Examining the Pros and Cons of Having Two WWE World Championships

The return of the WWE brand extension has been one of the most talked-about topics among pro wrestling fans since it was announced, but it also raises a lot of questions.

Will the women's champion float between Raw and SmackDown, or will she be relegated to one brand? Will the tag team and women's divisions be divided in half, or will each end up on a different show?

However, the biggest question concerns the top belt in the company: Do we get two world titles, or will the champion have to defend against competitors from both brands?

WWE has tried having two top titles in the past, and while it gave two Superstars a push instead of one, it also caused some problems, which were solved when the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships were unified.

This slideshow will take an unbiased look at the situation and go through the pros and cons of introducing a second world title.

Pro: Two Superstars Get Major Pushes

If Raw and SmackDown have their own world champions, two deserving Superstars will get major pushes instead of just one.

Anyone who is upset with Roman Reigns being champion could still enjoy the reign of whoever else is holding a top title instead of complaining all the time.

One of the biggest debates wrestling fans have is over who deserves to be elevated to the top of the card, but with two titles in the mix, there would be less to argue about.

Many people are unhappy with Reigns as champion, but if there was a second champion to cheer for, it would be a lot easier for the WWE Universe to handle.

Con: One Title Will Always Feel Secondary

When there was a WWE and a World Heavyweight Championship, it was always obvious the WWE title was the biggest priority.

The WWE champion was always booked in the main event of pay-per-views, while the world champion usually had to wrestle in the opening match.

It also didn't help that Raw was always portrayed as the flagship brand, which automatically made SmackDown and the world title less important.

This might be avoidable with proper booking, but if management doesn't alternate which belt is featured in the main event of pay-per-views, one will always be looked at as more important than the other.

Pro: There Is No Floating Between Brands

If WWE chooses to keep one top title, the champion will have to float between Raw and SmackDown, and that means storylines will suffer.

Some feuds are better if they have a few months to build, but if the champ has to give someone from Raw a shot one month and someone from SmackDown one the next, storylines will be harder to pull off.

The WWE title needs consistency, but it will not have it if the champion is always alternating between brands to keep things fair.

Con: It's Harder to Come Up with Storylines

WWE has enough trouble coming up with intriguing storylines for one champion. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to come up with two?

When WWE had two top titles, feuds suffered from repetitiveness and unoriginality. We can't be sure this won't happen again.

Nobody expects every single storyline to be completely original, but we do expect some variety. If the creative team has to worry about booking two different champions, everyone will suffer.

Having one title with two distinct brands will have its own issues, but having two champions might just create more.

Pro: Crowning a New Champion

If WWE does choose to introduce a second world title, a champion has to be crowned, which means we will get some kind of tournament or Battle Royal to decide who gets the honor of holding the championship first.

Other than the time Triple H was just handed the world title for no reason, WWE has always made finding the first person to hold a new title a big event.

Weeks of qualifying matches will likely determine who will be eligible to compete for the new belt, and several deserving Superstars will be given a small push just by being in the running.

If WWE were smart, it would base an entire PPV or WWE Network special around holding a one-night tournament to crown the new champion, which would instantly make the title and titleholder important.

Con: Both Titles Lose Credibility

An earlier slide mentioned how one title always outshines the other, but the other problem with having two belts is the prospect of both of them losing credibility.

The whole point of a World Heavyweight Championship is that it should be held by the top star in the company, and having two of them means no one person can lay claim to being the best. The most a Superstar can hope for is to be the best of one brand.

Despite the problems having only one champion would create, we would still have a top star everyone is chasing, which is the way it should be.

This debate is likely to split the WWE Universe down the middle, which means half of us will be happy with whatever decision management makes, while the other half will complain like we always do.

Which side of the argument do you fall on? Should WWE create a second world title or stick to just having one top champion?

Thanks for reading, and follow me on Twitter @BR_Doctor.