WWE Rematch Clause.

[Headman]

I've always kinda wondered how WWE's "rematch clause" works. I know it's just a plot device to set up the rematch but kayfabe-wise how does it work?

I'm assuming that a rematch clause is inserted into the original contract for the title match itself and not something that the former champion gets as a right or part of a written rule in the "WWE rule book". This means that if there is no contract for the champion to sign before a match like when a guy cashes in MITB or if a champion enters into an impromptu match via verbal contract they shouldn't automatically get a rematch right? So it makes perfect sense that CM Punk doesn't have a rematch clause against Alberto Del Rio like Cena had after losing the title to Punk after MITB.

I don't think WWE has ever explained how it works. They just say "So and So instated his rematch clause for such and such night." Am I right about how this works? Anyway, what are your thoughts on how the rematch clause works and how it's used in the WWE? Also it would be nice if people pointed out some consistencies or inconsistencies with how this rule is booked.

 

[4LC]

they dont explain how it works because if they have a set standard they cant somewhat change it without you noticing. eg) typically if u lose ur title, ur entitled to a rematch, in most cases it occurs, but sometimes it just slips away. another good example if if u beat a champion u get a shot at their respective title, r truth beat cena on an episode of raw and didnt get a title shot. so those 2 things are basically the set standards.

oh and 2006 finlay loses his US title in triple threat to Mr Kennedy and didnt get a rematch Kid Kash royal rumble 06 loses cruiserweight invitational and doesnt get his rematch

 

[Jeff]

How it works is when WWE needs an excuse to put someone in a WWE Championship match or any title match for that matter, they pull out the trusty old rematch clause gimmick. Last Monday, they talked about it a little and Triple H said something among the lines of (im paraphrasing)..."the rematch clause only works if i approve it". What it comes down to is sometime the rematch clause is magically in the contract, sometimes it is not.

However in this new "reality era" I believe (and I believe you do too) that the WWE really needs to actually make a real rule about the rematch clause. When it can be in play and when it can't.

I would actually love to see WWE post these "contracts" online on WWE.com or something. Could add to the storyline if it is done correctly.

 

[Headman]

oh and 2006 finlay loses his US title in triple threat to Mr Kennedy and didnt get a rematch Kid Kash royal rumble 06 loses cruiserweight invitational and doesnt get his rematch

Another example would be Christian. For this story he used lawyers to get special stipulations for his title match at MITB but wasn't smart enough to have a rematch clause for Summer Slam? Why can Orton put Christian in his rear view mirror as he said, but Christian was obligated to give him a rematch? I understand in reality the feud had run it's course and gone on long enough (Too long for my taste) but just for the sake of nit picking... shouldn't Orton have just sqaushed Christian in a quick rematch on the very next Smackdown so he could move on? It's not like Christian or Orton had anything better to do that night.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

theres no set way in how this works it all depends on who they want to face the champion at the next ppv even if its not the right business move (aka cena beating punk on raw last night ) and other times the title rematch just vanishes and its never brought up

 

[SickJames]

The funny thing about the rematch clause is it should always see the same rotation of guys IF it were legit which it isnt. It is great that doesnt happen, but they should say you get a rematch once then like it cant be a reoccuring back and forth between two guys because really thats what the rematch clause, if followed, is.

UNLESS there's a tournament or MITB Cash in the flow would be for ex:

Punk loses to Cena, rematch for Punk

Cena loses to Punk, rematch for Cena

and that repeats over and over

if the losing champ always gets a rematch it stays in a cycle

so WWE DOESNT follow the set standard for the clause because they'd be stuck in a that paradox of boredom

You know they'll have a tournament, battle royal or something or MITB, the only other thing that could stop that cycle is an injury

 

[The "Blueprint"]

The rematch clause is just a device to keep the previous champion in the title picture, which is why you have long feuds like Orton vs. Cena two years ago. In the case of Christian vs. Orton, Christian won the title in a ladder match against Alberto Del Rio for the vacant title. Orton shows up on Smackdown and asks for a title shot, Teddy Long grants it, Christian loses. He gets his rematch and loses again. That should be the end of the feud, but it grows stronger as Christian continuously begs for rematches. He finally wins at Money in the Bank pay per view. Orton is "due" a rematch at Summer Slam, he succeeds and vocally ends his feud with Christian on the next Smackdown. For some reason Christian's "rematch clause" isn't mention, but i'm sure when he returns to Smackdown he'll mention it (I don't read spoilers).

