Jun 9, 2009 - 6:44:20 PM By Wade Keller, Torch editor
WWE COO Donna Goldsmith spoke at the Noble Financial Emerging Growth Equity Conference on Tuesday morning. During that, she stated that MMA isn't much of a threat to WWE because MMA doesn't have real stars or storylines. "Somebody gets knocked out and they're hurt and that may be the last you ever see from them again" while WWE can repackage its "Superstars."
Okay, this is just stupid. Seriously. The lack of even a tiny connection to logic is so missing from that statement, it's jaw-dropping.
She's basically saying we control who's on top so it's better, whereas MMA has a fresh rotation of top stars and you never know how long someone will last. To me, the fresh rotation sounds more compelling then another Triple H vs. Randy Orton or John Cena vs. Big Show match. In fact, pro wrestling could learn a thing or two about how to create new "Superstars" from following how it naturally happens in the course of MMA.
Of course some top MMA champions will connect less with crowds than another champion from a year or two ago. That's part of the natural ebb and flow. Sometimes the NBA gets San Antonio and Tim Duncan in the finals, other years Kobe vs. K.G., Lakers vs. Celtics. WWE has the power to manipulate the Lakers vs. Celtics every year, but when it almost literally is the same two stars against one another over and over, that's not necessarily a bright spot and an asset. It's a sign of powerful stars reaffirming their spots and a weak developmental system.
The two products are different. Some people enjoy the storylines and propped up "Superstars" in WWE who are bombastic, colorful, and most often great athletes. Other people enjoy the MMA product more because it's "real," because they can really breakdown fight strategies in a meaningful way, and MMA in its own way tells compelling stories about careers ebbing and flowing and personalities with big egos clashing.
There are many, many similarities between the two products, which is one of the reasons I thoroughly enjoy both. There are also key differences that matter a lot to many people who are fans exclusively of one genre but not the other.
However, to say that essentially MMA is not a threat to WWE because WWE has storylines and "Superstars" and MMA's "Superstars" don't stick around for decades or don't count for some reason as "Superstars" - seriously - is the dumbest corporate statement out of WWE in years.
Yes, Chuck Liddell was MMA's top star and all over the mainstream media for a few months and now isn't, but he never had the market cornered among the majority of MMA fans as the main reason to watch MMA. At the same time there was Fedor, Anderson Silva, Rich Franklin, B.J. Penn, George St. Pierre, Urijah Faber, Brock Lesnar, Mirko Cro Cop, Matt Hughes, Tito Ortiz, and on and on. Sure, UFC has been unable to keep Liddell on top as a headlining megastar on PPV because he got older, opponents began knocking him out of title contention, and others fighters took over as headliners. But guess what, Donna, there's a new star to replace him, be it Rashad Evans or Rampage Jackson or now Loyota Machida in the same weight division.
The great part about MMA is that year to year you're unlikely to see the same two or four people matched up against each other time after time, month after month, year after year. New stars are created all the time when a top star loses to an emerging star. That's how new "Superstars" are created in MMA, and that's how compelling storylines develop.
In pro wrestling, the advantage over MMA - and what I assume she's getting at - is that when someone forms a bond with fans over time, WWE can lock them in at the Superstar status and book them to win time after time, and headline PPVs for years. Well, unless, as most over-muscular WWE "Superstars" do, they get injured and miss extended time (Randy Orton, Batista, Triple H, Rey Mysterio, John Cena, Ken Kennedy), suffer career-ending injuries early (Steve Austin, Arn Anderson, Chris Nowinski). Or, like Jeff Hardy and Rob Van Dam, they decide to walk away for a while. Or they get suspended. Or fans get tired of them. Or they are lured to MMA (Brock, Bobby Lashley) or another wrestling promotion (Kurt Angle, Booker T, The Dudleys, Christian Cage) or Hollywood (The Rock). There's turnover in WWE just like in MMA.
WWE isn't objectively better than MMA. MMA isn't objectively better than WWE. It's a matter of personal taste. But to say one isn't a threat to the other for some bogus reasons that have almost no basis in reality or logic, well, it just looks really bad to say it while representing WWE publicly.
Among the differences is not that WWE has a monopoly on storylines and "Superstars." That's just idiotic and really is the type of ridiculous corporate comment that should result in either an education program for the executive who says it or a muzzle to keep her from speaking publicly in the future.
