What you fail to realise (or are ignoring for the sake of trolling) is that competitors would fight behind closed doors to test themselves regardless of the audience.
Not quite sure what point you’re making here, tbh. So boxers and UFC fighters would fight anyway, great. Luckily for them, there’s enough money and public support in their consenting violence that it is considered socially acceptable and therefor legal. What difference is there between that and ‘consenting’ football hooligans having a ruck? What exactly makes one morally acceptable and the other reprehensible? Both are just the two extremes of the same thing.
Your WRC vs TWOCing analogy is poor. A much better analogy would be to compare an unofficial kick about in the park with mates to premiership football. Both soccer, just two ends of the scale.
The issue I have is that boxing, UFC and their ilk legitimise and glamorise extreme violence. I see no real moral difference between that and the hooliganism. I daresay that a lot of violent hooligans would actually aspire to and are probably inspired by the likes of UFC, which really is legitimised premier league thuggery.
Oh, and offering an alternative opinion is not trolling.