Wade Keller was a perfect example of another issue that comes with wrestling complaining. He went on a rant in his Raw Post-Show podcast about Wrestlemania being too long and the fact that the length of the show is based on the desire of WWE to have more hours viewed on the Network which would then look good on Wall Street. Keller said that people should not live their lives based on making a few extra dollars and that life should have more meaning than that.
There are a few problems with this. Before I get into that, Keller is right. Wrestlemania is too long. Outside of NXT Takeover, I would argue that most big shows are too long (I would say that WrestleKingdom is too, but there were several matches this year that should have been longer and were not in the interest of having a shorter show-so I have to think about that one). With that said, what Keller is doing is dangerously walking the line between saying something is bad for the fans and preaching about how someone lives because he cannot wrap his mind around the corporate mindset.
I am sure the McMahons do not need a new jet or another big house, but who am I to say that they should not want that? It’s not my place. If that is how they want to live, I am not going to rant and give a lecture (that I am 99.9 percent sure none of the McMahons and very few of the stockholders will hear) about how people should not live their lives for extra money. They are a business and there are entities outside of the McMahons who have some investment (literally) in how WWE does. Even if it is just the McMahons-they are in business to make money. The argument is not that they should have more things to fulfill themselves than money-the argument about some of the things that they do (eg: going to Saudi Arabia, international shows that are for all intents and purposes non-canon, making Wrestlemania too long, blinding lights) is that it is either morally wrong (Saudi Arabia) or it is damaging to the product in the long run and it either alienates or runs off even the most loyal of fans.
Here is the thing, once you say that there is more to a business than making money, then the analysis can drift into something like “Creative did this thing that I don’t like that is making them money-but I don’t care how much money they make.” It is fine for a fan to not like something that is popular even if does make a company money, but you cannot be assertive in that opinion if something is working. That is why there has to be perspective. As noted above, unless the company is doing something that is completely morally wrong-then we have to take into account (even if we do not personally like it) that the goal of the organization to make money.
I could make an argument that it is morally questionable to make Steve Austin a hero based on his character. Same for the Rock. In the prime of the Attitude Era, neither of them were exactly white-meat babyfaces, but they both made WWE a great deal of money. Again, there is a difference between pushing anti-heroes as protagonists and making a show too long or taking millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia. At the same time, once we go down the road of judging organizations morally for wanting to make money (when that is the point of a business-no matter how much money it has or it is making)-then anything that an individual fan does not like can be questioned. Personally speaking, I do not think that is a road that we can go down.