The Rematch Clause

[Aeon Mathix]

We all have something that irritates us about WWE and wrestling in general. It basically comes with being a professional wrestling fan. One of the things WWE does, though I'm not sure if every promotion does this, is the rematch clause a former champion has after losing a title.

I used to not mind it especially when I was a kid and one of my favorites would lose the strap. I would just say "oh he gets another chance and he will win it back". Now I look at it and all I see is a way to be lazy creative wise. Think about it, how many times did we see Sasha Banks vs Charlotte from last summer to around the end of the year? Probably 20 times or so right? Well that whole feud was basically based around the rematch clause. Charlotte would lose it then win it back and it just kept repeating. Pay no attention to the fact that there were about 3 women on Raw after the brand split so there weren't many options but that's for another time.

The point I am trying to make is the rematch clause makes for some very boring television a lot of the time. The "fall lull" of WWE is a good example as I have sat through many years of watching WWE during September to around Royal Rumble where it's just the same match over and over in the World title scene. It's not usually a good feud or one based on anything remotely creative from a storyline standpoint, no it's one guy loses the title, invokes his rematch at next ppv, wins it, guy who lost it invokes rematch and just keeps repeating. Rather than a feud seeming important or based on hatred or really ANYTHING else, it revolves around that clause and makes it seem like creative puts it on cruise control for a few months.

I would much rather it go away as just on the surface it seems silly to for someone to lose a championship only to get a guaranteed rematch. If a guy or girl is in a match and it's been a 30 minute war and is in a submission why wouldn't he just say "oh im sick or fuck this shit today ill just beat him in my rematch". It's personally hard for me to get invested in a championship match knowing I will see the same one the next month and probably the next after that.

What are your thoughts on the Rematch Clause? Do you think it's a good idea? Should it go away or would you change how it works?

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

The rematch clause has positives and negatives.

It can lead to an inflated number of title reigns due to hot-potatoing the title around or lazy booking, especially when there's no real story.

However it can also lead to a great rematch or prolong a great feud. Also it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't the champion get a rematch?

Ultimately I enjoy the rematch clause, as long as it's used properly.

 

[Azane]

I just want consistency.

The Rematch clause is a good way to make a fight mean something when the story's dipped down.
The idea that to be the man, you gotta beat the man, and do it twice to prove it wasn't a fluke, is huge. Plus it allows you to give someone a huge win at something like WM, and have an out to trade the title back on a B PPV, or even on free TV. Allowing the person who challenged + won the title to look really strong, while barely hurting the original champion.

The Rematch Clause also gives us a lot of good midcard and tag division matches, that might not have enough storyline reason for happening, but just slapping the Rematch clause on, tells us everything we need to know about a match to get us interested.

The example you bring up with the "I'm sick of fighting, I give up" to meet the rematch, is a story in itself "I let you win so I could be 100% for our rematch!" could get fans fired up and excited about the next match. I could totally see a story built around this being fine if done right.

I'm at the extreme opposite end right now, where I find when they ignore the rematch clause, or like they've been doing for the past few months, IGNORE THE UNIVERSAL TITLE COMPLETELY, it makes me really not care. I've completely skipped RAW mostly since WM, and only watched some condensed versions for a couple episodes. Ever since Goldberg won the title, I've been scheduling more stuff and getting more OT on Monday Nights.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

The rematch clause is not a problem. It's the rematch clause of the rematch clause that's the problem.

The system should be simple: Wrestler A beats Wrestler B for a championship. Wrestler B gets a rematch. If A beats B again, then it's over for B. If B takes back the title, then they have one more last match, a 3rd match, to end the feud. And that's it.

I hate it when they just forget for the rematch clause. I hate it.

I also don't like the "the heel cheated so the face gets another shot" angle. As long as the match didn't end in DQ victory for the face and the heel pinned the face in front of a ref, the face should not get a rematch.

WWE really lacks championship management. They need to bring more value to the way they treat contendership, rematches etc.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I just want consistency.

The Rematch clause is a good way to make a fight mean something when the story's dipped down.
The idea that to be the man, you gotta beat the man, and do it twice to prove it wasn't a fluke, is huge. Plus it allows you to give someone a huge win at something like WM, and have an out to trade the title back on a B PPV, or even on free TV. Allowing the person who challenged + won the title to look really strong, while barely hurting the original champion.

