[XL]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect TV ratings and other comparable levels of engagement would make sense. To say that Adam Page is a star when 954k watched his show whereas Austin Theory is not, when double that watch his? Eh. It doesn’t add up.

Likewise to say Austin Theory is a star just because he’s on a show that draws “double” the rating. Who’s genuinely watching to see Austin Theory? Kevin Patrick isn’t a star just because he’s on Raw.

You can be the “star” of a property that does a lower rating/revenue than another property. Just because [INSERT MCU MOVIE HERE] sets Box Office records doesn’t mean any actor in the cast is a bigger star than a Tom Cruise who appears in relatively smaller Box Office successes.

I’d struggle to point at anyone in WWE that has widespread appeal. Yeah you get your Sasha Banks with bit parts on Star Wars TV shows, Becky in a movie, Roman with a bit part in a blockbuster but ask the average person in the street and they’re not recognisable.

Was Shawn Michaels less of a star because WWF was getting trouched in the ratings by WCW when he was on top?

I think it might be a bit of a “misnomer” in that when he talks about “stars” what he actually means is “talents that you can anchor the show with” or “talents that get a reaction”. WWE - by your own admission - have failed to cycle people into these positions for years.