PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2017-08-08 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

Does Brock Lesner holding the Universal Title inadvertently work to WWE's benefit?  His limited schedule makes his appearances, and by extension the title, seem more important.  It allows contenders to battle each other for the chance to challenge for the title.  And perhaps most importantly, it doesn't overexpose the champ and allow him to be put in positions to lose matches but not the title, making him look weak.

I don’t think it does.  WWE’s biggest revenue producers and source of OIBDA, by far, are television revenues.  Not having the champion and the Title on the TV shows makes them less important and that affects ratings.  Ratings affect what they get paid for their shows.  Live Events are their second highest source of OIBDA.  Having him not wrestle there means less ticket sales.  So no, it’s not a good thing in my opinion.  Not at all.  And to make matters worse, he works a part time schedule and when he shows up, he beats every (except part time Goldberg) so he doesn’t even give a rub to the guys out there working every week.  

Why does Vince McMahon view RAW as the most important show than SmackDown?

The easy answer is, “Because it is more important!”  It is the company’s flagship show.  It is the program that brings in the most revenue.  And it has been THE broadcast ever since the company ever since they moved away from the syndicated, squash TV product.  Smackdown is important as well, but RAW is the mothership for WWE, as it should be.

It's no secret you guys were fans of ECW.  Attended the shows and even worked on the ECW website. I only seen ECW when it was on TNN and PPV in its dying days and I loved majority of it. However, was there ever 1 thing you didn't like about ECW from a creative point of view? For me was on PPV you always knew something would happen to Joel Gertner and that Cyrus would be on commentary. It was always predictable. 

You came to the party late where ECW was concerned.  The PPV opens were predictable for sure, but that’s because it’s how Paul Heyman wanted the show to open and he then had to get the announcer to the announce position.  As for me, it was the unprotected chair shots.  If you are an Elite member, you can read the old Lariats and I was talking about the dangers of the chairs to the head, especially, back in the 90s.  I wish I wasn’t clairvoyant but obviously it has become a serious issue.

Just a follow-up to the Big Cass having heat with the locker room because he supports Trump question: Wouldn't that be pretty stupid for anyone in WWE? The McMahons were huge Trump supporters and campaign donors, he's a WWE Hall if Famer, and Linda McMahon is part of his cabinet. WWE stars vocally showing disdain for Trump seems like a bad career decision.

The wrestlers can have heat with someone for being pro management.  It has happened many times in the past.  Just listen to Scott Steiner if you doubt that.  In this specific example, I would hope that WWE management wouldn’t have a problem with any talent that exercised their right to speak freely on their political thoughts.  Vince McMahon has always been a big First Amendment supporter.

What is this affection for single names that WWE seems to have? Cesaro, Rusev, etc, and now Elias Samson. Why does WWE bring in a wrestler, and then somewhere down the road, they shorten it to a single name? Wouldn't it be easier and better to just bring them in with a single name?

And it goes the other way too.  Charlotte becomes Charlotte Flair for example.  I would guess it’s just them trying to market things but I am with you, it can be really confusing.

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

If you enjoy you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more, right now for THREE DAYS free by clicking here!