WWE’s deal with Saudi Arabia has left a sour taste in the mouths of many and stirred much controversy.
Whether it be because of Saudi Arabia’s refusal to allow women to wrestle in their country or the controversies surrounding the mysterious death of journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, WWE’s decision to continue doing business with them as evoked heavy debate from all angles.
To put this very complex situation into perspective, some of us at Daily DDT decided to examine the situation thoroughly for a Roundtable conversation.
For your convenience as readers, this Saudi Arabia conversation has been split up into different sections to make for an easier read; page by page.
I served as a moderator for this discussion while Laura Mauro, Tom Colohue, Kevin Parvizi, Josiah MacDonald and Phil Lindsay served as active participants.
As moderator, I first posed a question to our table: How do you feel about WWE dealing with the Saudi Arabian government despite its controversy?
Laura Mauro was the first to chime in.
Laura: My heart voice says f*ck WWE and f*ck their money grubbing ethical black hole of a corporate structure. My head voice says, well, if we’re stuck with this Faustian bargain, is it a more productive use of our time to demand WWE do better? Because if WWE want to enact change, they have to be the agents of change. They can’t just sit around waiting for the Saudi Arabian government to decide ‘okay, I guess women are all right now.’ They have to push for it. And I know Rome wasn’t built in a day, but I’d have some faith in WWE at least if they actively demonstrated that they are trying to make a change. As an aside, if they just go ahead with the same old sh*t and then throw us an Evolution 2 as a way of shutting us up, I will go nuclear. Because their consistent lack of attention to the women’s division speaks far louder than a token PPV event ever will.
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?
Kevin: I’ve tried looking up the tweets we were sent before The Greatest Royal Rumble, but I’m having trouble finding them or any opinions from people from Saudi Arabia. But it’s worth noting that the sample size will be small and the most oppressed voices are unlikely to be heard by people in other countries.
I also just can’t get past the fact that WWE is happily taking money from Saudi Arabia and still ran the show despite their [rumored and alleged] murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It’s so disgusting and embarrassing, and it honestly feels like a boycott would be the only response to this.
What else can be done? How can a country say that they are bringing in WWE “for change” and then go ahead and [allegedly] murder a journalist? How can they claim they want to change their own country when they clearly have the power to do so and instead have one of the worst human right’s records in the world? It’s all lies, and it is so shameful that there are people who lap up WWE’s PR on this instead of standing firm.
I truly feel for the people there and want them to be entertained since they do love wrestling, but this just feels like it’s too much. It feels like doing business with that regime is basically being OK with what they are doing to their own people.
Tom: There are a mirror of opinions here in mine on a lot of matters, but what I struggle to see is the solution. The problems have been highlighted until the end of time but nobody is offering an actual solution.
As regards to taking money from Saudi Arabia, I’d ask why we’re asking more from WWE than most are asking from their own governments. Yes, we should be actively condemning a lot of activities that the Saudi Arabian government are implicated in, but as long as both the US and the UK are selling arms to Saudi Arabia, a lot of people are complicit in voting for the governments that choose to do so.
Laura: Yup, this.
Tom: Is the solution to ostracize and isolate the country themselves? I don’t believe so. You can talk about white saviors and the like but the fact is that there has to be an example somewhere of the positive steps that Saudi Arabia can take to be accepted in the wider world and to stop taking such drastic actions against their own citizens.
If the governments of the world have chosen not to act, how can we blame WWE for openly stating that their intention is to go in with open arms and say ‘look, guys, this is how we do things and a lot of people are happy about it. Why not give it a try?’
Now, I can’t claim to be happy with a lot of WWE’s decision making, but are we blaming the company or individuals? I wasn’t happy to see Shawn Michaels come back the way he did, but I don’t blame WWE. Shawn Michaels could have turned down the money. So could The Undertaker.
But when it comes to women’s wrestling, progress – from WWE’s side at least – is already being made. Crown Jewel had a noticeable drop in propaganda and Renee Young was able to go to work as a positive, televised example.
Will women wrestle in Saudi Arabia any time soon? Who knows. That said, did anyone expect women to be wrestling in Abu Dhabi? For someone so in tandem with his president, Vince McMahon is at least choosing to do something.
