Re: would one world title really be better for wwe?
Is it worth having two World Titles when one of them is booked way beneath the other. Sure guys like Sheamus, Daniel Bryan, and Wade Barrett might not get pushed to the World Title if there was only one of them, but is it worth it to acknowledge them as a world champion while not even treating them like a top guy. They may have the world title, but they're still pretty much a midcarder because the WWE Champion will always be seen as more important.
And I don't think they have to worry too much about the Cena factor. John Cena hasn't been champion in over a year, and wasn't even in the title picture until last summer. I'm sure they'll just give the WWE Title to someone else while Cena does other things.
Even WITH a brand split, there should only be one world champion. The top champion should be the best guy in the entire company, not just the best guy on one show.
Having two world championships also reduces the prestige of all the other belts. Upper midcarders should not be chasing a World Title, they should be going after the Intercontinental Title, while the pure midcarders go after a 3rd tier title or compete in the tag division. Having one World Title would make the other belts more valuable again. Look back at when Miz was Intercontinental Champion. He was holding a "midcard belt", but he still carried himself like a top star. All you need to do is get rid of the World Heavyweight Championship, and put the IC belts on a top guy to make it look like a big deal.