WWE Hall Of Famer Explains Why They “Don’t See A Union Being A Good Thing” In Wrestling

WWE Hall of Famer Rob Van Dam has added his voice to the ongoing debate about unionising professional wrestling, sharing his views on why he believes the idea is not viable for the industry.

Speaking on his podcast, 1 Of A Kind With RVD, the former WWE Champion reflected on his 35 years in the business. While recognising the potential benefits unions bring to other fields, Van Dam explained why he thinks the unique nature of professional wrestling makes unionisation impractical.

I don’t know that I would say that I dislike unions, mostly when I’m having discussions about unions it has to do with my business, my industry, that I’ve been in for like 35 years.

Van Dam highlighted the challenges of aligning a union with the wrestling world’s structure.

I don’t see a union being a good thing and working cohesively with pro wrestling. I’ve never understood it and I still don’t. So, I’m not a fan of it, and when it comes to wrestlers wanting a union, I don’t get it. So, I’m not pro-union, that’s for sure.

The concept of a wrestlers union has been debated for decades, gaining notable attention in 1986 when Jesse Ventura advocated for it. Proponents argue that a union could provide wrestlers with better healthcare, job security, and standardised working conditions. However, critics often cite obstacles such as the industry’s independent contractor model and the wide range of contract terms across promotions.

What Differences Were There Between Working In WWE To TNA According To Rob Van Dam?

Rob Van Dam spoke about the differences he saw between working in WWE vs. TNA and said that schedule was the biggest difference as he could work roughly 20 to 25 matches per month or 240 to 300 per year whilst in WWE, whereas in TNA he would have worked about 60 to 75 matches in the whole year.

H/t to ITRWrestling.com