WWE announced Thursday morning a new five-year U.S. TV deal with NBCUniversal that will return Smackdown to USA Network beginning October 2024. But now it’s unclear where Raw will end up.
This means Smackdown will leave Fox about a year from now.
The new deal is worth $287 million per year, according to CNBC, which is a 1.4x increase over the current deal with Fox, valued at $205 million annually.
Broadcast rights to Raw, which currently airs on the USA Network, is going to the open market, WWE confirmed to Wrestlenomics.
John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal reported that NBCU is still in talks to renew Raw. The rights to NXT on USA Network expire at the same time as Raw, in the fall of 2024.
While the new deal will bring WWE to NBC primetime and SmackDown to USA on Friday nights, it will also mean the end of Raw and NXT on USA.
A source familiar with the Raw discussions tell The Hollywood Reporter that the market for the program is “extremely active,” with traditional linear networks, streaming services and “unexpected players” all interested.
Possible bidders for Raw, besides NBCU, include Amazon and Disney. “Unexpected players” could potentially include The CW, which aired Smackdown from 2006 to 2008, an idea floated by Jimmy Traina of Sports Illustrated.
The new deal was a disappointment to shareholders. TKO stock fell by more than ten percent on the day. As recently as last month, Morgan Stanley was estimating a base case of 1.5x for WWE’s rights renewal, a bull case of 2x, and a bear case of 1.35x, so the news of Smackdown getting a 1.4x deal, even though it’s a 40% increase in fees, sent the newly-merged WWE-UFC stock tumbling.
“We are excited to extend this longstanding relationship by bringing SmackDown to USA Network on Friday nights,” WWE President Nick Khan said in a joint press release from WWE and NBCU, indicating the show will continue airing on Friday nights when it moves to USA.
As part of the new deal for Smackdown, there will be four primetime specials each year that will air on NBC.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He’s also worked as an independent wrestler and trainer.
This article is available ad-free for everyone because of support from our subscribers.
There are two new court filings Wednesday, one, Panini v. WWE, and another, WWE v. Panini.
Panini is WWE’s trading card licensee — or at least was until last month anyway.
WWE’s own case, possibly the injunction referred to in Darren Rovell’s tweet, to stop Panini from continuing to sell WWE products, is a motion for leave to file its case under seal.
WWE and Panini agreed to a deal on March 14, 2022, to produce trading cards and stickers using WWE IP.
Panini claims it has performed and fulfilled obligations under the contract.
“[W]ith no warning whatsoever” on August 28, 2023, Panini received a letter from WWE (dated August 25), purportedly terminating the deal.
Panini claims this is a breach of contract and wants the termination declared invalid.
The deal began with a term sheet on October 1, 2021, then they made a four-year agreement on March 14, 2022, making the deal retroactively effective January 1, 2022, and to end in 2025.
Panini launched the “WWE Prizm” trading card set in April 2022 and stickers the next month. There were digital and physical trading cards. Panini used WWE cards for “Box Wars” or “Pack Wars” games played at conventions.
Panini says WWE never raised any issues with Panini’s performance, accepted royalty payments, and “praised Panini for tripling the business.”
WWE allegedly suddenly terminated the deal, purportedly under a provision of the contract giving WWE the right to terminate if Panini “did not engage in good faith efforts” to make WWE physical trading card games and digital trading cards.
WWE allegedly demanded Panini immediately pay WWE $5,625,000, the minimum royalties due under the contract.
Panini claims the window to terminate under the provision was between April 1 and June 1, 2022, which has passed.
Panini wants declarations: that it hasn’t breached the contract, that WWE’s termination is invalid, that the contract remains in effect, and that it doesn’t have to pay the $5,625,000 WWE claims is immediately due.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He’s also worked as an independent wrestler and trainer.
This article is available ad-free for everyone because of support from our subscribers.
These rankings are based on an Elo rating system, known for ranking chess players. The method may also be applied to participants in other games and sports. Participants’ wins and losses add to or subtract from their ratings, respectively, proportionally based on the ratings of their opponents. In other words, a win over a player (in this case, a wrestler) who frequently beats strong opponents counts more than a win over a less accomplished player; a loss to a player who always loses hurts the loser’s rating more than a loss to a more accomplished player will.
