Ex-wife WASN'T stolen by the corporation (+ what that means)

Yes, Ella left of her own free will because she was offered a better deal with more money and better living quarters.

Yes, Jonathan refused to believe that she left on her own and preferred to believe that she was kidnapped.

When the corporation forced the runaway Ella to go back to Jonathan instead of calming him down he finally faced the truth. He realized that the woman he loved was a selfish, horrible creature.

That was why he agreed to the last game. He wanted to die. He gave the reason himself, everything he believed in was a lie.

But when faced with brutality, he came back from the brink and fought the company. The film ends with him becoming a real, political figure with international power and a threat to the company.

The film was always in Jonathan's corner.

I'd have to rewatch to understand exactly HOW they presented the scene with the trainer in it. Was it filmed to SHOW and PROVIDE the difference in footage - like Johnathan NOW noticed the trainer there and her reaction or something, or was the trainer just part of the scene that went by meaning nothing? Meaning the trainer was simply part of the group he was with in and out of the office?

Interesting point you make though. A lot more could have been done over the wife and materialism and selfishness and love etc.

Far as the movie being all for Goliath, I don't think at the time it was filmed it was meant that way, BUT I do feel our social evolution since then may have turned THIS particular piece of cinema IN TO Goliath Is Right since that seems to be what we have chosen in todays world. Additionally, see my thread titled WHO NEEDS FREEDOM WHEN WE HAVE LUXURY.
Times have changes, not really good or bad, they just have.

From my POV you're definitely over-thinking a very simple story.

I always took it at face value that Ella was being honest when she said the corporation didn't force her to leave, that it was her choice... and that Jonathan was mistaken about that the whole time. His ego couldn't accept that she wanted to leave him, he fooled himself into believing someone else forced her to.

But it's not supposed to be some earth-shattering irony that "omg he was wrong all along, his rebellion is all based on a lie!" There is no subtlety in Rollerball's screenplay. If this was a point they wanted to make, it would have been spelled out in big flashing neon letters and shouted from mountaintops. Not left unsaid as subtext for some random guy to stumble across 40 years later.

The point of Jonathan's story is that he won't/can't submit to unjust authority and control, he can't help but resist it. He can't be manipulated. He's a manly man with a very strong will to power. Period. He has no specific motivation beyond that. I think it's pointless and silly to speculate that if his wife hadn't left him, he would have retired from Rollerball merely for the asking. The reason he lost his wife doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Apparently he was so into the game that she felt unwanted. My wife can relate to that whenever a new GTA or Halo comes out. ;)

Whoa. Very nice incite into one facet that I didnt give much thought too, that being that your wife can be given to you by your employer and then taken at the whim of others.
You guys did a nice job of clarifying what the woman's role was in this film and some nice incites. It never occurred to me that these were more or less groupies and nothing more. I guess because Jonathan was inside a very sensitive man, who was not a psycho and felt the hurt that others might have shrugged off with a "just send me another Hoe and I will be fine" attitude.
Jonathan really cared for his wife and that was what was so sad about it.How many men and women have felt the sting of what they thought was an idyllic, not perfect yet not tumultuous relationship and finding out that you were the sap because it meant something other then personal gain for yourself, while being exactly that for the other partner. Some people know that their spouse married more for the money and comforts then love or respect and adoration of the other.
They go into it eyes wide open. Its the people lke Jonathan who get hurt because they are real, they are who they are, on the track and off.
In fact in my last job, my boss told me that he was getting a divorce and that his wife told him after 25 years and two kids that she never really loved him. I felt so bad for him I was on verge of crying. For someone to say that in those circumstances. These are the woman of Rollerball and I thank you for dissecting them so those people like me who thought it just an aside of the plot now see it in more layers then just the top.

While it is true that the real reason for Ella leaving Jonathan and hooking up with a corporate executive is open to interpretation, I think you might be reading too much into the existence of Cletus in the clips with Ella.

Other than his teammates, Jonathan was shown to have no friends...other than Cletus. So why would it be so odd that his wife and best friend were in a home movie?

The rest of your hypothesis - sorry, not seeing the whole Goliath is Great meme in there. In fact quite the opposite - the world has become a sterile and vacuous place now that the corporations are running it. Jonathan is raging against the machine...so to speak, and the people are behind him. Which of course is why he is such a threat to the corporations.



Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

The OP makes an interesting point.

I think it just shows that the 'hero' (or 'anti-hero') is often selfishly motivated in films - and in history too! In 'The Hunt for Red October', Sean Connery's Soviet submarine captain is personally motivated by the death of his wife, so he has selfish motivations in delivering his submarine to Americans during the Cold War. He makes the right choice and does something good for world peace, but he does it for selfish, personal motivations. I think 'Rollerball' is a similar narrative.

I once read that Gandhi desperately wanted to have all the rights of white, British Colonial men in India. He even once dressed up in a classy European suit and tie, complete with top hat, hoping to be allowed to buy a first class ticket on a train. When it became clear he would not be granted the same social status as white men, he grew angry and led a movement to make India an independent nation. Gandhi might very well have been motivated by selfish anger and personal issues... but he stood up to corruption at the highest levels of power... just like Johnathan E!!