Is the whole "money fight" trend damaging MMA?

[KazDibiase]

Just want opinions.

I have no problem with fighters wanting to get paid but instead of fighting legit contenders, they rather fight popular fighters or legends. It's holding up divisions and some fighters are getting screwed for their hard work. It kinda affect the fans since these fighters are getting frustrated, sitting out or just wanting to retire.

 

[Megalodon]

Of course it is. The UFC has been on a hard downward spiral in the last year.

 

[Andre Xiong]

that's just 1 of many things wrong with mma in the past several years.

 

[Gratis]

The worst thing about "money fights" is the delusion that such a thing exists in MMA.

 

[wilKO]

If fighters got paid fairly then this problem wouldn't exist.

UFC have been screwing guys over for far too long and the Reebok deal and Conor have made people realise that.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

when you have top guys making 5 figures and champs or main event fighters making 7 figures, it was inevitable that fighters would start holding out for main events, titles, and non-contender stars.

i truly wonder if the solution is to make a policy which flattens the pay out at the top. but that would involve completely changing the PPV points "if you pull more viewers you get paid more" model. if that's even possible.

the only other way to solve it is to play hardball with fighters. strip or cut superstars like Bisping. but that is truly a "nuclear option" because they cannot sell big PPV's without big stars, and they make more money with guys like Bisping than without. and the stars know it, which is why they're negotiating from a position of strength.

i cannot think of another solution than dumping the PPV point payout model, and flattening the pay across top 10 or top 15 fighters. if fighting the #2 paid $350k and fighting the champ paid $500k, then maybe a #3 contender wouldn't hold out a year and a half for that delta, and a champ wouldn't hold out for a non-contender like Diaz.

it's a major policy shift, but then again the further away from the PPV model we go (e.g. Fox renegotiation and TV rights around the world) then the less PPV points matter anyway.

if anyone has a better solution, i'd love to hear it. don't say "cut them" without having read my 3rd paragraph and truly grasping it. thanks.

 

[Co-Co Zola]

Yes, it's an excuse for champions to avoid defending their belts. They will often pick and choose favorable match ups.

See Bisping with Henderson and GSP. Woodley trying to fight a Diaz or Conor. Conor trying to leave the sport to get clowned for a big payday.

Fight the rightful challenger or vacate.

 

[ThEiCeMaN6791]

Yes, it's an excuse for champions to avoid defending their belts. They will often pick and choose favorable match ups.

See Bisping with Henderson and GSP. Woodley trying to fight a Diaz or Conor. Conor trying to leave the sport to get clowned for a big payday.

Fight the rightful challenger or vacate.

This.

 

[Irishwhiskey119]

It's absolutely hurting the sport. No question.

 

[bubby]

Yes.

 

[PopeUrbanII]

Indeed.

 

[freaky]

No, it's called a money fight because people want to see it. What's wrong with giving what the fans want?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Fuck these stupid money fights, let's have champs defend belts against contenders the way it fucking should be

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

 

[Wormwood]

Was that a rhetorical question? Kinda like, "Does getting syphylis put a downer in your day?"

 

[Lay N Pray 101]

The champion mentality is fading. Now it's "money, money, money". I miss the days when a champion would fight whoever stood in their way or whoever the company puts in front of them. Now it's "fuck the number 1 contender, I'll fight this guy/girl instead".

 

[DIABOLUS]

What I love is the dumbasses who make excuses for guys like Bisping. "Oh, he's been around a long time and has fought a lot of legends. He deserves an easy money fight title defense against a non-contender."

If you're not the champ, like Anderson after losing his belt, then by all means, take all the fun/money fights you want. But if you're the belt holder, you're obligated to defend it regularly against the #1 contender. Period.

 

[Lay N Pray 101]

What I love is the dumbasses who make excuses for guys like Bisping. "Oh, he's been around a long time and has fought a lot of legends. He deserves an easy money fight title defense against a non-contender."

If you're not the champ, like Anderson after losing his belt, then by all means, take all the fun/money fights you want. But if you're the belt holder, you're obligated to defend it regularly against the #1 contender. Period.

END OF FUCKING THREAD!!
Good shit bro!

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Obviously.

It's a short term bump, but a long term hit to legitimacy and building of new stars.

It's no coincidence that you started seeing it right when Zuffa was gearing up to sell.

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

Yes. Give the legit contender his title shot. Why have rankings then...