In the case of Fortnite they are. They shuffle between several new limited time modes and sometimes if they are popular enough they become standard. Granted I doubt EA Sports would pump as much resources into a f2p (unless it becomes a massive success) as Epic does for Fortnite. However, the game's foundation is set except for grappling.
The f2p model may not be in for the EA UFC 4 but after grappling/subs are revamped, the game would benefit greatly from more frequent updates. This wouldn't prevent further overhauls, over the course of time. We can see games like Star Wars Battlefront receiving new game modes and overhauls despite being far more understaffed and underfunded ATM than EA Sports.
I agree with your point. A f2p model would definitely work much better if the foundation is in place.
However I think all that really needs a real revamp is grappling and subs. Say that is the focus in developing EA UFC 4 now. That EA UFC 4 (hypothetically as f2p) would release with revamped grappling and subs then thereon all that is needed is more constant updates, leaving room for larger overhauls over the course of time like Battlefront did with their large updates.
On cosmetics and such, if the supply is constant and fresh like Fortnite and not Battlefront- it can be profitable. I can't reliably comment on if it'll make up for the loss of +$60 every year but I would guess that it could if it included fun things like exclusive taunts, animations(non-p2w), locations etc. A season pass probably would happen too as most f2p games do.
I don't know which I'd prefer without the relevant details. However I would imagine a f2p model would have more potential if done properly as it's be accessible to more people and possibility generate more revenue if it becomes popular like Fortnite or Apex Legends.