Unifying WWE's World titles might not be as good as it sounds.

Ever since Brock Lesnar became WWE Champion at Day 1, fans have been pitching their ideas on how WWE can book him going forward. A section of WWE Universe feels that it might be the best opportunity for the company to unify both world titles. However, this idea might not be as beneficial as it looks on paper.

Since Brock Lesnar has issues with the current Universal Champion Roman Reigns, it seems like an obvious move for him to challenge Reigns for a title unification match. There are certain reasons why WWE should refrain from going in that direction.

Unifying both world titles will lead to a lack of opportunities for many WWE superstars.

One of the biggest benefits of the Brand split has been the provision of more opportunities for everyone. Since each brand has its own set of championships, more and more stars have been able to enjoy their well-deserved time in the spotlight.

The issue with having only one world title is that it would make it difficult for mid-card stars to move up. Admittedly, not everyone needs to be a world champion.

However, having a new face step up and challenge for the big prize every once in a while is what keeps things fresh.

If WWE were to have only a single world champion, it would make it difficult for them to plan out creative storylines. The main-event picture will always be dominated by stars like Brock Lesnar, Roman Reigns, and Bobby Lashley. It would be an unfair disadvantage for some underrated stars, who will have to wait even longer to get their shot at the title.

Remember how excited everyone was to see Cesaro challenge Roman Reigns for his Universal title at WrestleMania Backlash? It wouldn't have been possible if there was only one champion to dominate both shows. How can new stars emerge if the main-event picture remains crowded all the time?

A lesser number of world titles would mean that there will be a lesser number of credible challengers.

Many upper mid-card talents like AJ Styles and Seth Rollins won't have a major storyline unless they decide to perform as mid-carders. Moreover, the Champion would have to perform on both shows, which might lead to burnout. This would result in short title reigns, which would affect the overall viewing experience.

If AEW can have one World title, why can't WWE?

One might argue that since AEW is doing well with just one world title, why should WWE not try the same thing? The problem is that AEW has only one show, Dynamite, where they feature their best stars on a regular basis.

Since its broadcast began just recently, AEW Rampage would take time to reach Dynamite's level.

Their roster is also comparatively smaller, meaning that AEW could do great with only one World Champ. Many of their stars are yet to get familiar with the audience, leaving them with only a limited number of viable candidates that can challenge for the world title.

WWE, on the other hand, has two star-studded shows in RAW and Smackdown, whose storylines rarely coincide. They are treated as two separate entities and have two World Champions representing each brand.

If WWE does away with either of the titles, they would have to leave out one show without a Champion or have the titleholder appear on both shows every week. Wouldn't it be boring to see the Tribal Chief do the same thing on RAW that he does on Smackdown?

It is necessary for WWE to have two World Champions if they want to provide more exciting storylines to the WWE Universe. Otherwise, the company will be left with only a single major show, with the other feeling like an inferior brand.