WWE roster size from 1984-present

[greeby]

After seeing the roster lineup on that leaked Raw script, it got me thinking about what size the roster actually has been through the years. So last night and today I've compiled a year-by-year list of the roster size.

These numbers represent everyone who was a regular in the company during that particular year, so natural addition and subtraction probably hides the real figure. But to find that out would involve more research than I'm willing to put in.

The list is restricted to active male wrestlers, and doesn't include female wrestlers or other personnel. I've included what I consider are likely factors for major changes in roster size. All information is compiled from
www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/bios/wwe-alumni/


Current: 62 (More talent cuts, new show Superstars in April set to extend weekly TV time to 6 hours)
2008: 80 (Further heavy talent cuts)
2007: 91 (Heavy talent cuts, including many on the ECW roster only hired the previous year)
2006: 129 (ECW is relaunched as a third brand, roster grows to 38)
2005: 92
2004: 90
2003: 82 (Major remaining stars from MNW-era join WWE, TNA and ROH begin to establish themselves)
2002: 68 (Brand Extension begins)
2001: 70 (WCW and ECW close, heavy influx of talent)
2000: 56 (WCW and ECW in freefall, both companies haemorrhage stars)
1999: 60 (Launch of Smackdown brings weekly TV time to 4 hours. WCW and ECW struggle, with key players jumping ship)
1998: 63 (Austin-era begins, WWF turns the tide in the ratings war)
1997: 79 (Raw expands to two hours, the Attitude Era begins)
1996: 50 (Nitro's winning streak begins, ECW talent become hot property for both companies)
1995: 52 (Monday Night War begins, WWF at all-time creative and drawing low)
1994: 45 (WCW begins to stack the deck with ex-WWF talent)
1993: 65 (Mass exodus of 80's stars continues)
1992: 55 (Steroid scandals break, many 80's stalwarts begin leaving)
1991: 56
1990: 56
1989: 48
1988: 55 (Jim Crocket Promotions sold to Turner, effectively the end of the territories)
1987: 56
1986: 48
1985: 38 (The first Wrestlemania, WWF becomes mainstream)
1984: 19 (Hulkamania begins, Vince begins national expansion)

[Deleted]

There were only 19 guys in 84?

[parder]

Interesting. So excluding female performers they're back to the same level of male talent that they had during the peak of the Monday Night Wars, when Raw was the only major show, Smackdown had just begun and they didn't have a brand extension.

In theory that should mean that more wrestlers are getting main event opportunities than they did then, and I guess they have in a way, but it makes the mid card seem more thin.

Does this only include the active roster, or is developmental talent included as well?

[parder]

Mar 7, 2009 11:55:55 GMT -5 @tagteamspecialist said:

There were only 19 guys in 84?

That might only include those who wreslted exclusively for WWF at that time. The territories were about to decline with Vince's national expansion, but many still existed at this point.

[derrtaysouth95]

When you look at it like that.....the roster doesn't seem nearly as thick as it comes across.

They have 5 hours of tv every week. So obviously the problem is with the creative dept not using everyone they could be using. If they would just pay a little more attention of the midcard and less attention on backstage segments and pointless divas matches....it'd be a lot better show.

[greeby]

Mar 7, 2009 12:10:32 GMT -5 @derrtaysouth95 said:

When you look at it like that.....the roster doesn't seem nearly as thick as it comes across.

They have 5 hours of tv every week. So obviously the problem is with the creative dept not using everyone they could be using. If they would just pay a little more attention of the midcard and less attention on backstage segments and pointless divas matches....it'd be a lot better show.

Diva matches are no more pointless than any other kind of wrestling match. And certainly a lot more preferable than Mizark squashing some lower-carder or Kozlov stinking up the house.

Part of the problem is how the main event scene has become an exclusive club. When only three guys are part of the Smackdown title match for every PPV for a year straight, you know there's a definite glass ceiling there. Hogan may have been on top for forever and a day but just about every singles heel in the company got a program with him. Granted some got longer runs than others, so there was favouritism. But how many midcarders have been steadily built over a two-year period only to hit a glass ceiling?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Forgive me, but I don't see what this symbolizes.

[greeby]

Mar 7, 2009 13:04:16 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Forgive me, but I don't see what this symbolizes.

Well for one thing, if the "End the Brand Extension" weekly threads are gonna continue, helps to have some historical context for both pro and con argument

[parder]

Mar 7, 2009 13:01:16 GMT -5 greeby said:

Mar 7, 2009 12:10:32 GMT -5 @derrtaysouth95 said:

When you look at it like that.....the roster doesn't seem nearly as thick as it comes across.

They have 5 hours of tv every week. So obviously the problem is with the creative dept not using everyone they could be using. If they would just pay a little more attention of the midcard and less attention on backstage segments and pointless divas matches....it'd be a lot better show.

Diva matches are no more pointless than any other kind of wrestling match. And certainly a lot more preferable than Mizark squashing some lower-carder or Kozlov stinking up the house.

