WWE Roundtable: Examining the Saudi Arabia situation
Kevin: Let’s talk about the “savior” mentality. A “Western” nation, usually the United States, goes into another country to try and “change” things, has no clue how things work, and makes it worse. Now, WWE working with Saudi Arabia isn’t quite the same, since this isn’t a military invasion or an attempt to change a regime. But WWE is trying to work in Saudi Arabia under the guise of “changing things”, yet they were all too happy to be puppets to the Crown Prince’s regime, spewing out actual propaganda on behalf of the government at their first show.
WWE can claim to be agents of positive change in the country all they want, but this claim is an insult the real activists in Saudi Arabia literally giving up their lives to end the bigotry and corruption in that country. Meanwhile, countries like the United States – WWE has strong ties to the current presidency, which did nothing when Saudi Arabia [allegedly] murdered an American journalist before “Crown Jewel” – have thrown their tacit support behind this regime by not putting pressure on them.
It says a lot that UFC’s parent company Endeavor returned Saudi’s investment and they are on a list of many U.S.-based companies who have cut ties with Saudi Arabia. So contrary to what some will tell you, it is possible for WWE to get out of this deal. Unfortunately, they see no reason to. WWE, like most companies, only cares about its bottom line and because wrestling exists in this “carny” world detached from reality, they know they can get away with it.
Perhaps enough fans ending their support of WWE could change things, but WWE are the biggest game in town for wrestling fans; most people aren’t going to quit, if they even care enough to contemplate unsubscribing at all.
Roman Reigns, Daniel Bryan and John Cena have either refused to go to Saudi Arabia or have expressed their issues with WWE running shows there. Sami Zayn, who is Syrian, did not appear at these shows. And, of course, the women of WWE have been forbidden to wrestle there, despite expressing their desire to do so.
While it would be heart-warming to see, say, Naomi vs. Natalya wrestling in Saudi Arabia and potentially planting a seed and while it is admittedly nice for WWE to want to entertain the people of Saudi Arabia, I worry that they don’t understand that this simply aids the facade of progress that the Saudi Arabian government puts on. I worry that because they are a company based in the United States, they don’t fully understand the issues at stake and that true progress must come from within, even if their hearts are in the right place.
Furthermore, I worry that this props up the Saudi Arabian government, though the following question I want to pose may muddy these waters. Is it better to shun all interactions with the Saudi Arabian government or to run these shows as a way of showing the people of Saudi Arabia that they are not ostracized by proxy? Or is it better to stand in solidarity with the people of Saudi Arabia by not running shows there, making the statement that their freedom is more important than the price of millions of dollars from a propaganda-fueling wrestling show?
Laura: All of this is an excellent point. The West (America in particular, though Europe aren’t immune) are prone to going into other countries to make them ‘better’, i.e. more ‘like us’. So even in the name of ‘progress,’ we have to be very careful where we tread. On the other hand, I wonder as well whether boycotts help or hurt. Is isolating Saudi Arabia further a good thing or not? As Kevin points out, showing the people they are not ostracized by proxy?
An interesting question to which I have no practical answer: is there any way of gauging how the people of Saudi Arabia feel about this and what their stance is?