Yesterday, the news broke that former UFC light Heavyweight Champion Tito Ortiz has pulled out of Bellator’s scheduled November 2nd PPV main event match with Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson. Ortiz reportedly has a neck injury, which is bad news because Ortiz has suffered from neck injuries throughout his career and he has already undergone surgeries on the neck. Bellator reacted by moving the PPV show back on to the ‘free’ SPIKETV, which does bring up a lot of interesting questions.
Interested in betting on the Bellator 106 card now on free TV? Or what about any of the other Bellator events filling the calendar? Look for the lines at BETDSI and open an account now!
‘Rampage’ has been calling for Bellator to get a replacement, tossing out names like Houston Alexander and Chuck Liddell. Liddell is a no shot, and Alexander shows just how thin the Bellator roster is. So question #1 is when will ‘Rampage’ fight?
Same question about Ortiz. The truth is, he has appeared less than comfortable in his pro wrestling appearances, and that is a bad business to be in with a troublesome neck. So when will we see Ortiz again?
The Bellator PPV is now on free TV, and that is a smart move by Bellator. Even with Ortiz-Jackson on the card, it is unlikely the PPV was going to attract more than 100,000 PPV buys anyway. But his begs the question – when will we see a Bellator PPV?
And another question – what will Eddie Alvarez think of all this? Throughout his prolonged negotiation with Bellator, the company maintained that they had matched the UFC’s contract word for word, including the PPV clauses for compensation. They had never done a PPV before, and Alvarez questioned their ability to do so. Well, they announced the November 2nd show and they had no plan in place should disaster strike.
What will become evident here is that the courts decided incorrectly when they ruled that Bellator’s contract was the equal of the UFC’s. Certainly the words were the same, but the company arrogantly claimed they could match what the UFC does, and now there is more direct evidence that they are not.