5 most confusing rules in WWE

#3 Having to defend a championship within 30-days

One rule for Brock?

It's no secret that professional wrestling used to enjoy brighter days back in the late 90s and early 00s. As a result, today's roster often has to rely on big-name returns to help boost interest in the current product and this occasionally means some of the main event stars, like Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar, operate on a part-time basis.

For Brock Lesnar in particular, his hands-off approach to full-time competition has proven difficult when it comes to the 30-day rule governing how much time a champion has to defend his belt. Brock is still somebody that Vince wishes to see at the top of the roster, but when he holds either the WWE or Universal Championship he is not often around long enough to defend it within the allocated time slot.

All this would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that in some cases the WWE still decides to enforce the ruling. Naomi and Daniel Bryan have been recent examples of people having to give up their belt due to injury. Surely if storylines are still being built on this concept, the same should apply to Brock Lesnar or any other part-timer who doesn't defend the title in 30-days.

Whether or not this rule should be scrapped entirely rests on how long the WWE expect to be relying on part-time talent. Once Brock has decided to fully move on from the company, maybe the rule will become consistent again. That being said, wrestling fans don't tend to like having their intelligence insulted and will often speak out when Lesnar gets away with this when some of their other favourite superstars don't.