Actually, WWE is run by highly-competent business people for whom the bottom line is the highest priority. We can argue all we want about the pros and cons of that, but the reality is that WWE's stockholders get higher dividends the higher the profit margin is, so the Board of Directors will always push for the most competent people to run the company from a financial standpoint.
As to the issue of WWE providing health insurance, once WWE became openly recognized as a performance rather than a legitimate competition, the power of a union on the level of the NFL Players Association became untenable. However, a union along the lines of the Screen Actors Guild would be far more powerful if there was competition between wrestling companies and wrestlers weren't worried about alienating themselves from the top company in the world in which they can ply their trade. It's similar to the "no compete clause" that's part and parcel of every WWE contract, telling workers that they can make no televised appearances for another company for 90 days after the end of their contract. The reality is that a competent attorney could get that no-compete tossed out with a couple of briefs and declarative judgment (one that requires no actual appearance in court), but the wrestler who gets it kicked also gets blackballed from WWE forever and even the guys who don't care to work for WWE in the future "never say never" and don't want to face that risk.
It's also worth noting that it's long been WWE's policy to pay the medical bills for workers injured in the performance of their duties. This is actually done out of the goodness of the company's heart as there's no requirement to do so. However, it also helps their cash balance as a contracted employee is still granted reasonable assurances that they should not be injured in the performance of their duties. In other words, WWE pays for it without requirement because the lawsuit would go in favor of the petitioner and cost WWE millions.
wk