Expand to read about the methodology behind the calculation for these Elo rankings.
What kinds of matches are analyzed?
Only singles matches are considered for this analysis. That includes typical one-on-one matches, but also multi-opponent matches (three-ways, four-ways, etc). Battle royals are also counted.
This analysis does not count tag team matches in any form. We may create a tag team Elo analysis in the future.
All wrestlers begin with a 1500 Elo rating upon their first match in the Cagematch record.
All wrestlers’ entire singles match histories (to the extent they are recorded by Cagematch) may determine their Elo rating.
Elo is calculated universally. That means matches in any promotion count toward a wrestler’s rating.
How are different match endings treated?
DQ and count-out wins/losses count at half the weight (0.5) of typical wins/losses.
Time limit draws and double pins are counted with half weight (0.5) to each wrestler.
Matches resulting in a double DQ, double count-out, or no-contest are essentially discarded and do not affect any participants’ Elo rating.
A winner of a match with multiple opponents (e.g., a three-way, four-way, battle royal) is rewarded as if they beat a wrestler with an Elo rating that is the average of the other participants in the match. Conversely, the effect of a loss in such a match is distributed evenly across the losers. This means the two losers of a three-way match are penalized half as much as they would be if they lost to the winner one-on-one. The 29 losers of a 30-person battle royal are affected one-twenty-ninth to the extent they would have been had they lost one-on-one to the battle royal winner. There are no adjustments made according to who was pinned or eliminated in any such match as Cagematch currently doesn’t consistently provide that information for matches of the relevant type.
Matches are not weighted with respect to promotion, event type, whether the match is a title match, or whether the match is any type of gimmick match.
How are house shows are treated?
For the period beginning January 1, 1985 to the present, matches Cagematch categorizes under the event type “House shows” are excluded. Non-televised events categorized as “Event” (many independent companies’ events, for example) are included throughout the timeline. All televised matches are included: TV, PPV/PLE, Streaming, and YouTube matches.
For the period from January 1, 1900 through December 31, 1984, all matches in the Cagematch record are included. We arbitrarily choose 1985 as the cut-off point for house shows because it roughly marks the rise of closed circuit and pay-per-view events. This choice is intended to deal with specific facts, including
a) televised matches between high-profile wrestlers were less common on television in a prior era;
b) house show match results (especially in modern times) are often repetitive, with a face beating the same heel opponent repeatedly; and
c) televised matches obviously didn’t occur before the rise of television in the 1950s and many independent events aren’t televised at all, which makes focusing solely on televised events throughout the timeline undesirable.
What are the tables categories below?
Wrestlers are grouped below in tables by gender and by promotion. An “Overall” categorization is shown as the first set of tables. All wrestlers with a singles match present in the Cagematch record within the last 90 days are eligible for ranking in the “Overall” table for the gender division within which they commonly compete, regardless of promotion affiliation.
Wrestlers whose most recent match in the given promotion (or overall) was more than 90 days ago are not included in the rankings. This is intended to focus on wrestlers who are active, excluding wrestlers who may be injured or no longer affiliated with a promotion. This also means a wrestler may appear in more than one promotion’s rankings if that wrestler had matches in more than one of the selected promotions within the last 90 days.
Wrestlers’ Elo ratings are formulated to decay when wrestlers are inactive. When a wrestler is inactive for more than 90 consecutive days, their rating will diminish by one point per day they are inactive over the 90-day threshold. For years before 2004, the decay rate is weighted more lightly, relative to the number of match records present for the given year, which reflects an assumption that the Cagematch record is more complete in recent years and less complete in more distant years.
What is the actual Elo formula?
A typical one-on-one win/loss result affects the participants’ Elo ratings under the following formula:
Historical Elo: Who would have ranked highly under this methodology at different points in history?
Updated as of Sep 14, 2023, 2:55 PM ET
Analyzing 308,239 matches from Jan 1, 1894 to Sep 13, 2023, involving more than 39,413 wrestlers.
