Dana White: Sherdog.com Threatened to Adjust Coverage Over DVD Prices
by Luke Thomas on Apr 16, 2009 5:28 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
I've criticized UFC President Dana White for other issues related to his appearance on Canada's TSN and quite frankly, I have hesitations about writing so much about an issue largely unrelated to UFC 97 two days before UFC 97. However, White's comments merit coverage. In essence, White lays bare the reasons for his repudiation of Sherdog.com and if he's telling the truth, they are extremely problematic.
During the interview, White claims his long running problems with Jeff Sherwood of Sherdog.com stem from a previous dispute over the sale of UFC DVDs on Sherdog.com. White contends Sherdog.com sold UFC DVDs after first purchasing them from the UFC itself. However, White said the UFC eventually found a new distributor for the DVDs, which wound up raising the prices for UFC DVDs. White finally contends that Sherdog.com (presumably he means Jeff Sherwood) threatened to either cover only PRIDE or spend more effort covering PRIDE than the UFC in retaliation (the details of White's contention are not clear based on the video alone) if the UFC did not keep the same price for DVDs before the new distributor was used.
I have requested an interview with Jeff Sherwood to talk about the issue on MMA Nation. If he accepts or declines, I'll let everyone know. Stay tuned on that front.
Up front, I say this candidly: I have no direct evidence for either White's assertion or Sherdog.com's contention that they don't understand why their credentials were yanked. On both counts I am assuming the most I'll be able to garner is what either party has to say. But clearly, if White's contentions are correct, the footing of the argument that Sherdog.com harbors a continued bias towards the UFC and Dana White will be immediately made sturdy. This doesn't need to be repeated, but I will just the same: it is horribly unethical for a news outlet to adjust their coverage against a party perceived to be unwilling to make business deals to the news outlet's advantage.
In my personal dealings with the folks at Sherdog.com (disclosure: I have written for them in the past), they've been nothing but friendly and professional. But White's comments cannot be regarded as dismissable promoter shtick. Even if he's exaggerating or lying, the seriousness of such a charge from a party ostensibly privy to the situation is, at a minimum, worth pursuit. To the extent I can find out what is and isn't reality, I will.
UPDATE: Yes, I also have reservations about the UFC's deal with Yahoo.
UPADTE 2: On the Carmichael Dave show Jeff Sherwood directly addresses the DVD claims. Sherwood says he never had any conversation with Dana White regarding White's allegations (or Sherwood's partner who helped run the Sherdog.com store). Sherwood also argues it financially would make no sense from a business perspective to not sell UFC DVDs. A must-listen interview.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good work
Just wanted to say good investigative reporting Luke. I think both sides deserve blame, what angers me is that Dana White is always portrayed as the villain. Swearing is his “sin” and if Sherdog.com’s “sin” is bias reporting based on these pity and trivial arguments, that is MUCH worse!
I'm convinced the only reason Dana wins an argument
is because he’s very, very picky about his opposition. He’ll be ambivalent for no reason whatsoever, but when he talks shit, it’s for a reason.
Sherdog.com = permanently discredited if this is true.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 16, 2009 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I’m curious to know what the real story is here. I’ll reserve judgment until Jeff Sherwood tells his side of the story. If what Dana says is true it is a serious blow to Sherdog. Manipulating your coverage to try and leverage a promoter isn’t good business, especially if a site is trying to be a legitimate news source.
This is why if Sherdog wants to run a news site …
… it shouldn’t have a “shop” component to it as well.
And I know that ESPN does, too. That’s wrong as well.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Apr 16, 2009 6:05 PM EDT reply actions
Carmichael Dave recently interviewed Jeff Sherwood in relation to the Sherdog v Dana situation.
Sherwood essentially says that he isnt 100% sure why Sherdogs credentials were pulled but denies Danas claim that it was a result of Sherdog refusing to sell UFC DVDs.
Sherwood suggests that the most likely scenario is that Dana wanted and still wants the UFC website to be the biggest website around, thus the UFC doesnt credential Sherdog, MMAWeekly……..etc. Reminds me of the UFCs attitude towards other mma promotions. Mostly ignore them and occasionally badmouth them and hope they disappear.
