WWE wrestlers are not independent contractors

[Dream Machine]

Since Vince McMahon and JBL came out last year claiming that WWE wrestlers are independent contractors, it is been widely accepted by the IWC fans without thought to the difference between an employee and independent contractor.

The IRS states that an idependent contractor retain control over their schedule and number of hours worked, jobs accepted.

Does that sound like a WWE wrestler to you?

The only wrestlers that would be considered independent contractors are the wrestlers on the indy circuit that can pick and choose what federation to work for based on their pay being offered. But it is absurd to consider a wrestler that signs a multi-year contract to be called an independent contractor when they are employees.

 

[The Suplexer Perfecter]

You just NOW figure out their dirty little secret that isn't really a secret?

They still sign away their rights pretty much when they join anyway.

A pro wrestler's life sucks. Always has, always will.

 

[rpwalters]

Its no secret that numerous stars have set numbers of shows. Essentially, they make the long term deal. They get to know their under contract longer then show to show, and the company gets to save money instead of having to dish out for every show. But if they want to get anywhere, particularly with Vince, theyll be there at least 300 days a year.

Also, when their indy, their really just a free agent, working show to show, waiting to be signed to a deal longer then this week.

 

[Gman35]

Since Vince McMahon and JBL came out last year claiming that WWE wrestlers are independent contractors, it is been widely accepted by the IWC fans without thought to the difference between an employee and independent contractor.

The IRS states that an idependent contractor retain control over their schedule and number of hours worked, jobs accepted.

Does that sound like a WWE wrestler to you?

The only wrestlers that would be considered independent contractors are the wrestlers on the indy circuit that can pick and choose what federation to work for based on their pay being offered. But it is absurd to consider a wrestler that signs a multi-year contract to be called an independent contractor when they are employees.

LMAO, you must be an idiot!! This is straight from the IRS website:

Independent Contractor Defined


People such as doctors, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, or auctioneers who are in an independent trade, business, or profession in which they offer their services to the general public are generally independent contractors. However, whether these people are independent contractors or employees depends on the facts in each case. The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done. The earnings of a person who is working as an independent contractor are subject to Self-Employment Tax.

If you are an independent contractor, you are self-employed. To find out what your tax obligations are, visit the Self-Employed Tax Center.

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.

If an employer-employee relationship exists (regardless of what the relationship is called), you are not an independent contractor and your earnings are generally not subject to Medicare and Social Security Taxes for Self-Employed.

However, your earnings as an employee may be subject to Self-Employment Tax.

For more information on determining whether you are an independent contractor or an employee, refer to the section on Independent Contractors or Employees

Ok, so try again. Vince has them listed as Independant contractors for several reasons. 1, he doesn't have to pay insurance on them. Not to mention, he is about to make them carry there own insurance before they even start working in the ring. 2, he doesn't have to pay higher employment taxes, such as worker's comp, unemployment taxes. So, before you post something like this, please know what you are talking about!!

 

[TheSal25]

First off anyone who resorts to name calling i.e idiot, please grow up, secondly read your own posting all you really did was show that the original poster was correct it's definition still defines them as not an independent contractor (what will be done and how it will be done) if that not what the company does then everyone would be champion lol. By the way I know your going to be childish and try to prove me wrong but it's what you wrote not me.

 

[muzz-rocks]

One thing that really bothers me about WWE saying that the tallent are indepentent contraters is that the one of the reasons CM Punk doesn't have a new contract is because WWE want to own the name CM Punk. To use a metaphor, if a plumber turned up at your house to fix the pipes, you want him to use your tools and not his own. Maybe i've got the wrong end of the stick, so could someone please explain to me why WWE wont sort out the insurience but want to own the wrestlers trademarks.

 

[Bmauricej]

Maybe they are not, but you got an uphill battle when all of sports and entertainment claim independent contractors when they are told how to do and where to be. NBA, NFL, MLB, and movies and tv all have schedules where they need contracted workers. Since IRS and FBI have not stepped in on these issues yet, I assume all the industries have covered their wallets.

Besides how does it sound, I contract a carpenter, but can't tell him what to build or when he can come by to build it. He can't come when I not home and if we cannot agree to a time frame, we walk away. I hire an actor, but he comes after we are done shooting the film, and want to tod his own Shakespearian soliloquy while we shooting "Fast Five". The games at 7:30 and you come a 9:15.