Laura: I get what you’re saying, but I think a lot of it is contingent on the belief that WWE have anything but entirely cynical aims with this. They might talk about being cultural ambassadors but is that really what it’s about? Or is it all about the money? If both, which is their priority? I think intent is important here.
I’m sore on the women’s wrestling issue because WWE barely care about women’s wrestling in America beyond making occasional grand statements (I’d value continuity and consistency on a weekly basis over one PPV a year and a big Mania match) so I struggle to believe the women’s wrestling issue is that important to them.
It’s hard. I agree with you about ostracizing and isolating. Realistically, that only hurts the people, not the government, who are the arbiters of all the f*cked-up lawmaking. You are right, however, that our respective governments are basically complicit in Saudi war crimes and that’s a pretty big elephant in any room
Tom: Not adequately elephant-sized in my opinion
I’m naturally a bit cynical of WWE’s intentions. I think that’s a good place to be in general by and large and I’m a Brit so naturally I don’t even trust houseplants, but at the same time, I would hope that someone in WWE is on the ball here. The emergence of Triple H and Stephanie as real driving forces of the WWE agenda is something I welcome because they seem to by and large mean what they say. It’s not impossible to both make money and make progress, but I will agree that it’s not always the easy choice
Laura: [Laughs] I share your British cynicism.
I agree that Triple H & Steph seem a bit more switched on than Vince to say the least.
Phil: It’s hard for me to understand why WWE won’t pull out of the deal with Saudi Arabia. Yes, they are making an obscene amount of money, but the whole venture has been a PR disaster. To Kevin’s point, this idea that an American corporation can – or even realistically wants to – create change is dubious. Especially when signs point to the fact they aren’t highlighting their involvement in the country anymore. They’re intentionally taking Saudi Arabia off of announcement and last year, they stopped saying it on television.
For example, “WWE is returning to Jeddah.” So, clearly, they’re feeling the pressure from all of this bad press. It just doesn’t seem worth all the trouble.
And Tom makes a valid point. Why are we holding them to a higher standard than our government? Well, this is entertainment so there is a bit of a difference. We can vote on representative and hope they effect change in areas such as foreign policy, but we arguably have a more direct effect on the output of a company like WWE as customers. I honestly believe if enough fans saw the shows in Saudi Arabia as a deal breaker, then it would force them to address it. They’re not losing enough money to care.
I have a hard time coming up with a real solution because it’s so hard to get passed my frustration with WWE. I keeping thinking this is so clearly bad, why don’t they see that? However, there is room for a solution where they can make money and do something positive here. I’m just not sure how they can or if they really want to. They have to see this is hurting the company, so it’s tough for me to see talk of change as anything but an attempt to spin this.
Laura: I wonder how many fans are aware of US/UK government dealings in Saudi? Our media is suspiciously hush hush on it all.
Phil: That’s a good question. I wouldn’t assume a majority of wrestling fans are well versed on politics or foreign affairs. I know for sure when I voiced disapproval last year, a lot of fans I interacted with didn’t understand why it was such a big deal. Wrestling as a whole doesn’t have the most progressive fanbase and that’s part of why WWE can get away with this without upsetting as many people as you would think.
Tom: We have to remember that we may be the more informed group of fans, whereas I don’t believe that’s the majority. WWE aims for a casual audience that don’t necessarily look too deeply at anything
Phil: True.
This is when I popped back into the Roundtable just to pose another question. Well, a hypothetical. The hypothetical was as follows:
“Let’s say WWE did get Saudi Arabia to agree to let women wrestle there as soon as June 7. Should we rejoice on grounds of equality or are the other issues of this WWE / Saudi Arabia deal too problematic to make up for?”
Tom was the first to answer.
Tom: I think even if that were to happen it’s still far too early for any rejoicing. If anything, I think we’ll be judging the Saudi Arabia deal based on the whole 10 years once they’ve passed us by rather than on particular steps along the way. That’s not to say one wrong step and it won’t all fall down, of course, and WWE aren’t exactly reliable for making the right steps with their women’s divisions.
