In a move that sent shockwaves through the world of mixed martial arts, heavyweight contender Tom Aspinall dropped a bombshell: he said he would be willing to vacate his title rather than face his longtime friend and training partner Ante Delija.

According to a recent report, during a podcast appearance Aspinall stated: “If I’d never won a title… we’d have to fight. Because that was my dream. But now that I’ve done it, I would be like, I’ll vacate it and he could have his time. I wouldn’t fight him. No chance … That’s my guy. There’s some stuff to me that’s more important than money and titles.”

It’s a striking declaration — one that challenges not only his own legacy but also the very underpinnings of what it means to be a champion in the UFC.

Title = Responsibility & Image

In combat sports, a belt isn’t merely an ornament — it symbolizes the peak of achievement and the commitment to defend that achievement. Aspinall’s remark that he might just hand the title back destabilizes that paradigm.
Promoters, fans, and even fellow fighters view relinquishing a championship voluntarily—especially before a defense—as a blow to prestige and the sport’s narrative.

Behind-the-Scenes Tension

The heavyweight division has been in limbo lately. Aspinall has been waiting for his shot at the undisputed title while his rival ― Jon Jones ― vacillates, considers retirement and throws out cryptic clues.
Aspinall’s comment adds fuel to an already volatile fire:

It raises concerns of selective competition.

It signals that the champion might prioritise personal relationships or comfort over belt-defence obligations.

It undermines the narrative of “the best fights the best.”

Promoter and UFC chief Dana White has long emphasised that champions defend. If a fighter publicly contemplates stepping aside instead, it disrupts the promotional engine.

Dana White: Furious, Clear & Uncompromising

Once Aspinall’s comment hit the press, Dana White didn’t hold back. In a candid response, he declared: “To even think about vacating it because you don’t wanna compete against somebody is absolutely insane.” (as noted in fan-forum quoting the response).

Here’s where White drew the line:

A title is not optional: You don’t win it and then pick and choose whether to defend or hand it back.

Champions don’t talk about vacating—they defend.

If a fighter publicly entertains giving up the gold, the message is that the belt is disposable. White cannot allow that narrative. This reaction underscores why Aspinall’s statement is far more than awkward media fodder—it threatens the sport’s integrity as viewed from the top.

Legacy, Loyalty & the Heavyweight Landscape

The Legacy Factor

Aspinall is at a pivotal career moment: he’s dominant, rising, and fighting in one of the most storied divisions in MMA. Saying you might step aside now complicates that legacy.
Champion or not, history remembers how you defended your throne — not how easily you parted with it.

Loyalty vs. Duty

His willingness to bow out to Delija speaks to strong personal ethics—you could argue it’s noble. But in the promoter-driven world of modern MMA, duty to the division, fans and the belt often takes precedence.

It asks the question: when personal loyalty conflicts with professional obligation, who wins? Aspinall now sits at that crossroads.

The division has been stalled: one champion inactive, contenders waiting. White has repeatedly stated his aim to produce a unification bout between Aspinall and Jon Jones.
In this context, Aspinall’s comment is especially disruptive:

It signals that a top contender may not want the title under certain conditions.

It sends the message to other contenders: “If I can win it, maybe I don’t have to defend it either.”

It stalls the narrative of must-see fights and active champions, something White wants to avoid.