Issue 174

December 2018

Sure, the brawl was bad. But don't bet against the rematch.

Indignation was inevitable after the post-event scenes at UFC 229. Moral outrage in the mainstream as MMA took a beating in the days after the event. No change there. As one commentator wrote, it is "a financial behemoth through the systematic promise of unhinged violence. This is a business built on its continuing ability to monetise bloodlust."

But the sport will get over it. Yes, the brawl between the teams was uncomfortable to witness, sickening even. But these are fighters, remember. You watch. They'll do it again in twelve months time. Once the dust has settled. Seen it before. What transpired simply lights the fire under the stage for another burning, another witches' sabbath of bank notes . . . another $160 million dollar night in Las Vegas. Fight sports is a business, remember, as much as it is sports entertainment, or a lifestyle. And what happens sets up part two. Ugly as it was, promotionally it was a success.

It will simply need the right moments for a rebuild, regardless of how one-sided the contest was, and may well be in a second encounter. The fact that McGregor was away for two years will be used as one of the teasers. He did it against Nate Diaz, why not Khabib?

One of the last questions asked of UFC president Dana White at the post-fight news conference two hours after the ugly melee which resembled street violence – where people creep up behind and ambush their enemies – was whether the UFC could arbitrate between two schools of hate. Impossible, he felt. He might want to, but he can't. "I'd be too concerned about getting them in the same room," said White. But he may well get them in an Octagon again.

For most observers, McGregor overstepped the mark on this one. From the start – Dolly- gate – until the denouement. The footage of Dolly-gate, McGregor's attack on the bus containing Khabib in New York, was used in the promotional videos, of course. McGregor has become a brilliant marketeer with the gift of the gab, his sideline in comedic trash talk having made him a global star. But the themes and mood at this event were different, uncomfortable, went deeper and darker and arguably, did not translate, culturally to a man from Dagestan, rated not long ago as one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

Publicly unhinged, McGregor had reached new levels of provocation. Khabib, seemingly, took it to heart: the taunting so relentless, so strong, that the proud Muslim man and fighter was unable to contain himself.

In many ways his actions and those of his team-mates – which will most likely lead to a sanction and fine, possibly even a year's suspension – got McGregor o the hook. The UFC – or more precisely its front man, White – was left in a difficult position. He "The UFC are only ever likely to double down on this one" would never muzzle his fight league's biggest star. Why? Up to this point, McGregor has been gold dust for the fight league. The fight with Khabib, generated, by basic estimation, at the very least $160 million with an estimated 2 million pay-per-views and the gate. That's huge. Remember the fight with Floyd Mayweather? More money than sense. More than that, remember the judge convicting the boxer of domestic battery charges, yet he was allowed to fight Miguel Cotto before going to Clark County Jail. Why? Because Vegas would have lost out on another 100 million dollar fight night, and the city 'the drop', the money garnered by the punters being in town. McGregor has played his part in bringing in well over a billion dollars into Las Vegas since his stellar rise. That is why there will be leniency for McGregor – and the wooden spoon on the backside of the Russian. But it will be even bigger if, and when, they meet again. Most likely we will see Khabib sidelined for a period for his actions, McGregor will have a fight in the interim, and we will then see it all over again, the finger-pointing, the diatribe, the war of words. This is Vegas, remember. And the UFC are only ever likely to double down on this one . . .