Is the UFC making a huge mistake by putting an overhyped fight at the forefront of one of its most historic events ever? This is the burning question swirling around the potential Conor McGregor vs. Michael Chandler matchup rumored to headline a groundbreaking UFC White House card. And this is the part most fans forget: Just because a fight draws attention doesn’t mean it matters to the sport.
Right now, Conor McGregor seems dead set on coming back—after a five-year hiatus—with dreams of finally settling a personal score against Michael Chandler. While official match talks for this event aren’t even scheduled to begin until next year, UFC CEO Dana White believes McGregor is genuinely eager to fight again, especially given the chance to be the shining centerpiece of what’s likely to be the most talked-about card in UFC history. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is McGregor vs. Chandler really the right choice to headline such a monumental, potentially once-in-a-lifetime event?
Legendary fighter Matt Brown doesn’t think so—though he fully expects the fight to happen. "The big question about Conor is whether people actually care as much as we assume," Brown mused during The Fighter vs. The Writer podcast. "Sure, people will talk about it, but in the grand scheme of rankings and relevance, a McGregor vs. Chandler fight is utterly meaningless. It’s not connected to anything important. It does nothing except maybe sell tickets."
Brown makes a powerful argument when you look at the numbers: McGregor and Chandler together have just three wins and seven losses over their last ten fights. One of McGregor’s wins—his historic defeat of Eddie Alvarez to become a two-division champion—happened almost a decade ago, and since then, McGregor’s career has been marked by long periods of absence.
As all this unfolds, Jon Jones—the notorious former heavyweight champ—has also floated the idea of headlining the event. Now, Jones is perhaps the most polarizing figure in MMA, and Dana White appears hesitant, most likely due to Jones’ rocky history: multiple canceled fights, cheating scandals, injuries, and run-ins with the law have all made Jones a risky headliner. But, most people miss this twist: If Jones returns to face current heavyweight titleholder Tom Aspinall (presuming Aspinall gets past Ciryl Gane), the event could gain real meaning and historical significance.
"Jon Jones brings real substance," Brown explained. "He’s widely seen as the greatest of all time. If he’s up against Aspinall for the championship, that is a legitimate, epic fight—at least assuming Aspinall beats Gane first. That could turn the entire event on its head."
And here’s a bold point sure to spark debate: If the UFC is aiming purely for American star power, Brown sees Jones as the obvious pick. But if they go with McGregor for sheer celebrity, the event could devolve into a spectacle lacking any genuine athletic relevance. Brown asks, "What’s next—bring in Ronda Rousey for an equally irrelevant fight? That’s just stacking the card with famous faces, not real competition."
Yet the show must go on, and with such attention focused on the UFC White House show, Brown predicts the organization will ultimately opt for the biggest spectacle possible—which means McGregor’s return is all but guaranteed. "Given how unique and historic this event could be, they’ll choose the spectacle. They’re aiming for the greatest, most unforgettable card ever, and I can understand that logic."
It’s important to pay respect to McGregor’s undeniable influence on the UFC’s global popularity. Still, as Brown confesses, "From a hardcore fan’s perspective, I’m not excited by the idea of McGregor and Chandler fighting. If I’m honest, it’s really not that interesting."
The fight also lacks real significance for the sport itself. Whether they clash at welterweight or another division, there’s little at stake—no title hopes, no ranking impact. Whether McGregor or Chandler wins, both fighters will likely remain exactly where they started.
But here’s a provocative thought: Does the UFC actually care about the sport’s deeper meaning when it comes to this card? Brown doesn’t think so. The organization wants mainstream buzz, and like it or not, McGregor vs. Chandler offers broad public appeal, regardless of what happens next. Brown argues, "Do they care if hardcore fans discuss it after Monday? Not really. What matters is whether the average person—the construction worker at lunch—gossips about the fight. The UFC isn’t targeting us diehards; they’re chasing mass attention."
For all the valid criticism about McGregor headlining such a historic event after years away, Brown gets why the UFC is rolling the dice. McGregor is by far the biggest celebrity the sport has ever produced, and his name alone commands unrivaled attention. "If I’m Dana White, I’d probably do the same. It’s an even matchup, which adds a bit of intrigue. American fans might rally behind Chandler, while the McGregor phenomenon will dominate media headlines."
So, does this mean it’s all spectacle and no substance? Brown has a final hope: "Maybe the undercard will have enough exciting fights for hardcore fans to care about."
Now let’s hear from you—Do you think the UFC should prioritize spectacle over true competition for such a historic card? Is McGregor a deserving headliner, or is the organization making a mistake by favoring star power over sporting merit? Should Jon Jones be the main event, or is his chaotic history too risky? Sound off with your thoughts and tell us what you would do if you were in Dana White’s shoes! Bold opinions welcome.