According to WIKIpedia,

An independent contractor is a person, business, or corporation that provides goods or services to another entity under terms specified in a contract or within a verbal and physical agreement. Unlike an employee, an independent contractor does not work regularly for an employer but works as and when required, during which time he or she may be subject to the Law of Agency. Independent contractors are usually paid on a freelance basis. Contractors often work through a franchise, which they themselves own, or may work through an umbrella company.

Also, you neglected to put in your post this tid bit

However many companies (particularly in the freight transport industry) specify the contractor's schedule, require purchase of vehicles from the company and prohibit work for other companies.

That sounds like all those industry.

 

[Malenko316]

A. Under the IRS definition atleast, WWE performers are employees, not self employed. B. But, and this is obviously what GMan got confused about, whether that reflects their actual listing in the accounts etc of WWE Inc. is another matter entirely. We all know that Vince and the board will try any trick possible to maximise return and minimise liabilities for insurance etc. Hence why those who won't sign over their performance names are either rebranded, like Danielson, or squeezed (possibly out) like Punk or Jericho etc. So on balance, Vince had better hope he doesn't fall out with the IRS as any close inspection of the employment statuses would raise uncomfortable questions.

The biggest question though is: Why in the heck this is any way interesting or meaningful to anyone in the IWC not working in the Revenue service? Seriously, some people have way too much time on their hands!

 

[Bmauricej]

A. Under the IRS definition atleast, WWE performers are employees, not self employed. B. But, and this is obviously what GMan got confused about, whether that reflects their actual listing in the accounts etc of WWE Inc. is another matter entirely. We all know that Vince and the board will try any trick possible to maximise return and minimise liabilities for insurance etc. Hence why those who won't sign over their performance names are either rebranded, like Danielson, or squeezed (possibly out) like Punk or Jericho etc. So on balance, Vince had better hope he doesn't fall out with the IRS as any close inspection of the employment statuses would raise uncomfortable questions.

The biggest question though is: Why in the heck this is any way interesting or meaningful to anyone in the IWC not working in the Revenue service? Seriously, some people have way too much time on their hands!

They are. In their contracts they negotiate this stuff. How can you contract somebody and have no schedule. How, Like I posted above.

I want you to act in my movie, but you can come when you want and I can't demand you follow the script. I want you to play on my football team, but I can't tell you when to come to the game or what play to runs.

However many companies (particularly in the freight transport industry) specify the contractor's schedule, require purchase of vehicles from the company and prohibit work for other companies.


That's from the same place where the original poster go his information.

 

[TheSal25]

Some of you are also getting confused by the fact that your comparing wrestlers with independent contractors in general as in construction contractors, independent contractors bid on projects and develop a schedule of procesdures to meet dead lines, local cities and states do have ordinances to limit the noise polutions to varies hours. Meaning because a person is working through certain ordinances and deadlines doesn't mean there no longer independant it's what was agreed upon when they became contracted, they can work one hour a week if they wanted but this would breach contract for the time frame they agreed upon. A wrestler undercontract can't tell Vince I only can wrestle within the first 20 mins of raw and no house shows.

 

[wrestlingxp]

LMAO, you must be an idiot!! This is straight from the IRS website:

Independent Contractor Defined


People such as doctors, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, or auctioneers...

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.

If an employer-employee relationship exists (regardless of what the relationship is called), you are not an independent contractor and your earnings are generally not subject to Medicare and Social Security Taxes for Self-Employed.

However, your earnings as an employee may be subject to Self-Employment Tax.

For more information on determining whether you are an independent contractor or an employee, refer to the section on Independent Contractors or Employees

Ok, so try again. Vince has them listed as Independant contractors for several reasons. 1, he doesn't have to pay insurance on them. Not to mention, he is about to make them carry there own insurance before they even start working in the ring. 2, he doesn't have to pay higher employment taxes, such as worker's comp, unemployment taxes. So, before you post something like this, please know what you are talking about!!

