#2 It ignores the 30-day title defence rule
Let’s not pretend that WWE is consistent with its rules. They have the automatic rematch clause where if someone loses their title they have a shot to get it back, and that’s not always acted upon. They have storylines that are dropped without explanation.
But perhaps, most annoyingly, they’ve stripped superstars in the past for not defending their title within 30 days, while they allow others to just fly by with no repercussions. And from a fan’s perspective, that’s infuriating.
Fans don’t desire to see a title defence every 30 days but they would want to see a company stick to its supposed “rules” for once. And with Lesnar, they’re blatantly ignoring their own rules yet again.
WWE has stripped many superstars for not defending their titles – Daniel Bryan and Shawn Michaels are two names that come to mind. So why is Brock Lesnar allowed to go months without defending his Universal title? And no, untelevised live events don’t, or at least shouldn’t count. It's because he is WWE's biggest draw and his part-time contract included limted dates, which exempts him from the rule.
This is a problem that only exists among part-time champions like Lesnar. Every recent world champion in WWE has defended their title numerous times in a timely manner. So the lack of title defences for Lesnar as well as the lack of consequences is certainly a bit irritating.
