WWE Profits and Wrestler pay scales

[Dave Youell]

Something I don't understand

WWE just released it's quarter year profits for Q1 and announced it was it's best financial Q1 results ever.

Yet at the same time, I'm lead to believe that the pay scale for the wrestlers is pretty darn low compared to that of the attitude era, because there wages are based on the house shows which generally have a lower turnout than they used to.

That's pretty shitty from a morale POV, I mean, you're working for a company that's making more money than ever, yet you are making considerably less than a guy doing the same job as you are from 8 years ago

[Outsider]

That's how they keep posting record profits. Income is down, so slash costs to keep profits high.

However at some point it will turn sour. The WWE is still losing fans, and therefore it's income base. The further this base dwindles, the lower salaries will become until morale does hit the point where they won't stand for it.

Either that or existing contracts will keep salaries at the same rate while income drops and therefore profits drop and shareholders get pissy. I bet if you look at the salaries of other workers, such as cameramen and office staff, they will also be feeling a pay squeeze.

[The Mackem]

Dave, what's with the out of date poster?

[Dave Youell]

Dave, what's with the out of date poster?

I like to look at myself taking a shit......

I just haven't updated my sig, ok?! Sorry!

Oh, that reminds me, I got the DVD of that match, I'll upload that sucker later

[The Mackem]

Apology accepted Dave Youell

[Loose Cannon]

you got to wonder what the other employees are making besides the wrestlers. Sales/Marketing/Advertising/PR etc... I bet they have more employees then ever before as well, which also plays a part in the pay scale for the wrestlers.

[Outsider]

you got to wonder what the other employees are making besides the wrestlers. Sales/Marketing/Advertising/PR etc... I bet they have more employees then ever before as well, which also plays a part in the pay scale for the wrestlers.

I disagree. I bet they've seen cuts in numbers in the last few years.

[Kane Knight]

One thing I'll point out in terms of morale...You're still getting more than anywhere else in the profession. That might keep morale high, even if you get paid like chumps while the company is turning record profits.

[Dave Youell]

One thing I'll point out in terms of morale...You're still getting more than anywhere else in the profession. That might keep morale high, even if you get paid like chumps while the company is turning record profits.

I keep hearing that some TNA/Indy guys tend to get paid better than WWE mid carders.

Angle is on what? $500,000 a year with TNA? Now for TV's he's currently having to go to Florida 24 times a year to film TV, along with 12 PPV's a year. There wasn't house shows when he signed up, so I would assume that he's making extra for the house shows if he wants to work them.

So, for his contract, not taking promotional appearances into consideration, he's making almost $14,000 a night for working for TNA, and that's a pretty easy schedule for him and he can pretty much work wherever else he wants to within reason if he wants to make more money (like that TNA/Japan thing)

I know overall he's not making as much as the WWE top tier guys, but pro-rata, I think he's doing alright for himself. I can't do the exact figures with any WWE guys as there contracts are normally kept fairly quiet.

Test did a blog (not a great source) that anyone new to TV would be making around $70,000 a year, which is barely enough to survive on the road 4 days a week and I remember someone saying that mid carders make around $300,000 a year, but after travel, based on what Test said about travel, you can roughly say they take home £230,000 a year, based on 4 matches a week, and then say 10 PPV's a year (that's generous for a mid carder) and say 50 weeks works, as you need to take into account holiday season, and potential promotional work that would make them miss TV and house shows, you are looking at just over £1000 per night, I know these are not exact figures and comparing the likes of Angle to WWE Mid carders may not be fair, but it's the only rough figures I know off.

When you look at most sports, say the premier league, it's worth more today that it ever has, and the pay scale for the players has increased along with the net worth of the league that they represent, I feel that the wrestlers who are in essence the foundation of the company, should be paid in line with the profits that the WWE has generated, as if they don't have the talent, they won't make jack shit.

[Ninti the Mad]

Then the wrestlers should stop sucking so people go to house shows.