LMAO, you took all that time to look that up and post it and even called the original poster an idiot... Then you said... and I quote "So, before you post something like this, please know what you are talking about!!". This made me laugh so hard! Did you even read what you cut and pasted or were you in too big of a hurry to try and look smart with yo cut and paste skillz and cut someone down for no reason, that you overlooked the stupidity of your post? You just made the original posters point even more valid. I think its time you step away from the keyboard and go outside and play haha. Still amused you called HIM the idiot, ROFL!

 

[Chocolate Thunder]

I'm no expert on US law, but I assume that there is some kind of legal test to deterine who is and isn't an independent contractor. I'm guessing Vince McMahon can't just claim that 'employees' are 'independent contractors' to avoid liabillities.

 

[Davi323]

I want you to act in my movie, but you can come when you want and I can't demand you follow the script. I want you to play on my football team, but I can't tell you when to come to the game or what play to runs.

Bad examples, as both of those jobs, whether its acting or as an athlete, could both be also considered to be independent contractors. Are actors employees of any particular studio? No. They get offers from multiple studios, review multiple scripts, and then sign on to do that movie or TV show. As soon as that project is competed, they are no longer bound by the terms of that particular contract, and can negotiate with any other studio they want. They clearly are not the same as the receptionist, the pages, the custodial staff, or the executives that work for that particular studio. Proof in point: Charlie Sheen was fired from the TV Show "Two and a Half Men", not from CBS, ie, a specific project.

Same thing with athletes. They are contracted to play for a certain team for a specific amount of time. Once that is over, they are free to shop their goods to another team. They are not employees of the NFL franchise in the same way that the team accountant is.

With conventional employees, its more of an indefinite employment. You work for the company until either you quit, or they fire you. As long as you are both happy with the arrangement, you keep working there, year after year, without many negotiations.

I actually see the WWE's point about wrestlers being independent contractors. They sign a contract for a specific period of time, to work for the company, and once that contract is over, they are free agents again.

 

[Rayne]

They are technically independent contractors according to the letter of the law. WWE wrestlers absolutely work as if they were employees, however.

But what people are missing here is everything doesn't happen a certain way because "the law said so". People are forgetting about leverage, the key to all human relationships. A WWE 'independent contractor' could seek to have WWE performers recognized as employees, and it's a pretty decent shot that he'd succeed. But then what? What wrestling company would hire that person after that? Who wants to be the guy sticking his neck out for everyone else in professional wrestling, when everyone else would be more than happy to watch you take a fall so they could take your place?

Oh, wait- Raven, Kanyon, and Mike Sanders tried that a few years back. The lawyers for the WWE dragged the case on until the plaintiffs were no longer able to afford the lawsuit. I can tell you where only one of those guys is today, and we're going to need a flashlight and a shovel to see him. The WWE has the kind of money where they can afford to wait and just outspend people when they bring up this issue. I personally don't think this is happening, but hearing that the WWE was helping TNA in Daffney's lawsuit against them wouldn't surprise me one bit. (If she wins compensation from TNA without proving that they were negligent in some way, you set up a chain of dominoes that ends with wrestlers becoming employees that their company is responsible for.)

The wrestling companies hold ALL of the leverage in this scenario. Performers have no tools with which to leverage against the wrestling companies, which is why all of these guys are self-insured.

 

[Gman35]

LMAO, you took all that time to look that up and post it and even called the original poster an idiot... Then you said... and I quote "So, before you post something like this, please know what you are talking about!!". This made me laugh so hard! Did you even read what you cut and pasted or were you in too big of a hurry to try and look smart with yo cut and paste skillz and cut someone down for no reason, that you overlooked the stupidity of your post? You just made the original posters point even more valid. I think its time you step away from the keyboard and go outside and play haha. Still amused you called HIM the idiot, ROFL!

First, I own my own buisness, and I use INDEPENDENT contractors, and NO THEY don't dictate to me their hours of work, I pay them, they are responsible for, their own travel, and they are also responsible for taking out their own taxes, all I have to do is pay them and report what there gross income is by way of a 1099form. And, i can almost guarantee that is what happens with these men and women. 1099-forms classifies them as independent contractors!! So, like some of you are saying, these guys are not independent contractors is foolish. One thing that I didn't think about also, I am sure WWE falls under something else that allows them to do what they do!!

