PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

 
 

WWE PAY TODAY VS. THE EARLY 1990s, DOES ONE NIGHT STAND HOLD UP, STEPHANIE AND MORE

By Mike Johnson on 2013-06-13 10:00:08
I noticed it's anniversary week of One Night Stand. Do you think the show holds up years later? What would you change about it?

I haven't watched the show in a few years but my guess is that it doesn't. Like ECW's Barely Legal, that show was more about the emotion of that night and that moment in time, as the show really was about closure for the original ECW fans and talents. If you watch it removed from that moment, chances are a lot of it won't translate as well to you as it did for someone who was "in" the moment and "emotionally" attached. Barely Legal certainly does not hold up if you look at it from certain aspects. For One Night Stand, there was a lot of fun stuff on the show and some really bad stuff on it as well, but at that moment, it was perfect and what it needed to be. As far as what could have been different, there are always tweaks you'd hope for if you could go back but my only "travel back in time and change something" edict would be that WWE didn't wait a year to try and re-start ECW, because had they continued right off that show, imagine the momentum. The end result may have ended up the same, but it would have been a far more interesting ride with a lot more momentum for the argument that a self-standing brand operated separately from the "WWE way" of doing things could have worked.

I know print media is becoming less prevalent but have they cancelled the Wrestler/Inside Wrestling and Pro Wrestling Illustrated?

Pro Wrestling Illustrated still exists but is down to a bi-monthly publication, so there are only six issues a year. Wrestler/Inside Wrestling is sadly, defunct. I loved those Kappa Publications as much as the next guy growing up, so it saddens me to see them disappearing over time. I hope that at some point, someone digitizes the issues and releases them. That would be a fun romp through the past.

My question is about WWE salaries. The other day I was watching a Kevin Nash interview and he was saying that he went to WCW because he was tired of making $300 a night at the top of the card. But 10 minutes later he's talking about being pissed off because Shawn Michaels got a $60,000 bonus check for a PPV and he "only" got $45,000. 1st question is, has the pay landscape changed today from let's say 1995? Do the wrestlers on average make more money or back then? 2nd question: Now let's say someone like CM Punk has to be making at least 1.5 million downside guarentee + bonuses. My question is, what does someone who comes up from NXT to the WWE make? I know their development deal is $500 week, but do they automatically make more money when they're called up to the main roster, is there a different contract that's signed?

WWE performers make far more money now, because they are issued guaranteed deals that pay them x per week. They then receive bonuses and royalties based on PPVs, live events, merchandise, licensing, etc. although that can vary based on your importance to said entities. Nash is referring to a time where WWE did not promise you anything except for x a TV taping (at one point, it was $150 a taping, where you often wrestled more than once) and then you made your money based on whatever magical system they used to determine your importance to drawing live gates, PPV, etc. WWF didn't start handing out guarantees until Marc Mero signed in 1996 and that was only because Nash, etc. going to WCW for big-time guaranteed cash changed the landscape. So, guys make more now on paper.

In regard to developmental, if and when they are placed full-time on the roster, they sign a bigger deal.

I noticed that stars of TNA were featured on various lottery tickets. What if a wrestler wins on any of those tickets, are they entitled to the money or because their faces are on the cover, disqualifies them from receiving the money?

In the event this actually occurs, my guess is they would receive the money. It seems like a vast long shot, however.

Is Stephanie McMahon "storyline" supposed to be going back and forth from "Paul" to "Hunter" onscreen? She did it again on 10 Jun's RAW, not sure if she was covering for doing it the week before or if she is storyline so concerned, that "real life" is being blurred with "ring life".

Given the way she went from being a heelish wife to a concerned wife, I don't even think WWE knows for sure. That is the danger of scripting week to week. Perhaps after the PPV we will know for sure.