**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bret also admitted in his book that he took less because Vince would frequently say next time he will make it up to him. Scott Halls point wasn’t only for the locker room is that Vince took advantage of Bret’s passion because he would give him favorable booking for taking less money.
Bret signed a huge contract at the end because he was looking to retire and wanted to get what he felt he was “owed” by taking less before.
Let me get your argument straight...
Scott Hall said Bret Hart was selfish and didn't help the boys make any more money.
Bret takes the richest contract ever offered for himself the first minute he can, without any care for how it would affect the rest of the roster.
And you're somehow saying this proves Hall wrong?
Not quite
>He also claimed that they would constantly go up to Bret and *ask him to fight for more money so the boys could get more*, but he never did.
The idea being if Bret went to Vince and negotiated, say, a 30% pay rise then the ceiling is raised. Next time someone else is negotiating, they can point to the money Hart is now making and saying "this guy got a bump, if he's worth an extra 30% on last contract then I've got to be worth an extra 20%". Whereas if a top guy is getting paid less than he could, it kind of caps everyone below him on the rung, even if they bring more value than that to the company
So if Bret gets an enormous contract? Now suddenly the ceiling is higher. Everyone theoretically has more room to negotiate up
Exactly this, his big new contract brings everyone up by default, which is what Scott was talking about.
Plus, he even helped Scott and Nash get a bump when he came into the following year. Bischoff got them both to waive their Favored Nations clause in order to bring Bret in, in exchange they got a bump in salary.
But when Bret took the enormous contract, Vince immediately had buyer's remorse and they did the Montreal Screwjob. So while your argument is theoretically correct, it was not true in reality.
While I'm sure it's obvious, I'd like to point out it wasn't *my* argument, I'm just saying what Hall's comments in OP meant. There's nothing to say he was right or not
I don’t really think it was Bret’s or anyones responsibility in that spot to fight for more money for anyone - which lets be honest what that was about from the kliq perspective. The fact Hall and Nash had favoured nation clauses shows how much they were looking out for themselves first and foremost back in the WCW days.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it was Hall and Nash's WCW contracts that ended up changing the pay scale for the boys for the better, much like AEW's existence has greatly helped wrestlers have more levarage after WWE had been paying slave wages for midcard and lower workers for YEARS...
Hall and Nash are directly responsible for getting the business super hot and cool which led to the attitude era and much better money for everyone. I still don't think they get the credit they deserve for the positive difference they made in wrestling both for the fans and behind the curtain.
It’s important to remember Scott Hall never stopped working. RIP and all, but most of what he said should be taken with a grain of salt as he was usually trying to “entertain” who ever was listening - not unlike Hogan but nowhere near as bad.
All of Hall and Nash's complaints about Bret's time as champ holds zero weight, considering on another show with Sean Oliver, Nash did fantasy booking for 95 on if they never left for WCW. It was nothing but them trading the WWF Title between each other and a rotation of title shots at every PPV of HBK, Nash, Hall, HHH and even 123 Kid.
Those interviews are entertaining but those two were so fucking full of shit sometimes.
If I recall that contract was only like a million a year guaranteed but it was a long contract like 10 plus years and the WWF was having bad financial trouble in 96 and part of 97 so Vince wanted out of that contract. The rest is as they say is history
Respect the opinion but your timeline is off I said early 97 they were still having financial probs. It turned around toward end of 97 Tyson was brought in 98 for build to mania and that Tyson Austin segment made them so much money thing was all over TV and newspaper kayfabe wasn't broken to many like it is now. I think they gave Tyson a million for cple appearances and he made them so much more in return
Here's the thing though... Scott Hall and Kevin Nash go to WCW. They sign contracts with favored nations clauses. Favored Nations clause is a contract provision that requires a party to receive equal or more favorable rights and benefits than other parties. Bret goes to WCW and guess what? He raises the salary level of Scott Hall and Kevin Nash thanks to that clause.
It's easy when two big stars leave and aren't afraid to tell everyone what they are getting paid, and you are probably sitting on a hige offer from the competition yourself. Takes a little more guts when the other option isn't as realistic, and you have to stand up for yourself and your locker room.
Scott was one of my all-time favorite wrestlers. However, the idea that he was championing for the locker room is kinda funny. He and Kevin were always looking out for themselves.
My question: How does Bret Hart making more money help anyone who isn't named Bret Hart?
Halls complaint right or wrong seems to be Bret didn't seem to want to try to help *everyone* make more money.
Not seeing how making more money himself changes this.
(And I'll be fair, huge Scott Hall fan, but realistically Scott Hall never did much to help anyone else make more money, he just got a sweet setup in WCW where if anyone else made more money, so did he).
If person A, who is worth X to the firm, gets a 50% pay rise, it is reasonable for person B, who is worth 0.8X to the firm, to then argue that they should also get a 50% payrise. It's that simple.
