UFC and China: A Seperation of Politics and Business
by castleeb on Mar 25, 2010 12:40 AM EDT
Email
Print
Today Brent wrote an article regarding Dan Hardy’s tattoo, and his position regarding their pandering toward China. Brent is a fine editor, and has a fine point, but I tend to disagree.
I do not agree with some Chinese policies, especially in the humanitarian sense, but I do not believe we can expect a business to risk monetary gain in pursuit of social change. This is not because business is evil, but because such such a pursuit is quixotic in nature. Google would be a fitting example. No one can deny Google's financial power, but leaving China over censorship was nothing more than a statement (and a fine one too). However, not everyone can sacrifice revenue like Google can.
China is a gigantic market that ultimately has citizens willing and able to pay for the UFC's product. At a time when our burgeoning sport attempts to hit the main stream market in the United States, it seems foolish to offend a pool of customers (for whatever reason) who frankly have a lot to offer in the capacity of new fighters and new fans.
This is a concept that extends beyond China. After some bad press, thanks (and thankfully) in large part to Bloody Elbow, the UFC elected to ban HR as a fight sponsor inside the Octagon. If we look at this move from an objective and non-emotional fashion we see the machinations of a savvy corporation. Zuffa didn’t ban HR because of their dubious ties, even if their own moral inclinations were against it; they banned HR because associating with HR was unacceptable to the American people and media.
I do not intend to come off as callous or misanthropic. I hope that in the future China makes strides in the social arena. I also want the UFC to continue to grow and prosper. Since China can live without the UFC, but the UFC would clearly benefit from having China I choose not to connect those two ideals and risk losing both.
On a side note, this is my first fanpost, and I would love feedback so I can correct any errors I make for future posts.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
21 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I edited the formatting a bit, and added a photo...
guys, if you want to know how the technical stuff work, here’s everything you need to know. (the comments part are helpful also)
and this should also help. — How to Write a FanPost and Get It Promoted
Thanks so much on both accounts Anton, I’ll be sure to read up on it. I appreciate all your help, both on my account and on the community’s :)
no problem,
and if you want my opinion, I actually have zero problems with what zuffa did…
If there is a chance that a tattoo can possibly offend a lot of people in a culture (even if we do not understand that culture or how/why it could be possible that something as trivial as that may be found offensive), then the tattoo removal in a poster justifiable. [asking Hardy to remove the tattoo, now that’s a another topic on it’s own.]
It’s like how I (someone who doesn’t live in the US) sometimes don’t get how people might get offended by the smallest remarks and relate it to racism or any other political issue that is present in your culture…. For instance, there’s a picture of Mayweather photoshopped on the logo of KFC, cause he’s “a chicken for avoiding pacquiao”… the whole message is about how Mayweather is scared, but some, maybe just a small population, think that editing a black man in a chicken store’s logo is a bit racist. Some (maybe even most) people think it’s fine, but if I was trying to make this certain group of people be happy with me, I wouldn’t post that picture even if it was just a tiny tiny chance that they might think I’m racist for thinking that is funny.
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 25, 2010 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions
It could be the case if the tatoo was actually offensive but it really seems it isn't.
And what happens with all the the Japanese tattoo in katakana (the kanji can pass for Chinese character, but not the kana), the Chinese have pretty old issues with the Japanese too.
I think it’s a one time thing, the UFC is probably in some sort of negotiation just right now and it must be pretty tight for them to rely on such controversial methods (they know we know, everybody knows, they aren’t proud of it, I guess that much).
But don’t try to make me believe they care about not offending us. They were pretty okay with everything when I had to watch those holzer dirtbags enter the cage. It’s not a nice move respect people’s sensibility, it’s just politic.
"You hit too hard, too hard, too hard..."
of course, it’s not them trying not to offend us, but more of them trying not to piss off potential business partners.