Phil: It’s really a catch-22, isn’t it? If women were allowed to wrestle, that would be great for whoever gets the opportunity, but I still wouldn’t agree with doing shows in Saudi Arabia for other reasons. I didn’t watch Crown Jewel and I don’t plan to watch the show in June. I did watch Greatest Royal Royal Rumble though, and I’m still very uncomfortable with stuff like the propaganda and the spot with the Daivaris.
Laura: It would be a sign, to me, that WWE are at least somewhat there for the right reasons. It would be a modicum of proof towards the idea that they are there to extend a hand and encourage change for the people of Saudi Arabia. But it doesn’t take away all the other issues present. I really struggle to support a company who would tell one of their employees he can’t perform at the shows because he is Syrian. I mean, I’d guess Sami wouldn’t want to anyway, but that’s beside the point.
Phil: Right. The excluding Sami wasn’t right, but I also question why the company would feel comfortable doing shows somewhere where one of their employees might not feel safe. To go back to the Daivari segment from GRR, why play up the conflict with Iran for heat? That’s so dangerous.
Laura: Absolutely. I’m also mindful of the fact that Bill Goldberg is booked for the tour, which concerns me given Saudi Arabia’s attitude towards Jewish people. Heat based on legitimate conflict between two nations is YIKES.
Tom: Could that not also be seen as progress though, given the likelihood that Goldberg will be cheered even by a nation with negative attitudes towards Jewish people?
To be fair, this is a bit part of the motivation for a Sami Zayn and Mustafa Ali as well to take on the same negative stereotypes that Americans hold. To be that positive example of something that a large portion of people stereotype.
Phil: Well, I’m sure they won’t make Goldberg do the same thing they made Daivari do, which is another conversation. I’m also sure he will get some cheers. That can be seen as progress but I would argue Goldberg is there because of name recognition. Fans don’t really think of him as a Jewish wrestler. That’s a little different than someone like Ali, whose religion and ethnicity are such a big part of his character.
Laura: I guess that’s a good point.
This is when Josiah entered the conversation to deliver his thoughts on everything previously touched on that he missed in the conversation thus far.
Josiah: I’ll chime in with my overall thoughts first and then with responses to the more recent conversation.
I believe strongly that this deal was a terrible idea from the beginning, knowing the attitude towards women there. The Greatest Royal Rumble was an extended propaganda machine for the Saudi government. A government [who allegedly] condones the murder of journalists (and even orders it), as seen in recent months. While Crown Jewel did not have the same propaganda, I do think it was largely because of the backlash WWE was facing due to what happened with Khashoggi. If that didn’t happen, I expect we would have seen more of the same.
While we can try to hope for the best with WWE enacting real change there, I think WWE’s motivation is absolutely clear. They aren’t there for change. They are there for money. If we look at the quarterly financials, whenever they were in Saudi Arabia, they had a massive increase of income under their “other” category. Well over $50 million. That alone indicates why they are doing this. In fact, I think they were frustrated by the backlash and we got to see that with Stephanie McMahon making a dismemberment joke on Raw a few weeks after the show.
While this deal offers a short term financial boon to the company as a whole, I can’t help but think that it will hurt them in the long run. Much like how they persist in driving off the audience with the third hour of Raw (which always tanks), they choose the short term gain instead of the long term positive. One can only choose the short term so many times before it beings to hurt everything overall and we are starting to see this with the decline in Network numbers and house show attendance. So, while WWE will be raking in the money short term, in the long term, there is no question this hurts their business.
After Crown Jewel, the Network numbers went down and we saw a decline in ratings for Raw. While the Saudi deal cannot account for all of the decline, to say that it played no role would also be incorrect. There are people who walked away from the product because of it. While uninspired Creative and lackluster shows have contributed to the decline too, this situation surrounding the Saudi deal cannot have helped.
As for holding governments accountable – Canada has sold arms to Saudi Arabia too and I am horrified by it. We have a federal election coming up in the fall and I can’t help but think that I cannot vote for any party that would continue the arms deal. We did enact some sanctions due to the Khashoggi story, but it wasn’t nearly enough.