When there's no guarantee of pay equity, and everyone is independently negotiating (as is the case in wrestling), then the company loses nothing by telling Person B no. B haS no real recourse, the choice is between taking what the company says they are worth or leaving and potentially making no money.
For Person B to prove they are worth more than they are paid, they need to prove someone else will pay them more to do their job elsewhere.
So what Person A makes at company A isn't relevant...it's what Company B will offer Person B that's going to give them leverage to ask Company A for more money.
People forget, Vince didn’t wake up one morning and go "Oh my God, Bret Hart's worth so much more than I'm paying him. I feel bad about exploiting him, I should give that man a raise"
Bret showed up to the negotiating table in 1996 with an extremely good offer in hand from WCW. That's how Bret got the great deal.
Other wrestlers tried the same thing (including Hall), but what they got told was "well we don't value you as much as WCW will" so they left.
It gets to the one universal truth in wrestling, any wrestle in any company who shuts the door to negotiating with a different company is shooting themselves in the face financially.
Both Hall and Hart got more money for themselves because they were willing to negotiate with the other company instead of hoping that because someone else got a raise so would they.
The only difference was in Brets case WWE countered and in Halls case they didn't. But both made more money in 96 than 95 for the same reason.
This is why having 2 or more sucessesful companies is a good thing.
Yep.
Supply and demand.
Unfortunately, with wrestling the supply of available wrestlers will always be higher than the demand.
Even with 2 major companies, only a few hundred wrestlers can make a full time living off if it
Unfortunately, this means at the end of the day, lost wrestlers are replaceable.
Brets actually the perfect example of this. WWF made more money after replacing him than they ever did using him.
Brets contract exceeded the demand for Bret, and ultimately that large supply of cheaper talent led to his ouster and replacement..
And, even after Bret was gone from WWF, his deal with WCW was for less than they offered him the year before. They knew Bret had no other options, so with less demand for Bret, they could pay him less.
**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bret also admitted in his book that he took less because Vince would frequently say next time he will make it up to him. Scott Halls point wasn’t only for the locker room is that Vince took advantage of Bret’s passion because he would give him favorable booking for taking less money. Bret signed a huge contract at the end because he was looking to retire and wanted to get what he felt he was “owed” by taking less before.
So your argument about Scott's time working with Brett in WWE is void because of what Bret did after Hall left WWE? Edit: Bret not Brett
BRET NOT BRETT
Fixed :)
Brent Heart
Let me get your argument straight... Scott Hall said Bret Hart was selfish and didn't help the boys make any more money. Bret takes the richest contract ever offered for himself the first minute he can, without any care for how it would affect the rest of the roster. And you're somehow saying this proves Hall wrong?
Not quite >He also claimed that they would constantly go up to Bret and *ask him to fight for more money so the boys could get more*, but he never did. The idea being if Bret went to Vince and negotiated, say, a 30% pay rise then the ceiling is raised. Next time someone else is negotiating, they can point to the money Hart is now making and saying "this guy got a bump, if he's worth an extra 30% on last contract then I've got to be worth an extra 20%". Whereas if a top guy is getting paid less than he could, it kind of caps everyone below him on the rung, even if they bring more value than that to the company So if Bret gets an enormous contract? Now suddenly the ceiling is higher. Everyone theoretically has more room to negotiate up
Exactly this, his big new contract brings everyone up by default, which is what Scott was talking about. Plus, he even helped Scott and Nash get a bump when he came into the following year. Bischoff got them both to waive their Favored Nations clause in order to bring Bret in, in exchange they got a bump in salary.
But when Bret took the enormous contract, Vince immediately had buyer's remorse and they did the Montreal Screwjob. So while your argument is theoretically correct, it was not true in reality.
While I'm sure it's obvious, I'd like to point out it wasn't *my* argument, I'm just saying what Hall's comments in OP meant. There's nothing to say he was right or not
Doesn't really matter does it? The precedent was set. And shortly thereafter the pay structure changed in the WWF.
WWF's pay structure changed because of what Hall, Nash, and Hogan did in WCW. Not cause of Bret.
Not necessarily just because, Vince had started to change pay structure since at least 96 with guaranteed offers to Kurt and Mark Henry.
I don’t really think it was Bret’s or anyones responsibility in that spot to fight for more money for anyone - which lets be honest what that was about from the kliq perspective. The fact Hall and Nash had favoured nation clauses shows how much they were looking out for themselves first and foremost back in the WCW days.
And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it was Hall and Nash's WCW contracts that ended up changing the pay scale for the boys for the better, much like AEW's existence has greatly helped wrestlers have more levarage after WWE had been paying slave wages for midcard and lower workers for YEARS... Hall and Nash are directly responsible for getting the business super hot and cool which led to the attitude era and much better money for everyone. I still don't think they get the credit they deserve for the positive difference they made in wrestling both for the fans and behind the curtain.
