Right, and my point is that there's a discrepancy between how things are actually run and how they act like it is run. If revenue is all that matters, why do they ever bring up titles, legacies, legitimacy, and so on? Because they have to maintain this illusion of a legitimate sports league to maintain their extremely favorable position over the fighters. I can accept that championships, defenses, everything but revenue is irrelevant to their bottom line. I can't accept them waffling on that, or this idea that these things should be meaningful to everyone (especially the fighters) but them. It's almost like if WWE got to run things based on what happens in the show they write.
As it is, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. They get to say there's a standard for the UFC, that championships matter, that wins matter, but also get to contradict that whenever it benefits them. They've set up a system that allows them a free pass at the expense of the fighters. "We can't do that, it doesn't make us money" and "We can't do that, it doesn't make sense rankings wise/championship legitimacy, and on and on" should be mutually exclusive, or else there's virtually nothing keeping them from doing whatever they want. And if they wanted to do whatever they want, to the extent that the AC's would allow, anyway, that would be totally fine with me. Just pick a side and go with it. I'm just a single fan and don't matter but jesus christ, that's got to be incredibly insulting to and frustrating for fighters who do business with them, especially the ones who've done everything right, won, broke records, etc.