This rematch clause comes to play only if WWE wants to continue a similar feud like with Dolph Ziggler vs. Kofi Kingston for the IC/US Championship. Which was about rematches over clauses and screwjobs just like Orton/Christian.

In my opinion all the rematch clause does is hold up and coming talent down and places the same stars in the title picture i.e. John Cena (not knocking him, just saying). I don't think any superstar has played the rematch clause card more than Cena. This is why people always bitch about stale cards and why people don't order pay per views as much.

 

[DeathClutch]

I hate the rematch clause, 9/10 it never works.

10 years ago (roughly around this time actually) Edge defeated Lance Storm in a pretty SummerSlam opener. The rematch would be epic and such an epic will take place in the hallowed halls of MSG, and the match lasted all of 66 seconds. Absolutely pointless. Christian getting all these Rematches is obsured, I love Christian but WWE have effectively killed him with the excessive defeats to Orton. Christian should try and jump to RAW to re-invent himself as a heel unless they give him a feud with someone like Cara or Bryan who are over and jobbing to Christian wouldn't hurt them and him jobbing to them wouldn't effect them either.

 

[MMK]

I don't think it's ever been explained. Nor will it ever be.

It's like asking why do wrestlers have private conversations when they're on camera backstage? It's just one of those things you have to go along with or else your brain starts to hurt.

The whole idea of rematch clauses and contract signings is so passe to begin with. Why are they signing a contract with a week to go before a ppv when the match in question has been advertised for several weeks?

All I know for sure about rematch clauses, is that John Cena has a million of them. I believe his contract stipulates that he gets as many rematches as he wants until he eventually wins. Hey, it's a good deal if you can get it.

 

[Youngsleez]

I do remember a promo that Psycho Sid did on the Undertaker about the rematch clause when the whole Kane storyline was starting to form, and in that he was talking about not exercising his 60 day rematch clause after the WrestleMania 13 match

 

[Azane]

Rematch clause is simply a story element, it's often times an easy to slap together "I want my title back" basic booking.

They keep it simple, and pull out the theme when they don't have much else to go on for a ppv, but it's a tried and true standard. Occasionally, like right now, you'll see them use the rematch clause in a funky way, and because of it being written so loosely it works.

 

[x24hrs2livex]

All I know for sure about rematch clauses, is that John Cena has a million of them. I believe his contract stipulates that he gets as many rematches as he wants until he eventually wins. Hey, it's a good deal if you can get it.

I believe this is correct.

Back in the day a champion was all but guaranteed a rematch for his title. Nowadays, not so much.

Its a travesty Punk doesnt get a rematch but Cena gets thrown right back in the title picture.

 

[BK Styles]

Its a travesty Punk doesnt get a rematch but Cena gets thrown right back in the title picture.

Woahhhhhh, bear in mind that Cena's foot was on the bottom rope. In which case Cena shouldn't have lost at that point in the match, therefore a match between the two on RAW was only fair.

When people make grand comments like "Cena gets a million title shots" you have to remember that the obvious thing to do in the WWE is put the title on the biggest draw. When Cena loses the title (if he ever loses it) and when he loses the rematch, he doesn't have another rematch straight away, he has a number one contenders match with someone else first, he doesn't just get the shot because he's John motherfuckin' Cena. And from a basic business standpoint, Main Star + WWE Title = MONEY. Yes, Cena doesn't need the WWE title, but if he has it, instant money.

Onto the topic, The rematch clause is a staple in WWE. Will always be there, and in essence it makes sense; a Champion loses the title he earns, he should have one chance to win it back. Also, and this is just my opinion, the best feuds are the ones over multiple matches. A feud shouldn't just be one match for the title, and the rematch clause gives a good reason for a championship feud to be continued.

