WWE does not handle very well the backlash of its deal with Saudi Arabia

Six days ago, WWE was in an uncomfortable position with regard to its upcoming Jewel Crown event in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the second card of a 10-year contract with the kingdom, one year old. estimated value between 20 and 50 million dollars per show. Saudi Arabia's brutal war of wear and tear in Yemen and, more recently, Turkey's insistence that the Saudis killed and dismembered the dissident journalist and US resident Jamal Khashoggi in their consulate from Istanbul, have given this deal an ethically dubious or totally unconscious aspect, depending on the charitable character you feel. It has never been anything else, but recent events have only made matters worse for the WWE.

The Saudis are reporting on Khashoggi's death that "an interrogation went wrong," but the Turkish government claims to have a recording proving otherwise. There are still many unknowns in this case, but what is known is already serious enough for a growing number of companies to break ties with Saudi Arabia; lawmakers push legislation for the US government to do the same. Even Endeavor, the Hollywood agency content factory to which the Ultimate Fighting Championship belongs, has waived an agreement to sell a minority stake to the Saudi government. This came after Endeavor issued a statement almost identical to that of the WWE on "tracking" the situation.

While Khashoggi's story is still topical and WWE is still monitoring the situation, many mainstream media have covered both the WWE leadership and the growing response to the promotion. HBO Last week tonight with John Oliver She built her feature article on human rights violations and the "liberal" facade in Saudi Arabia on Sunday, and added some thorny remarks about the agreement with WWE, including a moving account of the most blatant propaganda during the Greatest Royal Rumble of April in Jeddah. . According to Nielsen's hearings, the first broadcast of this week's episode attracted 919,000 viewers, and an additional 3.7 million watched the official YouTube download of the Saudi segment; even the WWE-centric snippets I've tweeted has 76,000 views. These numbers do not include viewers of HBO retransmission, whether on linear channels or through any of their three on-demand services, nor displays unofficial downloads on YouTube.

While the Last week tonight This segment was probably the first time that many viewers had heard about the deal. The hardest fan base seems to have gained a new understanding of the Saudi issue thanks to the coverage of Oliver and others. When The Undertaker mentioned "Crown Jewel" in the special edition of the 1,000th episode of last night, SmackDown, he was heavily booed. A surprise appearance by Vince McMahon instead caused a massive ovation.

WWE must hope that cognitive dissonance holds up because, despite growing public pressure, promotion has not really changed course. Watch their weekly TV shows and you'll notice that starting Monday, the catch for Crown Jewel will no longer mention Saudi Arabia. You will also notice that it is about it. WWE quietly confirmed that the show would continue, while telling all the media that were asking it "we are currently watching the situation."

WWE has done a lot of monitoring in the last few months. Recently, WWE had purported to "investigate" its on-board doctor, confessing under oath that he had had sex with at least one patient wrestler and investigating new allegations that Randy Orton had been exposed to writers. Since then, no public announcement has been made in either case, and WWE has not asked for comments on the status of these "investigations". It seems reasonable to assume that their "tracking" of Khashoggi's "situation" means about as much as their "investigations". Which is to say: not much.

While WWE as a company has remained true to its "watchdog" principle, its substitutes have exposed the argument of promoting the maintenance of the kingdom. TMZ took the road to Orton Wednesday morning at an airport where, instead of unveiling his penis, he defended the decision of the promotion to continue with Crown Jewel. "I think we should go," he began. "I think the only way to help change there is to leave, not to cancel the trip. Our daughters happened in Abu Dhabi not so long ago, and I think we'll be there, eventually, with Saudi, [at] the jewel of the crown. That's the goal, to make things better everywhere and I think we do not it does not help. Go help. "

Inconsistent as it may be, there is no reason to believe that it was spontaneous. WWE has a set of talking points on its Saudi agreement, and being a stockbroker was the central part of the story; Deviating from persistent and egregious violations of human rights in the country, at home and abroad, to focus on the absence of female wrestlers in Saudi programs is also part of this story. As usual, it's hard to know if the people involved are sincere or allowed to do it – Orton also liked a vague but apparently pro-union and anti-Saudi deal. tweet by Cody Rhodes Monday, for example. (Rhodes, normally talkative, did not respond to a request for clarification.) Beyond the long history of obviously organized interactions between WWE and TMZ, there was another reason why the declaration of Orton sounded compelling and unconvincing, namely that she was practically note-to-note with the argument of another WWE substitute in Fox Business Channel from Tuesday.

