Pros and Cons of WWE Bringing Back 2nd World Championship After Brand Split

When WWE mulls over whether or not to resurrect a second world championship, it has to choose between increasing opportunities or lowering prestige.

Added gold in the wrestling world means more huge, star-making moments. But WWE runs the risk of diluting its championship pool. Bringing back the world title it retired in 2013 shifts the titleholder pecking order.

It's a choice WWE seems ready to make. When the company announced Raw and SmackDown would again be separate brands after a draft on July 19, speculation about how it would handle its title picture began. When WWE previously had Raw and SmackDown exist on different planes, each show boasted its own world champ. 

And recently, hints of WWE returning to that model have surfaced.

On Monday's Raw, everyone seemed careful to refer to Dean Ambrose's title as the WWE Championship rather than the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Jay Hunter of the Old School Wrestling Review pointed out the verbiage for that title has changed on WWE.com, too:

Is the company then prepping us for a return of the World Heavyweight Championship that merged with the WWE Championship when Randy Orton defeated John Cena at Tables, Ladders & Chairs 2013?

If so, that choice will change the dynamic of each show, open doors for Superstars moving upward and shift the amount of shine on each belt.

Pro: A Secondary Mountaintop

Mark Henry, Dolph Ziggler and Christian can all call themselves world champions, something that would likely not be the case had there only been one major title at the time of their respective reigns.

With just the WWE Championship up for grabs, the company can only choose to crown one top titleholder at a time. While Ambrose, Reigns and Rollins trade the belt, wrestlers like Cesaro will get left out. There simply isn't room in the WWE title scene for everyone capable of carrying that strap.

Moving back to the two-title model would open the door for Cesaro, Bray Wyatt and Rusev. WWE would have more space on which to showcase emerging stars like them with double the world-championship opportunities. 

Todd Williamson/Associated Press

And with the company promising a New Era, crowning more on-the-rise wrestlers make sense. As Bill Matz wrote for The Brand, "Two champions is the way to create new stars, which has to be the only goal at this point."

Con: Devalues the Top Prize

The crown doesn't hold the same weight when two kings each wear one. Should WWE add another top title when Raw and SmackDown go their separate ways, those prizes suddenly become less special.

Boxing is the perfect example of how crowding the sport with titles guts their significance. As seen on Boxing Society, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder and Anthony Joshua are all heavyweight champs right now. That creates a feeling of inconclusiveness when it comes to who is the best fighter.

And as much as WWE can hail both of its world titles as top-tier championships, one will inherently feel inferior. That was true throughout the initial brand extension era, with the titles swapping the No. 1 spot over the years.

Having just one champ eliminates that element and makes it clear who's the preeminent Superstar of the moment.

Jim Ross wrote on his blog, "The WWE title can be made to be even more special if the top dog appears occasionally on both shows but not overexposed on either." That's an option WWE wipes away by bringing back a second world title.

Both Raw and SmackDown having their own champs helps mark the shows as separate entities, but should one title feel less prestigious, the show that houses that belt will inevitably become the B-show. 

Pro: Gold Distributed Among Both Shows 

Raw or SmackDown showcasing an inferior world title wouldn't be as emphatic a sign of which show is the lesser one as having none at all.

If Raw holds on to Ambrose and the WWE title, SmackDown would be without a world champ, without an ultimate goal for its Superstars to strive for. Plus, the blue brand being without a world title would create an air of inadequacy.

It would be a sign to the audience that one show is more important than the other. And that's just what WWE is trying to remedy with this brand split.

Credit: WWE.com

Reviving the second world title gives both Raw and SmackDown their own ruler and holy grail to chase.

Whom WWE chooses as its two titleholders can go a long way in helping establish the shows' identities, too. Crowning Reigns as Raw's champ and Kevin Owens as SmackDown's titleholder would signal Monday nights are meant to appeal to casual fans, while WWE would appease the diehards on Tuesdays.

Con: Missed Opportunity with Midcard Titles

Skilled booking could overcome one show's lack of a world champion by way of elevating existing titles. 

As former WWE referee Jimmy Korderas reminded us, both the Intercontinental Championship and United States Championship can be featured titles:

With no second world title, the U.S. and IC belts gain importance. They wouldn't be just midcard consolation prizes. They would be one show's pinnacle.

Making Rusev and his struggle to keep the U.S. belt in his grip the top storyline on SmackDown, for example, would do wonders for that title. It could headline PPVs and be the central focus of weekly shows. In that way, it would become a de facto world title, upping its prestige in a major way.

That's something that simply won't happen with another world title around. Two world championships mean that Rusev's title and The Miz's belt both move down the company hierarchy.

That now seems destined to happen as the brand split nears. Rusev and the midcard title contenders chasing him down can take heart in the fact that the big gold belt will be back, offering another brass ring to grab.