All three of those theories relate closely to the role of the fighter in sport and why it is that he does commit the acts of violence. Why should these leagues remove the violence that is occurring if they are making money and keeping people employed. The fans of the games want to see these situations and eliminating the fighting aspect would hurt the support. When I watch a hockey game or any other sporting event with contact, there is nothing better than seeing a good fight take place. Even former NHL president Clarence Campbell felt that the violence taking place in his sport was called for and was reluctant to remove the fighting and the body contact because he knew that it is what the majority of hockey fans want.
Fighting is a well-established safety valve for players.
If violence ceases to exist, it will not be the same game. Insofar as fighting is part of the show, we certainly sell it. We do not promote it. Its better that the violence take place between two willing combatants such as in sports than in a situation involving spousal abuse where the majority of the times the female is being attacked against her consent. Allowing people not to be able vent their frustrations through sport in my mind would increase the violence that is happening away from the playing field.