A Quid Pro Quo system is a Latin term for "something for something" that originated in the Middle Ages in Europe. It describes a situation when two parties mutually agree to exchange goods or services reciprocally. In a quid pro quo agreement, one transfer is thus contingent upon some transfer from the other party.
In essence, it's an exchange of goods, services or other benefits between two parties in which the exchanged items are regarded by the parties as being of comparable value. From the 16th through to the 18th century, the expression quid pro quo was often used by apothecaries to refer to the substitution of one medicine or medicinal ingredient for another. In it's modern usage, the expression is often applied to acts of bribery and other unethical and potentially illegal exchanges.
In a more general sense, a quid pro quo is a type of reciprocity wherein both parties agree and thereby obligate themselves, to an exchange of benefits. Of course, not all reciprocal exchanges of benefits are quid pro quos because it's possible for the parties involved to give comparable benefits to each other without having previously committed themselves to do so.
In business, the term quid pro quo signifies an agreed-upon exchange of goods, services, or other benefits of equal or comparable value.
In a legal context, the concept of quid pro quo is closely connected to the notion of consideration, understood as an inducement to enter into a contract. According to the influential, "bargain theory" of consideration, developed by the American legal scholar, Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826 -1906), consideration is, "the thing given or done by the promisee in exchange for the promise," wherein the promise consists of a commitment to provide goods, services, money or other benefits to the promisee.
Notably, "the thing given or done by the promisee" may consist of a particular benefit provided to the promisor or a, "counterpromise" to provide such a benefit. Conceived on the basis of the bargain theory, a contractual quid pro quo is thus an exchange of a benefit for a promise or an exchange of one promise for another.
In terms of sport, Quid pro quo arrangements can lead to conflicts of interest, where objectivity is compromised due to their relationship with the parties involved.
Maintaining transparency about quid pro quo arrangements is crucial for upholding trust with the audience and ensuring ethical practices. Understanding quid pro quo dynamics is essential for sports participants, especially when dealing with athletes, teams, and organisations that may offer incentives for favourable conditions.
This all leads to the inspiration behind this article: the situation of Paul Heyman at Wrestlemania. This all began last year November; in the lead up to Survivor Series: WarGames. Roman Reigns was set to lead the 'OG' Bloodline against Solo Sikoa's New Bloodline. The teams were: Roman Reigns; Jimmy & Jey Uso and Sami Zayn vs. Solo Sikoa; Tama Tonga; Tonga Loa; Jacob Fatu and 'Big' Bronson Reed.
It was because of the 'OG' Bloodline's history with the locker room that they found it difficult to find a fifth member. That was, until, Paul Heyman returned after nearly four months out to reveal that CM Punk would be the fifth member.
A week later, Roman Reigns and CM Punk would have a sit-down face-to-face talk - with Paul Heyman joining them. They would talk about the match. CM Punk would reveal that he was doing this as a favour for his best friend, Paul Heyman.
After Survivor Series: WarGames, which the 'OG' Bloodline won, this favour wasn't mentioned. That was until the start of Wrestlemania season. Theories were thrown about it. A popular one that was brought up was Punk being inserted into the main event title match between Cody Rhodes and John Cena.
Due to a series of events, a 'Mania match was made for CM Punk vs. Roman Reigns vs. Seth Rollins. It was at the contract signing that Paul Heyman revealed that CM Punk would be main eventing a Wrestlemania for the first time in his career. Reigns would laugh off that that was the favour until Punk revealed that that wasn't the favour he was owed.
A week later, all three competitors would be in the ring to find out what the favour was. After a lengthy explanation, CM Punk revealed that the favour was that Paul Heyman would be in the former's corner at Wrestlemania and not at Roman Reigns' corner. Reigns laughed it off and believed that Heyman would say no. That didn't come. This infuriated Reigns.
Skip to minute 15:00 of the above video for the above information.
On this past week's Raw, Seth Rollins confronted Paul Heyman and suggested he recuse himself from the match due to a conflict of interest. Later on, Seth Rollins would avoid giving Paul Heyman a curb stomp. It was at that moment that the former claimed that the latter owed him a favour.
As of this writing, nothing has come of it. There's a popular theory that Heyman will betray his, "Tribal Chief" and best friend to align with Seth Rollins.
These situations can be a bit unpredictable. There's no telling what the returned favour can be. It can be almost anything. It can go as far as being life threatning. In regard to the inspiration, I would agree that Paul Heyman should recuse himself. Having a conflict of interest can be harmful as there could be reputational damage and a loss of trust. They can also impact individual careers.