AEW Denies Pulling Willie Mack from GCW Events After Effy’s Comments Spark Controversy

Willie Mack will no longer be appearing at upcoming GCW events, including his scheduled match against Sidney Akeem (Scrypts) at Highest in Room 3 on December 14. The news, confirmed by GCW to yesterday and has sparked speculation about AEW’s involvement and the ongoing fallout from comments made by Effy regarding AEW and Tony Khan’s father, Shad Khan.

The situation has two conflicting narratives. GCW reportedly believes that Mack was pulled from the shows by AEW due to Effy’s remarks about AEW running the Hammerstein Ballroom shortly before GCW’s return to the venue. This belief stems from a previous instance where Ricky Starks was pulled from GCW events following Effy’s comments. However, AEW is adamant that they did not prohibit Mack from appearing.

According to Dave Meltzer on Wrestling Observer Radio, Mack allegedly informed GCW that he was pulled by AEW, leading GCW’s Brett Lauderdale to contact AEW’s Sonjay Dutt for clarification. Dutt reportedly denied any involvement, stating, “Absolutely not true.” Meltzer added that Mack later clarified to Lauderdale that AEW didn’t explicitly pull him but that Christopher Daniels “made it clear that [Mack] shouldn’t go.”

From AEW’s perspective, the situation seems to stem from miscommunication. Meltzer explained, “AEW was very, very clear. Sonjay told Brett the same thing. They’re not pulling Willie Mack from the show.” However, Mack may have interpreted the conversation differently. Ultimately, Meltzer noted, “It was Willie Mack’s choice. Was he pressured? Or did he just do it on his own? I don’t know.”

Interestingly, the situation also confirmed that Mack is under contract with AEW, a detail that was not widely known. While he has appeared on AEW’s West Coast shows, his presence on the company’s televised programming has been limited.

As the debate over Mack’s withdrawal continues, fans are left wondering whether pressure from AEW influenced his decision or if it was simply a case of miscommunication.