Brock, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, AJ, Cena, Bryan, the group of guys who are endlessly on top and get all the spotlight. Wyatt, KO, and Kofi, Balor are all one and done.
You seriously want to pretend WWE dont just keep the same handful of people on top endlessly?
UT was held by 2 different people in over 700 days.
First off, the dispersal of world titles in recent times is broadly in line with historical trends. Throughout the Attitude Era, nine different people won the WWE Championship, which is only a bit more brisk a pace than the period since the advent of the Universal championship. Moreover, of those nine champions, four of them (Kurt Angle, Big Show, Kane, and Vince McMahon) had relatively short single reigns, three of which were 50 days or less. The title was basically ricocheted between Austin, Undertaker, Rock, Foley, and Triple H.
Eva, you're not wrong that the collection you listed (Brock, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, AJ, Cena, Bryan, though Cena less so) have dominated the world titles over the last 3+ years, but isn't that how it should probably be? We complain about WWE making stars, but wouldn't it further hamper the star-making system if 20 different people hot-potato the world titles? WWE anointed their collection of stars and stuck with them during arguably their greatest period; doesn't it make sense to try to replicate that model?
One further note: I'm not arguing that THOSE PEOPLE are the ones that should be at the pinnacle; that's a separate conversation. The question is the number
of people that should reside at the top.