Is Dana White a Liability for the UFC?
Steve Cofield explains what's what in the above video:
We're in the eye of the storm right now when it comes to the fallout from Dana White's Ultimate Fight Night 18 video blog that included a rant about a female blogger and a gay slur. Things have calmed down but that's only because the MMA media/blogs whacked away at the topic for roughly two weeks and it's been replaced by a new set of hot issues. But that doesn't mean the mainstream media or casual MMA media have had their complete say on the matter. ESPN's E:60 will have a feature on the whole vlog episode on May 12. And now Deadspin and Sports Illustrated writer Jon Wertheim, folks who cover the sport from a distance, have laid the smack down on White and his impact on the future of the UFC (0:47 mark).
I am personally undecided on the issue of whether White is the right or even best choice for the de facto leader of MMA and the business face of the sport if we are to take mainstream ascendency seriously. Unequivocally, I do not believe the current attitude of trying to shakedown reporters with boorish tirades in videos designed to curry favor for his personal decisions is even remotely in keeping with the requirements necessary for development. But I also recognize White's near peerless enthusiasm for his company and the sport he should be largely credited with building is hard to reproduce. My hope is that some sort of reconciliation can be achieved where White realizes he cannot reshape the mainstream to appreciate his antics and sports in the manner of his choosing, but with some tweaks and adjustments enough change can be made to the UFC (or MMA in general) to make it more palatable.
What you should note, however, is how drastically different traditional or even just presently established sports media view White. Not only do we have the above comments, but when I interviewed David Samuels of The Atlantic he referred to White as "a hype man". That characterization is at odds with the idea that he's in any real position of power (something I find hard to accept), but whether real or imagined: White's persona and management style is viewed by many in the journalism community as antithetical to the necessities of mainstream ascendency.
0 recs |
93 comments
|
Comments
Dana would do well to hire an intelligent, well spoken figurehead, and play the background. He could still of course fill us up with his classic hyperbole during the UFC promo videos.
by nitro on Apr 30, 2009 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
President of WAMMA as de facto leader of MMA and the business face of the sport!
It reads like a joke but I can actually see this being more palatable for the mainstream.
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
by Warhand on Apr 30, 2009 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
bahahahahahahaha!!! thats my counter argument
by MicahW on Apr 30, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The interviewer definitely slips and refers to gays as homos before correcting himself in the beginning.
by despisedIcon856 on Apr 30, 2009 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yes...yes he does
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 30, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Dana White a liability? I dont know. But I do believe he represents the biggest threat to the UFCs continued growth and dominance. His polarizing ‘my way or the highway’ approach has worked thus far in many circumstances as most have chosen ‘his way’ due the lack of comparable alternatives for sponsors, fighters and fans. Unfortunately though, those same sponsors, fighters and fans might find the ‘highway’ option to be more attractive as time passes and the sport develops outside the UFC.
by GeeDub on Apr 30, 2009 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
So he swears alot
I understand peoples problem with his language choices and personality, but this isn’t the NFL or MLB and frankly I don’t know if the UFC and MMA would be as big as it is today without white. I believe that regardless of White the sport and the UFC will continue to grow, scandals and bad behavior happen at every level of every sport . People still watch baseball even with the steroid problems, NFL players still shoot themselves in the thigh and people still watch football, refs get accused of cheating, and coaches get caught watching other teams signals. I believe that these problems are worse than White using his right to free speech to call someone a bitch. MMA is here to stay and I don’t think White could stop it even if he tried.
by despisedIcon856 on Apr 30, 2009 12:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not The Point
In the interview, they acknowledge how essential White has been in getting MMA to the current level of acceptance. The issue is, with his tactics and persona, will it ever reach the next level of acceptance with regular mainstream media coverage and major sponsorship deals?
White is the one who wants the UFC to be as big as the NFL but his behavior does not suggest that would ever happen and if it did, he would probably be fired for some insensitive comments made in or towards the media.
They referred to NASCAR, another niche sport, as having achieved mainstream acceptance. Do you the head of NASCAR goes around cursing and calling people names in the media? I assure you, he does not. If he did, the sport would still be where it was 20 or 30 years ago.
I think that is the point of the interview. Has MMA hit its “glass ceiling” with Dana at the helm? I would say, unless he dramatically curtails his behavior, yes it has.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Apr 30, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but this isn’t the NFL or MLB and frankly I don’t know if the UFC and MMA would be as big as it is today without white
Right, yet White WANTS it to be the biggest sport in the world. And it will never capture the imagination and respect of the entire sports loving community when he behaves in the way he does. White is one of the biggest players in making the sport what it is now. No one is denying that.
But the truth is all other sports carry a certain level of cultural currency that allows the media to accept the T.O.‘s of the world and the gambling scandals…etc. It’s like how NASCAR being a niche sport as MyFistYourFace pointed out…grew because people liked it and they didn’t play into the stereotypes of “dumb racist rednecks wanting to see cars crash” like how White often plays into the stereotype of “angry testosterone junkies who love violence”
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 30, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing that should be pointed out, is that the typical CEO types in the banking, newspaper, auto, and newspaper industry haven’t exactly been faring too well lately.
Dana isn’t your typical CEO/President, he isn’t politically correct. Maybe that’s OK in 2009.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2009 12:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This advice from mainstream media is a lot like getting car company advice from GM CEO’s.
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly my point.
One difference between Dana and most CEO’s: the way they dress and the language they use.
Difference number 2: One is making tons of money, an done isn’t.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, this will be long.
These mainstream guys have NO business giving advice on what the UFC needs to do. They don’t understand MMA, they don’t understand the reasons for the boom, they don’t understand why it is popular, they don’t get the appeal, and they completely and utterly missed the boom as it happened.
