Everybody's Got a Price...

If there's one thing wrestling fans love to do, it's argue.  But it gets even better when wrestling fans start arguing about a wrestling argument (see "Montreal Screwjob", "Flair vs. Hogan," and "Roman Reigns' entire career").

You can add CM Punk to that list of guys who love to argue against WWE.  Along with Bret Hart, he may be the most vocal man to ever leave the WWE with nothing but disdain on his lips.

And now it seems we can add Ryback to that list, thanks to his fire-starting tumblr essay.  Much like Punk, Ryback has taken to the internet to rip WWE's corporate practices.  And--also like Punk--the pay structure seems to be his biggest gripe, even when he claims the "contrary to reports it isn't over money".

You can read the blog for yourself (I've included the link above for exactly that reason), but I want to touch on a few key points, and why I believe that not only is Ryback talking out of both sides of his mouth, but he's also committing career suicide.  He may believe that this "last stand" against the evil corporate structure is a noble endeavor, but in the end it serves no one: not the WWE, their talent, ex-talent, or pro wrestling in general.

It's All About the Money

In the openings of his "essay" (if you can call six paragraphs of profanity and poor punctuation an "essay"), Ryback says that his beef with WWE has nothing to do with money.  He then goes on to complain about the pay structure in WWE: specifically the fact that losers are paid less than winners.

On the one hand, we can say that Ryback has a point: whether winning or losing a match, you're putting your body on the line and taking on the responsibility of protecting someone else's body.  Why is the guy getting the win in a predetermined performance getting paid more than the guy who is predetermined and contractually obligated to "job out" to the winner?

That's a fair point.  Honestly.

Unfortunately, when you say things like, "it's not about the money" and then proceed to criticize the pay structure, you hurt the credibility of your entire argument.

Another thing to consider here is that--unless I'm very misinformed--winners make more than losers in every promotion, not just WWE.  So you're not just criticizing WWE (your current employer), you're actually criticizing the entire industry your livelihood depends on, which may not be the smartest move if you're looking to elsewhere.

To his credit, Ryback acknowledges that this issue is prevalent with the entire pro wrestling community, not just WWE:

 It comes down to a major problem I have with not only WWE but wrestling in general.

But again, saying that you have an issue with all of pro wrestling and then complaining specifically about WWE sounds hypocritical.  And again, it's probably not the best career move as he will most likely be released from WWE and have nowhere else to work if promoters know money is going to be an issue for him.  It's not like the independent scene or even TNA has boat loads of cash to dole out to WWE refugees.

Losers and Winners

The battle of good vs. evil is one that has been waged in pro wrestling from its infancy.  It's what keeps us invested.  There are good guys and bad guys.  And bad guys will, eventually, all lose to the good guys.  Even top heels have to drop the title to the conquering hero.  When done correctly (i.e. Dusty Rhodes vs. Ric Flair), it can give fans an exhilarating moment that they'll remember forever.  When done incorrectly (i.e. "Roman Reigns winning the 2014 Royal Rumble"), it can ruin what might have been a great story.

But the bad guys lose.  They always lose.  Watch a Disney movie.  Read Treasure Island.  Unless this is Game of Thrones, the bad guys always lose.

And here's the thing: the bad guy is called the bad guy because the character is designed for people to dislike.  And if people dislike you, they're probably not going to cheer for you, or buy your merchandise.  They're probably not paying to see you so much as see the guy that's beating you.

So let's compare someone like Ryback to someone like Daniel Bryan.  Is that really fair?

Nope.

Remember when Daniel Bryan was a heel?  Probably not, but he was.  And people still cheered for him because we all knew what a great wrestler he was and wanted to see him succeed.  Fast forward three years, and Daniel Bryan is the biggest face in pro wrestling.  His merchandise is flying off the shelves.  People are making signs, and stadiums full of fans are chanting "YES!  YES!  YES!"

Do you know how many Batista t-shirts were sold the day of Wrestlemania XXX?  Neither do I.  Nobody does.  Because nobody's buying the bad guy's t-shirt.