[Dave Youell]

Then the wrestlers should stop sucking so people go to house shows.

Or Vince, The Road Agents and also the Writers could allow the guys to to what they are capable off and not limit what they do in the ring.

[Kane Knight]

I keep hearing that some TNA/Indy guys tend to get paid better than WWE mid carders.

Angle is on what? $500,000 a year with TNA? Now for TV's he's currently having to go to Florida 24 times a year to film TV, along with 12 PPV's a year. There wasn't house shows when he signed up, so I would assume that he's making extra for the house shows if he wants to work them.

So, for his contract, not taking promotional appearances into consideration, he's making almost $14,000 a night for working for TNA, and that's a pretty easy schedule for him and he can pretty much work wherever else he wants to within reason if he wants to make more money (like that TNA/Japan thing)

I know overall he's not making as much as the WWE top tier guys, but pro-rata, I think he's doing alright for himself. I can't do the exact figures with any WWE guys as there contracts are normally kept fairly quiet.

Test did a blog (not a great source) that anyone new to TV would be making around $70,000 a year, which is barely enough to survive on the road 4 days a week and I remember someone saying that mid carders make around $300,000 a year, but after travel, based on what Test said about travel, you can roughly say they take home £230,000 a year, based on 4 matches a week, and then say 10 PPV's a year (that's generous for a mid carder) and say 50 weeks works, as you need to take into account holiday season, and potential promotional work that would make them miss TV and house shows, you are looking at just over £1000 per night, I know these are not exact figures and comparing the likes of Angle to WWE Mid carders may not be fair, but it's the only rough figures I know off.

When you look at most sports, say the premier league, it's worth more today that it ever has, and the pay scale for the players has increased along with the net worth of the league that they represent, I feel that the wrestlers who are in essence the foundation of the company, should be paid in line with the profits that the WWE has generated, as if they don't have the talent, they won't make jack shit.

Yeah, but you're comparing Kurt Angle to WWE's midcard. TNA blows a lot on a few certain people, but that's far from a real pattern. I mean, when you break it down, the number of people who are not Kurt Angel is close to a hundred percent.

[Loose Cannon]

I disagree. I bet they've seen cuts in numbers in the last few years.

really? with all these other ventures that have come there way? I can't see how they would have the same or less employees then before.

[Kane Knight]

really? with all these other ventures that have come there way? I can't see how they would have the same or less employees then before.
Crossrine
Well, we've seen cutbacks on a lot of fronts, but I'd be surprised if the overall number has gone down.
Crossrine
I mean, it's possible we're wrong, but I have to agree with you on the notion that they're probably paying more people than ever. However, WWE doesn't disclose the numbers, it's hard to really tell.

[Stickman]

They must make a killing off DVD sales.

[Dave Youell]

Yeah, but you're comparing Kurt Angle to WWE's midcard. TNA blows a lot on a few certain people, but that's far from a real pattern. I mean, when you break it down, the number of people who are not Kurt Angel is close to a hundred percent.

Granted, but it's the only solid(ish) figures I have

[Outsider]

really? with all these other ventures that have come there way? I can't see how they would have the same or less employees then before.

Hmm, you may be right.

Maybe a case of more departments but smaller, poorly resourced ones?

[Kane Knight]

Granted, but it's the only solid(ish) figures I have

When your only figures are exceptional, it's best to not try and run with them.

In any event, TNA is also exceptional simply because 1. It's the minority in the wrestling world, in that it throws around a lot of money and is remotely competition to WWE and 2. We're talking about a company that couldn't get into the black for like 5 years. I kinda bet that's worse for morale, to boot.