The Rematch Clause also gives us a lot of good midcard and tag division matches, that might not have enough storyline reason for happening, but just slapping the Rematch clause on, tells us everything we need to know about a match to get us interested.

The example you bring up with the "I'm sick of fighting, I give up" to meet the rematch, is a story in itself "I let you win so I could be 100% for our rematch!" could get fans fired up and excited about the next match. I could totally see a story built around this being fine if done right.

I'm at the extreme opposite end right now, where I find when they ignore the rematch clause, or like they've been doing for the past few months, IGNORE THE UNIVERSAL TITLE COMPLETELY, it makes me really not care. I've completely skipped RAW mostly since WM, and only watched some condensed versions for a couple episodes. Ever since Goldberg won the title, I've been scheduling more stuff and getting more OT on Monday Nights.

Good point with the Universal Title.

Finn Balor got no rematch
Kevin Owens got no rematch
Goldberg got no rematch

So, three times in a row, a major title hasn't had a return match for the person who lost it. I wonder when Brock loses it, given his schedule, whether he will be passed over for a rematch as well.

Not a good way to launch a title, when not one person who has lost it has had a second chance to win it back.

(PS I still think it is wrong that Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat never got a rematch against the Honky Tonk Man for the IC belt, and HTM moved onto Savage instead (who Steamboat BEAT at WM3)).

 

[The Perfect Max]

It comes and it goes depending on what way the wind blows in the creative department. At least that's how it seems, and I'm all for consistency like others have said. I feel the rematch clause is important in legitimising the entertainment we see to make it comparable to other sports that WWE considers itself comparable to. Plus, it just makes sense. A fallen champion deserves their shot at getting the title back. It's fair and it can, when done properly, make for very interesting television and competition when the former champion is chasing the title they lost.

But, it can get stuffy. I agree that Charlotte vs. Sasha Banks was overdone, though I wouldn't say it was a reliance on the rematch clause, so much as it as was WWE not knowing how to stop themselves. There were various issues with that feud (particularly the number of unnecessary television defences just to get the title on Banks while avoiding Charlotte losing on pay-per-view). Equally, it is the creative department's job to make us care about these matches, and they really can if they try.

Finn Balor, AJ Styles, John Cena, Kevin Owens, Bray Wyatt and Goldberg. Excluding Randy Orton's upcoming title rematch, off the top of my head, that's how far back we can go without a fallen world champion receiving an appropriate rematch. Yet, when you look at the mid card and elsewhere, it's full of rematches. It's like WWE are running at too fast a pace in the main event and really don't know what to do in the mid card, so they use the rematch clause when necessary to push feuds forward. When Kevin Owens could have invoked his rematch clause at WrestleMania to beat Goldberg and Brock Lesnar for the title, why the hell wouldn't you? A chance at glory at WrestleMania. But nope. It makes no sense.

Ultimately if used properly, the rematch clause can be a valuable tool. But it depends on how WWE feels and whether we are in a "slow booking" phase, which is apparently when these kind of matches come around.

 

[Un-Bo-Lievable Jeff]

OP notes the rematch clause causing repetitive title passing. I don't remember many times the titles kept being passed between the same two people every match for a prolonged period of time. I am happy to be corrected.

What rematch clause did Finn Balor sign up for? There was no contract when he gave up the title, so what rematch should he get? You can argue he deserves a chance to win it back, which along with other who deserve to be in the title hunt, is exactly what he's doing.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The thing that people "got used to" is the rematch being on TV... it's not traditionally been so.

For example Jinder lost by DQ after the show last night in the Dark Match... they can legit call that Orton's rematch if they wish to... someone mentioned Steamboat, he DID get a rematch, but it was a squash on a B show back in the day... not a televised/PPV one.

The idea of a rematch clause also gets murky around MITB time, as the case kind of takes over priority... "I'm cashing in my mone..." erm not until Orton has his rematch won't work... I can see whoever wins this year cashing in same night on Jinder to win it... as that's one of the few sceanrios they've not done... I can also see a late addition... there's always 7 in MITB... if not Rusev, which would work then Drew, which would also work.

Legit the only one you can say was "screwed" lately was Balor, but the problem was his push was based on that shock value and the injury killed it... now it's perhaps right he has to re-earn his title shot and if he falls short could always play the system (which I could see happening) "OK Brock, that was my rematch... my Extreme Rules title match is tomorrow on RAW etc.."

