How so? What factual information can you use to support that opinion? The reporter does have a good excuse for saying such a thing, because if you look at the money aspect of the two sports it's not even close. That could be what he meant, because if you take it that way(money wise) it isn't really an opinion at all, but a fact isn't it?
My original statement was made with the intent to display how no one persons opinion holds any more weight in an argument than another. His statement was very obviously the exact opposite of what I was saying in that Boxing (as a sport, as a whole) is better than MMA given any circumstances. Changing the argument doesn't make my post less valid, it just shows you're resorting to an entirely untrue argument for defense.
Had you attacked the second part of my post (where I said if we're going to look at this you need to look at factual evidence, not opinion) that would be an interesting argument. Either way when you get into that you must first define what makes a sport better then find measurements of those definitions and weight both of them by sport and then compare the both of them to find out which is better. Money is one such way to do this, it is not the only. There are an immense and probably almost impossible amount of variables to consider for such a thing and even then it will probably come out relatively even. If it does come out even it's either that one sport is better than the other by a slim margin, meaning if something goes wrong on a given day in said sport it could possibly no longer be better than the other. You can sit there and try to do that but it really won't get you anywhere with anyone. People will enjoy it or dislike it generally based on opinions and their own likes/dislikes. Which brings me back to my original point that there is almost no feasible way to leave an opinion out of such an argument.
And in my opinion MMA > Boxing.