▲ and ▼ symbols indicate the wrestler has respectively improved or disimproved in Elo rank compared to 30 days ago.
To focus on active wrestlers, those without a singles match within the last 90 days in the given promotion (or overall) are excluded from the rankings.
Yellow text in “Last Match” column indicates the wrestler’s last singles match was more than 60 days ago.
Red text in “Last Match” column indicates the wrestler’s last singles match was more than 80 days ago.
Title holders are indicated only for titles belonging to All Japan Pro Wrestling, Consejo Mundial De Lucha Libre, Dragongate Japan Pro-Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA World Wide, Major League Wrestling, National Wrestling Alliance, New Japan Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling NOAH, Ring Of Honor, World Wonder Ring Stardom, and World Wrestling Entertainment.
In response to a public records request about the attendance for AEW All In on August 27, the Freedom of Information office for the Brent Civic Centre responded today:
“The actual numbers registered entering [Wembley] Stadium through the turnstiles was 72,265 – this is reflective of what attended on the night and not the total number of tickets sold or no-shows etc.”
AEW announced the paid attendance for the event was 81,035, and called it a new worldwide record for pro wrestling.
The final estimate from WrestleTix of tickets distributed for All In was 83,131.
Wrestlenomics was told by a source that a typical AEW event has a drop count (also known as a “turnstile count”) that is about 80% to 90% of the paid attendance or tickets distributed. In this case, 72,265 is 87% of 83,131 (estimated tickets distributed) and 89% of 81,035 (announced paid attendance).
“Turnstile count” or “drop count” simply refers to the number of tickets scanned as attendees enter the building, not necessarily as they go through physical turnstiles which many venues don’t use.
The turnstile count for WWE’s Wrestlemania 32 in 2016 in Arlington, Texas, was higher than All In’s number. The number of fans who entered the building for Wrestlemania 32 was 80,709, according to the Arlington Police, a number more than 8,000 higher than 72,265.
It’s unclear how suite attendees may weigh into the numbers for either event.
WWE’s public disclosures of quarterly average attendance (reported both with and without Wrestlemania) put the range for Wrestlemania 32’s paid attendance somewhere between 73,711 and 85,888. WWE famously announced 101,763 attendees, a number Vince McMahon later admitted included “ushers and ticket takers and all of that”. Nonetheless, it’s unclear whether All In 2023 or Wrestlemania 32 had the higher number of ticket sales.
Wrestlemania 3 in Pontiac, Michigan in 1987 is in the conversation, too, for verifiable most-attended pro wrestling events ever — outside of North Korea. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported paid attendance for Wrestlemania 3 was 75,800 and total attendance was about 78,000. Though, if the event was a sell-out, I believe the number could be higher.
The request and response related to All In can be read on whatdotheyknow.com, a website that helps visitors request information from United Kingdom government entities. You can find at least one other case on the site, from 2018, when the same government entity provided an attendance number for an event at Wembley Stadium.
The Brent Civic Centre provides public services for the Brent London Borough, where Wembley Stadium is located.
The following edits were made on Sept. 14, 2023: 1) A paragraph was added explaining the meaning of “turnstile count”. 2) 72,265 as a percentage of tickets distributed (83,131) was corrected to 87%; it was previously incorrectly represented as 89%, which is the drop count (72,265) as a percentage of announced paid attendance (81,035).
This is to accompany a new episode of Josh Nason’s Punch Out that I’m appearing on to discuss AEW’s business in Q1 2023.
About the data
P2+ data for Dynamite and Rampage are sourced from Nielsen and represent viewership of people ages 2 and above, averaged by minute throughout the duration of the program. Data represents live and same-day viewership, not including delayed (DVR) viewership. Episodes airing outside the program’s normal time slot are excluded.
P18-49 data represents same as above, except that this data represents viewership for people ages 18 to 49, a key ad demographic.
TBS & TNT viewership is sourced from Nielsen via Showbuzzdaily.com and includes all programs that appeared in Showbuzzdaily’s daily reporting of top 150 cable originals. The data has been time-adjusted for the duration of each telecast.
Top 25 cable networks data is sourced from WWE investor relations’ key performance indicator reports.
