There’s been an interesting correlation going on in the past few years: The bigger the UFC becomes, the more it discriminates against companies trying to give its fighters money.
First it was Condom Depot, which funneled countless dollars into fighter sponsorship but was considered too racy for the new age of UFC broadcasting. Then it was any energy drink sponsors, on account of conflicts with the Xyience line of supplements that just happen to be a corporate subsidiary of the UFC itself.
Most recently, with the UFC in a partnership with FOX broadcasting, it’s any sponsor that makes its business in guns and ammunition that’s been struck from what’s acceptable in the octagon.
Undeniably, the UFC gets to decide which companies are in the octagon and which ones aren’t. It’s their game. They also have such a good track record of helping fighters financially, and in other ways, it’s probably not true to say that these sponsorship bans are wrong, per se.
More like…misguided.
The Condom Depot case was questionable, particularly when Spike TV broadcasts were often broken up by Trojan commercials while the ban was ongoing. Yet as a direct sponsor of fighters, condoms are somehow considered dirty and uncouth for a television audience (one largely filled with males aged 18-34, no less).
Saying fighters can’t be sponsored by energy drinks that compete with Xyience is questionable because you’re saying competitors of your covert company can’t sponsor fighters in the more public one. Unless Xyience chooses to sponsor every single guy who lost money from that ban—and I don’t know one way or the other if they did, though it seems unlikely—then there’s some murky morality involved there.
Now, guns and ammunition are taking it on the chin in a similar fashion.
When no one cared about the sport, companies like The Gun Store were dropping money into the pockets of guys on the UFC roster so they could train, improve, and cause the sport to grow. Once that growth gets to a certain point, though, their money is no longer acceptable in the octagon.
It’s stupid, because these companies are being singled out for reasons based on perception from network executives, and not for anything concrete. It’s not like Nate Diaz having “The Gun Store” stamped on his trunks is the same thing as Nate Diaz having “Shoot Innocent Bystanders Using Guns” stamped on them.
There’s also the double standard of not allowing such a company inside the octagon as you choose to allow sponsors like Bud Light or Harley Davidson to buy as much ad space as they can. The dangers of alcohol consumption are well-documented, and it could be argued that a Harley Davidson motorcycle is dangerous in the same way a gun is: It’s OK in the right hands, but there’s enough room for error there that misuse can lead to people dying.
Furthermore, what’s it saying to have an event sponsored by beer and a motor vehicle company at the same time? Is that promoting drinking and driving? Is that better than a guy having an ammunition shop’s logo on his walk-in shirt?
Sure, these are extreme cases in many ways. Most people don’t see Budweiser and Harley Davidson together and immediately think the UFC is in favour of drinking and driving. But those same people don’t see a condom website or a gun shop on a guy’s trunks and think they’re inappropriate either.
This selectivity, however they wish to frame it, is an absolute PR minefield, and trying to navigate it is tricky. If this is the way business has to be done as the promotion pushes towards mainstream acceptance, it needs to be handled with more than the usual “we’re doing this, don’t ask questions, deal with it” approach that Dana White often throws out there.
Every company is dirty if you look at them from the right angle.
Every company’s money is also the same color green.
Finding a balance you’re comfortable with, and can reasonably explain, is how your organization is defined. Right now, no one can say they have the UFC’s sponsorship policy clearly defined though, and that’s something that has to change going forward.
Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com