The repeated mandate that WWE Management cannot place it's hands on WWE Talent is clear hypocrisy, considering this is exactly how the Authority got the WWE title on their preferred champion to kick-off the angle. It doesn't make any sense, until you realize the Board of Directors probably tore into Triple H over it & made the ruling because of it.
The Authority wanting Randy Orton to win the World Heavyweight Championship ladder match and Seth Rollins to win the traditional Money in the Bank match. At first, you might wonder why the Authority would seemingly be setting their favorites against each other—since Rollins would have to cash in on Orton and thus cause tension and dissension between them—before you realize that they likely weren't going to let Rollins cash in at all had Orton won; they wanted Orton to win the title, and Rollins to win the contract to keep it out of the hands of the rest of the wrestlers to protect Orton from having an "undesirable" cash in on him and possibly take the title off him, and when somebody finally does beat Orton, Rollins can make that cash-in and bring the title right back to the Authority. Since Orton lost, however, Rollins has turned into the ace up their sleeves—while they continue to try to set things up for Orton to win, they can still position Rollins to win the title as a back-up plan when the moment is right and if Orton continues to disappoint, they can simply shift all their favor to Rollins.
The Authority's irritation with John Cena winning the title when Cena is (by most people's estimation) a star manufactured by the company machine:
Cena is notoriously hard to control. Only one man has managed it in several years, and that didn't last long. Not to mention that any attempt to do so, as hinted in the segment on the RAW immediately after Money In The Bank 2014, might snap him back to his early-to-mid-2000s self, which wouldn't be good for anybody involved. Thug!Cena had a mean streak a mile wide, even as a face. And for a bit more Fridge Brilliance, a return to that form, in the Authority's estimation, wouldn't be "best for business"explanation A heel or Anti-Hero Cena may run the risk of alienating Cena's predominantly child fanbase and perhaps lead to a financial disaster for WWE... which probably comes closest to the Real Life reason this change hasn't occurred with almost 7 years of opportunity to do so.
Cena is also notoriously hard to beat straight-up when he wins a title belt, so it's much more difficult to get a title off him than it is most other people.
It's not good for Seth Rollins and the plans for him within the Authority, either. Let's put it this way: the last guy that tried to cash in a MITB contract on Cena... well, it didn't go so well.
The whole "going against what the fans want is best for business" thing makes complete sense when you remember two things. One, that the company's dedication in recent years to restoring the clean-cut, family-friendly image that it had before the Attitude Era has largely been for both political reasons and to keep up rapport with corporate sponsors. Two, Vince McMahon's infamously-stated personal philosophy when it comes to what the fans want is that he'll tell them what they want (meaning WWE can get fans to accept just about anything and/or anyone if presented correctly, and even fans who the company is seemingly incapable of pleasing for one reason or another will usually stick around out of either masochism or hope for change). The Authority are the kayfabe exaggeration of the company's own view that the corporate sponsors are much more variable as a factor to their success than the fans are; as such, they don't care much at all about the fans' opinion because they don't think they have to.
