Before becoming the world champion, Magnus Carlsen complained about the privileges the champion receives; in particular, being automatically seeded into a final match against a challenger who had to qualify through an arduous multi-stage process. Carlsen was not the first player without the title to protest the champion's advantages, but he would be among the first to surrender them - if it in fact comes to that. To his credit, he seems genuinely open to a privilege-free format like the old and little-loved knockout tournaments FIDE called championships from 1997 to 2004, and which have been repurposed a level down as World Cup events. (They're still used for every other women's world championship as well.) My own view is that it's a horrible format that devalues and deromanticizes the champion's title, but others may find it delightful for exactly the same reasons.
What say you? Should the world chess champion be more like a boxing champion or the winner of Wimbledon?