"The champ fights a No.1 contender"- TKO board member Nick Khan talks UFC 324 and the logic behind UFC matchmaking

UFC 324 has stirred heated debate among fight fans and analysts over UFC's matchmaking decisions. The card’s main event pairs Justin Gaethje and Paddy Pimblett for an interim lightweight title, while the top contender, Arman Tsarukyan, remained sidelined.

The decision sparked criticism that the promotion favored star power over a merit-based matchup. Nick Khan, a member of the TKO board of directors, spoke about the UFC's credibility in matchmaking during a recent interview with Daniel Cormier. He said:

"I love that card...I know [it has Amanda] Nunes vs. Kayla [Harrison]. I know [Justin] Gaethje, these to me are matchups that I perceive as 50-50 matchups. It's one of the things that has made the UFC special. The champ fights a No.1 contender. If the number one contender isn't available, the number two contender comes in or whatever that might be."

Check out Nick Khan's comments below (16:28):

Get the latest updates on One Championship Rankings at Sportskeeda and more

That being said, many fans say UFC 324 exposed a pattern they have been noticing for a while. The frustration only grew when the UFC moved ahead with a rematch between Alexander Volkanovski and Diego Lopes for UFC 325. This decision, many believe, is a disregard for the resumes of Lerone Murphy and Movsar Evloev, who boast undefeated records.

Matt Brown calls out UFC 324 matchmaking

Matt Brown did not hold back on the choices shaping UFC 324. The veteran questioned how Paddy Pimblett landed an interim title fight when he has yet to beat a ranked contender.

Brown also pointed out Justin Gaethje’s recent form and argued that neither fighter enters with the type of run expected for a title bout. His criticism extended to the featherweight division, where Diego Lopes received a rematch with Alexander Volkanovski despite strong cases from Movsar Evloev and Lerone Murphy. Speaking on the latest episode of 'The Fighter vs. The Writer', Brown said:

“It’s kind of sad. I hate how I get into this too much, but that’s the definition of a monopoly. Where a single promoter owns the titles and the rankings. It’s not a good thing for the sport, in my opinion. I have to question what it’s going to do for the longevity of the sport."

He added:

“I don’t think in the short term, it’s really going to make a big difference. It’s going to sell the next fight. It’s going to sell the next pay-per-view, but trends tend to come and go. Fads tend to come and go. At some point, to have staying power and lasting power, I think it requires a meritocracy-based system.”