WWE Survivor Series 2017: 3 Reasons For The Brands To Wage War

Here is a look at three ways to make WWE Survivor Series 2017 more interesting by adding more stakes on the line other than bragging rights.

The seeds for a brand war at WWE Survivor Series have already been planted. The build towards the annual PPV started when the WWE champion Jinder Mahal challenged the Universal Champion Brock Lesnar. It came out of the blue and made no sense. Why would Jinder want to basically throw himself in front of a freight train? He tried to explain it as a way of his next conquest but that felt really hollow and flat.

On Monday, we learned that this year, just like the last year, it will be one brand competing against the other. The Champions from each brand would compete against their respective counterparts. In addition, the men and women will partake in a traditional five on five elimination match. If there is anything we learned from last year’s Survivor Series, it’s that these things don’t matter. There is no end game to the brands going to fight against each other. Nothing is up for stakes.

The commentary team tries to play up ‘bragging rights’ as a motive. We even had a PPV with the same name and they even used to have a trophy. But in all honesty, does it make any sense at all? Why would Sami Zayn and Kevin Owens offer their help to Shane McMahon unless something was on the line that could benefit them? Why would Braun Strowman (most probably) agree to be a team player if there isn’t any real benefit to him?

That is exactly why creative needs to add more stakes to these matches. The pride of one’s respective brand is not enough to motivate a wrestler to fight for his brand. Here are three better and more logical reasons for the brands to fight. Each of these ideas will in fact benefit the stars from the respective brands. So immediately, there will be a sense of urgency and motivation among them, faces and heels alike.