Tickets distributed data are sourced from WrestleTix estimates of ticket maps.
YouTube views data are sourced from SocialBlade.com, which provides daily data based on the differences in the all-time cumulative video view count publicly visible on the channel’s “About” page. Adjustments are made by Wrestlenomics to exclude days with negative sequential differences which coincide with the timing of videos being removed from public visibility.
Google web search data are sourced from Google Trends (trends.google.com) and represent search volume values associated with AEW’s Google Knowledge Graph relative to the highest monthly volume, standardized to 100.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He’s also worked as an independent wrestler and trainer.
This article is available ad-free for everyone because of support from our subscribers.
Former WWE writer Britney Abrahams is suing the company and individual staff, including executive chairman Vince McMahon, alleging “discriminatory treatment, harassment, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, unlawful retaliation… due to her race, color, and gender”.
Abrahams, who is Black, says she was wrongfully fired, purportedly for taking a commemorative chair at Wrestlemania in 2022. She alleges that reasoning was a pretext and her termination was actually in retaliation for pushing back against racist creative ideas.
Besides WWE, the complaint is levied against McMahon and current members of WWE’s writing staff: Christine Lubrano, Ryan Callahan, Jennifer Pepperman, as well as other former writers for the company, Chris Dunn, Mike Heller. Finally, Stephanie McMahon, former co-CEO, is also among the named defendants.
Abrahams began working for WWE as a temporary writer, working on Smackdown, in November 2020. She became a permanent employee in May 2021, until her dismissed in April 2022.
In the complaint filed Monday in federal court with the Eastern District of New York, Abrahams details multiple instances in which WWE allegedly had talent act out racist stereotypes and pitched other racist concepts that didn’t make it to the screen.
Abrahams described working with Bianca Belair and her interactions with fellow writer Chris Dunn, and Smackdown’s lead writer and Abrahams’ supervisor, Ryan Callahan.
[W]ithin or around Plaintiff’s [Abrahams’] first two (2) weeks of employment with WWE she shadowed a male, white, Caucasian writer, Defendant DUNN, who wrote a backstage scene for Ms. Bianca Belair (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Belair”), a black, African American female WWE wrestler.
Upon information and belief, Ms. Belair is one of two (2) dark-skinned black, African American female wrestlers.
The said scene included offensively racist and stereotypical jargon which Plaintiff found objectionable.
By way of example, according to the script, DUNN intended Ms. Belair, the said black female WWE wrestler, to say, “Uh-Uh! Don’t make me take off my earrings and beat your ass!” which are lines based upon cruel, ugly stereotypes of dark-skinned, black women.
Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Belair uttering that line was, and still is, negatively stereotypical of race and gender, and Plaintiff found it offensive, and still finds it offensive.
Prior to the writing of this scene many of the WWE writers commonly complained that they didn’t know what to do with Ms. Belair.
As a result, Plaintiff undertook researching Ms. Belair’s background, and discovered a fascinating family tree, including an aunt who helped desegregate her high school in the 1960s, and an uncle whose contributions to science were world-renowned.
DUNN allowed Plaintiff to write a first draft of Ms. Belair’s scene, so Plaintiff included positive references to Ms. Belair’s rich family history and sent it to DUNN for feedback.
DUNN told Plaintiff that the draft “looks great. I’m going to make some edits and submit it to [CALLAHAN].”
However, DUNN subjected Plaintiff’s draft to substantial editing, including inserting the said racial and gender stereotypes.
That same night, Plaintiff complained about the racially offensive and discriminatory nature of the scene to one of her WWE superiors, Defendant CALLAHAN.
Plaintiff emailed CALLAHAN and said, “I know I’m new, I’m not trying to be disrespectful or step on [DUNN]’s or anyone’s toes, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that [Ms. Belair]’s scene includes racial jargon and offensive stereotypes, particularly her go-home line.”
Plaintiff also requested clarification for protocol on moving forward with her complaint.
In conversation with Ms. Belair the following day, Ms. Belair informed Plaintiff that she told DUNN “3 DIFFERENT TIMES THAT I DON’T WANT TO SAY THAT LINE! BUT HE NEVER LISTENS TO ME! HE PUTS THAT LINE IN EVERY WEEK.”