It’s a lot like when a losing political party tells the other what it should do to win in the future. It’s more backhanded than meaningful, and hilarious given their missteps.
UFC 97 appears to have done 650,000+ buys in the midst of this recession. Who is responsible for creating this stunning model that has created such intense fan loyalty that they shell out 50 per month en masse even during hard times? Dana White. How are other pro sports teams doing financially right now? WWE PPV is dying, boxing had to abandon PPV except for big fights, and everyone else is struggling while the UFC steamrolls along.
If they got rid of Dana White tomorrow and went to someone else, mainstream ascendancy would slow dramatically. Any ascendancy there’s been is a result of White’s clawing, not some inherent value in this wonderful sport that the suits at ESPN are willing to change. A quick discussion with ESPN guys that want MMA on the air but can’t get it on will inform anyone that White isn’t the obstacle. The obstacle is that executives there hate the sport, and only put it on when they feel there is some kind of big ratings hook (see: Brock Lesnar and Kimbo Slice).
If the UFC dropped White to sacrifice the media gods, it would be a misstep almost on the level of regular missteps made by mainstream press outlets for the last 15 years. They would be no closer to solidifying top sponsorships, they would make less money, and they’d be on ESPN less. Who honestly believes that once the F bombs stop ESPN starts regularly covering numbered events?
The mainstream ascendancy of the UFC is positively rapid. No sport has ever come so far so fast, ever. And no, in 2009, you don’t have to be on SportsCenter to be mainstream. This sport just took off about 3-4 years ago in the United States, people lose perspective of that all the time. The sport goes mainstream for real in two or three generations, when kids of this generations of fans introduce the sport to their kids, and it becomes a serious part of the culture.
People routinely make the mistake of assuming regular ESPN coverage is the bellwether of mainstream ascendancy. It’s not. Being on ESPN does not make you mainstream. Being mainstream gets you on ESPN (unless they have some deal with you).
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 10 recs
Well said.
To me, as long as guys 18-34 continue to migrant to the sport, it doesn’t matter what main stream media thinks of Dana.
Yes, I would like to see him be a bit more respectable in front of the camera, but I think losing him would be a monumental mistake. White IS the reason the sport is what and where it is and he is also its future.
As long as the right demographics continue to support the sport, it IS mainstream regardless of what “mainstream media” says…and by continuing to ignore it, “mainstream media” riskes somehow becoming not “mainstream” anymore.
by Razreshat on Apr 30, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely think there are things they can do better. Public perception is part of it, but mainly I think they can improve their monetization of the sport in terms of merchandising and getting names out there.
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love how people give credit to a guy who was given a blank check, and a company with a product that sells itself. It’s true MMA has grown because of the UFC, but there are plenty of other contributors that could get credit as well. The sport already had a foundation before Zuffa took over, albeit a tenuous one. As far as I’m concerned the Octagon is a house that the Gracies and Shamrocks of the world built, and Zuffa, not Dana White, simply put a new roof on it.
by bubbafat on Apr 30, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Dana have a magical blank check while Cuban and Ayre had broken blank checks?
UFC’s boom is not 100% Dana’s fault, but to act like he had nothign to do with it is insanely stupid.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not taking away credit where credit is due. As a matter of fact, I’m just making sure people are informed that Dana doesn’t deserve ALL the credit. You just named a couple of others that desreve props, even though their MMA endeavours failed. Ayre helped discover Alvarez with his promo, and Cuban is just cool.
by bubbafat on Apr 30, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dana doesnt deserve all the credit… But I am telling you if he wasnt involved none of this would have happened.
Everyone else was replaceable except for Dana.
Some people dont understand the difficulty in creating an entire industry… being successful in business in an established industry is hard enough – but creating one is what business stories are made of.
Zuffa will be studied in the best business schools around the world.
by mmalogic on Apr 30, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. But there are countless examples of people taking businesses as far as they can, only to realize that to reach “the next level,” the expertise and vision of others needs to be relied upon. What if Dana has gotten the UFC as far as he can, and stepping away would be a good thing?
Hell, if Dana can publically tell Chuck Liddell that the sport has passed him by, I’d like to believe that he’ll step aside when the time is right, and he’s being figuratively KTFO’d in the business world.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you talking about Dana pulling out of the public eye or quitting the company? Those are two different issues.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zuffa is growing in this horrid economy and the next spurt is coming with the game… please come back and share your views in 10 years and we’ll see if it makes sense then.
by mmalogic on Apr 30, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind who convinced the Fertitta’s to write that blank check. Without Dana constantly buzzing in their ear about MMA being the sport of the future, the Fertitta’s never would have bought the UFC in the first place.
by Steve4192 on May 1, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that is all the works. The action figures will probably do that a little bit. The video game is going to be huge.
I was a pro wrestling fan for most of my childhood, but I remember when WCW vs NWO world tour came out. Before that game came out, my class had 2 wrestling fans and a bunch of video game fans. After that game came out, we all watched wrestling. I think the video game is going to open up the sport and the to tons of new people.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s just me being either dumb, stupid or any combination of the above, but I don’t get the connection that you seem to imply between Dana staying on and UFC’s growing popularity. UFC is largely responsible for MMA getting the acceptance it has today, but saying that it was all Dana’s doing is excessive. Sure, he had a hand in it, but if he were to hang up the gloves tomorrow, I don’t think UFC’s growth would somehow cease. The reasons for that are larger than Dana, the Fertittas or anyone else.
Dana White isn’t the main reason why UFC is still making nice PPV figures. People do not buy PPVs because of Dana, they buy them because of the fights. Dana may have a part in getting publicity for the sport, but the product is the fights and the fights, not Dana White will get people behind the sport. Not Dana.
