10 Reasons Why You’re Watching WWE Wrong
6. Complaining About Part Time Talents
You don't need to extrapolate data to determine why WWE feels the need to install part time talents in top spots come WrestleMania season. It's common sense; Goldberg and Brock Lesnar command massive salaries, so they must draw. Why would WWE, a publicly traded company, willingly throw money down the drain?
Even Shane McMahon is a proven draw. WrestleMania 32 ticket sales were at a lowly 60,000 before his match with the Undertaker was made official. After dust on the rapturously-received angle settled, sales escalated almost immediately. Whether that was attributable to Shane or 'Taker is almost immaterial to the argument: both are part-time nostalgia acts known to the casual audience.
Those complaints are valid. The apathy surrounding Sunday's Payback pay-per-view is an indictment of WWE's handling of the full-time roster; Finn Bálor is without direction even though he was cleared before WrestleMania took place. His spot was taken by part-time nostalgia acts, and WWE has failed to reshuffle the board since their departure. Moreover, the part time model has reached critical mass. WWE has surely exhausted those reserves. Goldberg in late 2016 was "next" - but who's left?
But WWE principally exists to make money. Criticising the company for doing that by any means necessary is pointless. The 2017 model necessitates minimal risk. The days of WWE taking a punt on a new age of the antihero, as in 1997, are dead.
Such radical thinking was required then, but it's too risky now; the company has secured its long term future and maintains it by repeating a proven formula.