Ms. Belair said the script’s discriminatory line(s) made her look “ghetto.”
Plaintiff relayed this information to DUNN and politely offered to edit the line(s).
However, despite Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants failed and/or refused to take any immediate or appropriate corrective action in response.
Plaintiff never received any form of response from CALLAHAN, verbally nor via email, and CALLAHAN never spoke to Plaintiff about her email or the line(s), or the scene.
Additionally, WWE’s failure and/or refusal to address Plaintiff’s complaint emboldened WWE employees, including DUNN and CALLAHAN, to further discriminate against and to retaliate against Plaintiff in response to her protected conduct.
By way of example, WWE kept the discriminatory line in the script. Plaintiff was scheduled to shadow DUNN on two (2) scenes that day, one of which was the said scene with Ms. Belair.
However, around halfway through the day, DUNN informed Plaintiff that she would now shadow CALLAHAN.
When Plaintiff requested DUNN’s assistance, he told Plaintiff “YOU HANDLE IT. IT’S YOUR SCENE NOW.”
CALLAHAN showed up for the taping of Plaintiff’s scenes about 90 seconds before they went live, and he never once mentioned Plaintiff’s email.
The complaint details discussions about having Reggie dress in drag, an idea that was shot down only after a white writer pressed the issue, Abrahams says.
[I]t was discussed in the WWE writer’s Slack channel before a show, that a new wrestler, Reggie, would dress in drag complete with wig and tights, “so he could partner with Carmella, a female wrestler, in a tag-team match against other female wrestlers.”
Reggie is a dark-skinned, African American, black straight male wrestler.
Given this pitch was shared via the Slack app, Defendants MR. MCMAHON and MS. MACHON [sic], as well as other WWE higher-ups, including Mr. Pritchard, and Mr. Ed Koskey were included on the thread.
Plaintiff’s co-worker, Ms. [Andrea] Listenberger, responded to the thread, observing that putting a straight black man in drag might perpetuate harmful stereotypes that would offend viewers.
WWE eventually scrapped the discriminatory pitch, but only in response to a white, Caucasian individual’s protected conduct in the form of Ms. Listenberger’s complaint.
Apollo Crews’ being directed to speak with a Nigerian accent is pointed to as another example of racist stereotyping.
WWE forced wrestler Apollo Crews to speak with a Nigerian accent, just because of his Nigerian lineage. Apollo Crews is a black, Nigerian-born male.
Plaintiff emailed CALLAHAN and complained about the offensive nature of the requirement for
Apollo Crews to speak with a stereotypical and exaggerated Nigerian accent.
However, despite Plaintiff’s complaint, CALLAHAN failed and/or refused to take corrective action.
As a result, CALLAHAN and WWE forced Plaintiff to require Apollo Crews to speak with a racially artificial Nigerian accent.
An idea to present Shane Thorne as a wrestler who would “hunt” and capture Reggie was outlined as well, an idea that apparently didn’t appear onscreen.
[I]n or around the spring of 2021 CALLAHAN pitched that a white Caucasian male wrestler with a “hunting” gimmick would hunt a black, male wrestler for fun.
In a nutshell, the said hunting gimmick pitch for new wrestlers, Shane Thorne, and Reggie was, “since Shane is Australian, we should make him a crocodile hunter, and instead of crocodiles, he hunts people.”
Subsequently, a storyline was pitched by CALLAHAN where Shane would capture Reggie and constantly beat him up, but Reggie would always escape after being captured.
Holding Reggie captive in cages was also discussed.
Plaintiff found CALLAHAN’s pitch highly offensive and objectionable.
Plaintiff again objected to her superior’s racially motivated misconduct, specifically stating that a gimmick where a white man hunting a black African American man for sport is racist.
CALLAHAN laughed and sarcastically responded, “OH, WHAT? IS THAT A BAD THING?”
CALLAHAN’s comments and conduct had the purpose and effect of humiliating and intimidating Plaintiff, and dramatically altered her work environment for the worse.