There is no question that Dana White has played a part in UFC’s rise to where it is today. But the fact that he got the sport here does not equal that he is the man to take it on from here. Calling sportswriters ‘dumb bitches’ and ‘faggots’ on a public venue IS NOT something you can do if you hope to get anywhere near NFL, 2009 or no 2009.
If the mainstream sports media gets pissed off enough at Dana’s monthly f-carpet-bombing, it WILL hurt MMA. No amount of make-believe from fans will not change that.
by lhasafi on Apr 30, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
LOL, you beat me to the punch!
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Apr 30, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s created a model where his customers pay directly. He doesn’t need the sports media, which is increasingly irrelevant, and will probably be completely irrelevant in 10-15 years. There is no correlation at all between ESPN coverage and pay per view buys, we’ve seen it a thousand times where the two don’t work out together. It’s nice and all, but unlike other sports dependent on broadcasting and ad revenue, the UFC takes its money directly.
So much of what Dana does is smoke and mirrors. If his online opposition got to run it the way they want, it would have gone the way of Affliction long ago. He created this model and his star system, and it’s perfectly setup for the changes in the media world. Other sports aren’t so lucky.
The F bombs and other things don’t matter. Focusing on them misses the bigger picture, it’s a waste of time. The old rules don’t apply, the world is changing.
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And when I say sports media, I mean that ESPN covering the monthly shows on Fridays before is just a nice bonus, it’s nothing he needs, and frankly doesn’t really make much of a difference.
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not buying it
I just don’t see how the entire success of this sport can be attributed to just one man. I just don’t understand statements like, “If they got rid of Dana White tomorrow and went to someone else, mainstream ascendancy would slow dramatically.” Who’s mainstream ascendancy? Are you talking MMA or UFC? Yes, Dana White has done a lot for the sport as the face of the UFC. The point is that MMA wants to be included into mainstream media or at least a good portion of the fans do. Can Dana White with all his cursing and strong arm tactics take MMA to the NEXT level? It sounds like a lot of people are questioning if he has the ability to do that as the face of the UFC (and in some respect MMA itself). Relieving Dana of his duties as the public face of the UFC doesn’t mean that everything he has done so far will be undone. I’m just not sure I would jump to some of the conclusions you came to Michael. I have faith in the sport and its fans and its growing appeal and I don’t believe just one man is responsible for it.
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Apr 30, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The thing is, to just about everyone in the world, MMA is UFC.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Apr 30, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MMA may be UFC but UFC is bigger than Dana White.
by lhasafi on Apr 30, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What keeps getting lost in all of this...
…because of Dana’s choice of words, is that Loretta Hunt wrote a stupid unsourced story that should never have been published. Everyone with a lick of journalistic sense has come out on the side of, “she did what?!?”
Was Dana wrong to call her a “dumb bitch”? Yes.
Was Dana wrong to call her “dumb”? Maybe not.
I’m not defending his actions, and I’m certainly not defending the words he chose, but that was what I’d call a dumb move.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Apr 30, 2009 12:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Quick: Name the last piece that ran on E:60 that made any sort of difference in the sports world, without clicking over to ESPN.com first. Nothing jumps to mind, right?
Hell, I can’t name anything that was on E:60, ever, other than the Lesnar piece.
We are waaaaaaaay overrating E:60’s impact. Unless they’ve uncovered video of Dana murdering a hooker it will come and go and won’t be a big deal anywhere except the blogs.
by andherewego on Apr 30, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How ironic....
Just like the fighters in the UFC, Dana will eventually get washed up. I don’t think that Dana has outlived his usfullness though, not yet.
by Bandaka on Apr 30, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dana White is the General Patton of CEOs
If the UFC fires him he’ll just go work for Strikeforce and whip them into the #1 MMA promotion in the world.
Keep firing Assholes!
Akiyama is the Japanese word for Sexify.
by Ubernoober on Apr 30, 2009 1:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Without the Fertittas money? Doubt it. People don’t mention them nearly enough when talking about “The Story of Dana.”
by Farthammer on Apr 30, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think Scotty Coker would have something to say about that man.
by bubbafat on Apr 30, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dana Sympathizers Have A "Dana" Mentality
The UFC has been very successful, to a point, but it is NOT mainstream. It does not have mainstream news coverage, network television or sponsorship deals of other sports. Sure, it has grown exponentially over the last few years but it isn’t even close to NASCAR in revenue, sponsorship dollars or ’REAL" media coverage. This is not about a story on E:60 either.
it is ignorant and short-sighted to say, “Look how much the sport has grown” and “everything is perfect just the way it is”. No figurehead of a mainstream sport will ever be allowed to call female reporters “bitches” on video or use other ethnic, sexist or homophobic slurs. Dana has no filter. He represses the media. He uses strong-arm and bullying tactics to get his way. This is NOT how the face of a mainstream sport behaves.
But all you Dana followers keep singing his praises. Keep telling him to stay JUST the way he is. One day, you may wake up to find that the UFC’s strategy to get on top is the same one that has left them behind. Some OTHER brand of MMA will have taken over the landscape of the sport(in the U.S.) with a “kinder, gentler” way of doing things that major sponsors and network execs tend to prefer.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Apr 30, 2009 1:39 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
An easy argument," Imagine how big the sport would grow, if the UFC didn’t have a CEO that cussed, and stole limelight."
by bubbafat on Apr 30, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, if only they had you in charge it would do great.
By the way, here’s the answer to your question: it would make no difference at all to growth, and we’d probably get a retard replacement that makes the kind of mistakes that execs at every new MMA company make.
Fight fans delude themselves. This is the sport of people beating the shit out of each other. The guy in front needs to be brash, the preposterous idea that this sport would naturally just blossom due to its awesomeness is hilarious.
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As crazy as it may sound, there are other kinds of possible successors for White than “retards”. Dana IS NOT the reason UFC did not fall into the same traps that EliteXC and/or Affliction have fallen. When UFC was rising, the market was different, the entire combat sport landscape was different, the challenges were completely different.
