src: https://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/vinc ... um=twitter

It would appear that the era of WWE talent using Twitch, Cameo, YouTube, and other third parties to make extra income and build names for themselves outside WWE is coming to an end.

First reported by Wrestling Inc. and confirmed by our Bryan Alvarez, Vince McMahon sent a letter to talents on Thursday, saying they have 30 days to stop engaging with third parties or else face fines, suspensions and even termination at WWE's discretion.

It's unclear what "third parties" means, however. Several wrestlers operate successful Twitch and YouTube channels where they interact with fans while playing video games or other activities.

The letter comes following a Sunday meeting with talent about the "reinvention of the product" where it came up that WWE owns the real names of talent in addition to their character names.

WWE wrestlers are independent contractors, so there is a legal question of what WWE can mandate and what they can/do own.

From the letter: "Some of you are engaged with outside third parties using your name and likeness in ways that are detrimental to our company. It is imperative that these activities be terminated within the next 30 days (by Friday October 2). Continued violations will result in fines, suspension, or termination at WWE's discretion."

Wrestling Inc. also said McMahon wrote that these actions are necessary as part of WWE's rebuilding process as they "enter the next phase of growth at WWE."

this is getting some outside attention

So... if they are doing this because they want t to clamp down on kayfabe then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, they shouldn't be doing it.

Also, they can't possibly own someone's real name. That was the reason Hellwing changed his name to Warrior and the reason that Hall and Nash decided to use their real names when they went to WCW.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 5th, '20, 20:16 So... if they are doing this because they want t to clamp down on kayfabe then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, they shouldn't be doing it.

Also, they can't possibly own someone's real name. That was the reason Hellwing changed his name to Warrior and the reason that Hall and Nash decided to use their real names when they went to WCW.

I think that's the main controversy. I'm perfectly ok with WWE saying you can't be The Fiend on your own personal business, and if you were stupid enough to sign off your indie name rights to them, it's your fault, but to want to stop people from doing stuff under their real names, that's just Vince being a control freak

Yeah this is gonna blow up badly.

Not to mention get that "next phase of Growth" shit tfoh. Y'all ain't growing shit and business is worse than ever with no crowd revenue. S.

T.

F.

U, With the funny guy fancy talk and lingo!

This is some shit. And I will lose what little faith I have in the system if the WWE gets away with this.

Serujuunin wrote: ↑Sep 6th, '20, 21:40 This is some shit. And I will lose what little faith I have in the system if the WWE gets away with this.

oh boy, let me introduce you to my friend 'Merica, the land of the rich

At this rate they're not gonna be left with many stars at all if they keep up the bullshit.

cero2k wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 08:46

Serujuunin wrote: ↑Sep 6th, '20, 21:40 This is some shit. And I will lose what little faith I have in the system if the WWE gets away with this.

oh boy, let me introduce you to my friend 'Merica, the land of the rich

The system has never been the issue with wrestling contracts. It has always been wrestlers taking the path of least resistance and not challenging them. And if we're all wrong and there is something in the contracts that makes this legal, it's the wrestlers' faults for signing the contract.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 14:40

cero2k wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 08:46

Serujuunin wrote: ↑Sep 6th, '20, 21:40 This is some shit. And I will lose what little faith I have in the system if the WWE gets away with this.

oh boy, let me introduce you to my friend 'Merica, the land of the rich

The system has never been the issue with wrestling contracts. It has always been wrestlers taking the path of least resistance and not challenging them. And if we're all wrong and there is something in the contracts that makes this legal, it's the wrestlers' faults for signing the contract.

You’re not wrong. But it it a whole new level of scummy to con someone into signing over the rights to using their real name.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 14:40

The system has never been the issue with wrestling contracts. It has always been wrestlers taking the path of least resistance and not challenging them. And if we're all wrong and there is something in the contracts that makes this legal, it's the wrestlers' faults for signing the contract.

the system created a culture of worship of companies, fame, and greed. Wrestlers like any other human signs contracts for the sake of such thing. Yeah, wrestlers do sign the contracts, just like drug addicts keep buying drugs, and WWE is the drug dealer.

cero2k wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 17:14

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 14:40

The system has never been the issue with wrestling contracts. It has always been wrestlers taking the path of least resistance and not challenging them. And if we're all wrong and there is something in the contracts that makes this legal, it's the wrestlers' faults for signing the contract.

the system created a culture of worship of companies, fame, and greed. Wrestlers like any other human signs contracts for the sake of such thing. Yeah, wrestlers do sign the contracts, just like drug addicts keep buying drugs, and WWE is the drug dealer.

