Jim Ross Says WWE Royalties Aren’t What Really Matters in the Pay Debate

Few topics spark louder arguments among wrestling fans than how WWE talent gets paid, especially when royalty statements surface online and fuel claims that the system is rigged. For many, the assumption is simple: if a wrestler helped build the brand, the money should automatically follow. Jim Ross complicates that belief by arguing the structure itself was never the core problem. The disconnect, in his view, starts with how talent understands the business side of their own careers.

Ross framed royalties as a sales-driven model that rewarded momentum, visibility, and personal initiative rather than a guarantee tied to tenure or effort alone. As he put it, “You’re never going to make everybody happy. But the royalty program was set up to reward people who sold. It was paid on sales. That’s how you make money in pro wrestling.” From a booking standpoint, he described it as a reflection of how the company valued drawing power, not a moral judgment on anyone’s contribution.

That philosophy meant there was never a universal percentage. Royalties were negotiated, fluid, and dependent on leverage within the locker room hierarchy. Ross illustrated the gap bluntly when addressing star power. “You think I’m going to pay Stone Cold the same percentage we’re paying Steve Lombardi? No,” he remarked, noting that Lombardi understood the reality better than most because he had lived through every cycle of the business. “He’d been around long enough to see the peaks and the valleys.”

In Ross’s telling, the system was designed to push wrestlers to invest in their characters beyond the ring. “The bigger star you are, the more juice you’ve got,” he explained. “Some guys might be making three percent. Maybe Austin’s making five, hypothetically. It’s negotiable, and it’s based on what you sell.” That distinction mattered because it separated wrestlers who waited for the office from those who actively shaped their own brand.

Steve Austin stood out as Ross’s clearest example of how royalties could become transformative when talent took ownership. “Austin did all his own designs. Austin 3:16, all that stuff. That was his creation,” Ross recalled. “He knew what his fan base would buy, and he spent more time on that than anybody else.” From a fan perception standpoint, Austin’s merch success became part of the mythology of his run, reinforcing how character work and business instincts could overlap.

Yet Ross also acknowledged that big checks did not automatically translate into stability. Behind the scenes, financial issues were common, even after strong royalty quarters. “I’ve had guys come in needing an advance right after getting a royalty check,” he said, describing uncomfortable conversations that followed. “You’re sitting there asking, ‘Didn’t you have a plan? Do you have an accountant?’”

That pattern led Ross to a conclusion that often gets lost in online debates. “Most talents are not prepared for the money they’re going to make,” he observed. “They don’t plan. They’re independent contractors. How many of them are paying their quarterly taxes?” To him, the system exposed gaps in education and preparation as much as it revealed disparities in pay.

Ross consistently viewed royalties as a motivational tool rather than a safety net. “I always looked at it as a way to incentivize the talent,” he explained. “If you’re a car salesman, do you want to be paid by the unit, or do you want to be paid by the cars you sell and make money?” That mindset framed wrestling not just as performance art, but as commission-based entertainment where initiative often dictated upside.

In the broader landscape of professional wrestling, Ross’s perspective challenges fans to rethink how value is measured. It highlights the tension between guaranteed contracts and performance-based rewards, and how that balance shapes locker room expectations and long-term career planning.

As wrestling continues to evolve under modern corporate structures, debates over royalties, guarantees, and creative ownership are unlikely to fade. Ross’s comments fit into a larger conversation about whether today’s system produces better security, or simply shifts responsibility in different ways, without resolving the underlying financial literacy issues he believes have always existed.

If you use any quotes in this article, please credit Wrestling Headlines and Grilling JR with Jim Ross.