 

[Gman35]

One thing that really bothers me about WWE saying that the tallent are indepentent contraters is that the one of the reasons CM Punk doesn't have a new contract is because WWE want to own the name CM Punk. To use a metaphor, if a plumber turned up at your house to fix the pipes, you want him to use your tools and not his own. Maybe i've got the wrong end of the stick, so could someone please explain to me why WWE wont sort out the insurience but want to own the wrestlers trademarks.

I understand that, but if we look at the Dudley Boys, they had that name well before their WWE days. Yes, Vince owns the rights to ECW, but if I remember correctly, the Dudley Boys signed their name to Vince in a contract. They sued and lost. They said they were not employees, but independent contractors. Vince does it so he can continue to make money down the road and not have to pay them royalties. It is an underhanded thing to do by far. Part of the insurance things is, he is trying to cut down his costs as a company. Alot of buisnesses are doing this to cut costs.

 

[Rayne]

I understand that, but if we look at the Dudley Boys, they had that name well before their WWE days. Yes, Vince owns the rights to ECW, but if I remember correctly, the Dudley Boys signed their name to Vince in a contract. They sued and lost. They said they were not employees, but independent contractors. Vince does it so he can continue to make money down the road and not have to pay them royalties. It is an underhanded thing to do by far. Part of the insurance things is, he is trying to cut down his costs as a company. Alot of buisnesses are doing this to cut costs.

Actually, ECW owned the Dudley Boys trademark. Paul Heyman allowed the two people performing as the Dudley Boys to use the trademark, but never legally assigned it to them. When WWE acquired all of the rights to ECW, one thing they acquired was the Dudley Boys trademark, which wasn't too big of a deal at the time because the two people performing as the Dudley Boys were also working for the WWE.

When they split paths, however, the WWE now owned the trademark, and there was a very clear bill of sale for it. This is why we get stuff like "Team 3-D", because even though the Dudley name was used long, long before their appearance in the WWE, the WWE can still buy the trademark rights to it.

I don't believe there was any lawsuit between the two performers and the WWE, or if there was, it was dismissed in its earliest phases. This was an extremely cut and dry case, if not exactly an honorable one.

 

[billm75]

They are independent contractors, period. Maybe they shouldn't be, maybe they should be company employees, but that's in the world of "should".

They sign a contract, much like a movie actor. They play a role, assigned to them by the company, much like a movie actor. They do not own that role, much like a movie actor. They work as long as they're contracted for, much like a movie actor.

That said, I think it would be prudent to actually maintain some of these guys as permanent employees by the WWE, but then, you'd probably have performers flipping out over that idea too.

This is how it works, just on a much larger scale than back in the territorial days. It's all good. Plus, they can renegotiate contracts every so often, so if they're good at what they do, and smart enough to pull it off, they could get some sweet incentives and perks built into their deals. Much like pro athletes do.

 

[MMK]

LMAO, you must be an idiot!! Vince has them listed as Independant contractors for several reasons. 1, he doesn't have to pay insurance on them. Not to mention, he is about to make them carry there own insurance before they even start working in the ring. 2, he doesn't have to pay higher employment taxes, such as worker's comp, unemployment taxes. So, before you post something like this, please know what you are talking about!!

All you did was prove the original poster's point for him. Vince only lists them as independent contractors as a loophole to get out of paying higher taxes. It's a scam. WWE wresters are not independent contractors and they never have been. If they were, they could go work for TNA tomorrow then come back and work RAW. But they can't. They're signed to WWE. Employees are entitled to certain benefits. Benefits that Vinnie Mac isn't interesting in giving them.

And like Sal25 said, anyone who resorts to name calling i.e idiot, should just grow up.

 

[Bmauricej]

All you did was prove the original poster's point for him. Vince only lists them as independent contractors as a loophole to get out of paying higher taxes. It's a scam. WWE wresters are not independent contractors and they never have been. If they were, they could go work for TNA tomorrow then come back and work RAW. But they can't. They're signed to WWE. Employees are entitled to certain benefits. Benefits that Vinnie Mac isn't interesting in giving them.

And like Sal25 said, anyone who resorts to name calling i.e idiot, should just grow up.

You think that the IRS would let them get away with that. They are independent contractors. After 30 years, you think the government would let them get away with that. They got something right and no one has been able to do anything about it.