This substitute was John "Bradshaw" Layfield, a retired wrestler / announcer turned investor who did not even work for WWE anymore. In less than a minute of airtime, Layfield launched a staggering amount of propaganda for the WWE in favor of the Saudi agreement, which almost all rhymed with Orton's case at TMZ. In short, Layfield stated that:

• WWE should go to Saudi Arabia because it believes that the US embargo on trade with Cuba has not worked, which proves that only the commitment is effective.
• This WWE "had its first female match in the Middle East", which is not entirely true: wrestlers participated in WWE tours in the mid-1980s in the most liberal countries of the world. the region.
• That the crowd chanted "this is a change" during the Alexa Bliss-Sasha Banks match in Abu Dhabi, which was wrong both because the singing was "it's hopeful" and because that the WWE has exaggerated what was clearly sung by some fans.
• That "those senators who come to criticize the WWE about it" – three Democrats and Republican Lindsay Graham, all talking to the IJR – are simply "hidden"[ing] behind their patriotism and waving flags to try to improve their abominable approval rates, "he nailed in … noting that the WWE staged performances for the troops and staged the first event of the size of an arena after September 11th. Layfield also noted that he had visited Ground Zero.

"WWE has been at the forefront of change," he concluded, "and [if] you want to change Saudi Arabia, you send something like the WWE. "

Although media coverage of the situation was broad and largely negative, there were exceptions, all among WWE-friendly publications. A search on the Google site shows that Rolling stone, which has become a regular outlet for WWE announcements, has not covered the controversy between WWE and Saudi Arabia at all. Their summary of more than 600 words from Last week tonight segment completely omits the WWE parties, even though many outlets have driven them. ESPN appears to have recently removed content from the WWE. While it is worrisome that they did limit propaganda in May, it probably means little that they waited until Tuesday night to publish a solid article on WWE / Saud from Tim Fiorvanti's publisher WWE page of the network.

The most troubling, however, was an article on the Sports Illustrated Justin Barasso's website, which was released on Monday. IF covered the Saudi question very well, and their piece on the Last week tonight Segment quoted Oliver's observation that Greatest Royal Rumble was a "propaganda from one wall to another", but Barasso's play is frowned upon. The story begins with a WWE talent that expresses "uneasiness with the idea of ​​performing in Saudi Arabia, especially because of the country's poor record in human rights," and Barasso agrees that the series should not take place. (WWE: "As always, we maintain a line of open communication with our interpreters while continuing to monitor the situation.") In the version of the article currently on the site, this part, updated after publication for add the declaration of WWE, is executed. 203 words – 169 without the statement.

The remaining 399 words are uncut and of remarkable nudity, the apology of the WWE. "Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has resold them as a vision of a progressive country" and "seemed serious in his quest for Western entertainment," Barasso writes, and the WWE has sincerely believed it. He hints that there was no sign of human rights issues to worry the WWE until the murder of Khashoggi, which is false. He also writes that the agreement may be justified in the light of other Western companies dealing with the Kingdom, leaving aside the salient point that WWE served as a propagandist for the kingdom as part of the # 39; agreement. WWE now has the opportunity to "make a statement on human rights and equality" by withdrawing, he concludes. This is debatable, and such a statement would be hard to credit for the moment. Of course, WWE does not withdraw from Saudi Arabia, at least not yet. Which means that, at present, their statement is about what promotion actually values ​​and to what extent.

David Bixenspan is a freelance writer from Brooklyn, NY, who co-hosts the Between The Sheets podcast every Monday at BetweenTheSheetsPod.com and everywhere else where podcasts are available. You can follow him on Twitter at @davidbix and see his portfolio at Clippings.me/davidbix.