I’ll admit that the guy in front has an effect on the growth of the sport, but how many people buy PPVs/merchandise because of Dana F-Bomb White? When UFC was breaking into big time, Dana didn’t draw PPV numbers, Liddell and Ortiz did. Griffin-Bonnar at TUF 1 Finale is what got quite a few fans onboard. Randy Couture has brought more fans and more buys than Dana White.
If Dana White was as big a reason for UFC’s growth as you seem hell-bent on making him to be, why the hell the fighters get their faces on the PPV posters? Why does the UFC98 poster have Evans, Machida, Hughes and Serra instead of White? After all, he’s the reason UFC is as big as it is, right?
by lhasafi on Apr 30, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you don't understand what a promoter does.
Those fights weren’t already happening in someone back yard.
Dana built the organization that put those fights together, the organization that put those fihgts on TV and PPV, the organization that fought for acceptance in states that previously banned the sport, the organization that created an entire industry for those fighters to excel within…everything from the actual fights to clothes and advertisements.
Trying to seperate Dana from all of that is the stupidest thing in the world. None, NONE of that would be taking place today without him. To try and claim otherwise is revisionist history at best.
by Razreshat on May 1, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the sport of people beating the shit out of each other.
I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up this point. No matter how you sugarcoat an MMA fight it’s still a fight. Having a Bizarro Dana, is not going to garner any new fans. Sure, calling someone a fa**ot is not going to win over any sponsors, and Dana needs to dial it back a bit sometimes in that regard, but his brash attitude is not what is, supposedly, holding MMA back.
by Shatto1 on Apr 30, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sad part is that when appealing to the male 18 to 36 year old demographic those things are positives not negatives. That demographic eats up over the top personalities that say whatever they wish and have a take no prisoner mentality. Dana White doesn’t have to act like David Stern because he isn’t marketing to the same audience. His personality is part of the reason the UFC gets the exposure it does. Lots of people think the things Dana said were very innapropriate(me included) but the majority of the MMA fanbase rallied around him and they actually got a positive impact off this with their target demographic.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that actually speaks volumes to potential sponsors and investors. Blue Chip ones will want to steer clear of that kind of ridiculousness.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does it get more blue chip than Microsoft and Bud?
Microsoft is one of the biggest companies in the world, they sponsor a fighter. AB spends more on sports advertising than anyone else, and they’re still in.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Microsoft is one of the biggest companies in the world, they sponsor a fighter. AB spends more on sports advertising than anyone else, and they’re still in.
Fair enough on the beer company, but to me, it’s telling that the athlete that Microsoft chose to sponsor was Rashad Evans, a fighter who is not exactly popular among hardcore fans, and is certainly nothing like Dana White. I suspect that if he unleashed a Dana White-esque tirade upon a female reporter (especially a white one), he’d be dropped faster than you can say “Chris Brown.”
But I’m just speculating…
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are talking about the Rashad Evans that’s always been known for showboating in the cage right? The one that just got into a face to face with Rampage Jackson right? Just because the guy doesn’t cuss like a sailor doesn’t mean that he is nothing like Dana White.
Of course it’s sort of funny that so many people are trying to take away from Dana White’s importance to the growth of the sport and hold him solely responsible for the future of the sport at the same time. Dana White’s language may be an issue but that doesn’t mean that Dana White’s language is “the issue” that is going to hold the entire sport or even the UFC back. I agree that Dana White probably shouldn’t cuss so much but lets not act like Dana White’s language on youtube is what is going to make or break the sport with potential sponsors because when you get right down to it this is still professional prize fighting the stigma is always going to be there whether it’s Dana White or Barney the Dinosaur out in front of the company.
Dana needs to watch his language for Dana’s sake, it’s hurting his personal career and giving his enemies ammunition but honestly it’s not the cussing it’s some of the specific words he uses. Personally I would like to see the UFC hire Randy Couture to be the spokesman out front and for Dana to just run the company but then I must admit that I am not in the target demographic (although one of my children would be).
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol@"showboating." What Rashad Evans does us no different from what many African-Americans do in professional sports ALL the time. To hear MMA fans tell it, Michael Jordan, Barry Sanders, and Muhammed Ali would be viewed as the Antichrist in their eyes.
And a face-to-face confrontation with another fighter promoting a fight is much different from directing vitriol at a reporter. If either Rampage or Rashad went after a reporter like Dana White did, there would be a shitstorm.
I echo your sentiments about preferring Randy Couture’s “classy” and “professional” demeanor to Dana’s “brash” and “ouspoken” one. But I’m not as fatalistic as you are about the sport’s “target demographic.” I would like to believe that you don’t “outgrow” a sport, and if you do, that’s a fault of the sport, not the fans.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What Rashad does doesn’t bug me but lets not act like he’s some upstanding citizen or role model just because he doesn’t cuss like White does.
As far as being fatalistic I am not at all, I am a realist. As I’ve said elsewhere the sport can make inroads into the above 36 year old demographic(which I am in), as the current generation grows with the sport of course they will change demographics, thing is that doesn’t mean that the UFC needs to change to appeal to a older demographic it’s just that the audience that already accepts their product gets older. There is no reason for them to try to appeal to women or the elderly and while they will obviously will appeal to children I rather they didn’t target individuals till they are old enough to really understand the sport anyway.
Lets face facts, anyone who can accept the bloody violent side of professional prize fighting probably isn’t going to be driven off by what Dana White says on Youtube. I don’t condone what he said and I wish they would get a new spokesperson (Randy Couture is by no means perfect but he does have a different reputation and appeals to a more olympic minded crowd) but I am also smart enough to know that the Dana White situation will fix itself as the sport grows. It’s a problem and the solution is that White get pressured and backs off and tries harder to not insult broad swaths of the public. He can cuss he just needs to think about what he says more before he says it and I’ve got a feeling that from now on he will.
