The analogy to chess is undoubtedly correct. In general, a series of games featuring the strongest players, driven by motivation and a competitive spirit, is incredibly interesting in any sport. But! Not when players have to be forced to participate.
I imagine a situation where two players are selected from the CIS and China (for example), the strongest at the moment (chosen based on certain criteria), actively playing, interested, and eager to win, wanting to show that they are the best of the best. That would truly be a spectacle and a thrilling competition. Money is needed here simply as a kind of incentive for the players to approach the matches with maximum focus. Nothing more. The most important thing is the desire to play, the desire to prove oneself.
In the Alex vs. Goomunguls match, this is definitely not the case. The question is specifically framed as "if there's money, there will be a game." In other words, "let's gather contributions, maybe I'll come and play, maybe not (I'm so fickle)."
This is nonsense. And besides, the match was prompted by some old grievances... Therefore, the atmosphere will not be entirely sporting. Hence, the question arises about the guarantee of fair play. Alex's reputation didn't come out of nowhere. Victory is the most important thing for him! ;)