Examining Lorenzo Fertitta & UFC's Response To ESPN 'Outside The Lines'

it’s what makes this sport extreme, it’s in your face and filled with attitude

It seems like a politician’s response in a bitter campaign. What he should have brought up are the positives like the new health insurance, the enormous costs of the production that the UFC is putting on the line, the expanding to different areas of the world. As much as the sport its growing there are huge expanses that go with it.

They feel the ESPN piece was unfair to them, so they are accusing ESPN of the same sins. Now ESPN, who places themselves as an unbiased source of information, has to explain how they aren’t promoters of FNF, etc.

So, Zuffa is now placing ESPN in the same position ESPN placed Zuffa, thus in the eyes of the public neutralizing the original accusation.

The strategy, I believe, effectively kill any chance of the issue gaining any traction in the larger media sphere, not that there was much chance of that happening anyway. The fight is now seen as a boxing promoter vs a MM promoter.

Yes, factually, the Zuffa argument is wrong. But it is a good PR strategy.

If they’re trying to take the moral high ground to bash UFC on fighter pay, to say they’re just distributors unable to do anything about low pay for their show doesn’t hold water. They’re ESPN. If they wanted to do something about fighter pay for their show, they have an obligation to do so, and not duck it.

But the easiest way for the UFC to make this go away would be to open their books. If they show what they’re paying fighters (including insurance, etc.) as a function of their net profits, and it’s at least somewhat comparable to what players make in sports with a CBA, wouldn’t that go a long way towards clearing this up? Even if it was less, you could explain that away if they’re spending significantly more on marketing (as you would expect for a sport that’s trying to grow its market).

Now, if they opened their books and the amount they’re paying fighters is significantly less than, say, Dana’s Lamborghini fund, that would be a whole different issue.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/15/2709816/ufc-espn-lorenzo-fertitta-espn-interview-clip-boxing-outside-the-lines#88832199

If you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Perception is perceived, and quite frankly, there’s quite a bit to it, as closetasfan just said a couple replies up, if you’re going to be doing some sort of expose on low fighter pay, how do you get to be the distributor for said low fighter pay and maintain any sort of moral high ground on this?

Listen, I like ESPN and OTL a lot, but they didn’t really have their ducks in a row when they went on this story. There are plenty of ways to argue that fighters in all combat sports need better pay, but interviewing Ken Shamrock isn’t going to gain you a whole lot of credibility.

If anything, I think the UFC is overreacting to a feature piece by ESPN that, while not particularly flattering, wasn’t exactly the a sledgehammer to the credibility of the UFC.

I understand it completely. Given that the ESPN/OTL story was about “Low pay for UFC fighters” then to find out that ESPN/FNF fighters make a fraction of what UFC fighters are making seems a bit hypocritical. Sure ESPN doesn’t set the pay for FNF fighters, but, why was the FNF pay not included in the OTL story? It’s about fighter compensation for putting their health at risk, right? The fact that it wasn’t included makes it seem more like a hit piece on the UFC. Which is why the UFC is responding the way it is.

They present a bit of truth, with a whole lof of missing information that would have rounded out the overall picture to make each other look bad. Anyone with a brain knows it’s not just as simple as what ESPN illustrated in their ridiculous expose that was in itself full of holes, just like the UFC’s retaliation isn’t completely true either, nor does it tell the whole picture. But the UFC knows exactly what it’s doing, and in this case, while I don’t believe either attack made the other party look that bad – really overblown – but the UFC knows its fanbase, and to the diehard Zuffa fanatics – the ones that mob Dana White at every turn – it did make ESPN look bad, and it looks like they accomplished their mission.

I haven’t seen the new OTL piece yet, so I have no idea how it makes UFC look. But, for those who have seen it, how much worse is it, if at all, than this E:60 from 2009?

In the 2009 show, they brought up the fighter pay issue. They also had Pat Miletich and Tito Ortiz slamming Dana and UFC on camera. Last I checked, both guys are still working for Zuffa.

Maybe Zuffa really doesn’t care if ESPN makes them out to be sweatshop owners making their fortunes off poor fighters, because it gets them talked about and they know the fighter pay issue never stopped people from watching boxing. Dribbling out the Fertita response a bit at a time keeps the topic alive. Free pub, can’t beat it.

was a contraindicative, as Ricco Rodriguez was saying that he is making decent money fighting other organizations so how is the UFC a monopoly?

This is the best analysis of the video “rebuttal” I have seen. Nice Brent.