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 25, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah
Look at how Sri Lanka is responding to the latest Akon video. They accidentally had an image of Buddha in the background of a hoarde of dancing scantily clad women.
follow me twitter.com/GotaHemmi
by Brian Hemminger on Mar 25, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
That tatoo has no political connotations ad far as Tibet goes. Hell, it’s not even IN Tibetan. I believe the Chinese government has no problem with buddhism itself, it sees Tibetan buddhism as. something reinforcing the struggle for self-determination in Tibet but, again, it’s only one branch. Hardy, as far as I know, does not run around with a Tibetan flag and scream “Free Tibet!”
Ulitmately it’s not something worth getting all tied up in but I think it’s a dumb, knee-jerk reaciton by the UFC who did not do enough fact checking. It’s kind of like assuming Jeff Monson’s tattoos will be offensive to people in post-communist countries.
Follow @MMARocks and @tjmarciniak
by greco-roman airlines on Mar 25, 2010 5:33 AM EDT reply actions
The Dalai Lama does not even want Tibet to be an independent country. He is a modern man and he believes that being apart of China will improve the quality of life of most Tibetan people. However, the current state of Chinese occupation in Tibet is such that it is a slow, strangulating (I want to say genocide, but that supposes an intention) assimilation.
China has nothing against Buddhism: most Chinese follow a Buddhist or related lineage. The Communist Party just does not condone religion in general.
by Daniel Faust on Mar 25, 2010 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Since I am not an expert on Chinese culture, I can not necessarily argue against you. At worst, this means that Dana White is playing it safe with no harm done to anyone. At best, it means Dana White did his homework, or was even asked to hide the tattoo, and went ahead and did so. Ether way I don’t see an issue.
Knee-Jerk Reaction
I agree with that sentiment. Perhaps Zuffa’s being so careful is indicative of how far they have gotten into the Chinese market.
Facts don't come with points of view
I think the problem with the tattoo
Is that it is a Tibetan Buddhist mantra. Guess who’s essentially the head of the Tibetan Buddhist ‘church’? The Dalai Lama. Who also happens to be at the head of the Tibetan independence movement. (Who also in the past worked with the CIA to cause uprisings in Tibet against China).
While I doubt most Chinese viewers will even know what the tattoo is, some knowledgeable types could perhaps be offended.
All in all, I personally think it’s a waste of time because that tattoo is showing up on fight night – but I understand the reasoning behind it.
Nonsense, business has – and already is – to be regulated according to normative principles. When it does not you end up with:
Child Prostitution in Cambodia: A Seperation of Politics and Business
by The Alabaster Trickster on Mar 25, 2010 2:00 PM EDT reply actions
I don' really understand what your point is..
Care to elaborate? I don’t see the parallel between child prostitution and the case here. You haven’t even made an argument. You’ve just brought up child prostitution in Cambodia, but I don’t see what the connection is..
Sorry guys, I could have explained better!
Suppose that it is the case that Dana did remove Hardy’s tattoo for the reasons speculated and that China is regularly performing grave human rights abuses in Tibet and against Buddhists.
We then know that Dana has done something rather distasteful.
The argument given in that article is this:
1. If a business cannot afford to forego the profits returned from a morally dubious enterprise then it is entitled to pursue that enterprise.
2. The UFC/Zuffa cannot afford to forego the profits returned from operating in the Chinese Market.
3. Therefore, the UFC/Zuffa is morally entitled to realizing it’s operations in the Chinese market.
The comparison I made – while admittedly somewhat facetious – relies on the same premise (1.).
But if a pimp in Cambodia cannot afford to forego the profits returned from child slavery and prostitution he is not entitled to carry on with them.
He is not entitled to because it is morally dubious.
If China’s massive human rights abuses are wrong, then so is Dana White’s cynical and profiteering photoshopping of a partisan political tattoo that might offend the Chinese regarding their crimes.
by The Alabaster Trickster on Mar 28, 2010 8:41 AM EDT reply actions
The anaolgy is not the relevant point.
The point is that the premise the argument relies on (1.) is false – if it were true it would justify practices we already believe are seriously morally wrong.
by The Alabaster Trickster on Mar 30, 2010 6:03 AM EDT reply actions
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