When Chris Jericho embarked on a heel run in WWE, Vince McMahon immediately planned to design another t-shirt to sell.  Jericho, knowing he was going to turn heel, put the kibosh on that with the logic that nobody's going to wear Hitler's t-shirt; he's a bad guy.

Jericho is an exception to the rule simply because of his level of brand recognition, but there's a simple, albeit harsh truth to all of this: the good guys make more money.

They make more money because they're the ones fans are paying to see.  They're selling merchandise because people want to represent their hero, not the villain.  So when the good guy loses, he gets paid less because it's the good guy who's going to make more money from the t-shirts after his victory.  Nobody's buying the loser's t-shirt.

Now, you could argue that WWE should compensate their talent equally and let merchandise sales fall outside of base pay, and I'd probably agree with you.  But if we put Daniel Bryan, or Steve Austin, or The Rock in the ring with Ryback, are we really expecting that Ryback is going to be paid the same as the others?

No, I don't think so.

This was the same argument made by CM Punk upon his exit from WWE.  But even Punk, at the height of his popularity in the midst of his 434-day reign as WWE Champion, was never as popular as mainstream icons like Rock, Austin, Hogan, or Flair.

And that brings me to my next point...

The CM Punk Initiative

Anyone who was watching WWE Payback saw the blatant homage to CM Punk by Ryback during his entrance.  As Ryback the day after that display and he'll probably tell you it wasn't his greatest decision he's ever made.

Maybe Ryback was just trying to paint himself as another "voice of the voiceless."  Maybe he considers himself a hero for the overworked and underpaid.  Or maybe he really does believe in what CM Punk stood (or wants us to believe he stood) for.

Whatever the case, it was the equivalent of pulling out a Joker in Wayne Manor.  It just looks bad.

And again, there's something to be said for having the courage to stand up for something you believe in, especially in an environment that can be as politically hostile as WWE.  But it all goes back to what you're standing up for.

For comparison's sake, let's look at Hulk Hogan and the steroid scandal of the 80's.  Hulk basically let the cat out of the bag by telling everyone that the WWF locker room was rampant with steroid and drug abuse.  Now, that's probably a good thing to come out and say, because it has (generally) made wrestling a much safer working environment from a backstage perspective.  But are we to believe that Hogan himself wasn't  one of the many guilty of steroid use?

Fast forward and we have CM Punk.  Maybe Ryback wasn't looking to follow in Punk's exact footsteps, but let's assume he takes some inspiration from the former "Best in the World."

They both come out against the pay structure.  Punk wasn't happy that he wasn't getting paid the same as The Rock and The Undertaker.  Ryback's upset he's not getting paid the same as the guys he's jobbing to.  We can see the similarities.

But who are they helping by making such a public show of dissatisfaction?  The talent in the WWE locker room?  Probably not.  They have a job and they don't want to lose it.  Cameron came out in obvious support of Ryback's testimony, and was released from WWE days later.  The rest of the existing WWE locker room--even if they're not employed--probably don't want to risk their careers after that flexing of power by the front office.  Is it right that WWE uses Cameron as an example to intimidate the rest of its talent pool?  Probably not, but we'll get to that.

Is this argument helping the guys on the indy scene?  Probably not.  The indy market (which, for this example excludes Ring of Honor, TNA, and Lucha Underground) is full of local promoters are barely scraping enough cash together to lure in one or two "big names" per show, while the rest of their talent makes $50 a match if they're lucky.  Unless you're lucky enough to land in one of the smaller, national promotions listed above (or New Japan overseas), you're not making more money jobbing there than you are in WWE.

The only people affected by CM Punk and Ryback's arguments are themselves.  They want better money.  They want equal pay for winners and losers, regardless of tenure or brand recognition.  They may think this is a noble endeavor.  They may think they're standing up for the "little guy", but they're actually  making things much worse than if they'd simply expressed their discontent and asked for their release.

This all goes back to the argument for unions in wrestling, and as many in the industry have said before, that's an unlikely scenario.  Wrestlers are in a tough spot: they're independent contractors under contract to a corporation.  They have very little protection against the dark sides of the business.  But unless everyone could somehow band together to form a single body to challenge the powers that be, it's not going to change.  That kind of thing is very difficult to do, particularly when you have men like John Cena at the top who I'm convinced would work for peanuts and still go out every night and try to kill himself.