With businesses cutting ties, I think it is entirely appropriate for WWE to pull out of this deal. They are making more than enough money through their deal with Fox that keeping this one seems to be an exercise of them digging their heels in while chanting “Money” at investors. I do not think the company will really achieve anything in terms of real change, though that is my cynicism coming out. I share some of that British cynicism that Laura and Tom talked about, as I don’t trust any massive corporation to do the right thing unless forced to with revenue loss.
So, as for a solution, I just don’t know. My heart says they have to pull out of this deal. I know pragmatically speaking that they won’t unless they come under immense pressure or the government rules that all business dealings with the Saudi government must end.
Could we see a women’s wrestling match in Saudi Arabia? Sure. I suspect that is more than possible. Will that enact actual change? No. It’s just wrestling. True, real, cultural change can only begin at the grass roots level, in the hearts of the people themselves. How do we do that? I know a corporation putting on an entertainment show will have little effect. The hearts of the people have to be won, and I don’t think WWE could do something like that.
Phil: Right, Josiah and the issue is for the most part, you’re not looking to change the hearts and minds of the public in Saudi Arabia. The government and their stranglehold on the people of that country is the real problem. In order to reach the people, the government has to approve of the message. As of now, they don’t seem to be keen on creating lasting change either. Judging by the use of propaganda, it seems like they’re more interested in WWE helping them to push their message.
Tom: In any deal, both sides have to believe that they’re coming out as the winner. That means that Saudi Arabia had to believe that they were getting something out of this too. While some of the propaganda was literally just talking about how amazing the city of Jeddah was, they also managed to promote an actual change brought on by Saudi Arabia, which was the move for women to drive.
Also, the propaganda has thus far only happened at one event, so there is no evidence as of yet that it is the norm. I’d also like to counter the points raised about ratings. Ratings are down every year. The ratings are actually perfectly on trend at the moment, so I wouldn’t suggest that they’re actually as much of a shock as they’re being promoted as.
While WWE are clearly taking steps to try to remedy the situation, this is far from a new thing. If there is no plan in place, that’s on WWE, but by and large, the plan seems to be to go international. Not just from Saudi Arabia, but also from Australia and the like. So live ratings – some of which are entirely US based depending on what you track – are less important than ever. I’m also yet to see any factual correlation between the ratings drop and the Saudi Arabia deal.
Laura: Yeah, I don’t think it’s making a difference, realistically. How many casual fans really give a sh*t about it? Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s many. So I feel like we’re asking four broad questions here:
1) Is it morally right for WWE to run the Saudi Arabia shows with SA’s history of oppression & attitude to women?
2) Is it a moral victory for women to wrestle on the SA shows? Does it tip the scales in favor of ‘yes’ to running SA shows if women ARE allowed to wrestle?
3) On a more macro level, is it ethically sound for WWE to perform in a country where some of their roster will be actively unsafe (Sami Zayn, poss Mojo Rawley, who is Palestinian/Syrian), or could be made unsafe (the Daivari bros)
4) Can WWE be a force for good in SA? Can we trust that this is their intention and not $$$?
and I guess 5) Do WWE (& the US in general) have the right to try to instruct SA in morality and the right way’?
Tom: All fair questions and unfortunately all of them seem to hover in the ‘maybe’ category
Laura: [Laughs] Yeah, it would be too easy if we could answer a clear yes or no. I guess this is the problem though. Too many shades of grey and too many unknowns.
Tom: Thankfully, I don’t think answering the question is the point here per say, but it’s important to get different perspectives to get a well rounded opinion.
Laura: Oh sure, I think answers are beyond us and for fair reason.
Tom: For example, I was unaware of antisemitism in a major UK party until I started talking to a Jewish journalist who reported on actual examples I would have been aware of. Echo chambers suck.
Kevin: 1) That country [allegedly] commits more human rights violations than just against women, but their treatment of women is the main concern for sure.
5) I don’t know. If it’s about us telling them what’s right or wrong, it’s about whether or not running a damn wrestling show does anything and if it’s helpful for WWE and the US to play the “white knight” by pretending that we know how to change another country’s government/culture/whatever.
