Is it Fair?

Wrestlemania is the biggest professional wrestling spectacle of the year with the biggest payoff and usually tries to tout the best card of the year. My column today is about two of WWE's biggest attractions right now.....The Rock and The Undertaker. I've got plenty to say about each, but I'd like to begin with the lesser of my questions to you, the readers of this column.

The Rock has been "back" for nearly a year now. He's been a part of two major PPV's and is on the cusp of his third. The current feud is the hottest thing in WWE right now and is occupying the top spot on the card. Never mind that there is no title on the line or that the two main events with a title on the line are being pushed down to give time to this and the one other feud I want to discuss later. I ask you all this question....is it fair? Is it fair to give The Rock, who has only appeared live on camera less than 5 times since hosting Wrestlemania a year ago, a spotlight at not one or two, but a rumored three straight Wrestlemanias since his departure from active competition on the roster after Wrestlemania 20? There are dozens of guys unused right now, guys who would be hungry for the payoff that the yearly biggest PPV of the year gives and one spot is for a guy who isn't even there most of the time.

I'm sure this sounds a bit like an anti-WWE rant, but the truth is, I LIKE The Rock. He's one of my favorite Attitude Era giants. He sells for WWE when he there. He makes TV interesting most of the time. My only gripe with him now is that it feels like when he cuts promos, it's like he's making up for lost time. 6 and 8 minute long promos feel like I've just run a marathon, because I'm winded trying to wade through them. I love you, Rocky, but could you tone that part down JUST a bit?

My other question is directed at The Undertaker. He wrestles one date per year. That's it, folks. Just one day per year. If you could decide to come to work one day per year and get a guaranteed half a million dollars just for putting on a show for less than 30 minutes, would you be surprised to see 20 guys who've come in everyday complaining? I know I wouldn't be. You see, The Undertaker's payday for Wrestlemania may not be half a mil, but I can safely say that I'm close. This is just for the one PPV. This has nothing to do with his contract, which guarantees much more than that JUST TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM HIM AS A PART OF THE ROSTER!

There was talk that he would be retiring once the lights of Wrestlemania have faded, but that talk has died down with the understanding that if he were to only compete at the yearly spectacle, he'd be able to go maybe 5 more years. It has been a long held belief that the notorious Streak of the Phenom at Wrestlemania will never be broken. That being said, it begs the question, is it fair? Is it fair to the rest of the people who are chosen to get in line only to be fed to the Streak? Let's just say that, for the sake of argument, Sting decides to sign with WWE for a short Legends deal....long enough to put out a DVD set; is it fair to him to feed him to the Streak? Even more, is it fair to the ones who came before him to let him BREAK the Streak?

I leave this question in the air as I don't have the answer. I just know that for the current Wrestlemania, there are 3 spots that could have seen a brand new star that are now spoken for. Next year, there look to be a guaranteed 2. Is it fair? You be the judge.