Why Arbitration Could Change Vince McMahon’s Legal Future in Janel Grant Lawsuit

The latest update in the legal battle involving Janel Grant, Vince McMahon, and WWE has sparked fresh discussion — and now Eric Bischoff is weighing in on what arbitration could really mean.

With the case moving toward a potential June 2026 arbitration hearing, attention has shifted to how that process could reshape both the legal outcome and the public narrative. On 83 Weeks, Bischoff addressed the growing belief that the lawsuit could avoid a jury trial entirely and instead be decided in arbitration.

Speaking strictly from a business and strategic standpoint, Bischoff explained why arbitration may benefit McMahon. He also mentioned how arbitration limits public exposure compared to a courtroom trial.

“Arbitration means no jury. You don’t have twelve people sitting there that are being influenced by emotion, by headlines, by things they’ve read, by how they feel about the story. You’ve got a judge. It’s procedural. It’s different. And if I’m looking at it from a strategic point of view, I would think I’m going to be better off with a judge than I am with a jury.”

“If this goes to arbitration, nobody really knows what happened. It doesn’t play out in the court of public opinion the same way. It becomes a lot more contained.”

With arbitration potentially keeping key details out of open court, the conversation naturally turned to whether a resolution could ever open the door for Vince McMahon to reappear in WWE in some capacity. Bischoff did not completely dismiss a ceremonial scenario. However, he drew a hard line when it came to McMahon regaining control of WWE operations.

“If this thing goes to arbitration and nobody ever really knows what happened… do I see him in the Hall of Fame? Maybe. I wouldn’t rule that out.”

“Running day-to-day? No. I’m not buying into that for a second.”

Bischoff pointed to the realities of WWE’s corporate structure under TKO and the influence of institutional investors. He added that Wall Street dynamics would likely prevent any leadership comeback.

“If this would have been 20 years ago, absolutely. Vince would have fought his way back in, and he probably would have pulled it off. But the business has changed so much. The corporate structure is different. The ownership is different.”

“Your institutional investors would just run from that. You’re talking about Wall Street. You’re talking about publicly traded company dynamics. That’s not the same environment Vince built WWE in.”

For now, the update centers on arbitration — and what that decision could mean not just legally, but for Vince McMahon’s public future in WWE. If the case shifts behind closed doors, the long-term implications could look very different than a full public trial.

Do you think arbitration changes everything for Vince McMahon’s future — or is the damage already done regardless of the legal outcome? Let us know your thoughts below.

Please credit Ringside News if you use the above transcript in your publication.