Phil: To go back to what Tom said about propaganda, there has been some progress under Mohammed Bin Salman. BUT as others like John Oliver pointed out, propaganda centered around allowing women to drive, for example, was mostly a smokescreen. Before they released that news to the public, they were still arresting women who protested for the right to drive.
Laura: Oh definitely, sorry, with 1) I mean ‘oppression’ and ‘attitude to women’ as two separate (but related) things.
Kevin: All good, Laura. I just wanted to make sure we make that clear in the piece, since I know we’re on the same page but I still always feel safe saying it. I don’t want gay people or people in Yemen to feel like we’re ignoring them. But I think you mentioned Yemen so that’s a moot point?
Tom: It’s important to remember this is for an audience, and that means keeping it broad to show we’re covering a variety of people. Thanks for the reminder, boss.
Laura: And yeah, it’s super important to encompass all the different strains of oppression. It’s also relevant if WWE are trying to reach out to the LGBT+ community as they seem to be (Finn’s shirt, etc). Then is it hypocritical to take money from a country that would put those same fans to death for their identity? Same with a roster which has Persian, Syrian, Palestinian and Jewish performers (I don’t think they have any Yemeni performers, but the point still counts).
Tom: And I think that also raises more questions. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Balor switch back to the black and white when wrestling in Saudi Arabia?
Laura: I think he did, yes.
Tom: They toned down the “For everyone” concept.
Kevin: Oh wow, didn’t even know that.
Tom: For me, that is definitely questionable. Yes, you have to pander to your audience, but to actively remove such a positive message is hypocritical of their own mission statement.
Laura: It does rather undermine the notion of ‘for everyone’. It implies that ‘for everyone’ comes with terms and conditions.
Tom: Sure, that might be a subtle change they can do over time, but we’ll have to see if that actually happens. It’s an active removal of representation from the LGBTQ+ community.
Phil: See and that’s a big part of my questions about why they would continue the deal. WWE can be tone deaf at times, but there’s no denying that continuing to align themselves with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contradicts their own brand identity in many ways. For example, you can’t push a Women’s Revolution and continue dealings with a country that won’t allow women on the show. Be A Star, etc.
It’s not even so much about morality in that regard. It just seems like a poor business decision to send mixed messages
Laura: WWE aren’t above that kind of thing, sadly. Lionizing the Ultimate Warrior (and Hogan) and pushing Be A Star simultaneously is serious cognitive whiplash, but you are right.
Phil: Oh, absolutely. Trump is in the Hall of Fame so … yeah.
Laura: Ugh, I always try to block that out [laughs].
Phil: It just seems like they would be more cognitive of these kinds of real-world implications. Their storytelling decisions could be seen as unintentional or just ignorant. There are plenty of signs this is bad for business. Well, other than the money they’ve received, but I’m just not sure that makes it worth it
This is when I chimed in one last time to ask if anyone had any final thoughts they wanted to say before we put a lid on this conversation. They had this to say:
Tom: If I could add a question: What would people consider adequate progress to justify this deal, or is there no amount of progress that could?
Laura: I think the problem is that it’s more complex than just the show itself. WWE could put on, essentially, an identical type of show to the ones they run in the US and on the surface, it would certainly look like progress. But then you’ve got the “real world” politics chugging away in the background – the human rights abuses, the homophobia, the sexism, the attacks on Yemen. It’s really difficult to gauge progress in those terms, I think.
Sorry, I feel like I’ve dominated this conversation a lot!
Kevin: Nah, don’t apologize. You’re awesome and I agree with your final thoughts.
Laura: Thank you!
Josiah: I agree with Laura. They could largely run a similar show as a US show to demonstrate “progress,” but in reality, the shadow of everything else hangs over the show.
Phil: I would agree the content of the show is the least of their problems. They could allow women to wrestle, but the venture is still marred by the action and allegations surrounding Mohammed Bin Salman. If WWE has made up their minds, that doesn’t bother them. There isn’t much that can be done. Hopefully, they don’t stay in the deal until something undeniably bad happens with the name attached to it, but that feels like the likely end result at this point.
Big thanks to Laura, Tom, Kevin, Josiah and Phil for taking time out of their busy lives to have such a civil discussion on such a complicated subject.
And thank you, gentle reader, for reading all of it.