Craig Jones: Helena Crevar Is a Bigger BJJ Draw Than the Men
The equal-pay debate in professional Jiu Jitsu has always run on opinion. Craig Jones just tried to end it with a spreadsheet. Speaking about the analytics behind his CJI2 event, Jones argued that…
The equal-pay debate in professional Jiu Jitsu has always run on opinion. Craig Jones just tried to end it with a spreadsheet. Speaking about the analytics behind his CJI2 event, Jones argued that the argument over paying men and women the same should be settled by the numbers — and that when you actually pull those numbers, the case is already closed. His headline example was Helena Crevar, the young standout he says out-draws some of the biggest male names in the sport.
Per BJJEE, Jones said the internal data from the previous year told a clear story: "Helena Crevar, and I don't want to say it's for nefarious reasons but her SEO destroys people like Nicky Rod and many people." His conclusion was blunt — "in terms of the draw, Helena Crevar would be one of the biggest draws in the sport." You can watch the clip on Instagram to hear him make the case in full.
What "settle it with the numbers" actually means
For years, the standard argument against equal pay in grappling went like this: pay people according to how many eyeballs they bring in, and since men's matches supposedly draw more, men should be paid more. It sounds tidy and market-driven. The problem, as Jones frames it, is that the premise turns out to be wrong when you check it against the data of an actual event.
That's the part worth sitting with. This isn't a moral appeal to fairness — the kind that's easy to nod along to and just as easy to wave off. It's the opposite. Jones is meeting the "pay for viewership" crowd on their own terms and telling them their own logic points the other way. If the draw is what matters, then a fighter whose name pulls more searches, more clicks, and more attention than a men's-division headliner should, by that exact standard, be paid at the top of the card. You don't have to like Jones to notice that's a hard argument to duck.
Why this matters for the rest of us
Most of us reading this will never headline a pay-per-view. So why should the average person who trains care what a promoter pays his athletes? Because the health of the pro scene shapes the whole sport we love. The instructionals we learn from, the athletes our kids look up to, the reason a random co-worker has now heard of an "arm-triangle" — all of it traces back to a professional layer that's finally big enough to have these arguments in public.
When the sport signals that a woman can be one of its biggest stars, that message travels straight back to the gym. It reaches the white belt who's the only woman in her academy on a Tuesday night and wondering whether there's a future in this for her. It reaches the coach deciding whether to build a real competition team around his female students or treat them as an afterthought. Representation at the top isn't charity — it's how the base of the pyramid grows. And a broader base is more training partners, more open mats, and a better sport for everybody wearing a belt.
The "women's Jiu Jitsu is boring" myth
Jones also swung at the oldest lazy take in grappling — that women's matches are less entertaining than men's. His answer was pure Craig Jones: "In my opinion, objectively, all the dudes out there that go women's Jiu Jitsu is boring. I go, no, Jiu Jitsu is boring." His point, under the profanity, is that a stalled match is a stalled match regardless of who's in it, and a scramble-heavy, submission-hunting match is thrilling regardless of who's in it. Gender isn't the variable. Style is.
Anyone who's actually watched Crevar compete knows this. She attacks. She's constantly hunting the finish, and she's built exactly the kind of aggressive, forward-pressure game that reads well on a broadcast and rewards a paying audience. The idea that a division full of grapplers like her is somehow "boring" says more about the person saying it than about the Jiu Jitsu on the mat.
Where this goes next
None of this means the pay gap closes tomorrow. Promoters still set their own purses, and one man citing his own event's analytics isn't a league-wide policy. But Jones has done the thing he's actually good at — he's reframed a tired debate so the usual defenses stop working. Once "pay for draw" starts paying women more, the people hiding behind it have to find a new argument or drop it entirely.
For the rest of us, the takeaway is simpler and older than any pay dispute: talent is talent, a good roll is a good roll, and the person tapping you out doesn't owe you an explanation about their bracket. Support the athletes who make the sport worth watching, train with everyone, and we'll see you on the mats.
Original report via BJJEE.