In a recent revelation, a former WWE Co-President shed light on the organization’s choice to proceed with events in Saudi Arabia, even following the turbulent aftermath of journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination. This decision sparked widespread debate and criticism, forcing the company to navigate the complexities of ethical considerations versus contractual obligations.
Controversy Surrounding Khashoggi’s Assassination
The October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government agents ignited a significant international uproar. As public outrage surged, WWE faced mounting pressure to cancel its Crown Jewel event that year. Despite the political turmoil, the promotion chose to continue with the show, citing its business commitments to Saudi Arabia’s General Sports Authority. However, this move was met with skepticism, as prominent wrestlers like John Cena and Bryan Danielson opted out, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
Former WWE Co-President George Barrios documented his experiences in his book, Sometimes Wrong but Never in Doubt: How a Cuban Kid from Queens Transformed WWE. In it, he recounts the discussions between him, Vince McMahon, and Michelle Wilson regarding the ethics of moving forward with the event amidst the backlash. Barrios mentions McMahon’s apprehension, emphasizing the tension that arose during their deliberations.
Debating the Saudi Deal
During the negotiations for the Crown Jewel event, Barrios explained that complications emerged due to the lengthy discussions with Saudi officials, known for their intense bargaining tactics. The situation intensified with the news of Khashoggi’s disappearance, causing WWE to rethink its business arrangement. Barrios reflects on the uncertainty brought about by this incident, asserting that while he was outraged, he struggled to pinpoint who was entirely to blame.
The discussions among WWE leadership were intense. Barrios noted McMahon’s hesitance, expressing concern that moving forward with the deal could pose significant risks for the organization. However, Barrios made a compelling case for proceeding with the event, suggesting that WWE could not afford to back out of a lucrative deal without fully understanding the implications.
Understanding the Business Perspective
Barrios articulated to McMahon that although the Khashoggi situation was serious, the landscape was fluid, and many unknowns existed. In Barrios’s view, the potential benefits of the Saudi deal far outweighed the perceived risks. This reasoning reflects the reality many corporations face when navigating moral dilemmas against financial incentives.
After Barrios and Wilson were let go from WWE in 2020, the organization saw changes in leadership, including the recent return of Barrios to the board as McMahon sought to regain control prior to the merger with Endeavor to form TKO Holdings. This background adds layers to the ongoing discussions about WWE’s strategic direction and the implications of decisions made during contentious times.
The ongoing shareholder lawsuit involving Barrios is a further indication of the complex dynamics at play within WWE. As the trial approaches, it will be crucial to see how decisions made during this tumultuous period are scrutinized, reflecting broader themes in the world of corporate governance and ethics in business. The Khashoggi incident serves as a poignant reminder of the difficult choices leaders must make when balancing ethical considerations with the realities of business commitments.