 

[MWRedskins]

For me the issue isnt the Rematch Clause, it's the consistancy of the Clause. i like the re-match because it's how i think a wrestling show should be. if a champion loses his title, he should get his re-match right away, BUT when one guy gets his re-match while the other doesnt, then it gets annoying. for example, AJ Styles never got one, nor did Finn Balor, Goldberg (but that was more his fault since he never asked for one), Wyatt or even Daniel Bryan (when he was world champion and returned from injury) and in Impact, Alberto never got his re-match (when he gave up the title like a moron). however, Orton gets his re-match right away. Consistancy is the issue with this.

 

[The Life Of Pablo Ren]

The rematch clause doesn't bother me at all.

It's always made sense to me. The champion loses his championship so he should get a chance to get it back. That's fair, that's how it should be. IF anything I have a problem with it being an "actual clause" because that's when things get murky.

Sometimes they use the clause as a specific reason for getting the rematch. Sometimes they completely ignore it and don't mention it once yet the person still gets the rematch. Do only certain people have it? Does everyone have it? I know it's obviously a made-up thing but there's way too many inconsistencies with it. I know people have brought this up in the thread already but AJ is a perfect example. He never got his one on one rematch, he kept reminding Shane about it, it was a catalyst in their feud, but then AJ turned face and it's just completely forgotten about. If it's an actual contractual clause, it can't really just be forgotten about.

Just have it be a natural thing, champion loses, he/she gets a rematch if they want one.

 

[ISkye]

It's actually a pretty well done thing despite WWE fans occasionally shitting on it or assuming what goes in within a creative room they'll never walk into. It's not like a mandatory thing for the rematch clause to happen. If it was to actually have more structure they'd have to address things that the sports entertained WWE fans are way more critical of. An example being the 30-Day Title defense rule.

A rematch clause isn't mandatory, and it probably has a varied set amount of time. I've seen 60 days before, but who really knows if it's even a thing. I get the criticism towards the Universal belt, and Styles but they have legitimate reason for everything they've done and it's implied in story line. Bray loses his title, but he is drafted to Smackdown and he can't take the belt with him. So he beats Randy to get a little momentum back, and Jinder's story to WWE champion sparks like wild fire.

Finn balor vacated it. There is no rematch clause for him. He would of expired any reasonable amount of time as well due to injury.

Kevin Owens lost his title to Goldberg, but was screwed by someone he thought he put away and was stealing his spotlight for months. So the guy didn't care about the belt, but instead taking away everything from Chris Jericho. He did that, and got drafted. Same as bray.

Goldberg chose not to invoke his rematch clause due to his brutal lost. In the promos for weeks leading up it was billed as The superhero vs The beast. The final chapter in the book of Goldberg, as Brock Lesnar would victimize him. Sure enough. It was exactly what Lesnar, Heyman, and Goldberg agreed on. Especially if they were to sign a real contract over it.

Styles got screwed out of his title rematch one on one, and after weeks of being screwed he developed baby face love from the fans who had been progressively loving him more and more he attacked Shane. He wanted a wrestlemania match. He got one, and that progressed his story line. He proved what he always wanted to prove to one of the only guys who he felt didn't respect it. He did just that.

Randy lost his. Randy invoked it on his choice. They say "Randy orton invoked his rematch clause", because he didn't get screwed by anyone, but Jinder and the S. Bros. So he out of his own will with nothing better to do than exact revenge called Shane and said 'I want my rematch clause". That's it. There really is no legitimate or insane issue with anything they've done with it in recent time.

 

[Garak]

Good point with the Universal Title.

Finn Balor got no rematch
Kevin Owens got no rematch
Goldberg got no rematch

So, three times in a row, a major title hasn't had a return match for the person who lost it. I wonder when Brock loses it, given his schedule, whether he will be passed over for a rematch as well.

There are ways to handle some of these situations, and sometimes one could deny a rematch and make some sort of sense within the kayfabe rules. The first, one could argue he was injured and not able to compete within 30 days for his rematch, so he loses that opportunity. The last one, Goldberg left the promotion, it's his problem. Kevin Owens, that's more problematic. It was kind of addressed, but not made very clear. Kevin Owens said he was going after the U.S. title first, forget the rematch, and then go about the big belt after.