As John Dickinson once said in the film 1776, "Most men would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."

The Commitment and the Compromise

There's a final element to this that should be self-evident to anyone in the wrestling business, and I'm shocked at how many people are "appalled" by it.

That is the very idea that the company you wrestle for gives up on you.

I don't have to document this philosophy too deeply.  Guys like Damien Sandow, Dolph Ziggler, and Jack Swagger are infamous for being one of the fastest-rising stars on TV one week, and disappearing the next.  We assume this happens because WWE no longer wants them on TV.  Hell, go back to Stone Cold's podcast in which Vince McMahon said that the mega-popular Cesaro "wasn't connecting with the audience."  I'm not going to say that there isn't a clear bias when it comes to booking.

But I will say that as a performer, it's your job to overcome that adversity.  Need examples?  Steve Austin, The Rock, The Undertaker, and even Triple H were all saddled with ridiculous gimmicks upon arriving in WWE, and all rose to become top stars of their generation.  They evolved.  They went to Vince and said, "no more."

There's a reason some talent make more money than others.  They get over.  Daniel Bryan wasn't meant to get over, but he did in a huge way.  And he is just one of a handful of stars that were given small opportunities to succeed and made the absolute most of them.

The irony is that a man like CM Punk was able to overcome all of that adversity, and still wound up discontented with his status in the company.

Ryback had his moments.  He fought John Cena for the WWE Championship.  He is a former Intercontinental Champion.  And when he came back from a career-threatening injury, he cut heartfelt promos that made the crowd want to see him succeed at the highest level.

You have to help yourself.  Imagine what would happen if top stars made excuses for why they're not succeeding.  You can't blame the company, as much as we all want to.  It's your job to connect with the audience.  Do that, and you're a made superstar.  If you fail, you will fade away into oblivion.

And if there's one thing Ryback and Punk's departures will bear out, it's that the WWE "machine" keeps going long after the fires of your noble crusade have died out.

Raw is Great - Here's How to Make it Better

Fans may be split on whether or not Wrestlemania 32 was truly one of the greatest Wrestlemanias of all time, but most of them seem to agree that the episodes of Monday Night Raw following the big event have been consistently solid.

It may not make a whole lot of sense to have Shane McMahon at the helm of Raw, considering his death-defying loss to The Undertaker at the Showcase of the Immortals, but seeing someone new in charge of Monday nights has been refreshing.  Additionally, seeing faces like Apollo Crews, Baron Corbin, Enzo and Cass, and the Vaudevillains come up from NXT has injected some fresh blood into a tired roster.

No longer are we looking at the clock and struggling to stay awake during the weekly three-hour marathon.  Instead, we find ourselves doing something we haven't done in over a decade: wanting more.

The ratings may tell another story, but for hardcore wrestling fans, this is the most exciting time to be a fan since the Attitude Era.  Wanna keep those fans?  Here's a few things WWE can do to make sure fans continue to tune in every week, bring old fans back, and--most importantly--get a whole new generation of fans interested.


I DON'T NEED YOUR AUTHORITY

This one should be fairly obvious, considering the insane reaction Shane McMahon received upon his return, but there are several layers to this I want to explore.

First and foremost is the fact that Triple H has gone from being "The Cerebral Assassin" to the "Father of NXT".  This has made him popular with even the most jaded wresting fan: Triple H is saving professional wrestling from the swamp that has been Vince McMahon's era of PG-rated sports-entertainment.  And yet, every Monday night, fans are expected to boo Triple H because he's "The Authority."

With few exceptions, fans have been able to predict every episode of Raw helmed by The Authority.  Traditionally, we start with a 15-20 minute promo by Triple H or Stephanie talking about how Roman Reigns is somehow good but not good enough, or how Seth Rollins is the greatest WWE World Heavyweight Champion of all time.  Unfortunately, starting the show with these two characters makes them the focal point of the show: even more important than the WWE Champion himself, and that should never be the case.

