Eddie Alvarez Denied Injunction, Will Not Fight at UFC 159
Eddie Alvarez is a hot commodity these days. Hot enough, in fact, that the former Bellator lightweight champion has been embroiled in an ugly legal battle with his long-time promotion as he attempts to leave for the UFC's greener pastures.
After much excitement, the court date has come and gone with the judge ruling against Alvarez's request for an injunction, according to MMAFighting.com.
Alvarez was penciled in to fight at UFC 159, which is headlined by the light heavyweight championship bout between Jon Jones and Chael Sonnen, coaches on TUF 17. The frustrating hurtle that prevented Alvarez's UFC debut is a clause in his contract that allows Bellator to match any offers from competing promotions.
According to president Bjorn Rebney, Bellator matched the UFC's deal "word for word." Alvarez, however, filed suit because he claims Bellator is not matching the deal dollar for dollar.
This is likely an accurate allegation by Alvarez given the buyrate-driven nature of Alvarez's UFC offer, which gives him more money based on the popularity of pay-per-view events he appears in. The fact that Bellator exclusively appears on cable TV makes this a hard act for Bellator to follow.
This does not even go into sponsorship and endorsement deals, which would certainly be more lucrative with the UFC.
Still, Alvarez will remain with Bellator for at least a little while longer. This is undoubtedly a disappointing hit for the fighter, who was actively trying to join the UFC. This does not doom Alvarez's chances of joining the UFC in 2013, mind you, but stalls his potential debut until, at least, the end of April.
It was slipped in the proceedings that Bellator could be planning a lightweight title fight between Alvarez and current lightweight champion Michael Chandler. However, it is unlikely a Bellator pay-per-view event would match the numbers the UFC consistently pulls.
Keep reading Bleacher Report for more developments surrounding Alvarez.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?