>>18498404I don't think so.
Part of what made TNA what it was was having to deal with WWE as it was. WWE owned the market while TNA had to scrap together what it could to carve out a market niche. WWE, meanwhile, had the combined assets of WWF and WCW.
WWE wouldn't have held that position had it not been able to acquire WCW. WCW would have already held the market share TNA had to work to acquire. It wouldn't have had to lean into so many risks which ended up falling flat and would have had a level of prestige TNA was never able to earn.
WWE also wouldn't have been in a position to revise history the way it did, portraying competition as incompetent while hiding the fact that it did many of the same things. A lot of where WWE stands today is due to the leverage it's had in the marketplace versus johnny-come-latelies that have to establish name recognition among casuals. That's not easy to do because even the smallest failures get pounced upon.
