I don't think you should remove fighters from the ranking because of contract negotiations but the criticisms I see of the UFC's actions are all off-point. Everyone is still going on about how x fighter is inactive like Nate and so if Nate has been removed, so too should x be removed. But the publicly stated reason for Nate's removal is that he is inactive and there's no indication when he's coming back, if ever. With Pettis there was always a reasonably predictable timeline as to his return. With TJ Grant, because of the nature of his injury, nobody knew how long he'd be out and there was reason to think it could be a really long time. Similarly, it's possible Nate might never fight again and so the UFC claims he fits this criteria. So if you wanna criticise the UFC's treating of Nate you can't just say "there's inconsistency because x is also inactive". You have to say something like: a. "x is also inactive and there's no indication of when they'll return, and they're ranked". b. "Nate doesn't fit the 'inactive for indeterminate amount of time criteria'" c. Something more general like "The UFC should have no influence over the rankings and should let the media-generated rankings stand as they are".