10 Shocking Secrets WWE Don't Want You To Know

Secrets are like subscriptions to the WWE Network: everyone's got one.

But WWE perhaps hides more secrets than most. Whether it's embellishing the number of viewers it pulls in, or airbrushing unsavoury moments from its past, the company has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts in order to suit Vince McMahon's chosen narrative.

In most cases, there's nothing immoral about this. You probably lie to impress your friends all the time, and unlike you, WWE has kind of earned its right to lie by seeing off many of its competitors (history, after all, is written by the victors).

We're not saying it's wrong so much as we're saying that they do it and, quite often, they do it without rhyme or reason. Seriously, what's the point in telling us that a wrestling show attracted seven or eight thousand more people than it actually did?

You're not really impressing anyone any more than you already do, and worse, you leave yourself open to accusations of dishonesty when industry insiders inevitably uncover the fact you've told a big porky pie to make yourselves seem cool.

It's not worth it.

The entirety of wrestling is an elaborate work of fiction, to be fair. If WWE want to pretend that Roman Reigns won the Universal Championship via victory over a bear while still recovering from the effects of his virus last weekend, then that's up to them.

But at least that would show some ambition. The fictional stories of how Buddy Rogers and Pat Patterson became WWF Heavyweight and Intercontinental Champions - winning make-believe tournaments in Brazil's Rio de Janeiro - are so mundane, leading one to ask why they didn't just hold said tournaments for real.

Given all of the other skeletons in the WWE closet, Vince McMahon probably won't be too worried about this one getting out. But it does at least speak to the fact that the company's official history can't really be trusted. What else are they lying about?

Did Bret Hart really tap out at Survivor Series 1997?