How many titles (and championship changes) have there been over the last 10 years? You'd be forgiven for losing count.
We've had the Intercontinental title, Divas championship, ECW title, European title, United States strap, Hardcore belt, two different sets of Tag Team titles, Women's championship, the World title, and the ridiculously-titled WWE Championship itself (as though the others somehow don't fall under the umbrella of WWE).
There are now six titles left available in WWE...at least two more than there needs to be.
To capture one of the many belts up for grabs these days means so much less than it did when there were fewer titles to go around. Imagine the lack of prestige if WWE had ten, fifteen, or even twenty titles at stake?
Much of the roster would have a belt around their waist, defending them on Raw or SmackDown (or both) and a title-change would be entered into the history books almost every week. It wouldn't mean much, would it?
You may recall the glory days of the WWF Intercontinental Championship, introduced by Pat Patterson, having "won" a fictional tournament in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1979.
After that, of course, there were classic matches between Randy Savage and Ricky Steamboat, Bret Hart and Mr Perfect, and, later, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, before it eventually got lost in the shuffle.
The usefulness of a secondary title such as the Intercontinental Championship was in serving to exhibit and elevate mid-card talent who hadn't reached the main event level at the time. Matches were often more focused on technical wrestling than gimmicks, and the belt held much prestige.
The belt exists today, but is less important because it no longer takes on that important role. With that said, it would be worth consolidating it with the United States title.
At the time it was eliminated in 2010, the Women's Championship was the oldest unchanged title in WWE. However, company chiefs decided it was more important to emphasize their women as "Divas," create a belt with a pretty butterfly on it, and scrap that one. This was a mistake.
As for the World Championship, it was introduced 10 years ago, custom-created for Triple H to wear around his waist, and has no historical significance (which differentiates it from Patterson's Intercontinental title) and it serves no purpose other than to detract from the premier WWE belt.
A single company having two major champions is farcical, especially when this belt was concocted at a time when there was already a legitimate world title in existence.
This is yet another reason to end the phony "brand split." They botched their chance to run WCW as a separate entity, and people have long since stopped seeing any legitimacy in the claim that television shows Raw and SmackDown represent different interests.
They're both WWE, both emanating from Titan Towers. The chase for these titles transcending the two programs would also enjoy more airtime in the run-up to Pay-Per-View shows.
WWE needs one single major world title, same as any other prominent global wrestling company, in addition to a secondary strap and championships for its women and tag teams. That's it. That's all.
They also need to place more importance on each title at all times, so that it's seen as a great prize being fought over, rather than, say, an afterthought, prop, or backdrop in the story of John Cena and Nexus.
Titles are crucial. The fewer of them there are, and the less they change hands, the greater draw they will be for audiences recognizing the credibility and importance of them.