Anyways, check out the audio interviews here. Goes for about 50mins and is really informative and makes a lot of sense.
Part 1 – http://www.mma-tv.net/display.php?id=5851&pt=1
Part 2 – http://www.mma-tv.net/display.php?id=5851&pt=2
That makes no sense and lacks logic. Yahoo! is the #2 website on the internet for traffic. And the UFC has basically partnered with them. Yes, they are working with a BIGGER website then them.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Apr 16, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Yahoo is not a niche
website. UFC/Sherdog all are very niched to a certain demographic.
AWmusic - mp3 blog on independent music..
I don’t buy the ‘Dana is jealous of my website’ defense. It sounds like the fighters the UFC isn’t trying to sign saying the dearth of interest is because they’re too awesome.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 16, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
That might not be the reason. Thats just Jeff Sherwoods speculation. But he denies the DVD story, so if its not the DVD, and its not website envy, then what??
Apparently the person who deleted my comment didn’t get it.
Struggling to think of something relevant to say…
What didn’t I get about you sarcastically calling Sherwood stupid and fat?
by Chris Nelson on Apr 16, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Its from Southpark last week.
The concept of people doing mental gymnastics to convince themselves that whatever they repeatedly tell everyone is true.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
Ahh, I have that episode on my desktop, was going to watch it tonight.
Fair enough – unhidden!
by Chris Nelson on Apr 16, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
It was a reference to a recent episode of South Park...
I hate that show but I did happen to catch that ep.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 16, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
For any particular reason? The audio interview with Sherwood made a lot of sense whereas much of what Dana has said is full of holes. Im voting Dana! :)
Indeed
Sherwood has a very clear, detailed timeline of events. Even if you side with White, it is critical you hear Sherwood’s site of the story.
WOW
Dana tried to hire Josh Gross for UFC.com
by The Bronzeville Bully on Apr 16, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The other thing that gets to me too is the list of people who have to be lying for Dana to be telling the truth seems to grow each day. For Dana to be telling the truth Sherwood has been lying about the DVDs, Hunt and her anonymous sources are all lying about the UFC contacting them pulling their credentials, Ken Pavia lied……..everybody is lying, but Dana speaketh the truth!
As for the UFC’s attitude towards other promotions, so far Dana White has been right. He bashed the IFL, and they ended up putting on the worst first episode on Network TV. If more people actually knew about the channel, it could have pushed the sport back 5 years.
Dana White bashed EliteXC, and in the end he was right. EliteXC was corrupt and didn’t even look for ground fighters for their shows (on average).
Dana White hasn’t bashed Strikeforce.
See the trend? If a promotion is going to be on the national stage and hurt the overall sport, Dana White bashes them. If they don’t, he will still consider them competition (UFC 94 vs. Strikeforce), but doesn’t publicly bash them.
Sherwood ain’t looking too good in this discussion.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Apr 16, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
“Dana White bashed EliteXC, and in the end he was right. EliteXC was corrupt and didn’t even look for ground fighters for their shows (on average).”
You must have missed the show where they put Wilson Reis in the main event.
Of a ShoXC card. All of their main cards were striker-centric.
And notice the (). There is always an exception. Overall, their really didn’t care much for the grapplers.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Apr 16, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
There is probably no way that we will ever be sure that we know the facts.
We can be sure of a few things though.
1) Sherdog has an anti Zuffa bias – It might not be as great as some people make it out to be but it is there.
2) Sherdog has problems with its journalistic integrity. Dana’s vblog stuff was way overboard but his reasons for being mad were valid. This is not the first example of this.
3) Zuffa could potentially gain valuable exposure by working with websites. Particularly for the WEC. I can’t imagine that Dana does not see this as he seems to be accepting of technology in general.
All these things would seem to support what Dana claimed.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
Not a good day for Sherdog. They are getting sued. This report comes out.
