Next UFC 333: Volkanovski vs. Evloev, Sat, Oct 24 (Volkanovski vs. Evloev)Results UFC Fight NightMike Malott def. Joaquin BuckleyJasmine Jasudavicius def. Erin BlanchfieldCristian Pérez def. Kyle NelsonMarc-Andre Barriault def. Kyle DaukausTimmy Cuamba def. Louis JourdainMandel Nallo def. Nate Landwehr
News

MVP Formally Challenges Lucas Bahdi vs. Floyd Schofield III Decision, Wants Rematch Now

Most Valuable Promotions says officiating errors swung the outcome and is backing Bahdi with a demand for a formal review.

A judge's scorecard and pencil on a ringside table under arena lights

Most Valuable Promotions has gone on the record against the result of Lucas Bahdi vs. Floyd Schofield III.

“MVP has formally challenged the decision in Lucas Bahdi vs. Floyd Schofield III, citing significant officiating errors that impacted the outcome. We stand behind Lucas and are calling for a thorough review and immediate rematch,” the promotion wrote on X on Oct. 20. It tagged the post #SchofieldBahdi.

The post makes clear which side MVP is on. It backs Bahdi, which tells you the decision went against its guy. It also leaves a lot out. It doesn’t say which officiating errors it means, which official made them or what the scorecards read. It doesn’t name the body that received the challenge either. The sources include no response from Schofield’s camp or from the officials involved. For now, the claim that officiating errors changed the outcome is MVP’s allegation. It is unproven.

Why the Wording Matters

Promoters grumble about scorecards constantly, usually in a postfight scrum and usually forgotten by Wednesday. MVP used the word “formally.” That signals a filed challenge with something on paper. Venting on social media would not need that word. A filed challenge also forces the promotion to name specific errors at some point, which the X post never did. I like that part, frankly. If a decision was botched, the way to prove it is with concrete moments: a missed knockdown, a point deduction that shouldn’t have happened, a tally mistake. Vague outrage proves nothing.

The statement bundles two separate requests. A review asks officials to look at what happened and decide whether the errors MVP describes are real and whether they mattered. An immediate rematch is a business ask. It needs both camps on board, and nothing in the sources shows Schofield’s side has agreed to anything.

What Comes Next

The sources don’t give a timeline for any review or a date for a possible rematch. The next real development will be MVP spelling out its specific complaints, a reply from the officials it is challenging, or a word from Schofield’s team about running it back. Until one of those arrives, all anyone has is one promotion’s post. MVP picked the fight with the officials in public. Now it has to show the receipts.

Keep reading