Second is the very idea of a heel authority figure.  WWE has been playing this card for the better part of the last 20 years or so, and it's simply played out.  From Vince McMahon, to Eric Bischoff, to Vicki Guerrero, to John Laurintaitis, to Triple H and Stephanie, this angle has been beaten to death more times than Mick Foley.  It's time to put this to rest.  It doesn't draw money, it's not intriguing, it does nothing but annoy the fans.

Another problem with the traditional "authority" figure (specifically a heel), is that it tends to devalue what happens in the ring.  Rather than have wrestlers go out and succeed or fail on their own, we've entered into an era of a mutually understood code that if a wrestler isn't getting over, it's because whoever's in power doesn't want him to get over, and any wrestler that succeeds is succeeding because he's "overcome" the adversity of "the powers that be".  This is completely backwards: the focus should be on the talent themselves, not the backstage politicking.  WWE may like to use that as a scapegoat, but it's a little less funny when you realize that the only reason they make fun of it so much is because they know it's always happening.

If WWE insists on having an "authority" figure (i.e., Commissioner, General Manager, etc.), they should do exactly what Shane McMahon has done these past few weeks: appear in quick segments backstage to make matches.  In-ring promos should be few and far between, and only in dire circumstances where resolution is needed immediately.  Overexposure is a dire problem for WWE right now, and they can keep their talent feeling "special" by limiting how much time they spend in front of the camera.  No more Triple H opening and closing the show.  Give us a General Manager that is rarely seen, but flexes enough power to remind everyone who's in charge.

Ring of Honor is one organization doing a great job with Nigel McGuinness as their "authority" figure.  The man is always present, but rarely has cause to step out and demonstrate his power, so when it happens, it's a big deal.  Do the same with the McMahons, but do it sparingly so we can get back to what we're all tuning in to see: the wrestling.


TAKE A LITTLE OFF THE TOP

I remember being about 14 years old and watching Raw go off the air, only to turn to my brothers and say, "God, I wish this show was longer!"  Those two magical hours between 9:00 and 11:15 are some of the most exciting memories I have.  At some point, every fan has dreamed of a Raw that was three hours long.  WWE even teased this with their ever more frequent "three hours special editions" of Raw.

I'm sure it was the dollar signs that finally convinced Vince McMahon to take the inevitable plunge and tac on another hour to his flagship broadcast, but sometimes wishing for something is a lot better than actually getting it, and that is certainly the case with Raw.

There are some tremendous upsides to a three-hour Raw, and not all of it has to do with the increased cash flow.  Does anybody really think we'd be getting 20 minute matches between the likes of Sami Zayn, Kevin Owens, and AJ Styles if Raw were only two hours long?  Does anybody really think The New Day would have gotten themselves over if their segments were cut short because they only have so much TV time?

Hardcore wrestling fans may not having a problem staying tuned for three hours, but casual fans will find one episode of Raw is enough to satiate their wrestling appetite for a week or more.  Why tune in to another two hours of Smackdown, an hour of NXT, or a pay-per-view, not to mention anything on the WWE Network?

WWE prides itself on being at the forefront when it comes to social media and original content.  I'm not going to say they don't do an amazing job, but they seem to forget that fans have options.  This is not 1995.  The TV is no longer the go-to "idiot box" of choice.  When I'm watching Raw, I usually have my iPhone and iPad close by so I can follow shows like Busted Open and talk with other fans about what's happening.

But that's me, and we're talking about three hours in a generation with the shortest attention span in history.  If you don't give fans a reason to stay glued to your product, there are hundreds, if not thousands of alternatives at their fingertips.  Not enjoying Raw?  How about queueing up The Walking Dead on Netflix, or do a little shopping on Amazon?  Whip out your phone and play a quick game of your choice.

Or worse: change the channel.

NXT is consistently my favorite weekly wrestling program.  It's short, easy to digest, and features different superstars every week.  Fans are flocking to NXT for their wrestling fix, and some will end up forsaking Raw and Smackdown altogether if what they're getting every Monday and Thursday doesn't satisfy.