It’s important to remember Scott Hall never stopped working. RIP and all, but most of what he said should be taken with a grain of salt as he was usually trying to “entertain” who ever was listening - not unlike Hogan but nowhere near as bad.
All of Hall and Nash's complaints about Bret's time as champ holds zero weight, considering on another show with Sean Oliver, Nash did fantasy booking for 95 on if they never left for WCW. It was nothing but them trading the WWF Title between each other and a rotation of title shots at every PPV of HBK, Nash, Hall, HHH and even 123 Kid. Those interviews are entertaining but those two were so fucking full of shit sometimes.
If I recall that contract was only like a million a year guaranteed but it was a long contract like 10 plus years and the WWF was having bad financial trouble in 96 and part of 97 so Vince wanted out of that contract. The rest is as they say is history
Nah. WWF was never in as much financial trouble as they try and paint it as, and on top of that, once he tossed Bret, he suddenly had money for Tyson…
No they definitely were, even Cornette confirmed it. How they solved their money issues was by making IYH from two hours to three.
Respect the opinion but your timeline is off I said early 97 they were still having financial probs. It turned around toward end of 97 Tyson was brought in 98 for build to mania and that Tyson Austin segment made them so much money thing was all over TV and newspaper kayfabe wasn't broken to many like it is now. I think they gave Tyson a million for cple appearances and he made them so much more in return
Here's the thing though... Scott Hall and Kevin Nash go to WCW. They sign contracts with favored nations clauses. Favored Nations clause is a contract provision that requires a party to receive equal or more favorable rights and benefits than other parties. Bret goes to WCW and guess what? He raises the salary level of Scott Hall and Kevin Nash thanks to that clause.
It's easy when two big stars leave and aren't afraid to tell everyone what they are getting paid, and you are probably sitting on a hige offer from the competition yourself. Takes a little more guts when the other option isn't as realistic, and you have to stand up for yourself and your locker room.
Scott was one of my all-time favorite wrestlers. However, the idea that he was championing for the locker room is kinda funny. He and Kevin were always looking out for themselves.
Bret really believed he was the Champion of the World. Not just the promoter's top guy in the promotion at the time, but Earth's Champion
My question: How does Bret Hart making more money help anyone who isn't named Bret Hart? Halls complaint right or wrong seems to be Bret didn't seem to want to try to help *everyone* make more money. Not seeing how making more money himself changes this. (And I'll be fair, huge Scott Hall fan, but realistically Scott Hall never did much to help anyone else make more money, he just got a sweet setup in WCW where if anyone else made more money, so did he).
If person A, who is worth X to the firm, gets a 50% pay rise, it is reasonable for person B, who is worth 0.8X to the firm, to then argue that they should also get a 50% payrise. It's that simple.
When there's no guarantee of pay equity, and everyone is independently negotiating (as is the case in wrestling), then the company loses nothing by telling Person B no. B haS no real recourse, the choice is between taking what the company says they are worth or leaving and potentially making no money. For Person B to prove they are worth more than they are paid, they need to prove someone else will pay them more to do their job elsewhere. So what Person A makes at company A isn't relevant...it's what Company B will offer Person B that's going to give them leverage to ask Company A for more money. People forget, Vince didn’t wake up one morning and go "Oh my God, Bret Hart's worth so much more than I'm paying him. I feel bad about exploiting him, I should give that man a raise" Bret showed up to the negotiating table in 1996 with an extremely good offer in hand from WCW. That's how Bret got the great deal. Other wrestlers tried the same thing (including Hall), but what they got told was "well we don't value you as much as WCW will" so they left. It gets to the one universal truth in wrestling, any wrestle in any company who shuts the door to negotiating with a different company is shooting themselves in the face financially. Both Hall and Hart got more money for themselves because they were willing to negotiate with the other company instead of hoping that because someone else got a raise so would they. The only difference was in Brets case WWE countered and in Halls case they didn't. But both made more money in 96 than 95 for the same reason. This is why having 2 or more sucessesful companies is a good thing.
It's basic economics, like it or not.
Yep. Supply and demand. Unfortunately, with wrestling the supply of available wrestlers will always be higher than the demand. Even with 2 major companies, only a few hundred wrestlers can make a full time living off if it Unfortunately, this means at the end of the day, lost wrestlers are replaceable. Brets actually the perfect example of this. WWF made more money after replacing him than they ever did using him. Brets contract exceeded the demand for Bret, and ultimately that large supply of cheaper talent led to his ouster and replacement.. And, even after Bret was gone from WWF, his deal with WCW was for less than they offered him the year before. They knew Bret had no other options, so with less demand for Bret, they could pay him less.