As the WWE writing team’s sole person of color, Plaintiff was devastated that none of her white, Caucasian co-workers stepped in to complain about this discriminatory and offensive pitch.
Afterwards, Plaintiff spoke with Mr. [Brian] Parise, a white, Caucasian WWE writer, who revealed that he agreed with Plaintiff that the pitch was racist, but he felt too nervous to speak up about it in front of CALLAHAN.
Abrahams alleges in the early months of her WWE tenure she was discriminated against by Jennifer Pepperman, which she raised to Human Resources.
PEPPERMAN discriminatorily treated Plaintiff and other black, and African American WWE employees poorly compared to their similarly-situated white, and Caucasian counterparts.
PEPPERMAN routinely and unjustifiably raised her voice at Plaintiff, and made rude comments about Plaintiff and other black, and African American WWE employees.
PEPPERMAN would just snap at Plaintiff and her similarly situated black, African American counterparts, or deliberately berate them in front of everyone else.
PEPPERMAN had zero patience for Plaintiff and her similarly situated black, African American counterparts.
PEPPERMAN’s tone and countenance routinely differed from when she spoke to or engaged with Plaintiff’s white, Caucasian counterparts.
PEPPERMAN’s comments and conduct were discriminatory, given she did not treat white, and Caucasian WWE employees in this manner.
PEPPERMAN’s comments and conduct had the purpose and effect of humiliating and intimidating Plaintiff, and their severity and pervasiveness dramatically altered Plaintiff’s work environment for the worse.
However, despite Plaintiff’s complaint, WWE failed to take any immediate or appropriate corrective action in response.
Abrahams says she wasn’t the only Black woman who was wrongly fired from WWE’s writing staff, which, she says, led to an investigation. Abrahams details being interviewed by HR but says, again, her concerns weren’t heard.
In or around November 2021, a black female writer’s assistant was fired after reporting WWE lead writer, CALLAHAN for creating a racially hostile environment against African American employees.
Shortly thereafter WWE questioned Plaintiff about her experiences with CALLAHAN, purportedly pursuant to an investigation into the said black female writer’s assistant’s protected conduct.
Plaintiff was asked if she “witnessed or was the victim of harassment on the creative writing team.”
Plaintiff described the discrimination and hostile work environment she had been subjected to by PEPPERMAN and had witnessed by PEPPERMAN towards other minority employees.
At a different time, Plaintiff received a call from WWE Human Resources representatives. They said, “It was brought to our attention that you called some pitches racist, and I want to know if it was directed at you or a part of direction for a storyline?”
Plaintiff told them it was for a storyline but that it came from WWE lead writer CALLAHAN, so it really shouldn’t have been said once, let alone twice, no matter serious or in jest. Plaintiff told them it was an offensive “joke.”
However, WWE Human Resources kept repeating, “but was it said about you?”
WWE never agreed that it shouldn’t have been said at all by someone of authority.
WWE also never asked if Plaintiff was okay after hearing those racist and sexist pitches.
Abrahams says Callahan made casual “racially discriminatory comments” about a Muslim wrestler. The complaint doesn’t make clear who the wrestler was but goes on to detail a “love storyline” pitch she made with Sylvers. Abrahams says she and Sylvers were the only Black writers on the team at the time. The storyline would involve wrestlers Aliyah, Mansoor, and Angel Garza.
Ms. Sylvers and Plaintiff pitched that Mansoor has a secret that he’s keeping from Aaliyah [sic].
CALLAHAN disagreed with the secret Ms. Sylvers and Plaintiff wanted for the character.
Instead, CALLAHAN suggested, “how about his secret is he’s behind the 9/11 attacks?”
Ms. Sylvers nervously laughed and said, “let’s not do that. Let’s talk about the other part of the pitch.”
CALLAHAN said, “Oh, I guess you’re the lead writer now.”
Ms. Sylvers again laughed nervously, and said, “for just this moment so we can talk about something else.”
Following this, whenever a writer asked CALLAHAN a question, he would reply, “ask [Ms. Sylvers], she’s the lead writer now.”