Despite the quality of Raw increasing, ratings have continued to slip.  As they do, it will most likely force advertisers to stop investing in the show, which will, in turn, force Raw back to two hours.  The next time Vince McMahon renews his contract with USA Network, he'll have to try and convince them that ratings don't matter if he wants to keep raking the same cash for his cow.  He could always threaten to move Raw to make it a WWE Network exclusive, but he'd essentially be cutting 2/3 of his audience, since WWE has been struggling to break even the 2 million mark for their over-the-top streaming service.


NXT!  NXT!  NXT!

This is a no-brainer, and I'm surprised WWE hasn't done it yet.

Every Thursday on Smackdown, WWE recaps Raw, proving once again that Smackdown is the #2 show in WWE (when was the last time you saw a "Smackdown Rebound" on Raw?)

They should be doing the same thing every week with NXT.

WWE knows they have a hit in NXT, but the only glimpse we get of NXT is when someone from their roster moves up to Raw or Smackdown, and while that may spark a temporary interest in NXT, it does little to sustain it, since feuds superstars have had in NXT rarely carry over to the main roster (with the exception of the current Owens/Zayn angle).

Raw should feature a weekly 3-5 minute video package recapping that week's episode of NXT.  This gets new faces on the roster, increases brand awareness, and--most importantly--drives people to the WWE Network.

WWE already does this to some extent: they have a good 2-minute or so commercial for the WWE Network that's basically a montage of various original programming there.  That's great, but fans want action.  Don't know who Asuka is?  Show fans how she destroyed Cameron on NXT.  Never heard of The Revival?  Show them crushing their opponents for the NXT Tag Team Championship.

To say the Vaudevillains received a lukewarm welcome on the main roster is an understatement, and a disappointment.  These two men continue to be one of the most over acts in NXT.  Fans can recite their introduction from memory, much like Enzo and Cass.  But the lack of awareness on the part of Raw and Smackdown's fanbases not only hurts the credibility of Aiden English and Simon Gotch, but speaks volumes as to how much of WWE's weekly fanbase has managed to elude subscribing to the WWE Network.

If anyone knows how to cross-promote, it's Vince McMahon.  We could get in to all the reasons he's buried the NXT talent on his main roster, or why he seems to refuse to acknowledge that brand in general, but the bottom line is that Vince McMahon needs the WWE Network to succeed if Raw and Smackdown and his company in general are to survive.  It's not enough to promise us the opportunity to relive our favorite memories (I think I've watched one old-school Raw on the Network in its entirety), you have to promise us something new.  NXT is the fulfillment of that promise and is the perfect catalyst for new subscribers.


DIVERSITY = LONGEVITY

Perhaps the biggest issue with WWE right now is overexposure, and it's finally starting to show in a huge way.

The injury bug that has plagued WWE for much of the last year has been well documented, and while we could obviously look at these on a case-by-case basis, it would be naive to think there isn't an underlying theme to all of them.

Could we really doubt the idea that Seth Rollins would still have been your WWE Champion going in to Wrestlemania 32 had he not blown out his knee in Ireland?  Could we really doubt that John Cena would've been somewhere near the top of the card that night had he not needed emergency surgery just two weeks after his return from hiatus?  Might it have been Neville or Cesaro holding the Intercontinental Championship that night instead of Zack Ryder?

We'll never really know the answers to these questions, but it's probably safe to say "yes" to most of them.

And all these people have one thing in common: in the weeks and months leading up to their injuries, they were featured on WWE programming at least once in a wrestling capacity every single week.

Use whatever reasoning you want, be it the five hours of weekly original programming to fill, or the ridiculously thin roster.  In either case, these wrestlers were worked every single week, often times performing in similar or identical matches on both Raw and Smackdown.  That's twice the toll taken on the human body, and eventually it failed them.

Overexposure is a problem in WWE.  Seeing the same faces on every show leaves them feeling tired and washed out.  Hearing the same promos on each show gets annoying and monotonous.  It's hard to keep your WWE Champion feeling special when he's getting on TV six times a week.  Why even bother with the WWE Network?  I've seen enough already.

It also creates the problem of running out the tread on the tires before they even get going, and that can make a thin talent roster even thinner.

WWE has started to rectify this problem with the influx of NXT talent to the main roster, and if they're smart, they'll keep changing things up week by week so the talent isn't worn out before the next pay-per-view.


