How WWE Could Creatively Flourish Under Fox Sports
But the show is far from perfect, nor does it resemble a genuine sporting enterprise: the overwhelming laziness puts paid to that. AJ Styles Vs. Shinsuke Nakamura wrestled four matches in their series, only two of which yielded a conclusive result. AJ and Samoa Joe wrestled three, only one of which ended cleanly. We could go on. This practise surely needs to change when WWE moves house, and a sporting framework creates a platform on which to do just that. Tournaments, an informal ranking system that rewards wins and losses, thus making them mean something again (they used to call this a ‘“push”), and an end to the screwy finishes that nonsensically reward the cheats with further opportunities: all of this, as part of a disciplined overarching approach, would spell an end to the malaise. Fox won’t abide by repetition. They don’t have to.
WWE will make a concerted effort at launch, at least. Fox, in creating a platform for WWE to reach new fans, could, ironically, knock Vince McMahon off his f*cking perch.
It’s just as well; the DX and Brothers of Destruction stuff cannot possibly create anticipation for a further retread. Moreover, having dropped out of Crown Jewel in fear of his nascent Hollywood image, John Cena has temporarily disassociated himself from WWE. You’d expect The Rock to resist any immediate overtures on that basis. That leaves Batista and Goldberg as the only available part-time stars in any decent condition. One is 49, the other 50. The Nostalgia Era is growing as old as its key players. This, combined with sagging ratings, and the unanimous sentiment that f*ck finishes to 50/50 series are deadening to the process of star creation, leads us closer than ever to genuine change.
The argument that TV ratings mean less and less is not without merit—if anything, terrified of the rise of streaming services, traditional networks are rewarding those shows that fail the least with more money than ever before—but the ratings issue isn’t limited to itself. TV drives the success (failure) of house shows; the idea is that you get a taste of the action, live and in person. But if that action is awful, and it’s free, what is the impetus to pay?
CONT'D...(3 of 4)