CALLAHAN’s comments and conduct in this regard were clearly discriminatory given Plaintiff’s similarly situated white, Caucasian counterparts were not treated in this manner.
Additionally, HELLER shared a sexist pitch for a Muslim female wrestler wherein the said female wrestler lacked authority over her own mind and body.
Again, Ms. Sylvers and Plaintiff created a love storyline between wrestlers, Aaliyah, Mansoor, and Angel Garza.
In this pitch, Aaliyah and Mansoor were meant to fall in love, while a jealous Angel tries to break them up. The pitch made Aaliyah appear intelligent and confident in herself and desires, containing Aaliyah speaking up for herself against both Angel and Mansoor, and having her love and affection earned.
Ms. Sylvers and Plaintiff pitched this storyline to HELLER, who expressed confusion about Aaliyah and her choices, particularly her never wanting to be with Angel, who is the obvious villain in the story. HELLER was also confused that Aaliyah wasn’t “crying on the stairs after her breakup with Mansoor.”
HELLER then counter-pitched that Plaintiff make the storyline a love triangle objectifying and bimbofying Aaliyah. HELLER’s sexist counter-pitch included Angel being forward and aggressive in his efforts to date Aaliyah, Aaliyah being easily swayed by Angel’s evil tactics, and Aaliyah being confused about which guy she should date, oscillating between the two men until the end of the storyline.
HELLER and CALLAHAN made these discriminatory comments while Plaintiff and other female black, African American employees were in his presence in the writer’s room.
HELLER’s and CALLAHAN’s comments and conduct were clearly discriminatory.
Plaintiff immediately complained about these racially discriminatory comments.
Plaintiff spoke up and asked, “Doesn’t that take away Aaliyah’s agency?”
Plaintiff told HELLER that she wanted to make a pitch that was “more feminist, especially because Aaliyah’s character is already marketed as being ‘super-hot.’”
Plaintiff along with a number of her co-workers, including Ms. Sylvers and Mr. [Chad] Barbash also complained about the discriminatory nature of their lead writers’ comments.
This led to Abrahams and Sylvers meeting with Christine Lubrano, WWE’s senior vice president of creative writing.
LUBRANO met with Plaintiff and Ms. Sylvers and deliberately downplayed HELLER’s and CALLAHAN’s discriminatory remarks by claiming that she “heard it was a joke. And wacky things are said in the writer’s room all the time!”
When Plaintiff indicated that, “it doesn’t make it okay,” LUBRANO responded, “I know but look at the waves we’re making in the company. 4 years ago, no woman worked on the writer’s team!”
LUBRANO followed up and told Plaintiff she was doing a great job and that “[Pritchard], [MR. MCMAHON], and [MS. MCMAHON] love [Plaintiff’s] writing. But [Plaintiff] should be careful to pick and choose [Plaintiff’s] battles.”
The remainder of the complaint outlines Abrahams’ firing after taking a commemorative chair at Wrestlemania in April 2022.
She says Pepperman told the writer’s room they could take a chair after the event was over. Another writer, Michael Kirshenbaum said that writers were allowed to take chairs at the prior year’s Wrestlemania, according to Abraham, and Pepperman recounted another employee checking a chair at the airport.
Multiple white male employees took chairs as they left Wrestlemania, Abrahams claims, but they weren’t reprimanded.
Abrahams says her firing on or about April 7, 2022, for purportedly taking a commemorative chair wasn’t the real reason for her dismissal. She alleges she “was targeted for a pretextual termination by WWE’s executive management team and her direct supervisors.”
Abrahams says she had trouble finding employment after leaving WWE “due to Defendants’ discrimination and defamatory statements regarding her work performance.”
Abrahams is seeking an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
We reached out to WWE for comment but haven’t received a response.
Abrahams is represented by the Cochran Firm.
Brandon Thurston has written about wrestling business since 2015. He’s also worked as an independent wrestler and trainer.
This article is available ad-free for everyone because of support from our subscribers.
World Wrestling Entertainment: Men
All Elite Wrestling: Men
New Japan Pro Wrestling: Men
Impact Wrestling: Men
World Wonder Ring Stardom: Women
You must be logged in to post a comment.