The UFC is currently offering Bellator's Eddie Alvarez a deal that would make him the highest paid in the division. Previously, the UFC signed Hector Lombard, whose Bellator contract had expired, to a deal that paid him $700,000 + for his first fight, a disappointing loss. He has since rebounded. Bellator's Rebney said that Bellator could not afford to match the Lombard offer, but seems to be trying to match the UFC's offer to Alvarez. It is difficult to imagine them succeeding. Lombard and Alvarez are both exciting and highly ranked fighters, but I do not believe either is an actual contender. The only way to measure their worth is not by what the UFC is willing to pay them, but by what the UFC pays its own fighters. If Alvarez is worth what the current offer is alleged to be, it is difficult to argue that the current top 2 or 3 UFC fighters deserve less. Put another way, is Alvarez worth more to the UFC than its current champion in the division? There is, unfortunately, another possible explanation, which is that the bid for Alvarez and the one for Lombard are attempts to monopolize the sport. Instead of fighting over Alvarez's contract, Rebney should hire an anti-trust attorney. The UFC's practices have been anti-competitive for awhile now. To pre-empt the obvious question, the anti-trust claim would be for predatory bidding. A predatory bidding claim alleges that the predator (UFC) overpaid for talent and caused prices to rise to drive Bellator out of business. Once Bellator (remember Strikeforce is already basically gone) is out of business, the UFC can reap monopoly profits and pay fighters what it wants, making up for what it overpaid earlier. This is a very difficult claim to prove, particularly when the other possible claimant, Strikeforce, is in the UFC fold. But that might actually work in Bellator's favor because it shows UFC's intent. But it all comes down to whether the UFC is intentionally overpaying Bellator fighters. If I were on the jury, I would vote yes.