The Day (New London, Conn.), July 20:
The Stamford-based World Wrestling Association Inc. usually dictates the script that determines which wrestler goes down for the count, but the new lawsuit it faces is far less predictable and could land the company on the mat.
More than 50 former wrestlers who performed under contract with WWE are claiming in the federal complaint that WWE is responsible for the long-term brain damage many former professional wrestlers suffer from.
Connecticut is well familiar with the WWE, not only because of its success, but because Linda McMahon – who with husband and WWE Chairman Vincent McMahon built the company – twice ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate.
WWE dismissed the litigation as a “ridiculous attempt” to extract damages from the highly successful company. There was no hint of empathy for the former wrestlers.
Former football players suffering the ill effects in later life from the repeated concussions they suffered while playing likewise sued the National Football League. The NFL settled for $1 billion and agreed to numerous changes to reduce concussions and treat head injuries more seriously when they happen.
Former players are also suing the National Hockey League in connection with the head injuries resulting from that sport.
The difference (and perhaps not a good one for the WWE) is that in those sports the head injuries are a byproduct of the game. As play unfolds, random collisions cause blows to the head and injuries, despite equipment intended to prevent them.
In wrestling, however, WWE scripts and choreographs specific moves for the wrestlers, who wear no head protection as they leap from the top of the ropes or are slammed to the mat. This makes the WWE more directly responsible for the resulting permanent injuries, argues the attorney for the plaintiffs.
That sounds like a strong argument, even if it doesn’t comply with the WWE script.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less