Another reason I would prefer to see the UFC hire someone to be the face of the company is that I worry that White will burn himself out being the president and the fight promoter and the face of the company. He does too much and needs to concentrate his efforts if he wants longevity in the sport too, besides it doesn’t seem like he really likes being in the public eye he just likes talking about the sport, should let someone else do the PR heavy lifting for a while.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
18-34 males might be the demographic everyone is after, but household name brands will think long and hard about where they are putting their dollars. A company that has a controversial product has a chance to get that money because they are as succesful as UFC. A company with a controversial product AND a frontman who can’t speak for two minutes without dropping expletives… nope. Won’t matter if the 18-34 guys go crazy over the stuff. Why?
Because those same brands have to think about their image OUTSIDE the 18-34 male demographic.
by lhasafi on Apr 30, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s professional prize fighting there is a stigma going in that is way worse than Dana White having poopy mouth on youtube. If you replaced Dana White with a suit wearing Goody McGoodnick who never said a inpolite word it still wouldn’t change the fact that we are still talking about a sport where two guys are trying to beat the living shit out of each other for money. Any sponsor that can get beyond the bloodsport angle won’t have a problem with White’s use of the english language.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
18 to 36 year old is the most prized demographic in advertising, they aren’t going to want to stay away from that they dream of being able to tap into that demographic. You don’t go in and tell Mtv that they need to grow up you tell them to keep on doing what works, 18 to 36 will always be key to MMA and that demographic just doesn’t care about these kinds of things.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on
It’s deadspin…. ugh. Btw, I just read the title on the video and saw deadspin ;)
by poundnground on Apr 30, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The “product sells itself” stuff is ridiculous. Forbes mocked the purchase of the UFC as a stupid business move. Everyone besides the UFC has completely bombed and lost millions in the United States. Go tell Bodog’s investors that the product sells itself.
Oh wait, they were just “stupid.” Like every other single person that gets into this and tries to go big besides Dana. At some point people will stop deluding themselves into thinking these billionaires are stupid, and will realize that it’s a nearly impossible business to make money in.
by Michael Rome on Apr 30, 2009 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe the Brand matters more.
Have you ever considered that Zuffa took an organization that was ALREADY synonymous with the sport in the eyes of most Americans, and made it palatable to the masses? To suggest that Dana White himself is solely responsible, and that the initials “U-F-C” aren’t the crucial difference between his organization and that of the other startups that crash and burn is to miscomprehend what Dana & Co have been doing all of these years.
In the late 90s, WCW was better funded, had more talent, and a television partner that was more responsive to its product, but what it didn’t have was the brand WWF, which was, in the minds of casual fans, synonymous with professional wrestling. The fact that fans were more responsive to WWF-branded product meant that marketing came easier, and the goodwill that came from over a generation of entertainment meant that the consequences of bad decision-making were muted. THAT is the position that the UFC enjoys, and as the Industry Leader, it will need to Crash & Burn in order to lose its place, Dana or no Dana.
THAT said, you can’t possibly think that the PPV Model is the long-term future of the sport. Getting 650,000 loyal fans to pay for $40 a month for fights pales in comparison to Premier League rights fees or DirecTV Sunday Ticket rights fees of $1 billion (with a “B”) annually which comes from having hundreds of millions tuning in worldwide. And don’t get it twisted — without a network partner in Spike TV, the UFC loses an outlet to promote its product on (somewhat) free TV, and a platform to give its viewers the free content that makes paying for premium content so palatable. Eventually, to get to the next stage, UFC will need a network platform.
Why? Because as strong as the UFC brand is, there are stronger brands. Showtime and CBS, which are working with Strikeforce? Bigger brands. HBO? Bigger brand. ESPN? HUGE brand. To compete effectively with MMA branded under these networks (an generate the revenue that these entities do), they’ll need to attract more than the 18-34 demographic. They’ll need the housewives, the upper-middle class professionals, the working class people of color, with each demographic sliver attracting a different sponsor. And UFC’s figurehead needs to be able to function in all of these worlds, or risk alienating a source of revenue.
The lifetime of a sport is measured in decades, not years, and while Dana White is an important figure with grand vision, to suggest that he and he alone can guide the sport’s ascent is to misunderstand the ambition, and underestimate the sport’s ceiling. But I suspect that Zuffa knows this, which is why Lorenzo Fertitta, the “good cop,” was brought to the forefront. I predict more “good cops” stepping into prominent roles as UFC continues to grow and evolve.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
alot of what you said is spot on, except
the part about the advantage of the UFC brand.
Now, definitely. But when White and Fertittas bought it, there was a TON of negative connotations connected with the UFC brand. Need anyone remind you of the “Human Cockfighting” statements by politicians and mounting bans by states left and right?
The other day on the XFC broadcast they kept crowing about how they were the first ones to put on a show in Ten. and how the state had legalized for them…I had to laugh. Sure, XFC might have thrown together a show before the UFC’s, but to imply that is wasn’t Dana and the UFC’s crew that opened up Ten…or any other state and that Ten was legalizing FOR XFC, and not looking at the nice payday of hosting the UFC…is just delusional.
by Razreshat on Apr 30, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the thing is, whatever negative stigma “Utimate Fighting” had, any other organization that existed back then had the same stigma, without the recognition of the brand. The conversation goes, “I’m promoting ‘mixed martial arts,’” followed by, “Is that like Ultimate Fighting?”
Thus, when UFC cleaned up its act, there was a Spillover Effect tha helped all the smaller MMA organizations, but they were the primary beneficiaries…because to the majority of potential fans, “UFC” is synonymous with MMA, and everything else is minor league.
