Eric Bischoff has renewed his long-standing criticism of placing too much emphasis on tag team wrestling, arguing that the format is less efficient, more expensive and more difficult to use for sustained storytelling than singles competition.
Speaking on 83 Weeks with Eric Bischoff, the former WCW executive made clear that this is not a new view for him. Bischoff said he has held the position since 1994, when he was working in a prominent executive capacity in wrestling and evaluating the business considerations behind how television time and talent resources were used.
His central argument is straightforward: a traditional tag team match requires twice as many wrestlers as a singles match, yet it does not necessarily create twice the business value. In Bischoff's view, that difference matters when a promotion is structuring its roster, planning television and determining which acts should receive the most attention.
“It's inefficient. It's, for the most part, ineffective. It's very, very expensive. It's twice as expensive to put on a tag team match as it is a singles match. And then it makes it even harder to tell a really good story.”
For more background on this topic, read Nattie Addresses Ronda Rousey Comparisons as WWE Character Continues to Evolve.
Bischoff's comments address an issue that has existed throughout modern wrestling: the tension between tag team wrestling as a popular in-ring attraction and tag team wrestling as a major strategic pillar for a promotion. Tag matches can provide variety, showcase multiple performers in one segment and create distinctive match structures. They have also historically served as a launching point for future singles stars.
At the same time, Bischoff contends that the format presents practical challenges when a company is trying to create stars and organize clear rivalries. A singles feud can be built around two wrestlers, their motivations and a direct one-on-one payoff. Tag team programs, by comparison, require the creative team to account for at least four performers at a time, their respective roles, and the possibility that the crowd's attention will shift toward one individual rather than the team itself.
A debate over priorities, not simply match quality
Bischoff did not frame tag team wrestling as inherently bad or suggest that promotions should eliminate it altogether. Instead, he questioned whether building a deep tag division is the best financial decision for a company whose primary objective is maximizing business through the most effective use of its talent.
That distinction is important. There is a substantial difference between using tag bouts as part of a balanced wrestling show and making the acquisition or presentation of teams a central roster-building philosophy. Bischoff's criticism was aimed at the latter approach, particularly when a promotion dedicates major resources to assembling numerous established teams.
His remarks came amid increased attention on AEW's tag team and trios depth. AEW has consistently featured tag and multi-man wrestling as a prominent part of its identity, and the company has continued adding experienced acts to its roster. Recent additions include New Level, formerly known as New Day, and the Motor City Machine Guns.
Those additions have added to a landscape that already places considerable value on team-based competition. For fans who prioritize fast-paced combinations, extended multi-man matches and specialized pairings, a deep pool of teams can be a major attraction. It also gives a promotion flexibility, allowing it to create fresh matchups without relying on the same singles combinations week after week.
Bischoff, however, believes that flexibility comes with a cost. More teams mean more wrestlers to feature, more acts competing for limited television space and greater difficulty ensuring that every unit has a distinct presentation. In an environment where a company is attempting to establish clear top stars, a crowded tag roster can create another layer of competition for audience attention.
WWE and AEW can pursue different models
While discussing the contrast between WWE and AEW, Bischoff suggested that WWE's apparent de-emphasis of tag teams reflects the same financial reasoning he has advocated for decades. His position is that singles acts are generally easier to center in major stories and may offer a more direct route to creating commercially valuable stars.
That does not mean he believes every company must operate identically. Bischoff specifically allowed for the possibility that AEW President Tony Khan may have priorities that go beyond the immediate financial calculation he described. A promotion may decide that a rich tag team division fits its creative identity, serves its audience, strengthens its weekly match cards or supports a broader long-term vision.
“If they think loading up the tag teams is going to create more interest for them, good for them, because there's going to be a lot of [teams] available.”
The point is less a direct prediction about whether AEW's strategy will succeed and more a statement of Bischoff's personal business philosophy. He believes companies should be conscious of the expense associated with team-based competition and should not assume that depth in the division automatically translates into increased interest or revenue.
Bischoff also noted that a promotion that is not concerned by that financial trade-off can benefit from carrying a substantial number of teams. A deep division can occupy a significant amount of programming, provide dependable match quality and help fill out a roster across television, live events and other programming needs.
“The reason WWE is de-emphasizing tag teams is the same reason that I publicly stated I was doing in 1994: it doesn't make financial sense. Now, if you don't care that it doesn't make financial sense, then it's nice to have a deep tag team roster, because you can fill a lot of time with it.”
Tag wrestling's lasting role remains clear
Regardless of Bischoff's financial objections, tag team wrestling remains an important part of the industry. Some fans prefer it to singles wrestling precisely because it uses different rhythms and storytelling tools. The isolating of one competitor, the anticipation of a hot tag, tandem offense and the need for teamwork create match dynamics that cannot be replicated in a standard singles bout.
Tag teams have also played a major role in the development of major names. Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels are among the wrestlers cited as examples of performers who gained crucial experience and visibility as part of teams before reaching the highest levels as singles stars. Their paths demonstrate one of the strongest arguments in favor of preserving meaningful tag divisions: teams can help performers learn television timing, character work, crowd engagement and the fundamentals of working within a larger act.
That developmental value does not necessarily resolve the question Bischoff raised. A team can be useful in preparing wrestlers for future singles roles while still being difficult to monetize as a top-level attraction in its own right. The balance between those two realities is what promotions must determine for themselves.
There is also no single definition of success for a tag division. One company may judge it through championship prestige and sustained team rivalries. Another may view tag matches as a vehicle for elevating eventual singles stars. A third may prioritize the division because it produces the style of action that its established audience expects. The financial implications outlined by Bischoff are one part of that equation, but they are not the only consideration available to a promoter.
Bischoff's view remains a business-first argument
Bischoff's comments are consistent with a business-first perspective that places efficiency at the center of roster construction. From that standpoint, a singles match requires fewer performers, allows for a more concentrated narrative and can place the promotional focus squarely on two potential stars. A tag match may be exciting and valuable to fans, but it can also require additional investment without providing a proportionate return.
AEW's continued interest in tag teams and trios presents a different approach. The company has shown willingness to stock its roster with established teams and use multi-person matches as a meaningful part of its presentation. Whether that emphasis creates the increased interest Bischoff questioned will ultimately be judged by the company's own goals and results.
For now, Bischoff is not arguing that teams lack talent, value or an audience. His message is that promotions should understand the economic and creative trade-offs involved before treating tag team depth as an automatic strength. It is a debate rooted in differing philosophies: whether a wrestling company should concentrate its resources around individual stars, or whether a broad, heavily featured team division can be worth the additional cost because of what it adds to the overall product.
In pictures
Darryl Polo
Darryl Polo is a passionate wrestling fan covering WWE, AEW, TNA and beyond. He loves great rivalries, breakout stars and the moments that keep fans talking long after the bell. How we work.