Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media.
I’ve written a few articles on the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s increasingly weak cards. It’s a relevant macro trend for the sport’s biggest promotion and far more important than any one fighter. Judging by the comments, most readers agree and lament how 40-plus UFC events a year make for thin cards that pale in comparison to those that once were. Occasionally, there are fans who get angry, call me a “hater,” or otherwise feel duty-bound to defend the increasingly poor product they’re expected to consume. I always find this amusing. Do these people like main events featuring Cynthia Calvillo and Jessica Eye—two women who have combined to go 0-7—or Carlos Felipe in multiple co-headliners? Do they think this is the pinnacle of MMA talent and worthy of their time, energy and, in the case of ESPN+ cards and pay-per-views, money?
I’m also reminded of a fan on social media criticizing the fights underneath the Israel Adesanya-Anderson Silva main event at UFC 234 while the PPV price had risen to $60 or $65, whichever one it was back then. Recall that the co-headliner was Lando Vannata-Marcos Mariano. Vannata is a staple on UFC Fight Night undercards, while Mariano went 0-2 in the UFC and holds an overall record of 7-7. UFC President Dana White angrily cursed at the fan who dared to point out the obvious. Naturally, White’s cult following resulted in plenty of comments from people who agreed with him. One particular comment has stuck with me all these years. Someone touted how amazing it was to watch a then-undefeated Jimmy Crute fight, and that for such a fantastic card, even paying $100 was a bargain. Recall this was before current levels of inflation. I’ve always wondered how many of these devoted UFC zealots exist.
We may get our answer soon with UFC 279. Say what you will about the worsening cards before it, but there was always one constant. The main event of a pay-per-view was always a genuinely great fight. Most times it was for a title, but in other cases, like Adesanya-Silva or even Colby Covington-Jorge Masvidal, it featured popular and elite fighters in compelling matchups. All of that goes out the window with the UFC 279 headliner: Khamzat Chimaev vs. Nate Diaz.
To begin with, Diaz isn’t even remotely close to a Top 10 welterweight these days. He’s probably not even in the Top 20, and a slew of fighters in the UFC and Bellator MMA would decimate him. Masvidal and Leon Edwards have already done so, and just off the top of my head, so would Covington, Yaroslav Amosov, Kamaru Usman, Logan Storley, Gilbert Burns, Jason Jackson, Belal Muhammad, Michael Page and perhaps even Douglas Lima, Stephen Thompson and Geoff Neal. Chimaev is indeed a Top 10 welterweight and might even be a future champion. At the very least, his razor-thin victory over Burns showed that he’s an excellent fighter—but perhaps not the unbeatable phenom about which the UFC has constantly fawned.
Furthermore, there is no storyline, like the passing of the torch between superlative, unique strikers in Adesanya and Silva, or friends turned into bitter enemies, like Covington and Masvidal. There is no question about the outcome, either. Chimaev is a -1200 favorite—a number that even Valentina Shevchenko and Amanda Nunes have often failed to reach in their fights. This fight would be fine on a pay-per-view main card or perhaps even as a co-headliner on a particularly weak card. However, this is the headliner, and the fights underneath look even worse. What does this mean? Has the UFC given up on PPV revenue and live gates in the era of streaming platforms and crypto and sportsbook sponsorships? While PPVs and live gates are now a smaller part of the company’s revenue, I believe UFC 279 is a test. The UFC is trying to see how many of these true diehard fans it has. How many will buy a PPV that is easily its worst in many years and features such a weak headliner?
It’s honestly a fascinating question, and I’m keen to know the answer. Sadly, the UFC no longer releases its PPV numbers, but this will have huge repercussions going forward. If this gamble works out, then there is little incentive for the organization to either keep many of its Top 10 fighters or pay them a decent wage. It will not even care if all those fighters go to Bellator. After all, UFC fans will continue tuning in and paying their money, all while dismissing and mocking anything not occurring in the promotion, regardless of the relative skill levels on display. These are the same people who thought the Michael Chandler who was knocked out in a minute by Patricio Freire would have no chance against any Top 10 lightweight in the UFC. They mocked Freire, claiming that someone so short would have no chance of ever beating Max Holloway. It’s a good thing Alexander Volkanovski was so tall, right? Sure, Amosov, Bellator’s current welterweight champion, would stomp Diaz like a bug and likely outgrapple and outstrike Chimaev, but it doesn’t matter, since it didn’t happen inside the Octagon. Expect the UFC to pay Top 10 contenders a smaller portion of the company’s total revenue and happily let many of them go if they ask for more.
It would behoove all UFC fans to consider this reality: Blind allegiance to the brand name directly hurts the fighters who sacrifice their bodies inside the cage most of all.