WWE & antitrust

[Next Big Thing]

I know this is a stretch so don't jump down my throat. I'm not really serious, I just want to get the perspective of you guys on this.

Antitrust laws are supposed to prevent a business from monopolizing a given market. There was a lot of bitching about how baseball's antitrust exemption prevented upstart competitors from even getting off the ground, but the courts held that baseball was not the kind of commerce that federal law was meant to regulate (and this was in 1972 before the steroid boom and congressional hearings). Also, from a macro perspective, the competition between the teams and existence of a union provides competition in terms of contract length and salaries that prevents the players from being forced to accept certain terms and gives the audience diverse choices in terms of what they watch. Finally, MLB competes with the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, and NCAA for ad revenues, sponsorships endorsements, etc.

Hypothetically, is WWE approaching monopolistic status. The "violent" nature of the sport, the "rampant" drug use and "shocking" death rate (trying my best at Fox News sensationalism) already provides the government with enough incentive to at least regulate it. They've said it themselves that they're entertainment not sports, so they can't avail themselves to the multiple league defense. There is no union and any wrestler wanting to earn a decent wage already has to go through WWE. Finally, if TNA folds, it would provide further evidence that Vince dominates the market and has 100% control of the product presented to the public, and the workers themselves.

[Kane Knight]

When WWE was potentially commiting fraud, this board jumped down the SEC's throats, defending the guys who are most at blame for a lot of the problems you just mentioned. Don't expect people not to jump down your throat here, especially on a stretch. The one thing the IWC hates more than mainstream wrestling is interference in mainstream wrestling.

[KIRA]

Honestly, I thought the Whole Scott Levey Independent contractors dispute would at least be the start of some sort of government regulation.

[Kane Knight]

It was awesome watching the IWC pretend Scott had a leg to stand on....

[thedamndest]

I don't think you can call it a monopoly if you a competitor shoots themselves in the foot. Would Microsoft be held accountable if Linux hired Bubba the Love Sponge to do their interface?

[Ruien]

To my understanding on how a monopoly works, the biggest guy just makes everyone so cheap that no one else can compete. WWE is not doing anything to hold TNA back, or anyone else for that matter. TNA has more than enough talent, has a tv deal, and has money.

Then again, I have no experiance or education on how business stuff works.

[Kane Knight]

WWE is not doing anything to hold TNA back, or anyone else for that matter.

Except buying up talent, burying them with long no compete clauses, trademarking every identity under the sun (at least a few they didn't have the rights to), stuff like that.

To my understanding on how a monopoly works, the biggest guy just makes everyone so cheap that no one else can compete.

Your understanding is wrong. A monopoly can take many forms of market control.

[Next Big Thing]

Except buying up talent, burying them with long no compete clauses, trademarking every identity under the sun (at least a few they didn't have the rights to), stuff like that.



Your understanding is wrong. A monopoly can take many forms of market control.

I'm curious Kane Knight, do you think WWE has a monopoly on the market? How do you see it?

I thought Raven had a shot... I may be off, but don't independent contractors perform work in any manner they choose so long as it satisfies whatever is specified in the contract? Obviously WWE has to retain control over storylines, finishes, and schedule as any other indie wrestling promotion does, but WWE also dictates their gimmick, ring attire, character name, and restricts their contracts preventing them from working for other promotions on their off days, vacation time, and has total control over licensing and merchandising of their image. Sounds more like an employer employee relationship to me.

[Kane Knight]

I'm curious Kane Knight, do you think WWE has a monopoly on the market? How do you see it?

I think it's pretty clear they don't have a monopoly, though they certainly have a few anti-competitive business practices that would be worrisome if they were in the tech business. Or anything that wasn't the entertainment business.

WWE's a little different than say, Hollywood, but I still have trouble looking at it as an industry, and I bet the law would look at it the same way. Any anti-trust behaviour would have to be above and beyond, and I don't think WWE comes close enough to merit.

While TNA isn't strong competition, it also complicates things. Looking at cases along the lines of actual monopolies, it was only things like bundled software that caused Microsoft to get nailed. TNA may not be much of the market compared to WWE, but Apple was only like 10% of the market. Clearly, there's some capacity for competition, and while WWE does have market dominance, it's hard to imagine a successful argument that their position is due to unfair practices. Their behaviour regarding trademarks and the like is certainly dodgy, but not a big enough case.

tl;dr, I don't think they would satisfy the legal burden and I don't personally think they're a monopoly.

