Wrestlenomics is an independent outlet supported by reader subscriptions. This editorial note ends with information on how you can best support the kind of reporting we do that’s discussed here.
Happy 3/16, which of course means it’s Freedom of Information Day.
Since the 1980s, and adopted in a proclamation by Ronald Reagan in 1988, March 16 celebrates this day coinciding with the birthday of James Madison, who once wrote:
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
Source: Library of Congress (James Madison letter to William T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822)
Colloquially, most people know “FOIA” as the catch-all for government transparency. But the federal Freedom of Information Act pertains specifically to U.S. federal agencies and is just one important law intended to allow citizens to understand government business. A wide variety of laws actually allow the public to request and obtain records from agencies.
All 50 U.S. states, plus other jurisdictions like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have state-level FOIA-style laws under various names.
These laws help make important information available for many areas of citizenship and journalism. Pro wrestling isn’t an obvious place to find consequential government business, but that is increasingly the case. Particularly as WWE and AEW seek government subsidies funded by tax revenue, a democratic government arguably by definition has an obligation, with few exceptions, to disclose to the public the nature of those dealings.
The agencies and pro wrestling companies themselves sometimes resist such legally-required disclosures. In my reporting I’ve encountered some classic examples of the tension between public and private business. Wrestling companies want the benefits of government relations but not the disclosure requirements that come with doing business in democratic societies. That is to say, WWE and AEW want government money (or other government benefits) but they would prefer not to have to comply with the release of their records, which end up in the possession of the government agencies when such business is conducted.
WWE, for example, in 2024 sued the Texas Attorney General’s Office to prevent the release of information when the AG ruled that certain records with the City of San Antonio related to Royal Rumble 2023 had to be turned over. To make a long story short (which you can read more about in past reporting here), I requested the same information from another agency, the AG reviewed it again, WWE did not prevail in withholding the information, and they dropped their suit against the AG.
AEW, too, is sensitive to the release of its information. Since at least 2024, the following provision has appeared in some of its venue contracts, which is evidently targeted at preventing the release of event attendance information.
CONFIDENTIALITY: The information pertaining to the business of the LICENSEE [AEW], Venue, and all contracted third parties, including but not limited to information regarding the provisions of this Agreement, attendance figures, turnstile or drop counts, ticket numbers (sold, comped, or redeemed), revenues, box office receipts, and any other related or similar numbers, fees, deal terms with the Acts, or the business affairs of the other contracted third parties contain trade secrets and comprise “Confidential Information” and the parties agree to not disseminate, by any means, such Confidential Information to anyone other than LICENSEE.
Source: Tacoma Dome Facility Usage Agreement for AEW Wrestle Dream 2024, obtained by Wrestlenomics from the City of Tacoma Venues & Events Department
Some forms of AEW’s “confidentiality” provision in its venue contracts go further, getting a commitment from the venue that it will “assist in seeking the Lessee [AEW] to keep such information protected under trade secret laws.”
Source: Erie Insurance Arena Lease Agreement for Nov. 15, 2025 AEW Collision, obtained by Wrestlenomics from the Erie County Convention Authority.
Given AEW and other wrestling companies’ practice of publicly volunteering attendance claims and other live event information for promotional purposes, the notion that AEW’s attendance information could be rightly interpreted as a trade secret in the context of public records law is dubious. And despite this provision, I’ve yet to have a problem obtaining attendance and ticket sales information for events at government venues even when a provision like the one above appeared, which further raises questions about the viability of that provision in cases where AEW runs government-controlled venues.
Source: Box Office Statement for AEW Collision (it is labeled “Dynamite” despite the event being for a live broadcast of Collision on that date), Nov. 15, 2025, obtained by Wrestlenomics from the Erie County Convention Authority.
Wherever I believe it’s viable, I’m committed to obtaining information that helps the public understand — not just the business performance of the wrestling promotions I cover, but more importantly — the nature of these for-profit companies’ dealings with entities that are supposed to serve the public. This doesn’t mean that I presume there’s wrongdoing involved with these relationships or subsidies. But it means that where the people’s money or assets (like venues) are used, the people should be allowed to know the details, so citizens can assess whether these are good practices that benefit the public.
Where compelling the release of such records means appealing to an Attorney General or even suing an agency that is refusing to comply with the law, I am prepared to do that, and in some cases have done exactly that. I’ve taken those actions primarily as a self-represented non-lawyer, while never accepting legal services from any subject I cover. That means I’m writing letters, appeals, petitions, or other filings myself, against either internal legal teams or well-trained outside counsel.
Such actions compelling records rightfully into public visibility extend beyond the executive branches of governments and into courts of law. In the ongoing WWE shareholder lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, where the defendants — some of the most powerful people in the history of professional wrestling — are represented by lead counsel from two of the biggest law firms in the country (Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis), as well as local counsel from boutique Delaware firms. Despite that apparent disadvantage, our reporting unearthed newsworthy facts that further the public’s understanding of a major publicly-traded company’s M&A process and shed light as well on the related judicial process itself.
If you value this kind of reporting and are able, consider signing up to be a paid member on Patreon, or on Substack. You’ll get access to our paywalled reporting on the business of wrestling, as well as alerts when my new reporting goes up on POST Wrestling. Your subscription fees support Wrestlenomics’ operating expenses and my time, but also the costs related to records requests, court filing fees, and document production fees we’re charged in the course of this reporting.