Typically when Dana White talks facts, they are the truth. For all the stupid comments he has made about Fedor and such, that is the promoter in him talking. However, when he talks about the competition and their dumb business plans, and stuff like this, he is typically spot on.
Have people listened to Sherwood on his radio show? He isn’t the brightest guy in the bunch. Nor would i assume corrupt behavior like this is beyond him.
It’s very annoying that this sport is filled with such amateur “journalists”.
Dana is far from the truth:
a) Continually states that they, ZUFFA, instituted unified rules for mma. It was not them for unified rules where in New Jersey far before Dana and the Fertittas bought the UFC. Furthered rules ZUFFA has a lot, but not instituted them (does that sentence sound like Yoda?).
b) Dana straight up told reporters that the UFC did not buy PRIDE. Next day was at the news conference showing how happy he was to have purchased PRIDE.
These are the two off of my head, but there are other instances. Dana is far from a truth talker.
I’ve heard this story before about DVD’s from people besides Dana in the UFC. Honestly, I’m not really sure who to believe.
Actually…I tend to believe the UFC story. The idea that in 2005 the UFC just wanted to shut everyone else out online is silly, and people that told me it believe it is completely true. Maybe they’ve been lied to, but Sherwood’s idea of why he thinks the UFC shut them out pretty much pervades most of Sherdog’s content.
by Michael Rome on Apr 16, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Sherwood’s theory could be wrong, but I dont understand the UFC claim that Jeff, a friend of Danas at the time, would turn around and tell him that Sherdog was no longer going to cover the UFC simply because the DVD price rose marginally due to the addition of a distributor.
That whole situation makes no sense. I mean, if Sherdog said they werent going to cover the UFC in response to the DVD prices, the UFC wouldnt need to pull their credentials as they wouldnt be covering the UFC.
Plus, as Sherwood says in the interview, it would be like opening a hotdog stand and not selling hotdogs. Doesnt make sense.
It makes all the sense in the world.
Sherdog.com was around in the begining because of their DVD Sales. It is how they got paid to run the site.
As time went on, it was advertising through tons of page views (Fight Finder), and then through deals like ESPN and being associated with Crave.
Yet in the beginning, it was those DVD Sales that were the most crucial part of the website. So for the price to go up, it would have hurt Sherdog.com big time.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Apr 16, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Im not doubting that the profit margin for the DVDs dropped. But of what benefit is it to Sherdog to stop covering the UFC??
Ive considered that. But it would have been such an illogical and clearly empty threat. Like when parents tell their kids "I’ll turn this car around and head home’ to get them to shut up. The trip has been planned for weeks, everything is packed and there is no way the parents would turn the car around.
The UFC is the main MMA promotion, so for an MMA website to say “Fine, we wont cover the UFC anymore then” doesnt make sense as its clear they would never follow through with it. This was a business relationship, not parents v kids and clearly there would be a greater negative impact on Sherdog than the UFC if they no longer covered UFC events.
If it was a negotiating ploy, it is perhaps the worst attempt at negotiation ever.
Except it isn’t necessarily an empty threat, because without Sherdog’s coverage, the UFC may have lost its steam.
This was a game of chicken, I guess the UFC didn’t end up backing down, and Sherdog flinched.
Yeah exactly. Using the same analogy, you shouldn’t open a hot dog stand and give away hot dogs at no profit just to move your free ketchup.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
Sorry champ..
Greed, spite?
What motivates Sherdog to bias their coverage, slant the facts and publish stories without proper sources?
I dislike Matt Hughes.
Well it comes down to either they deliberately slant coverage and rankings to cast UFC in a bad light or they are just incompetent.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
9/10 in the sherdog p4p list are Zuffa fighters with Fedor at number 3. Man, the UFC must be pissed at that anti-UFC approach to their p4p list. Add to that, BJ ranked #1 ahead of Aoki, clearly sherdog has bought into the wamma crap. Sorry about the sarcasm, but come on now, accusing them of anti-UFC bias in their rankings is a bit much dont you think?