 

[Mazzaroti78]

To really argue this case you need to read a WWE booking contract. There was one online a few years ago so maybe someone can google it and read it for yourself. One misconception is that WWE tells you where to be and when to be there and therefore wrestlers are employees. Not exactly correct. A WWE contract specifies a certain number of dates, usually 120-180 per year. In the contract the independent contractor guarantees he/she will make those dates or be in breach. This is why back in the day when there was many places to work, a wrestler would simply no show his dates and breach his deal to void his contract. WWE isn't giving you a set schedule to come to work(like mon-fri 9-5), together the wrestler and WWE agrees to the number of days he/she will work and for what wage. Its why someone like Goldberg signed a 40-50 date deal for millions.

Now once those dates on the contract have passed then the wrestler is free to go home and do what he/she pleases. However, WWE may find it necessary to continue to use you for more dates. This is where wrestlers earn BIG money because say they signed a 3 year 180 date per year deal. Its date 181 in a one year term, your lawyer or agent would then negotiate compensation for these dates that exist outside of your original deal. Jeff Jarrett for example, worked an extra date for WWF and earned 450k because he was the IC champ and he worked a ppv. Jarrett held the company up thinking he would have a lifetime job with WCW(idiot) and got blackballed but Chris Jericho worked on a week to week basis before his 1st WWE departure and I'm sure he earned nice coin for the days he worked past his original contract.

A wrestler can easily claim that Vince breached their deal by having him work more dates than contracted for and leave WWE but most just take the extra pay. Now, as far as WWE specifically telling wrestlers how to execute their job, that is also not exactly correct. This is why WWE is structured as bookers-agents-wrestlers. The booker(vince) tells the agent/producer just the finish and purpose of the match. The producer/agent tells the wrestlers and give suggestions on how to execute the plan. A wrestler can easily just say no to any finish(see Bret Hart) or suggested spot in a match.
Most wrestlers do what they are told but they cannot claim the the WWE office told them exactly, move for move, how to work their matches.

As far as the owning wrestler name issue goes, you have to understand what wwe is. In the past wrestlers used to pay a percentage of their per date earnings back to the promoters/booker(TNA does this now, taking money off talent booked on indy shows). Vince McMahon killed that practice in the 80's because he knew he could make more money off the wrestler by licensing the wrestlers image. Toys, dolls, video games, etc. WWE is a licensing powerhouse. Owning the image or intellectual property, affords WWE the power to earn money off an image indefinitely. Wrestlers themselves NEVER had that revenue stream because they only earned off working dates in the ring. WWF in the 80's made many wrestlers millionaires. Now the licensing of a wrestler is totally separate from his/her booking contract. It could be added to the booking contract as a rider but usually it is a separate dept. For example, WWE has several under Legends deals. The "Legends" are under a very lucrative licensing deal with that WWE dept and therefore is under no obligation to appear for WWE unless they agreed to specified dates in a booking contract. Kevin Nash stated he could work dates for TNA but TNA could only license his grey haired "Kevin Nash" character not "diesel" "big daddy cool" or "big sexy" "nWo" or "nWo Wolfpack" characters.

WWE is more of a licensing company than they are a wrestling company. WWE doesn't make much money off live attendance, that money goes to overhead and the performers. WWE using wrestling as a vehicle to drive their licensing ventures and avenues. Vince was so brilliant at this in the 80's that when he started charging international companies MAJOR figures to make Hogan dolls and action figures he began to see how rich he could be. Licensing is what made record companies billions of dollars before the internet killed them. You can take one song and license that song for use in EVERY country on the planet for a set amount of money and a specific amount of time and for a specific product. Now imagine doing that with 300 wrestlers. Forget 300 wrestlers, try Austin, DX, and the Rock. That's BILLIONS of dollars and that is why WWE wants to own the wrestlers name because they have a machine in place that is already set up to make that wrestler money in perpetuity. The Dudley's still get checks to this day from WWE using their image as the Dudleys, they just don't OWN the name.

ALL that being said, WWE is a MONOPOLY. Under those terms, which was the basis for the Raven lawsuit, how could wrestlers feel like they have the freedoms they negotiated if there is no other place to go to ply their trade. Therefore, since WWE is the only global wrestling powerhouse, what power does an independent contractor have to keep the terms of his deal honored? This is the problem. WWE should not have purchased WCW and ECW. It made them a monopoly under the law and crippled the industry, effectively making any independent contractor an employee. Who is going to argue about working dates past their contracted amount and make WWE pay for it? Who is gonna tell them they are in breach of contract? Who is gonna say they won't do a finish when TNA is the only other option you have and if they don't call, you're out of the industry?

