Analyst backs Sean Strickland in dispute with UFC but doesnt see it ending well

Being champion gives Sean Strickland more of a leg to stand on in his dispute with the UFC, according to Brendan Schaub.

UFC middleweight champ Strickland expressed his frustration over fighter pay amid negotiations to defend his belt against Nassourdine Imavov. Imavov even confronted Strickland at the UFC PI to try to build the fight, but Strickland brushed off the altercation.

Strickland (31-7 MMA, 18-7 UFC) is being vocal after Paulo Costa also took a stance on his pay and asked to be released.

"Remember, Sean Strickland has already beat Imavov," Schaub said on his YouTube channel. "It's not a sexy fight. It's not a big fight. UFC wants him to fight Imavov, they're offering him sh*t pay, so he's like, 'I'll fight this guy, I've already beat him, but I'm not getting paid like I should.' We'll have guys like Paulo Costa, who doesn't have a lot of ground to stand on. He should be compensated way more than he is, so I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current times and current business practices, guys like Paulo Costa and these other guys that are talking about fighter pay, it never works out.

"The difference with Sean Strickland is he's a champ, current champ. It's very, very rare. I can't remember the last time we've had a current champ – it's very, very rare that they speak out and complain about fighter pay. The other thing is never has it been more evident of what other people are making. You're getting word of what other people are making where before it was done by design where the UFC made sure no fighters really knew what anybody was making."

While Schaub supports Strickland being vocal, he doesn't see his plan of eventually boxing Jake Paul being too feasible.

"Unfortunately, him going up to 205 and speeding through his contract is not realistic," Schaub said. "And this is the argument. I know we're all sick of fighter pay talk and stuff like that, but this is the argument. UFC has a monopoly, and they sign you to these long-term deals. If you turn down fights, they drag it on, or they're going to discipline you. ... When you do decide to go against the grain, they make you pay, and that's the problem with having a monopoly because you have nowhere else to go. Also, all these guys are signing long-term deals. So, by the time you become a free agent, you're damaged goods. It's all by design. It's brilliant if you own the UFC."

This article originally appeared on MMA Junkie: Analyst backs Sean Strickland in dispute with UFC but doesn't see it ending well