Ryback Contract Dispute: Is The Big Guy Wrong About WWE Payment Structure?

Ryback has made more news and impact on social media as of late than he has in a wrestling ring.

But as he revealed in a heartfelt Tumblr message this week, there has been a reason for it. He and WWE have not been able to come to terms on a new contract, and now that he’s gone public with it, it is unlikely that WWE will acquiesce to his demands.

Most fans are now expecting “the Big Guy” to get his walking papers, and that fact is not lost on him.

“WWE may very well release me, which if it is the case so be it,” wrote Ryback (real name Ryan Reeves). “If we can work things out a lot needs to change as I am not living in fear and creatively cannot continue to live a life that limits me creatively.”

Perhaps the biggest sticking point for Ryback wasn’t that the WWE had booked him to lose so much recently, or that they had him go under Kalisto on the Payback pre-show, but that he does not get paid the same as the winners in spite of the fact that the winners (probably) couldn’t win without him agreeing to lose.

“Wrestling is pre determined (sic), we as performers know before we go out to that ring or perform a backstage scene who is winning and losing etc or have a general idea of what we are going to say,” Reeves argued, adding that it blew his mind “how in a sport which is pre determined from a company standpoint winners are paid so much more than the losers.”

“Every single person who works for WWE from top to bottom is absolutely just as valuable as the next,” he added. “The winners cannot win unless the losers go out there and agree to lose to them.”

The argument is an interesting one considering the undeniable fact that kayfabe in wrestling is now dead.

Back in the day when wrestlers had to guard the authenticity of the business with their lives, it made more sense because they were continuing to sell professional wrestling as a sport.

Vince McMahon veered away from that during the famed “Monday Night Wars” era, making a now historic announcement that lifted the veil.

In so doing, he changed the paradigm to where wrestling was “outed” and received by the mainstream as a weekly action-adventure program.

In that light, it made less sense to wrestlers like Ryback that winners should continue to get the heftier paycheck. To prove his point, Reeves noted that popular wrestlers — i.e. the ones likely to get more wins — had the advantage of profiting from merchandise sales.

When it comes to the in-ring “competition,” he argues, the pay should be more equal. This is likely going to be the part of the Ryback post that resonates the most.

There is an argument rumbling through comments sections that Ryback has not thought out his argument well enough because, some have pointed out, actors on weekly dramas or sitcoms do not have the same pay across the board.

Bryan Cranston (Walter White) would naturally earn more money per episode of Breaking Bad than Matt L. Jones (Badger), for example.

That said, Ryback’s point may be better received by cutting apart the placement that wrestlers have on the card. If Roman Reigns and AJ Styles are at the top of the card and one of them has to lose (sorry, AJ), shouldn’t they still be paid the same amount for the actual match since both men were able to earn their way to the top of the card in WWE’s eyes? Here’s the Big Guy’s full post.

Does Ryback have a point, or do you think the WWE payment structure as he has described it is fair? Sound off in the comments section.