The lawsuit was not to challenge the independent contractor status in general, it was about challenging it under the conditions of a monopoly and since WWE is a monopoly, wrestlers that are contracted to them should be considered employees. This is the correct argument! Not that wrestlers aren't independent contractors by definition of law.

 

[Calderownz]

Technically, they do determine their own schedule. However, first, a deal has to be reached. The contractor has to agree as does the business.

If they agree to a certain amount of dates and what have you, they have to accomplish that or risk being fired. However, they are still agreeing to the work and they are helping to set the dates.

Technically, virtually no successful contractor of any kind just works when he wants to. He has more freedom then most, but he still has huge responsibilities.

In truth, they are contractors. They are independent as well. But contracts, in ny form of business, have to be drafted and then accomplished.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

To really argue this case you need to read a WWE booking contract. There was one online a few years ago so maybe someone can google it and read it for yourself. One misconception is that WWE tells you where to be and when to be there and therefore wrestlers are employees. Not exactly correct. A WWE contract specifies a certain number of dates, usually 120-180 per year. In the contract the independent contractor guarantees he/she will make those dates or be in breach. This is why back in the day when there was many places to work, a wrestler would simply no show his dates and breach his deal to void his contract. WWE isn't giving you a set schedule to come to work(like mon-fri 9-5), together the wrestler and WWE agrees to the number of days he/she will work and for what wage. Its why someone like Goldberg signed a 40-50 date deal for millions.

Now once those dates on the contract have passed then the wrestler is free to go home and do what he/she pleases. However, WWE may find it necessary to continue to use you for more dates. This is where wrestlers earn BIG money because say they signed a 3 year 180 date per year deal. Its date 181 in a one year term, your lawyer or agent would then negotiate compensation for these dates that exist outside of your original deal. Jeff Jarrett for example, worked an extra date for WWF and earned 450k because he was the IC champ and he worked a ppv. Jarrett held the company up thinking he would have a lifetime job with WCW(idiot) and got blackballed but Chris Jericho worked on a week to week basis before his 1st WWE departure and I'm sure he earned nice coin for the days he worked past his original contract.

A wrestler can easily claim that Vince breached their deal by having him work more dates than contracted for and leave WWE but most just take the extra pay. Now, as far as WWE specifically telling wrestlers how to execute their job, that is also not exactly correct. This is why WWE is structured as bookers-agents-wrestlers. The booker(vince) tells the agent/producer just the finish and purpose of the match. The producer/agent tells the wrestlers and give suggestions on how to execute the plan. A wrestler can easily just say no to any finish(see Bret Hart) or suggested spot in a match.
Most wrestlers do what they are told but they cannot claim the the WWE office told them exactly, move for move, how to work their matches.

As far as the owning wrestler name issue goes, you have to understand what wwe is. In the past wrestlers used to pay a percentage of their per date earnings back to the promoters/booker(TNA does this now, taking money off talent booked on indy shows). Vince McMahon killed that practice in the 80's because he knew he could make more money off the wrestler by licensing the wrestlers image. Toys, dolls, video games, etc. WWE is a licensing powerhouse. Owning the image or intellectual property, affords WWE the power to earn money off an image indefinitely. Wrestlers themselves NEVER had that revenue stream because they only earned off working dates in the ring. WWF in the 80's made many wrestlers millionaires. Now the licensing of a wrestler is totally separate from his/her booking contract. It could be added to the booking contract as a rider but usually it is a separate dept. For example, WWE has several under Legends deals. The "Legends" are under a very lucrative licensing deal with that WWE dept and therefore is under no obligation to appear for WWE unless they agreed to specified dates in a booking contract. Kevin Nash stated he could work dates for TNA but TNA could only license his grey haired "Kevin Nash" character not "diesel" "big daddy cool" or "big sexy" "nWo" or "nWo Wolfpack" characters.

