Quote:
Originally Posted by Curd
There is something to be said for the "laboratories of democracy" argument, esp. to the extent social media makes it possible for people to have non-binding "votes" on the booking direction they've seen. It's not quite a democracy except for people "voting with their feet" or refusing to spend money on a promotion that angers them.
However, the finite resources of the pro wrestling market makes it counter-productive to have a bunch of smaller feds competing when they could pool their resources to put on a better product than what you'd get with a bunch of shoestring budget feds. Crowd funding might weaken this argument in time, but that market is saturated with over-the-hill wrestlers asking for help paying healthcare.
|
Kinda sounds like what your talking about isn't the NWA. What your talking about is more like what the smaller promotions tried to do in 1988 with SuperClash 3. AWA, WCCW, CWA and several smaller separate promotions tried to band together and make one big show to generate interest in their product. The problem with that is exactly what you'd think it is, if I'm in charge of Company A, I would want all my guys to look strong and not lose any of their matches. Same could be said about B and C, eventually you'd all fight and argue and the arrangement would be broken up and we'd be back to square one.