No other sport has this kind of advantage. NASCAR comes close, maybe the PGA Tour as well, but it takes a lot for people who have never been exposed to your sport to be as aware of the brand as in the case of "UFC’ and “ultimate fighting.”
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every sport that is successful has had a brand name synonomous advantage, the NFL is pro football, the NBA is pro basketball, NCAA is college sports. The thing is that the current UFC brand power is as much a effect of Zuffa’s doing as it was what came before. The UFC was a negative brand, it had recognition it’s just that it was almost completly negative when they bought the company they might of been better off starting from scratch at that point.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s just patently wrong. The UFC without UFC 1 dies on the vine. It is out of the ashes of pre-Zuffa UFC that this UFC gains its momentum. The CREDIBILITY comes from its evolution from perceived bloodsport to respected athletic endeavor. The “street cred” of the original cast of characters — Shamrock, Gracie, Tank — which gave way to the Ortizes, Liddells, and Coutures, then onto the current crop of stars minted on the reality program, and developed in the new infrastructure that is fed by the industry leader, doesn’t exist if its the Zuffa Fighting Championship, starting from scratch in 2001.
And you miss my point about branding: Fans don’t say, “My favorite sports are NFL, NBA, or MLB,” they say, “I like football, basketball, and baseball.” Hell, pro baseball existed for almost a HUNDRED YEARS before the National League and American League started being referred to as “MLB.” UFC is Kleenex, Vaseline, and Xerox to most sports fans. If “ultimate fighting” existed, but the organization that promoted it here was ZFC, they’d have to work twice as hard, and spend twice as much money, to create brand awareness.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The vast majority of the UFC’s fans started watching because of TUF not because of UFC 1. Heck at the point Zuffa bought the company the name was pretty much worthless thanks to government pressue and tremendous negative public opinion, the stigma the company faces today comes from how the public percieved those original shows. The Term Ultimate Fighting was one of the things Zuffa did to build the brand not something it had to start with, they could of done that with a new brand name if they had wanted to, it was TUF that got the sport and the brand name to where it is today not the illegal bloodsport of the 90’s. When Zuffa bought the sport it had no momentum or credibility, it was associated with banned toughman contest even in 2004 the name had no credibilty or momentum, it didn’t get that until the first season of TUF became a big hit in 2005. Whatever the company’s name was when TUF hit would be what current fans would associate with the sport (obviously for hardcore fans it’s different but then hardcore fans are a minority of the audience that doesn’t buy into the whole Ultimate Fighting branding anyway). It was that exposure that saved the company and launched the sport as we know it today, us oldtimers who remember the heritage and understand it’s importance are a dying breed.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do know that TUF stands for The Ultimate Fighter, don’t you?
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but they could of called it The Extreme Fighter and would of had just as many viewers for the Extreme Fighting Championship.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right on
I said the same thing here a while ago, that the Fertita’s are too smart and have too much money at stake to let White bring down the image they have worked so hard to create. At some point, the business gets so big that the game changes, and I think it is close to that now. We haven’t had a big labor dispute yet- what happens when a handful of the top fighters demand health insurance or a pension? What if a TUF winner, whose ENTIRE career is with the UFC (i.e. the UFC couldn’t say that the disability occurred before or after he fought for them), gets brain damage or some other permanent disability? Do you want Dana White at the helm then?
by I don't wear mma t-shirts on Apr 30, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your WCW point is wrong, they failed because they drastically overpaid for wrestlers and had crappy corporate backing at the end. At the height of competition they had more viewers than the WWE had and with pro wrestling fans their brand was always as well known(not to mention at several times in it’s history more popular). The WWE didn’t win because of the brand name they won because Vince McMahon knew how to promote pro wrestling and create new stars(including putting himself on his show) while WCW was depending on aging overpaid talent and poor booking.
The comparison to tv rights that other sport get is also pretty irrelevant as sports work on completly different business models. The UFC doesn’t have season and they don’t do weekly events they do monthly mega-events much like boxing which abandoned network tv decades ago because the money was made on pay tv and PPV. No network will ever pay for monthly UFC events what they pay for whole seasons of NFL/NBA or MLB games, it’s not comparible business models or sports models in that way. Heck the UFC is probably better being on SpikeTV and PPV than they would be if they were on say CBS or ESPN. On Spike they have more leverage and less ratings pressure and a lot less network interference. UFC events on free tv already score as high or higher in ratings than more mainstream sports do quite often, heck even re-runs of UFC events have been doing so on occasions.
I do agree that they need to expand their demographics in order to grow but lets be honest this is professional prize fighting there is only so much demographic expansion that is going to happen. You will never get a significant portion of women or the elderly and gaining in the children demographic would turn out to be a problem. The young male demographic will always be their bread and butter demographic and that is also the demographic that sponsors covet so there is nothing wrong with that from a marketing standpoint.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. WCW had marginally better TV ratings for about two years, but WWF outperformed them on the PPV scale. And where you see Vince McMahon “knowing how to create stars,” (a recipe that has proven difficult to replicate when you remove The Rock and Steve Austin from the equation) I see access to a market of lapsed WWF wrestling fans and their younger siblings and children, which were more easily and readily tapped into than WCW, when wrestling became “cool.” That’s why during the WCW Boom, there were about 6 million wrestling fans watching, but when the tide shifted and WWF took the lead, there were about 10. Brand recognition within hardcore wrestling fans was never my point — it was (and still is) about accessing a reserve of CASUAL fans when necessary to spike awareness and marketability of the product.
