 |
| Punk's not the only guy who'd benefit from time off Photo Credit: WWE.com |
The demands they put on themselves for content are unreasonable compared to anything else. Sports have offseasons. Television shows at the very maximum have to fill about an hour of programming per week for half the year. Meanwhile, WWE is coming up with original content for nine hours all-told for EVERY week out of the year, with an extra three hours to be filled behind a paywall. That might make analysts, critics, and fans like you and me look silly for thinking they should be on their game for an estimated 350 hours every year (that's the amount of true time they have, factoring for commercials), but these are demands that WWE puts on itself. If they insist on providing all this live content, then shouldn't they strive to deliver on it?
The question becomes why on Earth WWE would continue to tax itself the way it does. There's no WCW escalating the arms race anymore. The only competition WWE has is itself, and it's not in the way most people think. It's an internal feud that pits the seemingly-maniacal front office, and an increasingly overworked, inefficiently utilized roster. If you believe the dirtsheet reports, CM Punk was livid and close to quitting before WrestleMania. I don't know whether this was a backstage blowup that the nebulous "sources" took out of proportion, an offhand story that the sheet-writers themselves blew up for effect, or a legitimate threat to quit, but looking at the strains put on Punk from December until now, one could see him getting fed up. He had to work injured for three months as a nexus point for arguably the two biggest matches at Mania, this after taking almost ZERO time off since the ink was dry on his WWE developmental contract, signed atop his ROH World Championship.
When Punk was famously asked if he was afraid of being misused like Shannon Moore, he answered that he didn't care as long as he got to buy a house like Moore had. However, with the demands of the road being as they are, how much bang for his buck is Punk getting on the house he presumably bought? What about every other WWE superstar? They are on the road at least five days a week if you factor in house shows, with the lower card guys having to foot the bill for their own travel expenses. What's a house if you can't enjoy it? Is your home really a home when a vast majority of your year is spent in a hotel room?
I can't help but think that the ratings talk is just another symptom of the stranglehold that wrestling promoters have on their talent. The importance of ratings is hammered home to let wrestlers know this lifestyle is a necessity. But the thing is, RAW is in no danger of being cancelled if Universal Networks or other suitors are still giving them new programming. Their pay-per-view buyrates seem to be in a good place, and in reality, only one pay-per-view sales number matters anyway. A good WrestleMania take can make the company for the entire year. Basically, they are setting up their entire year to sell one major event. Do they need 52 episodes apiece of RAW, Smackdown, Main Event, Superstars, Saturday Morning Slam, and NXT a year to do that? The answer is clearly and obviously no.
So, if WWE doesn't need 345 hours of original content a year to set up the 5 that matter most, then why are the wrestlers being worked to the point of reputed unhappiness? Would a little time to enjoy themselves outside the ring for its wrestlers be too much to ask for WWE to provide? Obviously, there's the knee-jerk reaction that "This is how wrestling has always been, and they signed up for this lifestyle." Well, that's an awful argument for anything. There's also the argument that WWE needs to be on TV every week in an original manner to remain popular, but that doesn't pass the smell test either. If you need to oversaturate to stay popular, then what does that say for your ability to produce quality programming that keeps people talking and waiting for weeks?
There needs to be a fundamental change in the way WWE does business. What should it be? Well, there are a few options I have in mind that could work. I'm not sure if they're the only ways – they probably aren't. However, to me, at least, seem better than what WWE has going for them.
First, there's the lump sum offseason, where the promotion shuts down for a bulk block of time and demarcate each year into a distinct season, anchored by a WrestleMania. Obviously, this is the option that would require the most culture change in WWE, because it would radically shift their business plan and shut down anywhere from one to three revenue streams depending on how many months they're off the air. While to armchair financial analysts, WWE buyrates can be "bad," even the worst-drawing events are profitable by a large margin. Taking any of those events off the table, in addition to the loss in ad revenue by shutting down for a bulk of time, might not be the most palatable to their bottom line. As much as I say I don't give a shit about their ledgers, I'd be foolish to state that they should operate in a way that they would lose a lot of money.
If the endgame is to get more wrestlers time off, then the idea of rolling offseasons for the roster is probably the next best idea. WWE has a roster of nearly 70 fulltime wrestlers not counting the NXT ranks, and they have a smattering of part-timers who can come and go as they please for big shows. Is there any reason why portions of the roster can't be left home to recuperate or just enjoy their lives for a month here or two months there while a more focused cut of the roster carries the load for a given PPV cycle? Would crowds be as burnt out on John Cena if he only worked 10 months out of the year? Would Punk allegedly threaten to quit every two years if he got to rest more than a day at a time? Conversely, would Tyson Kidd or the Usos be such non-starters if WWE were forced to use them meaningfully instead of as dudes who would act as background noise for the fans filing into the arena for the main taping/show?
The plan of action here would be to rest the main players on the roster and go on a touring schedule. Obviously, the roster would be at full strength for WrestleMania, but letting certain wrestlers take extended time off would be an answer. Plus, with the television schedule staying the same, it would force WWE to use more of its expansive roster in a meaningful way.
Of course, there are other ways they could give their wrestlers a break and cut back on material. They could take weeks off here and there. They could run split squads each week with the special shows having everyone on them. They could do something that I'm not even thinking of. The point is that something needs to change. The business has changed, and there's really no need for the wrestlers to be working the same schedule they did back when the landscape almost demanded it.
Furthermore, when you wrestle the kind of matches that Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, and the rest of the classic guys did, maybe you can do 300 days a year. With the style becoming more demanding, it's almost imperative that the performers get more time to recuperate. Even if a protracted offseason is unfeasible for WWE, some solution has to be reached. A 0.2 shift in ratings either way isn't worth the rash of injuries, wrestler unhappiness, or the longterm health of the performers under WWE's care, especially when they continually deny them well care and other benefits that would have to come if they were correctly labeled as employees instead of independent contractors.