 

[Ubiquitous]

It's very possible that, kayfabe wise, it isn't something that's freely inserted into contracts. What I mean is, in the "contract" to carry a championship, there may or may not be things the champion has to give up in order to have the rematch clause written into his contract. Some champions may opt to take more money or less work days (keep in mind this is all kayfabe, and just a possibility). Also, there may be a temporary basic contract that covers the time from which a champion wins until the time he (or she) signs their personal contract. There's lots of possibilities. Or, the GM or COO or whatever the person in charge is at the time could just have whoever writes up the contract not write it in because they have an issue with it. Just an idea.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I think the rematch clause is a 'written rule in the WWE Constitution' that grants the former champ a rematch if pinned or submitted for his title. The exceptions are if the former champ lost his title in a rematch (i.e. If Orton beats Punk at Vengeance, and Punk beats Orton in his rematch for at Survivor Series, Orton can't use a rematch for TLC) or if the title was vacated for injury or something

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Basically, I feel that the General Manager is the all powerful entity here. A rematch clause is put in by almost every champion but in the end it is upto the General Manager to decide if the rematch clause is to be honored or not.

Bear in mind that the rematch clause is something that existed way before the advent of General Managers. In the 1980's and before that wrestlers were managed by managers and the main job of the manager was to procure an opponent for his client in kayfabe by negotiating with other wrestlers or managers. At that time these individual managers were the all powerful ones or in the cases in which wrestlers did not have managers, it was the wrestler who decided everything. There was no one above him in a position of power. This is when the rematch clause was most effective. A wrestler made a contract and it was signed by both parties and both parties had to honor it. There was no one who could make this contract null and void when he seemed fit. This is where the GM comes in these days. He can make a contract null and void if he seems it to be fit. A lot of it, kayfabe wise, goes on behind closed doors but I guess that this would be a rather fair explanation.

 

[Headman]

It's very possible that, kayfabe wise, it isn't something that's freely inserted into contracts. What I mean is, in the "contract" to carry a championship, there may or may not be things the champion has to give up in order to have the rematch clause written into his contract. Some champions may opt to take more money or less work days (keep in mind this is all kayfabe, and just a possibility). Also, there may be a temporary basic contract that covers the time from which a champion wins until the time he (or she) signs their personal contract. There's lots of possibilities. Or, the GM or COO or whatever the person in charge is at the time could just have whoever writes up the contract not write it in because they have an issue with it. Just an idea.

This is what I'm talking about. Some kind of kayfabe reason for why some guys have them and some guys don't. They don't have to mention this all the time. Just once so we have something to point at and say "Oh, he must have opted for other perks instead of a rematch clause. Or maybe just wasn't smart enough to ask for one.". I think baby faces who are confident in their ability to win probably should be less likely to have this clause as working their way back to the top seems more honorable. Also maybe heels who have managers (The brains behind the brawn) should be the ones who are smart enough to put these clauses into the match.

One example of a rematch clause that didn't make sense to me was Rey Mysterio's clause. He won and lost the title in the same night. The title was only defended at the demand of the C.O.O. of the company so when did he have time to draw up and sign a legally binding contract promising him a rematch in his home town the night after Summer Slam should he lose the title that night?

Basically, I feel that the General Manager is the all powerful entity here. A rematch clause is put in by almost every champion but in the end it is upto the General Manager to decide if the rematch clause is to be honored or not.

Bear in mind that the rematch clause is something that existed way before the advent of General Managers. In the 1980's and before that wrestlers were managed by managers and the main job of the manager was to procure an opponent for his client in kayfabe by negotiating with other wrestlers or managers. At that time these individual managers were the all powerful ones or in the cases in which wrestlers did not have managers, it was the wrestler who decided everything. There was no one above him in a position of power. This is when the rematch clause was most effective. A wrestler made a contract and it was signed by both parties and both parties had to honor it. There was no one who could make this contract null and void when he seemed fit. This is where the GM comes in these days. He can make a contract null and void if he seems it to be fit. A lot of it, kayfabe wise, goes on behind closed doors but I guess that this would be a rather fair explanation.

This is another really good point. It could be that the modern rematch clause is a relic from days passed when decisions were made (kayfabe-wise) between managers with oversight from a championship committee. It is possible that these clauses find their way into contracts and are considered an annoying little fact of life for GM's and the C.O.O. who only now have decided to take the reigns over who gets to use this clause and when.

 

[remyx]

If anyone was listening to HHH on Raw, he did say that both Cena and Punk would get their rematches, it was just up to them to decide who got theirs first at Night of Champions by squaring off on RAW.