2. If you’re going to say that UFC’s business model is beyond reproach because other sports don’t use it, then I have no rebuttal. However, if the point of the original post was that a Mainstream Sport doesn’t need a PPV model to make money, because there are sufficient revenue streams, but your point is that UFC has intentionally eschewed the mainsteam in order to target extracting the maximum revenue from the highly desired 18-34 demographic, then we agree that the sport won’t ever achieve mainstream status, because it chooses not to. I’m just arguing that they’re leaving a lot of money on the table, and potentially puttting the sport’s long-term viability in the hands of trends and the whims of that sliver. Plus, ratings aren’t terribly important if the network gets your programming for pennies on the dollar, comparatively. Spike, I believe, pays the UFC about $25 million a year for its content, which covers two seasons of a weekly reality show, a prepackaged show airing multiple times a week, and about 12 live specials a year. You’re telling me that they AREN’T undervaluing their product a bit, and they DON’T think that Spike is doing them a favor by agreeing to give it all of that programming time? Again, that’s a whole lot of money being left on the table for autonomy.
3. Agreed, the 18-34 demographic is the core, but no one thinks that they should alienate potential viewers, especially if they have maxed out their marketability to that age group. What happens when fans “outgrow” the UFC, and the youngsters have moved onto something new? The boxing example is telling, in that thir move to PPV left a barren landscape of potential fans in the next generation, when the sport slipped out of the national radar. Boxing’s biggest star of the past decade? Oscar De La Hoya, the so-called “Golden Boy,” as crossover as they come.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. As you pointed out yoruself the WWE had two of the biggest stars in it’s existance at the time they took the lead. The Rock and Steve Austin made their show the hip show and drew in people from outside pro wrestling’s normal fanbase. Yes their ratings dropped when the WCW war ended but that also coincides with them losing those two mega-stars as regular performers too. The WWE was creating stars and the WCW was hiring guys away from the WWE and even putting those guys over their own homebred stars. No one chose the WWE product because they had the name recognition of 1980’s cartoon style wrestling and the guy who got the WWF their original mainstream appeal Hulk Hogan was with the WCW at the time. Company name recognition had less to do with it than product appeal (the WWE hooked the 18 to 36 year old demographic with Steve Austin vs Vince McMahon and oddly enough that does have some connection to discussions of the UFC and Dana White).
2. I never said the UFC’s business model was beyond reproach I said it was completly different to the point of making those comparisons irrelevant. I am not judging which business model is better or worse I am just pointing out that they are apples and oranges. What I don’t understand is why you seem to think that the 18 to 36 year old demographic is a sliver? It’s a huge demographic, hell it’s the demographic that all major sports try to tap. It’s also the demographic with the most disposible income and the demographic that advertising craves. The only other real demographic for professional sports that the UFC could make strong headway into is males 36 to 55, this is professional prize fighting.
As far as what Spike is paying them, they had other offers but they chose to resign with SpikeTV, so no I don’t think they are undervaluing their content at this point, lets just look at what the competition is paying to get content and what demands they are making. Of course money isn’t everything, heck we are talking about growth of the sport and in that sense yes at this point autonomy is way more important. TV channels don’t care about future growth because if you don’t get the ratings today you won’t be around for tomorrow, you don’t grow with the networks you get their attention after you have reached a mainstream level.
3. Boxing’s problem is that they don’t make new stars, they were cashing in not building for the future. Dana White is very aware of that and he says that’s why he does things differently. Still there was a time when boxing was on network and they left it for greener pastures and that did work for them for several decades. If boxing had created that next generation of stars it would be still working for them now, that has to do with their business model not their broadcast media. Heck it’s not just boxing that left network there is no more Wide World of Sports anymore it’s all gone to cable, heck even most of the NBA and NASCAR is on cable. Making concessions to be on network tv wasn’t going to help the UFC and it could of hurt their future growth.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one that doesn’t want MMA to become some huge juggernaut that everyone in the world accepts and the mainstream media swoons over? With the exception of hockey, I could care less about any mainstream sports because of the following it garners.
I believe that the bigger a sport grows, the more chance of corruption and bullshit being introduced into it. I think that MMA has a nice little niche carved out for itself, where both hardcore and casual fans can enjoy. What do we really have to gain from a vastly increased popularity base other than more states sanctioning the events?
I could care less to turn on the local news and see the results of the past nights event. I think if the UFC (or anyone) cares to increase in popularity, it needs to find and groom people that have huge star power, ala Lesnar. That to me is an iffy proposition because not everyone is going to have the skill and success (thus far in his short career) that he has. They might end up putting alot of money and effort into someone that just doesn’t work out.
Dana is Dana. I find it refreshing a president of a company can have such a brash and controversial attitude. Do I think he treats all fighters fairly and draws up contracts fairly? Not really. Do I think he should watch his P’s and Q’s and tiptoe around what he says because he might offend someone? Fuck no. If anyone was offended by what he said then I would wonder why you are even watching a combat sport in the first place. These fights appeal to our inner animal at some level or another, and I sure as HELL don’t want to see Dana sipping tea and eating scones when they do an after fight interview. I want to see him say things like “That show was fucking SIC!!!!!” I want to hear him yell at people and call them out, there’s not enough of that in this world.
I love all promotions of MMA, but do recognize that Dana has made huge strides for the sport in this company, and it will continue to be successful with him at the head. No one I know would stop watching because he called some woman a dumb bitch or used “such a horrible and defamatory word that breeds hatred and discrimination”. Whatever, watch the fights, enjoy the blood, the knockouts and the submissions.
by soadtrails on Apr 30, 2009 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But you, my friend, are provincial and short-sighted. If you believe that corruption and bullshit are the exlusive domain of the larger sports entities, then you are also misinformed.
