Thoughts on the Main Event

[Fuji Vice]

Recently I've seen an interesting trend towards the discussion of the "main event" and what that entails. There seems to be a wide group of IWC members who think that CM Punk (for example) is not being given opportunities to be in the "main event" because John Cena takes them all. This thought process leads one to believe that the "main event" must be the last match on the card. Do you really think that's the case these days?

Punk himself has gone on record and stated that it doesn't matter what place you are on the card, you will always have the chance to be the star attraction. As far as WWE is concerned, I find there are always multiple matches that can be considered "main event", at least from a star-power or in-ring standpoint, so does it really matter that much what position they go on the card?

I'm just interested what everyone here thinks about this and whether the last match on the card truly HAS to be considered the main event?

 

[Postman Dave]

To an extent, yes.

The main event is the match on the card everyone wants to see, the star attraction. If the one match everyone wants to see goes on first, what's the point of watching the next few?

John Cena is without a doubt the star attraction of WWE, a point no one can debate. Whilst you can argue that CM Punk is the champ and should therefore be headlining PPV's, WWE have conditioned fans to not give a damn about titles, and therefore fans only care about what Cena is doing. And if Cena doesn't compete for the WWE title often, then how are fans supposed to see the title as important?

 

[Sabretooth]

Only because it's John Cena.

 

[NovaRoad]

I understand Cena's the top dog of the company, but if card placement isn't all it's cracked up to be, then why can't non-champion Cena have a main event match somewhere in the middle of the card?