The "Stone Cold" Economics of Professional Wrestling

Linda E. McMahon is running for a Seat in the U.S Senate. Her main claim to fame is the Professional Wrestling empire she helped to build up. This article hints at the old Marxian "exploitation" of workers (i.e wrestlers). Using legal loopholes, the WWF wrestlers were not paid health insurance and do not have a retirement pension. Many of them did suffer long term injuries and the article hints that the wrestlers didn't know they would face this risk ex-ante.

But, the article does make clear that there is a "Superstar Tournament" taking place. If Matthew Kahn is a young wrestler and if he can become the next "Andre the Giant or the Hulk" then I can become very very rich but what is the probability of that? In this sense, Professional wrestling with its risks for the new guys but superstar pay for the top dogs resembles Steve Levitt's Chicago Drug Gangs .

So, is Ms. McMahon a "villain" or is she an American success story as she produces a type of entertainment that we have exported around the world? The NY Times could have asked whether Republicans are more likely to make their money off the backs of "the little guy" while rich Democrats make their money from software and human capital innovation. Is this righteous conjecture right?

From the wrestlers vantage point, an economist would say that this is the old story of occupational choice (to be a wrestler or get a PHD in economics) and ex-ante uncertainty (will I become the next "Hulk" ) versus ex-post inequality --- most wrestling guys will have a low Q rating and won't become network stars. So, what did Hulk do right? Was it the blond hair? What charisma skills allowed him to succeed while the Mickey Rourkes of the world fail?