Matt Hardy outlines hopes for Joe Gacy and Dexter Lumis in TNA. September 23, 2026 posted on Sep. 23, 2026 at 2:33 pm Matt Hardy shared his thoughts on September 23, 2026, about the possible arrival of Joseph Sawyer, known as Joe Gacy, and Sam Shaw, known as Dexter Lumis, in TNA. The two wrestlers, previously part of the Wyatt Sicks stable in WWE, were released earlier this year along with the rest of the group. Hardy spoke during an episode of his podcast The Extreme Life of Matt Hardy and addressed rumors that Sawyer and Shaw may already be signed to TNA. Hardy stated that all former Wyatt Sicks members possess strong in-ring skills and the ability to portray larger-than-life characters. He noted that TNA could provide a suitable environment for the group, though he emphasized he holds no inside details on any contracts. Hardy added that any signings would become clear over time and described how he prefers the wrestlers to be presented if they appear in TNA. Background on Wyatt Sicks and TNA speculation. Hardy explained that the Wyatt Sicks run represented the peak of visibility for most members. He suggested a hybrid approach that blends elements of each wrestler's real personality with toned-down versions of their Wyatt Sicks personas. Hardy pointed out that fans will always associate the wrestlers with that WWE stable, even when they perform on independent shows or elsewhere. The comments come as recent episodes of TNA Impact have shown mystery attackers targeting several wrestlers, including Matt Hardy and Jeff Hardy. Some observers have linked those incidents to the possible involvement of Sawyer and Shaw. The entire Wyatt Sicks group had drawn attention while in WWE for its connection to the legacy of Bray Wyatt, and their releases left many fans disappointed that the stable never reached its full potential. Joseph Sawyer and Sam Shaw now seek new opportunities after their WWE departures. Hardy highlighted their overall talent as performers and expressed that TNA might offer them a platform to continue working as a unit. He stressed the value of showing more of the individuals behind the characters while retaining recognizable traits from their prior roles, but without the heavy supernatural elements that defined the Wyatt Sicks presentation. Hardy made clear that the wrestlers remain linked in the public eye to their time in the Wyatt Sicks stable. He believes this connection will shape how audiences view them going forward, regardless of the promotion. The podcast remarks add to ongoing discussion about where the released wrestlers might land next and how TNA could integrate them into its current storylines involving the Hardy brothers.

The WWE is facing A lawsuit over its ESPN Unlimited streaming partnership. September 23, 2026 ESPN has been allowed to enter a Connecticut federal lawsuit over World Wrestling Entertainment premium live events as a defendant, expanding a consumer case that began as a dispute solely against the wrestling company. Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish granted the motion on September 18, 2026. ESPN and its streaming-technology subsidiary BAMTech had asked to intervene after two subscribers accused WWE of violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and of coordinating with ESPN to extract extra payments from fans who already received ESPN through cable or live-television packages, according to Sportico. Michael Diesa and Rebecca Toback filed the proposed class action in January 2026. Diesa subscribed to ESPN through Xfinity. Toback received it through YouTube TV. Both said they understood from WWE announcements and joint promotional materials that existing ESPN customers would receive premium live events on the new ESPN direct-to-consumer platform without an added charge. The first major event under the new arrangement was Wrestlepalooza in 2025. Until that shift, WWE premium live events had been available on Peacock for eleven dollars a month. The ESPN Unlimited service launched at twenty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents per month and later rose to thirty-five dollars and ninety-nine cents after an introductory period ended. Plaintiffs say they still had to buy the standalone product even though they already paid for ESPN linear channels. The complaint seeks class treatment for people who subscribed to the ESPN direct-to-consumer service between August 6 and September 20, 2025, and paid a monthly fee. Alleged damages exceed five million dollars. The lawsuit describes WWE statements as deceptive because they created the impression that any ESPN subscriber would receive the events at no extra cost, when in practice many cable and live-TV customers had to purchase a separate streaming subscription. Plaintiffs deliberately omitted ESPN from the original complaint. Disney-owned subscriber agreements contain arbitration clauses and class-action waivers. Naming ESPN at the outset risked sending the entire dispute to private arbitration and blocking a class proceeding. ESPN argued that it nevertheless possessed two protectable interests: enforcing those contractual terms and defending itself against accusations that it joined an unlawful conspiracy and made misleading public statements about access and pricing. The judge denied intervention as a matter of right, finding that WWE could adequately represent some of ESPN's positions. He granted permissive intervention instead. Farrish reasoned that the plaintiffs' legal theory requires a finding that ESPN itself violated the state consumer-protection statute, exposing the network to significant liability, including possible punitive damages in a certified class case. He also found no meaningful prejudice to the plaintiffs, because WWE was already invoking the same arbitration language. The ruling places a major sports media company and its technology affiliate directly into the litigation. The next major questions are whether the claims must be sent to arbitration and whether a class can be certified. Those issues will now be litigated with ESPN present rather than on the sidelines. The case illustrates a broader friction as live sports and entertainment events leave inexpensive bundled services for higher-priced standalone streaming products. Marketing language about what existing subscribers will receive, and the enforceability of arbitration clauses that accompany those products, are likely to generate additional disputes as more rights holders renegotiate distribution deals. Please add Cord Cutters News as a source for your Google News feed HERE. Please follow Cord Cutters News on Facebook and X for more news, tips, and reviews. Need cord cutting tech support? Join its Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.