Kurt's a former main eventer for WWE, and a big name compared to the current climate. So they'll throw a lot of money at him. But he's definitely the high end of things, and since he is atypical, you have to be wary. Main Eventers may get paid comparably to WWE midcarders, but you're talking about the biggest names in one brand versus the middle class in another. And the big names are kind of like the upper class anyway, in that they're the ones who are going to be the best off, the least threatened by low pay, the ones with all the perks, the ones with job security. John Cena isn't going to sweat the pay issues, nor is Angle. You need to look lower on the totem pole for the folks affected by pay issues, and those whose morale is likely to be influenced.

[Afterlife]

I mean, when you break it down, the number of people who are not Kurt Angel is close to a hundred percent.

This may be the single greatest thing you've ever said.

[Team Sheep]

Someone posted this on another forum. Thought it was a great point (yeah I can't speak for myself, sorry!):

You can look at it in a number of ways though. For example, if Attitude version 2 came along it could alienate alot of the parents and kids who now watch who make up a sizable portion of the people watching now I think.

Over the last few years, WWE have toned the show down and it's clearly being targeted much more to kids with Rey and Cena being 2 big players in this. And then you have the kids website upcoming and the kids magazine.


I think WWE's success has been it's ability to make money out of younger, newer fans while at the same time not alienating a larger portion of older fans and making money off them too.

What I mean is, if you're 10, you can probably buy about 50 different merchandise items related to John Cena. Meanwhile if you're 20+ they have a range of things that appeal to you aswell like old dvd's, WWE 24/7, the Hall of Fame, going to see Wrestlemania etc..

Also, their expansion internationally has just been a massive success too.

To me this is the "McDonalds era" of WWE in that they can produce average tv year in year out in the eyes of many while at the same time maximise profit from it.

[Team Sheep]

Also, it's worth noting that Wrestlemania is usually counted in Q2, but just snuck into Q1 this year.

[Kane Knight]

Someone posted this on another forum. Thought it was a great point (yeah I can't speak for myself, sorry!):

You can look at it in a number of ways though. For example, if Attitude version 2 came along it could alienate alot of the parents and kids who now watch who make up a sizable portion of the people watching now I think.

Over the last few years, WWE have toned the show down and it's clearly being targeted much more to kids with Rey and Cena being 2 big players in this. And then you have the kids website upcoming and the kids magazine.


I think WWE's success has been it's ability to make money out of younger, newer fans while at the same time not alienating a larger portion of older fans and making money off them too.

What I mean is, if you're 10, you can probably buy about 50 different merchandise items related to John Cena. Meanwhile if you're 20+ they have a range of things that appeal to you aswell like old dvd's, WWE 24/7, the Hall of Fame, going to see Wrestlemania etc..

Also, their expansion internationally has just been a massive success too.

To me this is the "McDonalds era" of WWE in that they can produce average tv year in year out in the eyes of many while at the same time maximise profit from it.

That's not true though, is it?

WWE in two years has lost more viewers than in the 4 years before it. Maybe even the 6 years before it. Buyrates are down. Attendances are down. They're not even REPLACING the people who are leaving. They're making more money because they're charging more and selling more T-Shirts, but they're doing so to a smaller fanbase. This is fact, this is even what WWE has been reporting to their stockholders.

[Team Sheep]

Lol guess that point's kind of irrelivent then. Thought it made a lot of sense, apparently not.

I think a lot of you guys though are just angry that Vince is making more money than ever with today's sub-par product (in many people's eyes). You'd rather see him temporarily fail to try get his ass into gear and put on a better show. But hey, he must be laughing right now. He's charging more and more money to an audience that is shrinking. I don't think many businesses would take that gamble, they'd be wanting to entice fans back by offering cheaper products instead of jacking up prices. But Vince took a gamble and it's paying off it seems. Good on him.

[Team Sheep]

As previously noted though, it can't be sustainable business.

[Kane Knight]

Consumers pissed at a bad product that's getting worse while executives get rich? Why, that's unprecedented! Stupid internet nerds, caring about a product! Why can't you be quiet like record consumers? Or film fans?

