My Friday column for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is the issues I have with WWE having 2 world titles. Here’s an excerpt:
I can’t think of anything I’m more opposed to in pro wrestling than two world titles in an organization.
There is a lot of excitement for the brand extension that will happen when SmackDown goes live July 19. There are a lot of positives to draw from all that’s happening. However, two world titles is not one of those, and it causes inevitable effects that nobody gains from.
With two world champions, it’s impossible for one to not come off as a more successful champion and prestigious title. The situation is already set up for one of the two top titles to be the lesser of importance.
Two top titles? Think about how ridiculous that sounds.
You should have the top title, then the second ranking title, then the third. You label someone as world champion, which is meant to be the top guy. Yet they still aren’t because there’s another world champion — the credibility is confusing.
My guess is Vince McMahon insists on two world titles because if one talent who has a world title is drafted to the RAW roster, then SmackDown being left without a world champion would make it seem less important. There is also the obstacle of multiple tours of shows that aren’t televised and the desire for a world champion to be advertised to appear on each of them. I see that obstacle instead as an opportunity.
WWE should keep one world title and the person holding that title isn’t subject to being exclusive to one show. They appear on both shows and so does the person they’re building to a match with.
CLICK HERE for more on how WWE can operate with just 1 world title during brand split.