GOOD GUY GOODBYE

Okay, this is the big one.

We've heard it every week since Wrestlemania.

"I'm not a good guy.  I'm not a bad guy.  I'm just the guy."

This is a step in the right direction for Roman Reigns, but it comes too little too late and WWE does too much to contradict it for it to be true.  Also, the fact that it seems to be the only thing he's capable of saying doesn't help, either.

There's something to be said for those who believe the days of the true babyface and heel are dead.  That's a product of the age we live in, and while it may be difficult to translate that into the world of wrestling, it's not impossible.  Brock Lesnar versus The Undertaker was a fantastic feud that had fans questioning if a beast was worth cheering for or if they should boo a Deadman who resorted to dirty tactics.  Characters like CM Punk and AJ Styles continue to succeed in the "grey area" between good and evil.

Each generation has had their heroes.  In the 80's the hero was a virtuous powerhouse that used his ungodly strength to uphold truth and justice.  In the 90's the hero was the everyman who went against the established order.

Who is the hero now, and how should WWE be establishing their heroes of this generation?

To this question, I ask another question: what are the most popular franchises in the world, right now?

Rather than do some research, I'm gonna throw out some names off the top of my head.

Marvel.  The Walking Dead.  Game of Thrones.  Breaking Bad.

Okay.  That's enough for now.  I'm sure I've missed some, and keep in mind this is colored by my own choices for entertainment.  Yours may vary.  But let's examine these, shall we?  We'll start by taking some of the most popular characters from each franchise.

Tony Stark - A billionaire playboy whose company once dealt in weapons.  After being kidnapped and forced to build a missile, he returns to America to become the world-saving Iron Man.

Rick Grimes - A former police officer who awakes from a coma in post-apocalyptic America to find it overrun by living corpses.  Trying to keep those close to him alive, he continues to sacrifice his own morals and humanity in the name of survival.

Tyrion Lannister - The silver-tongued dwarf son of the wealthiest man in the realm, he murders, lies, and steals his way through the twisted politics of his world.  Along the way he also displays a surprising affection for his family and eventually pledges allegiance to a fledgling queen in hopes she will overthrow his tyrannical sister.

Walter White - Stricken with a fatal cancer, he quits his job as a mild-mannered school teacher and enlists the help of a former student to begin brewing crystal meth as a means to provide for his family after his death, eventually becoming the most feared and revered manufacturer in the world.

See the theme, here?  It would be very easy to hate any of these characters at some point or other, but we cheer for them because they are not simply two-dimensional.

What WWE characters stand out in your mind?

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin - A guy who didn't fit in to the corporate structure, so he spent years beating up his boss.  But does anybody remember when he saved the boss' daughter from The Undertaker?

Triple H - A guy who came into his own by snubbing authority.  Now he is the authority.

CM Punk - An underdog who had to be a jerk to prove he was the best.

Daniel Bryan - The most likable guy in the last 10 years, but does anyone remember when he was parading around being a jerk to AJ Lee?

I realize that you don't have the same time on Monday nights that you do in a dedicated hour of television to develop a character, but it's not enough for those characters to be black and white, anymore.

Roman Reigns can come out and tell people he's not a good guy, but when I see him crying over the WWE Championship or granting a Make-A-Wish, I have to assume I'm meant to sympathize, and I can't.

That's because each of these characters mentioned above has struggled: Tony Stark's imprisonment, the deaths of Rick's friends and family, Tyrion's deformity, Walter White's cancer.

Each of these struggles transformed the character into something new, but Reigns' struggle came late in the game when he had already been touted as someone important.  It's a very backwards way of doing things, and WWE needs to fix that with the rest of their roster before moving forward.

This is again where NXT shines through: it provides the proving ground for our wrestlers to be come heroes and villains before they get to Raw or Smackdown.

The irony is that Vince McMahon claims WWE is competing with all forms of entertainment, but is it beating any of it?  Is Vince even aware of the trend in entertainment right now?  WWE has all the tools to compete, but it needs to tap in to its fanbase and the fanbases of other popular mediums before it can start to change in a way that will push the company forward instead of holding it back.