People are willing to pay for the right to cheer or boo Roman Reigns. That is your job as a box office attraction. Your job and the manner in which you feed your family is not dependent upon whether the audience respects you or disrespects you. It's dependent on the audience's willingness to pay to see you.

I'm not someone who concerns himself with whether people pay to cheer Roman Reigns or whether people pay to boo Roman Reigns. People pay to see Roman Reigns. They pay to react to Roman Reigns.

I broke into the business in the '80s, and the '80s was based on hyper-exaggerated reactions.

Vince McMahon can end up in a federal lawsuit with you where there is mudslinging back and forth that makes the front page of 'The Wall Street Journal,' and if tomorrow he figures out a way where the company can benefit from your involvement, you will be at a negotiating table with him at lunch.

I dearly believe in my heart that Goldberg is a family man who has a profound love for his wife and son and wants his family to see him as that superhero that people romanticize him being during the height of his fame.

I never envisioned multimillion-dollar offices for ECW.

I approach my interviews with the mindset of, exactly what are we selling? How can I sell it the hardest and the most effectively in the fewest words possible? And how can I make each word that I say mean as much as it possibly can? And I bring that perspective to the table because I used to focus a lot on the character that I had to play.

The key to WWE's success and longevity is that they are, as modern and as relevant as the company may be in modern social media and platforms and contemporary distribution, the company is still built around old-school promotion. Who are these two fighters? Why are they wrestling? And why should I pay to see it?

To me, a WrestleMania Sunday is 'I serve at the behest and at the pleasure of my beast.' I'm there to lighten the mood. I'm there to keep the mood light and not make it too heavy, and to keep the pressure off Brock Lesnar.

I've always been a big believer in diversification for anybody. It's never good to put all of your efforts and all of your time and all of your financial resources into just one project. Diversification is key for any individual and any business.

The audience wants something that entertains them, and whether that entertainment is in the form of a physical match or in the form of a skit or video or promo, it's our job to deliver it to them, to the point where the audience becomes the biggest champion of our brand. And if we can't match that, then we're falling short.

If you're content in WWE, then you have peaked. You have peaked in your own earning capacity for what you're going to bring home to your family, and you've peaked in what you offer to WWE in terms of your own talent to exploit.

Who cares if the locker room would embrace Conor McGregor. If Conor McGregor can be a revenue driver for WWE, if he can sell network subscriptions, or if he can sell thousands and tens of thousands of tickets, if he can move millions of T-shirts, who cares if anybody in the locker room likes it or doesn't like it.

Brock Lesnar and Roman Reigns are the main event of WrestleMania 34 because neither one is content, and both are ambitious enough to push the limits of what is now considered their greatest moment, and that's the point that neither one will ever accept. They will never accept the idea that they've peaked as individuals.

We live in a society that has ever-changing values and ever-changing standards and ever-changing criteria to determine who is a superstar or not. If you want to be a superstar, if you want to main event, if you want to profit in the entertainment business, you have to go with those trends and spearhead new trends.

I don't think Roman Reigns should for one moment of his life be worrying about earning the respect of the WWE audience. Because what he has is their willingness to pay to see Roman Reigns whether they respect him or not.

Unlike Frank Sinatra, I have no regrets in my life. Zero. Whatever hardships I have faced, or have caused myself, are moments I have to embrace in order to move forward. I have no problem coming to grips with either the highs or lows in my life.

I think the fact that Brock Lesnar is not on the road 52 weeks a year, is not on 'Monday Night Raw' every episode, is not performing 300 matches per year... I think that dictates to the public, 'Brock Lesnar is special.' That an appearance by Brock Lesnar in an of itself is newsworthy. It's not commonplace.

Shane Douglas accomplished quite a bit in and for ECW, but his career will forever be defined by the moment he threw down the NWA Title.

The thing about Brock has always been, who can push Brock to a level where you actually get to see the best of Brock Lesnar, because very rarely have people ever gotten a chance to see that. I mean, really, who can keep up with him? This is not wrestling hype: he's a once-in-a-lifetime athlete.

I grew up in a household with my mother, who was a Holocaust survivor. I very much understand the mentality that you cannot live in the past. You can't spend your entire life, or even portions of it, looking back and dwelling on things that have already happened. You have to move forward.

CM Punk clearly established during his time as a Paul Heyman Guy that he was, as the billing suggested, The Best In The World.

How could you look at CM Punk and not think that he has the 'it' factor? I don't think I'm any great visionary or genius because I saw something in CM Punk; I think everyone else is a stupid schmuck for not seeing it in CM Punk.

Who can deny that it was a pleasure to watch Rob Van Dam interact with the audience and tear the house down for 30 minutes a night.