[Afterlife]

I wouldn't exactly say it's "getting worse". For the first time in a while, things ofr interest seem to be happening on all three shows, and Cena isn't in a title scene. They seem to be re-thinking their strategy a bit, is all I'm saying.

[NeanderCarl]

I wouldn't exactly say it's "getting worse". For the first time in a while, things ofr interest seem to be happening on all three shows, and Cena isn't in a title scene. They seem to be re-thinking their strategy a bit, is all I'm saying.

Yet there's nothing that makes me wanna spend my money to watch Judgement Day next week. The only thing that comes close is HBK v Jericho, and that's only off the back of their awesome match at Mania XIX, not because of their current angle.

I probably won't bother, and it will be the first PPV I've missed since Armageddon 2006.

[Kane Knight]

Yet there's nothing that makes me wanna spend my money to watch Judgement Day next week. The only thing that comes close is HBK v Jericho, and that's only off the back of their awesome match at Mania XIX, not because of their current angle.

I probably won't bother, and it will be the first PPV I've missed since Armageddon 2006.

Afterlife does have a point that he doesn't think the product is getting worse, though. On the other hand, there's always a few things that are interesting. Especially when Michaels is around. WWE is never without something remotely interesting.

At best, though, I'd consider the product plateaued. I still think the product's getting worse, and I can't find enough of interest to keep me tuning in, but whatever. 5 million people still tune in every week, but thatdoesn't mean I have to settle for it.

[NeanderCarl]

It would be hard for it to get any worse, unless they started showing reruns of 1995 editions of Superstars instead.

It's not a bad product, per se, it's just SO stale. And so apparent that they are lacking depth in the genuine 'superstars' category, always more evident when they bring out the entire roster (as they did for Flair's sendoff) and there's only a couple of guys out there you really give a shit about, and that's their ENTIRE roster. They lack so much depth below the main event scene it's nearly unprecedented (not due to lack of talent, but lack of character development) and the main event picture itself is stale and flawed in its own right.

I'll continue to watch because I always will, but I wonder if these issues will ever be addressed. It's been this way for 6 years, and whilst they are recording "record" profits year after year, there is no impetus for them to change either. The "why fix what ain't broken" philosophy... yet they're not even bothering to paper over the cracks. They are laying the foundations for some very testing times over the next few years, the way they are going. The buyrate for this year's WrestleMania, while impressive in itself, wasn't what they hoped for and it just shows that, bar the Mayweather fight (which probably did help them draw, to be fair), nothing going on in the WWE universe itself was interesting enough to top last year's show.

[Afterlife]

Well, I'm not arguing against the notion of room for improvement, and I'm certainly not implying that things are headed uphill. I'm simply stating, from my observation, that they seem to be attempting to rejuvinate the interest in and performance of all three brands. Now, that's not to say I'm certain they'll accomplish the task, but I'm definitely pulling for them.

[NeanderCarl]

They don't want it enough to commit to it.

Not the first time there's been light at the end of the tunnel, but when it comes down to it, Vince McMahon has lost his balls. The legendary risktaker no longer wants to take any risks because he really doesn't have to. The company will do fine, but the product quality will suffer. In turn, the fans will suffer.

But don't forget there's a generation of kids out there watching now that are going to grow up to be tomorrow's smarks, and come on here bitching about how WWE was so much better in the "classic glory days" of Cena and Triple H. They will look at the days of Flair and Hogan in about the same reverence (ie. hardly any) as most current fans look at the days of Sammartino and Backlund.

So the business will always evolve, and I suppose this is just the way it is for now. I guess the business as a whole reflects whose "era" it is at the time. So, no colourful cast of larger than life cartoon characters like we had in the Hulk Hogan era. No assortment of over-the-top realistic gritty social stereotypes like we had in the Steve Austin era. We are living in the Triple H era, and the stagnant scene is as boring as he is.

[Afterlife]

I already don't care about Flair or Hogan. Perhaps, I'm ahead of my time?