Yeah, because no wrestler has ever decided to do something else for a living, or negotiate to get things in their contract. They could have had a union years ago There just hasn't been a critical mass of wrestlers who want one enough to do something about it.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 19:20
Yeah, because no wrestler has ever decided to do something else for a living, or negotiate to get things in their contract. They could have had a union years ago There just hasn't been a critical mass of wrestlers who want one enough to do something about it.

because the ones who really really need it are afraid to jeopardize their jobs with WWE and thus the fame and fortune. The big names RARELY care about the lesser names of the industry, or about the competition's roster, but if you're one of those lesser names, It's out of fear 9-out-of-10 times. Unless you're trying to make a career of being THAT guy (coughDavidStarrcough), no one wants to have that 'union trouble maker' guy over their head if they hope to get signed by a bigger company

cero2k wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 09:13

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 7th, '20, 19:20
Yeah, because no wrestler has ever decided to do something else for a living, or negotiate to get things in their contract. They could have had a union years ago There just hasn't been a critical mass of wrestlers who want one enough to do something about it.

because the ones who really really need it are afraid to jeopardize their jobs with WWE and thus the fame and fortune. The big names RARELY care about the lesser names of the industry, or about the competition's roster, but if you're one of those lesser names, It's out of fear 9-out-of-10 times. Unless you're trying to make a career of being THAT guy (coughDavidStarrcough), no one wants to have that 'union trouble maker' guy over their head if they hope to get signed by a bigger company

So if your argument is that they care more about potential fame and fortune than the collective whole if the group, why are they any worse than the "greedy corporations" you so despise?

You two just need to fight and the loser can't debate the winner ever again. I'm refereeing and Bob-O can do commentary with Lynas, and uh, find someone to hold up the signs and stuff...

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 10:28
So if your argument is that they care more about potential fame and fortune than the collective whole if the group, why are they any worse than the "greedy corporations" you so despise?

I hate a lot of them, but it all comes down to drug users vs drug dealers, one clearly takes advantage of the other. People addicted to fame and fortune are also not what is causing all the real world situations like climate change as greedy corporations are.

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 10:50 You two just need to fight and the loser can't debate the winner ever again. I'm referring and Bob-O can do commentary with Lynas, and uh, find someone to hold up the signs and stuff...

lol yes, at the Thunderdome!

cero2k wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 11:21

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 10:28
So if your argument is that they care more about potential fame and fortune than the collective whole if the group, why are they any worse than the "greedy corporations" you so despise?

I hate a lot of them, but it all comes down to drug users vs drug dealers, one clearly takes advantage of the other. People addicted to fame and fortune are also not what is causing all the real world situations like climate change as greedy corporations are.

Climate change is irrelevant here. Just because they're more guilty on that (and I don't think it's fair to blame WWE for being a big contributor to climate change) doesn't mean they're more guilty here.
Also your analogy is unfair to the talent. They're adults making their own choices. They're not drug addicts.

cero2k wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 11:21

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Sep 8th, '20, 10:28
So if your argument is that they care more about potential fame and fortune than the collective whole if the group, why are they any worse than the "greedy corporations" you so despise?

I hate a lot of them, but it all comes down to drug users vs drug dealers, one clearly takes advantage of the other. People addicted to fame and fortune are also not what is causing all the real world situations like climate change as greedy corporations are.

Climate change is irrelevant here. Just because they're more guilty on that (and I don't think it's fair to blame WWE for being a big contributor to climate change) doesn't mean they're more guilty here.
Also your analogy is unfair to the talent. They're adults making their own choices. They're not drug addicts. Don't say they're "addicted to fortune and fame." They're adults making choices about what is important to them.