WHY DID WWE’S BAD BLOOD COME TO AN END?
1. Changes to WWE’s PPV Structure
Between 2003 and 2004, WWE began making major changes to the way it organized its pay-per-view events. During this time, the company split its roster between Raw and SmackDown, creating two separate brands with their own titles and storylines. This decision led to a split in the PPVs, with some events being exclusive to each brand.
The 2003 and 2004 Bad Blood were exclusive to Raw, which limited the number of stars available to participate, especially compared to PPVs that featured wrestlers from both brands. While the brand split was an attempt to create more opportunities for different superstars, it also diluted the impact of certain events, including Bad Blood.
2. Internal Competition from Other Events
Another major reason for the end of Bad Blood was competition from other established PPVs. With events like SummerSlam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, and WrestleMania dominating the WWE calendar, there was little room for less iconic PPVs to stand out. Additionally, in 2005, Bad Blood was replaced by the Vengeance PPV, which had already been introduced in 2001 and was gaining popularity.
Vengeance ended up taking Bad Blood's spot on the June calendar, becoming the main focus for mid-year rivalries. With Vengeance gone, WWE didn't see the need to keep both events and opted to discontinue Bad Blood.
3. Hell in a Cell's Rise in Popularity as Its Own Event
Historically, Bad Blood has been associated with Hell in a Cell matches, and many fans associate the iconic structure directly with that event. The first Hell in a Cell match between Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker took place at Bad Blood 1997, and the 2004 event also featured a classic Hell in a Cell match between Triple H and Shawn Michaels. However, the popularity of this stipulation ended up becoming greater than the event itself.
WWE saw the potential of promoting Hell in a Cell as a standalone event and in 2009 launched the Hell in a Cell PPV, which became the main venue for matches inside the dreaded cage. This change further diminished the need for an event like Bad Blood, which had become synonymous with the structure.
4. WWE’s Strategy Shifts in the Post-Attitude Era
The end of Bad Blood also reflects a larger shift in WWE’s creative direction. After the end of the Attitude Era and the transition to the Ruthless Aggression Era in the 2000s, the company was adapting to new audiences and trends. Attitude Era PPVs, known for their intensity, violence, and heated rivalries, began to give way to events that focused more on family entertainment and long-term storytelling.
As a result, events like Bad Blood, which focused on more bloody and personal rivalries, did not fit as well with the company’s new vision. WWE began to prioritize events that could attract a wider audience, which ultimately contributed to the demise of Bad Blood.
5. Little Distinct Identity from Other Events
While Bad Blood had its trademark intense rivalries and Hell in a Cell matches, it lacked a unique identity that set it apart from other events. Events like the Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, and Money in the Bank all have special stipulations that make them stand out clearly on the WWE calendar. On the other hand, Bad Blood simply became a platform for rivalries without adding anything new or innovative over the years.
Without a distinct identity and with the growing popularity of other stipulated events, WWE had little incentive to keep Bad Blood on its calendar.
The demise of Bad Blood was the result of a combination of factors, including the brand split, internal competition from other PPVs, the emergence of the Hell in a Cell event, and a change in WWE's creative direction. Although it is no longer part of the company's annual calendar, Bad Blood's legacy lives on in the memory of fans, especially because of the epic Hell in a Cell matches that occurred throughout its short, yet impactful, history.
