edge), make a stand - quit, go to the media, or do something, to show their disgust to Vince McMahon and the WWE on their work environment?

I simply find it amazing that none of them have the gumption to demand a better working life, especially with an option such as TNA around that they could possible go to. Are these guys so brain washed or greedy (they can't get as much money anywhere else) that they see this as their only option? Even a Steve Austin or a Rock - did these guys just sign their souls to McMahon and refuse to say anything?

After Eddie Guerrero passed away and I saw how Chavo and Vicki Guerrero were handled by WWE, in hindsight, I found that I was generally losing interest in the WWE product. After the Benoit incident, I've pretty much altogether quit watching it. In a weird way, I almost feel like I'm watching a high end sweat shop - if that possibly makes any sense. I guess it just makes me sad to see what this is doing to the lives of such great entertainers.

Thanks for the continued great coverage on everything that is pro wrestling. I really look forward to hearing some of your insight to my question. Take care.

WK: The question that's bothering you and is also a question that's bothering me. I know for a fact that some of the top wrestlers in WWE agree with most of what you wrote and most of what I've been writing the past few weeks (and past 15 years). I know some of the top wrestlers (and others) in WWE would like to ignite change. Wanting to act and figuring out how and when to act are two different things, especially since to the top guys, the status quo works pretty well for them.

There is a level of brainwashing that interferes with what seems like common sense to us. Look at Jim Ross's language when he responded to an emailer to his blog ("Secondly, having been there, unlike you, I have..."). I think there is a sense from inside that those on the outside don't have a clue, and those on the inside have either a pride in being one of the survivors or are too drugged out to take a leadership role or too scared they'll lose their house because they can't pay off their mortgage if they express anything but gratitude to Vince McMahon and the WWE operations.

The thing is, all it'd take is a 15 minute conference call or meeting among six of the top eight wrestlers to agree to a set of requests for McMahon and a timetable (a few weeks at most) to take action on implementing them to overhaul the industry. It's in the hands of the wrestlers. The top wrestlers, though, have to be extremely generous to risk their seven-figure annual salary and years of being treated like legend and Hall of Famer to make things better ("easier") for the younger generation, who may never fully appreciate what they did for them. That's why the ones who have it good have yet to act. The ones who haven't made it to the seven figure club yet either aspire to or are just "happy to have a job" and feel replacable. The question is whether they can rationalize away the deaths of Nancy and Daniel as not being enough inspiration for them to finally make a move and demand better working conditions for all.

Vince McMahon is confident he can continue to pay a significantly lower percentage of revenues to his talent compared to other comparable industries, be it movies or sports, and continue to put himself, his family, his stock holders, the financial media, his TV executive partners, and the fans ahead of the wrestlers who sacrifice the most for his success. He knows the system is set up in a way that takes away the incentive for the wrestlers with power to risk it to change it for the next generation, and those who have the most to gain don't have the clout to make it happen.

***

QUESTION: E. Ralph asks: Dude, are you actually trying to bring down WWE? If so you are doing a good job. And another thing: a lot of the questions you have submitted to be answered by Linda McMahon are just rumors and innuendo from the dirt-sheets, one of which you are the proprietor of. That being said, most of these ridiculous questions can be swatted away and treated as the bullshit many of them are.

WK: Write back and let me know which questions were b.s. Correct me (and the readers who submitted most of the questions)!

As for trying to bring down WWE, I am not trying to bring down WWE or the wrestling industry. I'm trying to make suggestions that could save the lives of wrestlers and improve the lives of wrestler while doing no harm to the bottom line of pro wrestling. Benoit's death combined with Sherri, Eddie, and the dozens of others over the years have made WWE less fun to watch with enthusiasm because you know the side effect of the culture and the system. The ratings may be starting to show it.

Potential solutions are out there, and I've been writing about them for 15-20 years. WWE hasn't acted out of greed or stubbornness or being too close to the industry to see how obscene certain aspects of it are. Eventually, the industry is going to help itself and the wrestlers are going to help themselves - and when they do, the business will thrive because fans will feel better about supporting it (without funerals and death notices to bring them down), wrestlers will be more loyal to it because their lives will be better, more talent athletes will want to participate and dedicate their careers to it because it will be a better industry, and the media frenzies (justified as this one is, albeit imperfect) will cease because there will be nothing negative for them to talk about.

What about keeping wrestlers health and happy or cutting back at on stereotype characters adds up to trying to "bring down WWE"? Name a single question on that list that reflects anything resembling an attempt on my part or the readers to make the industry worse rather than better and more successful?

***

QUESTION: Keith Buckley - Regarding the low ratings this week, couldn't it simply be lack of Cena, and Lashley in the main event?

WK: Could be. Can't rule it out. I wouldn't say Lashley is any kind of ratings draw yet. There's zero evidence of that, as ECW did better when he wasn't headlining than when he was over the past few months. Cena not in the mix may account for something, but that'd carry more weight if the rating went down as the show progressed. The fact that fewer people tuned in from the onset by a large margin even before it was known Cena wouldn't be on tends to discount that explanation. One rating isn't a trend, but when it's the lowest rating in more than nine years during the summer (not counting one July 4 holiday episode), it's noteworthy to be sure.

Send your questions (on any subject you'd like me to address here) to the "askthetorch07" email link at the bottom of this page and put "ATE" in the subject box so I know it's for "Ask the Editor" text version not "Ask the Torch" VIP audio version.