[KIRA]

It was awesome watching the IWC pretend Scott had a leg to stand on....

:y: I didn't mean I thought he would win I meant maybe it would've gotten the company looked at a little harder.

[Ruien]

Except buying up talent, burying them with long no compete clauses, trademarking every identity under the sun (at least a few they didn't have the rights to), stuff like that.





TNA has plenty of talent and money. TNA has an equal shot at signing any free agent wrestler along with WWE. How is it WWE's fault that the majority would rather go there than TNA? That is like saying the Yankees have a monopoly over baseball just because people want to go there the most.

[James Steele]

What is wrong with WWE copyrighting things? You don't bitch about musicians copyrighting their music, logos, etc.

[Kane Knight]

TNA has plenty of talent and money. TNA has an equal shot at signing any free agent wrestler along with WWE. How is it WWE's fault that the majority would rather go there than TNA? That is like saying the Yankees have a monopoly over baseball just because people want to go there the most.

Did you read all of the above before you posted?

To use the Yankees metaphor, the Yankees would need to have you sign lengthy no-compete clauses preventing you from going elsewhere, acquire the rights to your image, preventing you from using it elsewhere, etc.

I was unaware that a Yankees did that.

Besides, there's also more than two teams in MLB. CZW jokes aside, there are at best three major promotions right now, and that's if you're extremely lenient about RoH. Even if we ignore the relatively open exchange of MLB (with respect to the analogue), the broadness of the field alone should dispel the comparison between WWE and the Yankees.

[Ruien]

75 WWE Superstars
63 TNA Superstars

Does not seem that the WWE is grabbing all the talent.

Ignoring this fact, the WWE and TNA both have legit chances are signing any free agent. RVD went to TNA, Jeff Hardy went to TNA, Kurt Angle went to TNA, Christian went to TNA (Yes he returned), Booker T went to TNA, and so fourth.

WWE has no monopoly on where the talent goes. Yes they are the best company, but being the best does not mean you are an auto monopoly.

But I am done with this, your arguments usually go on way to long for me. No idea why you are even arguing when above in a post you believe WWE holds no monopoly. Oh well, off to bed chow.

[Kane Knight]

75 WWE Superstars
63 TNA Superstars

Does not seem that the WWE is grabbing all the talent.

Ignoring this fact, the WWE and TNA both have legit chances are signing any free agent. RVD went to TNA, Jeff Hardy went to TNA, Kurt Angle went to TNA, Christian went to TNA (Yes he returned), Booker T went to TNA, and so fourth.

WWE has no monopoly on where the talent goes. Yes they are the best company, but being the best does not mean you are an auto monopoly.

But I am done with this, your arguments usually go on way to long for me. No idea why you are even arguing when above in a post you believe WWE holds no monopoly. Oh well, off to bed chow.

Since you're "done with this," I won't bother with a rebuttal, but I will explain one thing.

No idea why you are even arguing when above in a post you believe WWE holds no monopoly.

Yeah, in the same post I also mentioned "they certainly have a few anti-competitive business practices that would be worrisome if they were in the tech business. Or anything that wasn't the entertainment business."

These are the practices in question. Simply getting the talent is not the issue. I've explained that. What they do with the intellectual properties and talent after is.

But more to the point, you don't get why I'm arguing because I stated I didn't believe there was a monopoly. Yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean WWE's not doing anything wrong, or specifically "not doing anything to hold TNA back." Or anyone else, for that matter. Things aren't always black and white. One can, for example, believe in something and yet remain skeptical, or want something but not expect it to happen. As another wrestling example, I wanted TNA to do well on Monday Nights in hopes that WWE would get their asses into gear, but I was pretty sure it wouldn't happen. And it didn't, but that's neither here nor there. You can regard John Cena as a good performer or a hard worker and hate his character.

In this case, I dismiss claims that WWE is a monopoly, but still address concerns with the way they handle competition. Quantity of wrestlers doesn't affect that, nor does the notion that any free agent can pick either one. By that logic, Microsoft never had a monopoly because you could pick either Apple or Microsoft OS, and nobody forced you to use Microsoft products.

I hope that enlightened you, though I fear it didn't.