WWE’s Elephant in the Room: 30 Day Stipulation Rule

Okay, so it’s clear; Brock Lesnar will not be competing in the WWE’s Hell in a Cell pay-per-view (PPV). One step further, reports suggest that he potentially will not be defending his title until January’s Royal Rumble, as he is not being advertised for any events for the remainder of 2014. This has evoked a tremendous amount of emotion from the WWE Universe, for a variety of reasons. Even during the mid-eighties, when Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan ruled the roost, he defended his title at high-end and live events, at least once a month. Why? Well the 30-day stipulation rule, of course! The one that states a World Champion must defend his title at least once every 30-days. This is a rule that has been fiercely enforced by the WWE since as long as I can remember.

I get that Lesnar is a part-time champion. I have come to (happily) accept the fact that he does not appear on most WWE programming, until he has to promote a PPV match. I almost prefer seeing his advocate, Paul Heyman, in his absence. What I don’t get is how WWE can ignore one of the biggest storyline factors in WWE history. Many things have come and gone in this business: characters have evolved, the look of the World Championship belt has transformed, wrestlers have retired, the WWE logo has changed, but one thing has remained a constant among the chaos—that 30-day stipulation rule. It’s like the rematch clause after someone has lost a title—it’s always enforced. The fact that the WWE is trying to brush this under the carpet because it is not able to suit the needs of a champion that does not always want to show up is insulting to their audience. Why is it that Shawn Micheals, Batista, John Cena and recently Daniel Bryan (among others) have all had to forfeit their titles, but a healthy Lesnar does not?