Part of the problem is how the main event scene has become an exclusive club. When only three guys are part of the Smackdown title match for every PPV for a year straight, you know there's a definite glass ceiling there. Hogan may have been on top for forever and a day but just about every singles heel in the company got a program with him. Granted some got longer runs than others, so there was favouritism. But how many midcarders have been steadily built over a two-year period only to hit a glass ceiling?

That's precisely why in theory, having a brand extension with the same number of guys they had the Attitude era should lead to more guys getting the chance to main event, but you're right that in recent years it hasn't worked out that way as much as you'd think. But if they didn't have the brand extension it could be even worse.

I guess the main justification for having the same guys at the top is a short-term business case that they know what they're going to get from a small group of very established guys. With no brand-exclusive PPVs they only have short builds for fewer slots for each brand on those shows. So they need guys who are proven draws from the past who can put on a decent match. The trouble is that it can end up being counter-productive if the main event soon starts to look stale.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Mar 7, 2009 13:06:52 GMT -5 greeby said:

Mar 7, 2009 13:04:16 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Forgive me, but I don't see what this symbolizes.

Well for one thing, if the "End the Brand Extension" weekly threads are gonna continue, helps to have some historical context for both pro and con argument

You're feeding the Beast.

[molson5]

Mar 7, 2009 11:55:55 GMT -5 @tagteamspecialist said:

There were only 19 guys in 84?

I'm not sure how they define "roster" guys but there's a ton that wrestled in 1984 for the WWF that aren't on that list:

Check out the show results from that year.

www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/84.htm

[greeby]

Mar 7, 2009 13:26:36 GMT -5 molson5 said:

Mar 7, 2009 11:55:55 GMT -5 @tagteamspecialist said:

There were only 19 guys in 84?

I'm not sure how they define "roster" guys but there's a ton that wrestled in 1984 for the WWF that aren't on that list:

Check out the show results from that year.

www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/84.htm

Well, cross-referencing the list of names at OWW with these results. I think the other names are just the local jobbers you saw on the squash matches. Either that or the site is a bit off on when exactly the new arrivals for 85 actually got there

[Single H]

The list is very inaccurate. To get a true and valid list you would have to find out all the people who worked for and were under contract for the WWF/E in each year. It would take a lot more work to find out but that way at least you would have a more accurate roster list.

[Magician under the moonlight]

Out of curiosity, does this count FCW guys?

[romafan87]

Mar 7, 2009 14:02:37 GMT -5 Single H said:

The list is very inaccurate. To get a true and valid list you would have to find out all the people who worked for and were under contract for the WWF/E in each year. It would take a lot more work top find out but that way at least you would have a more accurate roster list.

Agreed. I can list well over 19 guys who were exclusive to WWF in 1984 off the top of my head:

Hogan
Backlund
Sheik
Volkoff
Slaughter
Studd
Andre
Patera
Muraco
Santana
Valentine
SD Jones
Johnson
Atlas
Beefcake
Piper
Orndorff
Orton
Masked Superstar
Sal Bellomo
McGraw
Tiger Chun Li
Mr. Fuji
Afa
Sika
Samula
Goulet
Sharpe
Dave Schultz
Snuka
Jose Luis Rivera
Swede Hanson
Adonis
Murdoch
Putski
David Sammartino
JYD
Tony Garea
Kamala
The Spoiler
Moondog Spot
Terry Daniels
Brian Blair


Those are guys who all had at 150 hits on Graham Cawthon's site for 1984. There are probably more.

[Joekishi]

Again further proof of why we need the Brand Extension

[CM Dazz]

The most shocking thing to me is there is only about half the people on the roster than there were in '06

[wwerules60]

Mar 7, 2009 15:58:32 GMT -5 Joekishi said:

Again further proof of why we need the Brand Extension

Not really, Same amount of talent as in the Attitude era and they did just fine back then.

[Danimal]

I don't have a problem with the brand extension. With this many guys and shows you need more titles to feud over. I just wish ECW and the tag-division had more depth. I like ECW but can do without the same damn guys going at it every week. I'm a tag-fan, I still want to see a return to having several quality teams and teams that stick together long-term and really establish themselves.

Unless the tag-division gets bigger though that should be unified. But otherwise I agree with brand extension and multiple world and middlecard belts.

[Brandon Walsh is Insane.]

Mar 7, 2009 22:38:28 GMT -5 Danimal said:

I don't have a problem with the brand extension. With this many guys and shows you need more titles to feud over. I just wish ECW and the tag-division had more depth. I like ECW but can do without the same damn guys going at it every week. I'm a tag-fan, I still want to see a return to having several quality teams and teams that stick together long-term and really establish themselves.

Unless the tag-division gets bigger though that should be unified. But otherwise I agree with brand extension and multiple world and middlecard belts.

Eric Bischoff had good reasoning on why tag teams are not a viable option -- for a tag team match, you are using 4 guys in one television segment. If you used those 4 guys in singles matches, you'd be able to use 4 guys in TWO television segments.

They need to fill up all the television segments, and that is a priority over everything else, because of the money involved.

Thing is, a lot of the guys in the back LIKE tag team wrestling, but there isn't really money in that at the moment.

Wrestling is a business, and like any other business, the bottom line is how much money you generate.