And when you say they deliberately slant coverage, I assume you mean in a negative sense. I look at the sherdog site today and they have the following articles up:
- A breakdown of UFC 97 prelims
- Photos of shogun training for chuck
- Interview with Leites re: his bout with Anderson
- Photos of a UFC debutantes training for UFC 97
- UFC 97 weigh in results
……etc……etc
The site has a big UFC focus and all legitimate, positive pieces they feel might be of interest to the fans.
I have never seen anything that suggests that Sherdog is ‘out to get’ the UFC or anything like that. But please, I am always happen to learn, so if you have any information showing where Sherdog has repeatedly ripped into the UFC for no apparent reason and without merit, send me some links and Ill read up.
Indeed.
http://www.sherdog.com/radio/Savage-Dog-Show-Weekend-Recap-986
They talked about it a bit on Monday (around the 40 min. mark), one of the most MMA-filled episodes I’ve ever heard from them.
by Chris Nelson on Apr 16, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
They touched upon how they would only covered PRIDE, but we must also look at context. I am guessing that Dana and Jeff got into a bit of a heated argument, and Jeff jokingly said “Eff you, I am only going to cover PRIDE.” Sure Dana may have barred him over this, but it is not like Sherdog’s coverage of the sport 3 year after this event has resulted in a horrible representation of the UFC. They approach every card the same, go to all events and get reports to them and other then Dave Meltzer have some of the best connections in the business.
I remember Deadspin making a huge news story out of Bill Simmons and Rick Reilly hating each other, but if you had listen to the context of what Bill said about Reilly it was in a joking, jovial manner. Deadspin made it seem like in their report that Bill was demeaning Reilly big time, which was not the case. This abover report seems to be the exact same.
I just get the sense that we are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Any publicity is good publicity..
All this constant to and froing of “you said this I said that” is keeeping both companies continually at the top of chats, forums and blogs. Dana knows without a doubt that people will continue to watch the UFC and it’s sister promotions whether he is regarded as a homosexual hater, a tightass promoter or someone who just loves to go off his head!
It’s just another story that can be drawn out and keeps the UFC at the forefront of the news in many different forms
Sometimes you just have to get off your ass and do it yourself...FighterUniversity.com
Good plan
That’s a good point. I would like to take this opportunity to say something official on behalf of myself.
David Stern, unless you adhere to my list of demands, I will no longer talk about the NBA with anyone ever.
Demands:
1) 50% off basketballs
2) Ron Artest is now my butler
3) Kenny Smith must cover and react to favorably all my BE comment posts.
4) I want advance info on the results of all the games.
Even if he does not give in, hopefully this will be good pub for both of us, thereby keeping us at the top of blogs and the NBA as the number one league and me as the most important and influential person in this or any field.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
If you think the UFC pulled Sherdog’s credentials because of a spat regarding wholesale DVD rates, what’s the explanation for pulling the credentials of MMA Weekly, Full Contact Fighter, etc. at the same time?
Given the facts at hand, it seems like Dana saw the sport taking off and wanted the sport covered by traditional outlets. “Old media” does not like “new media” and that’s why the those sites got cut off. Just my theory on the whole thing.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Apr 16, 2009 11:49 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Personnally, I find Sherdog in general to be very shady.
Between Lorreta, this and the many other issues with that site, I find it hard to give them much benefit of the doubt.
The thing about Dana is that if you listen enough, he always puts all his cards on the table. You might not like the language he uses, or his position on a topic…but almost universally he tells it like he sees it.
The group at Sherdog…not so much.
Dana White is a President of a huge private company with many public affiliations to even larger corporations. He better have some accountability for what he says and hes’s always spouted more BS than truth. It is entertaining, and we might love to live vicariously through him, but just as we are accountable in our workplaces for the language we use and positions we take, so should he.
That being said, reporters aren’t allowed to tell it how they see it. They are supposed to tell the story how it is with as little personal bias as possible. That’s why they have editors. Internet media/real time media always has this problem of quality editors/reporters or hardworking always available editor/reporters. Is Sherdog worst than most, or do we just expect more from Sherdog?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
