body: I read on <http://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-brazil-oct-28-2017#/fight> ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20171028211058/http://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-brazil-oct-28-2017)):
  
  
  
  > 
  > fights are verbally agreed
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LOyrI.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LOyrI.png)
  
  
  What's the point in specifying that "fights are verbally agreed"? As far as I am aware of, oral contracts have pretty much the same validity as written contracts. E.g., from <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oral_contract&oldid=759606175>:
  
  
  
  > 
  > In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed), or that a contract be evidenced in writing (although the contract itself may be oral). An example of the latter is the requirement that a contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing, which is found in the Statute of Frauds.
  > 
  > 
  > Similarly, the limitation period prescribed for an action may be shorter for an oral contract than it is for a written one.
  > 
  > 
  > The term verbal contract is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for oral contract. However, a verbal contract is one that is agreed to using words, either written or spoken, as opposed to an implied contract.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  Let's assume that the contract was made in the United States.
  
  
  
title: What's the point in specifying that "fights are verbally agreed"?