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.
No comments:
Post a Comment