Chris Jericho Remains Coy About WWE Return, Insists He's Not Done with Wrestling
Former WWE star Chris Jericho has remained vague in recent interviews about his future in America's No. 1 promotion, but he's insisted he intends to make a return to the industry at some point.
Speaking to student journalist Will Piper from Staffordshire University in a recent interview, Jericho, who is currently touring England with his heavy metal band Fozzy, remained coy when asked about a potential return to WWE, noting: "I'm not quite done with wrestling yet. Never say never."
The Canadian star was much more frank when discussing WWE with the Islington Tribune, mentioning that any wrestling plans would have to play second fiddle to his band: “I really have no plans; everything’s based on Fozzy’s timetable.”
Jericho's WWE future has been up in the air for some time now. The star was written out of the storylines in August following a loss to Dolph Ziggler (per the angle, Jericho was fired per a pre-match stipulation ordered by then-Raw GM A.J. Lee), marking another sabbatical from the business for the wrestler.
At the time, it was widely speculated that Jericho would be back in WWE at some point in the future, maybe even by WrestleMania 29 time. But Jericho's mainstream aspirations, as well as his commitments to his band, seems to have put the breaks on any potential return.
That his career in television is finally taking off (he's hosting Syfy show Robat Combat League in the spring of next year) probably doesn't help, with his schedule looking more busy than ever.
Notably, Dave Meltzer reported in his (subscribers-only) Wrestling Observer Newsletter last month that talks between Jericho and the company about a return simply "fell through" after the two parties clashed over the number of dates and the star being allowed full control of his outside commitments.
He went on to note: "They wanted a deal where wrestling would be his priority and there was the control issue regarding outside projects, although they’ve worked through that in the past."
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?