But as far as it goes, they really should put some rules down as then it would make for better tv than just the old 'I want my rematch' song and dance.

Also I miss back when champions had 30 days in which to defend their championship, and if they failed to do so they would either be forced to defend it or risk having it stripped. I hate that Heels seem to be punished into defending their titles when they have, in theory, had to work their way up to winning them. Them denying others the right to win the championship would theoretically make people look forward to title matches more AND to see a good guy topple them.

 

[Headman]

If anyone was listening to HHH on Raw, he did say that both Cena and Punk would get their rematches, it was just up to them to decide who got theirs first at Night of Champions by squaring off on RAW.

But as far as it goes, they really should put some rules down as then it would make for better tv than just the old 'I want my rematch' song and dance.

Also I miss back when champions had 30 days in which to defend their championship, and if they failed to do so they would either be forced to defend it or risk having it stripped. I hate that Heels seem to be punished into defending their titles when they have, in theory, had to work their way up to winning them. Them denying others the right to win the championship would theoretically make people look forward to title matches more AND to see a good guy topple them.

Well this brings up something else. Why would Punk or Cena have a rematch clause built into a match made to unify two world titles? And then if they did have that clause why would CM Punk, the winner of that match have a rematch clause considering he lost the title to Alberto Del Rio via his cashing in his money in the bank contract. In Del Rio's case, I'd assume the contract he won at MITB would not have a built in rematch clause for the champion he beats. This situation lends credibility to an earlier poster's theory that the rematch clause is built into the WWE's constitution and not something inserted into specific title match contracts as myself and others believe.

 

[remyx]

I just hate the constant rematches. I get it that the WWE like to have feuds prolonged and stuff, but i much prefer'd it when each PPV would offer a little something different. I mean one PPV Rock would be defending his title against HHH, next PPV Benoit, next PPV Benoit, Kane & Taker, next PPV Kurt Angle... and never did they run out of opponents or things get repetitive. When he faced Benoit for the championship, Chris had been with the company for under a year, and wasn't a tried and tested main event talent, but that is how they need to get people over!

I do believe that it must be in the WWE's made up 'constitution' about the rematch clauses, but it is stupid to do the same match over and over and over. I love Christian, but to watch him and Randy go at it month after month after month after month is just a drag. It was the same a few years back with Randy and Cena.

I understand why they do it, but it doesn't make it any less infuriating.. I still think they should bring back the 30 days to defend your title rule... make it less easy for champions to just be thrown into matches as well.

 

[whoopin' ass]

wwe seems to play pretty fast and loose with the rules. common sense says the former champ gets the first shot at the new winner which is where the rematch clause comes in. however wwe (and other companies) have screwed around with that. didn't jbl or someone not get a title rematch because they didn't put it in the match contract? it seems like it is an automatic thing until they don't want 2 guys to have yet another match, then they suddenly forget to put it into the contract.

what i don't like is when they have someone lose their rematch like on RAW this past week. if both guys have a claim to the title like Punk and Cena did, then it should be a three-way match. Cena lost to Punk and Punk lost to Del Rio - Cena has no link to Del Rio other than he is the current champ. why would Punk face Cena again when he Punk lost to the current champ? Cena is already 2 champs away from the title. this isn't like a money in the bank briefcase that you won - you were the champ before the match. plus in a case like this, Cena getting a rematch makes no sense to begin with -Punk didn't beat him for the title, Punk was already champ. this was to unify the titles. think back to when the IC, Hardcore, and other titles were unified with other titles after the Invasion angles. did the former champ get a rematch for their original title? did the get a rematch for the title it was merged with? of course they didn't so why would Cena here. understand, i am not hating on Cena - i am hating on the wwe for being so inconsistent with thier rules. Miz loses the title as he is disqualified because the ref goes for the belt and it isn't with the timekeeper - has to be a first. Del Rio wins a number one contender match a month or so ago but when Punk is reinstated, that number one contender status is worthless. worse yet, he them has to compete in the matches to crown a new champ. shouldn't he at least be moved right to the title match since he won that number one contender match 2 weeks or so earlier? the way wwe handles things, it is hard to get interested in anything they are doing since you never know what screwey reason they will bring up to ruin it.

 

[SaveUs_Y2J]

All I have to say is I totally agree with the thing about money in the bank I was thinking the same thing while watching raw