WWE is more of a licensing company than they are a wrestling company. WWE doesn't make much money off live attendance, that money goes to overhead and the performers. WWE using wrestling as a vehicle to drive their licensing ventures and avenues. Vince was so brilliant at this in the 80's that when he started charging international companies MAJOR figures to make Hogan dolls and action figures he began to see how rich he could be. Licensing is what made record companies billions of dollars before the internet killed them. You can take one song and license that song for use in EVERY country on the planet for a set amount of money and a specific amount of time and for a specific product. Now imagine doing that with 300 wrestlers. Forget 300 wrestlers, try Austin, DX, and the Rock. That's BILLIONS of dollars and that is why WWE wants to own the wrestlers name because they have a machine in place that is already set up to make that wrestler money in perpetuity. The Dudley's still get checks to this day from WWE using their image as the Dudleys, they just don't OWN the name.

ALL that being said, WWE is a MONOPOLY. Under those terms, which was the basis for the Raven lawsuit, how could wrestlers feel like they have the freedoms they negotiated if there is no other place to go to ply their trade. Therefore, since WWE is the only global wrestling powerhouse, what power does an independent contractor have to keep the terms of his deal honored? This is the problem. WWE should not have purchased WCW and ECW. It made them a monopoly under the law and crippled the industry, effectively making any independent contractor an employee. Who is going to argue about working dates past their contracted amount and make WWE pay for it? Who is gonna tell them they are in breach of contract? Who is gonna say they won't do a finish when TNA is the only other option you have and if they don't call, you're out of the industry?

The lawsuit was not to challenge the independent contractor status in general, it was about challenging it under the conditions of a monopoly and since WWE is a monopoly, wrestlers that are contracted to them should be considered employees. This is the correct argument! Not that wrestlers aren't independent contractors by definition of law.

I agree with a lot of this, although to an extent it is clear that WWE stars do not make their own schedules.

RAW is every Monday and SD taped on a Tuesday. Add to this the regular schedule of branded house shows and their control of schedule is limited at best to the number of dates they can negotiate... If you negotiate 300 dates a year and are hired for RAW you know you have to make yourself available for all 52 Mondays, 13 PPV's a year and every for RAW House show, which is normally on 2 or 3 days of the week and any international tours to make up the balance... These are on a regular schedule so any potential WWE talent knows the kind of schedule they will be working before they sign up... the goal is to get the number of dates down and the recompense up... in this way, wrestlers ARE independent contractors, in that every wrestler can negotiate their own deal and to be paid whatever their skills are worth on the open market...

If you are a plumber, and considered so good at what you can do that you can charge £100 an hour for your services then the only limit is whether someone will pay for that..Football players now earn £200k a week, because likewise they can negotiate their deal, although few clubs can afford it... and yes wrestlers can charge what they like, be it £250 a show on the indy's, £5000 a show to TNA or a million a shot for someone like The Rock... WWE is the only game to any kind of dough, so the guys generally settle for less for the chance...

If the plumber also is a gas engineer, he can also charge more and separately for that service, because he is an independent contractor... just as a Chris Jericho, Rock, Big Show etc can appear in movies, TV shows, Rock Bands or even become authors independently of WWE. Vince cannot ban someone from appearing in a non WWE movie as long as they make their required dates... cos wrestlers ARE independent contractors... He can however decide their services are no longer required... WWE is only a monopoly in that it brands itself "sports entertainment" and does not class itself a "wrestling company" thus, in their eyes they are not in competition with wrestling companies... Its like rugby league and union, 2 codes different money scales in each. Wrestlers who choose to negotiate with WWE accept that they are no longer going to be in competition with TNA, ROH etc and they are joining an entertainment company with different rules to what they are used to... as independent contractors they have that choice whether to accept or not... likewise, when its time to leave they can choose with more freedom how they do it than an employee can.

Certain guys have played Vince in the past and it shows in how they are treated, Warrior, Jarrett, Luger, Savage even Bret didn't do things the right way. Someone like Christian, despite the world knowing he was going to TNA did things the right way, working an extra PPV and RAW to keep goodwill, and years later it DID pay off... but he was smart enough to copyright things like Christian Cage and Captain Charisma for most uses before Vince was... again an employee couldn't have done that without being fired and sued for damaging the companies interests... He couldn't wrestle with the name... but he COULD sell t-shirts, posters etc with it!