I don’t know anything about you, but there must be some reason why traditional sports have turned you off so much. However, for the vast majority of us, people who want the sport to grow want the athletes to be respected and compensated as professionals, rather than near-barbarian proxies for our bloodlust. I get that it might not fit neatly within the fabric of the mainstream, but to suggest that it can’t be as mainstream and culturally significant as boxing used to be is to again, underestimate the sport and its fans. Furthermore, to equate the sport with brashness, boorish behavior, and downright igorance is to do a disservice to the fighters who do not embody this aesthetic; it’s as pernicious as suggesting that the NBA is populated by thugs, and its fans are fans of thuggery, so its commissioner should be Suge Knight, or some other such thug figurehead. Just as MMA attracts fans of all stripes, it is comprised of fighters of all stripes, and it doesn’t belong to you, Dana White, or the ignorant, sexist, homophobic Dana apologists any more than it belongs to the traditional martial arts purists who want everyone to be bowing and ultra-disciplined before and after every fight. A figurehead that sees the universality of the sport has to work harder to bridge those gaps, or risk marginalizing the sport, its fighters, or its fans.
If the UFC is going to grow, we’re going to have to grow up a little too. That teenaged “my band has gone and sold out because they went platinum” mentality won’t take us very far at all, if we are to watch this sport bloom into a Big Boy Sport. It’s time to learn how to tie a necktie, just in case you have to go somewhere respectable.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No matter how you spin it this is still professional prize fighting and it’s marketing focus is always going to be professional prize fighting, you don’t need a suit and tie and you will always have respectablitiy issues regardless of what you do.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The “mainstream” need to worry more about their businesses and less about a successful one…
The UFC is DANA WHITE… if you want to get rid of Dana then you need to get rid of the UFC.
by mmalogic on Apr 30, 2009 4:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If that’s the case, the UFC has a problem. Dana’s important, he’s done a lot of great things for both the brand and the sport, but he really shouldn’t be the biggest star in the organization.
by FRANKIE on Apr 30, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a difference between bing the driving force behind a company and being a star and the two shouldn’t be confused. Dana’s not the UFC’s star he is the UFC’s leader.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. But it’s sentiments expressed by the ironically-named poster above that trouble me. If the sport is synonymous with its frontman, it isn’t much of a sport. If the majority of the UFC’s fans feel this way, then this whole endeavor has a shelf-life. To use a bad analogy, and mangle a quote, the Man should never be bigger than the Movement.
by madiq on Apr 30, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got the feeling he isn’t talking about synonomous with fans he’s talking about running the company. Dana White the face of the UFC and Dana White the man who built the company into what it is today are two separate things just as getting Dana White out of the public eye and getting Dana White out of the UFC are two completly different issues.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and mmalogic is some sort of industry insider, he can be a UFC shill but he does know what he is talking about quite often and seems to have access to inside information.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it. Who here would stop watching the UFC just because Dana were no longer in it’s emploie?
by Dooda on Apr 30, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s about the health and growth of the company, not whether hardcore fans would keep watching(lets face it most of us will watch darn near anything labeled MMA).
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The UFC is Dana White? Is that why you pay $50? To watch Dana White? The UFC is it’s fighters and their teams. Their were plenty of other people putting their time and money into MMA while DW was teaching aerobics. Funny, Dana White himself doesn’t recognize any of the founders of the original UFC. He’s a vulture.
by bubbafat on Apr 30, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy running the show and making the decisions is Dana White not the star you are paying to watch. Dana White is the UFC in the fact that it is his vision and it runs based on his decisions not because he is out there fighting. Not sure why people can’t make that very simple distinction?
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He recognized the Gracie’s importance to the sport but honestly the people running the show before him are the same people who now bring us Yamma Pit Fighting and XARM ultimate arm wrestling so I for one don’t mind forgetting about those “founders”.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What, you didn’t think YAMMA was the most epic revolution in MMA ever? You cad.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Apr 30, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t know why they don’t rent their cage/pit/contraption to Wargods.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s no arguing that Dana has played a big part in the rise of the UFC, but it’s not solely attributed to him. No one can say how much, or where it would be today were he not at the helm. That said, no one knows if Dana is the right guy to go from here, because sports has never really seen a figurehead like him.
Probably what will happen is Dana is going to learn lessons and just change as he needs to. As for the Fwords, well, who knows. I’d love for him to trim that down, but I sort of doubt that will happen.
by Dooda on Apr 30, 2009 5:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He needs to be careful not to use words that offend large swaths of the public whether they are considered dirty words or not.
by who me on Apr 30, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And even then, it’s over blown.
The UFN rant is over, the rest of the world has moved on. E:60 is a good show in theory, but they take way too long to produce their pieces, and noone really pays attention when they do. When the episode comes out, there will be some noise about the issue again, but then it will disappear, again.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad this issue came back
This is ridiculous, once he said that Loretta Hunt is completely credible everything else he said became worthless.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
by MonkeyCHops on Apr 30, 2009 8:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
PS, There is an epic UFC poster in Time's Square.
I just saw it on The Daily Show.
Thanks, Dana.
by subo on May 1, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dana is hugely popular with the average UFC fan and has led the UFC to prosper during hard times, this controversy was total bullshit and writting up another article on it is a waste of time.
by Raker on May 1, 2009 1:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Get over it!!! I would love to have a boss like Dana. One who speaks his mind and gets results!!!
Drw14
"Don't settle for second best when you can be the best"
by drw14 on May 1, 2009 5:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





![Dana White says "Karo Parisyan will not be fighting" at UFC 106.
[UPDATE] by Dana White - "Pulled out of the fight the day before weigh ins again with a laundry list of excuses!!! Let the press ask karo why! Let him explain."
[UPDATE] by Josh Gross - "Karo Parisyan via text confirmed he won’t be fighting Saturday. He declined to answer any questions."
[UPDATE] by Dana White - "Dustin will be paid his full purse to show and win. Its not his fault."
HT: twitter.com/danawhite
UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin 2 coverage](http://cdn0.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/86739/2ufvnnc_small.jpg)














