Friday’s edition of Inside MMA on AXS TV featured a tense interview segment with ONE FC welterweight championBen Askren, and has generated controversy not because of Askren’s words, but for host Kenny Rice‘s reaction to them.
The clip above begins with co-host Bas Rutten asking Askren about Dana White’s recent statement that the UFC might consider signing Askren if he keeps winning. Unsurprisingly, Askren wasn’t there to show gratitude to the Baldfather:
“Dana, he’s a chameleon. He changes his tune depending on whatever fits the situation. I am definitely not fond of this guy at all. I want the chance to prove I’m the best welterweight in the world, but I don’t know if I’m willing to stoop to his level.”
You’d think that Askren’s unvarnished honesty would please the Inside MMA hosts; after all, this is exactly the kind of thing that would generate publicity for their show. Instead, Kenny Rice begins to chastise Askren for his comments:
“Well you’re saying a lot about a $500 million operation, there, Ben. I mean, I gotta be honest, you know it’s always nice to fight windmills sometimes, but to take on verbally with the UFC, this is a battle you can’t win.”
Askren explains that if he plays out the rest of his career in ONE FC and retires happy, he would consider that a win. He then continues attacking the “iffy decisions” recently made by Dana White, which have led to a backlash by the fans. But before he can really get cookin’, Rice interrupts him:
Friday’s edition of Inside MMA on AXS TV featured a tense interview segment with ONE FC welterweight championBen Askren, and has generated controversy not because of Askren’s words, but for host Kenny Rice‘s reaction to them.
The clip above begins with co-host Bas Rutten asking Askren about Dana White’s recent statement that the UFC might consider signing Askren if he keeps winning. Unsurprisingly, Askren wasn’t there to show gratitude to the Baldfather:
“Dana, he’s a chameleon. He changes his tune depending on whatever fits the situation. I am definitely not fond of this guy at all. I want the chance to prove I’m the best welterweight in the world, but I don’t know if I’m willing to stoop to his level.”
You’d think that Askren’s unvarnished honesty would please the Inside MMA hosts; after all, this is exactly the kind of thing that would generate publicity for their show. Instead, Kenny Rice begins to chastise Askren for his comments:
“Well you’re saying a lot about a $500 million operation, there, Ben. I mean, I gotta be honest, you know it’s always nice to fight windmills sometimes, but to take on verbally with the UFC, this is a battle you can’t win.”
Askren explains that if he plays out the rest of his career in ONE FC and retires happy, he would consider that a win. He then continues attacking the “iffy decisions” recently made by Dana White, which have led to a backlash by the fans. But before he can really get cookin’, Rice interrupts him:
“Ben, everybody wants to be in the UFC. There’s nobody that doesn’t want to be in the UFC, basically. And you know, someday — you’re the welterweight champ now of ONE FC, you were at Bellator — somebody’s gonna ask you, ‘Don’t you want to prove you’re the best in the world?’, and most people will look at the best in the world as being the guys fighting in the UFC.”
Askren responded thusly:
“Well 100%, and I don’t disagree with you, and the UFC has created a monopoly-type situation where everyone does have to go there. But don’t think for a second that there’s a lot of employees of the UFC that are not happy with where they’re at, and don’t think for a second that if they get the opportunity to go somewhere else and make a good living and get treated a whole lot better, that they won’t go. Nothing lasts forever, and the UFC has had quite the monopoly the last handful of years, but really, if they don’t change their tune, they’re gonna start losing some fans. Bellator is gaining ground on them, rapidly, ONE FC is rapidly expanding the Asian market. The UFC is worried, and—”
This was about as much UFC-abuse as Kenny Rice could tolerate. Rice jumps in to end the interview, saying “we gotta close down the soapbox” and thanking Askren for his time.
“Well you guys can’t cut me off like that,” Askren says.
“Yeah we can and we just did,” Rice says, “but best wishes and congratulations on ONE FC.” And with that, Askren’s image is sucked into the hologrammic vortex beneath the Inside MMA studios.
Fortunately, AXS TV Fights CEO Andrew Simon stepped in to do damage control the next day, apologizing to Ben and inviting him back on the show to “continue the discussion.” But what would a follow-up appearance really accomplish? We already know Askren’s position, and we know that harsh criticism of the UFC doesn’t fit in with Inside MMA‘s agenda, for reasons we can only speculate on.
Ben Askren should definitely “continue the discussion” — he should just do it elsewhere. Askren is a dynamic, thought-provoking interview, and honestly, Inside MMA doesn’t deserve him.
Everyone has a vague idea of how three-card Monte works: a street hustler places three cards face-down. A mark is enticed into finding the money card. Using misdirection, subterfuge and distraction, the hustler dupes the mark into picking the wrong card over and over. Sometimes a “shill” aids the hustler by playing the game and making it appear winnable.
The fight game is a similar hustle where many MMA journalists often play the role of the shill. Rather than being independent, certain MMA outlets and journalists are working in concert with the promoter to achieve a specific aim. Often, the promoter is buying publicity for their product, which is fair game considering that running an MMA promotion is a brutal marketplace where only the fittest survive.
It’s critical for an event promoter to spend money on the front end — including giving incentives to journalists — so that they can make money on the back end. Sports leagues require massive amounts of capital, as well as leaders capable of executing a clear vision; save for the spectacular Japanese league PRIDE FC that was backed by the yakuza and their dirty money, no one has done a better job of running an MMA promotion than casino magnates Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta, the majority owners of the UFC.
If the mark happens to be the casual fan being steered into buying an MMA card, so be it. Colonel Tom Parker might have paid girls to scream at Elvis’s early shows, but his product held up to scrutiny over time. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to buy watered down PPV’s or watch lackluster cards.
On the other end, when the mark happens to be the fighters, it’s a much more serious issue. Successful promotions earn tremendous amounts of revenue from pay-per-view buys, television licensing, live gate, merchandise, and other streams. MMA fighters who don’t know or understand their value will continue to be taken for a ride.
(Look closely, and you can actually see suckers being born every minute. / Photo via Getty / For previous installments of Shill Em’ All, click here.)
Everyone has a vague idea of how three-card Monte works: a street hustler places three cards face-down. A mark is enticed into finding the money card. Using misdirection, subterfuge and distraction, the hustler dupes the mark into picking the wrong card over and over. Sometimes a “shill” aids the hustler by playing the game and making it appear winnable.
The fight game is a similar hustle where many MMA journalists often play the role of the shill. Rather than being independent, certain MMA outlets and journalists are working in concert with the promoter to achieve a specific aim. Often, the promoter is buying publicity for their product, which is fair game considering that running an MMA promotion is a brutal marketplace where only the fittest survive.
It’s critical for an event promoter to spend money on the front end — including giving incentives to journalists — so that they can make money on the back end. Sports leagues require massive amounts of capital, as well as leaders capable of executing a clear vision; save for the spectacular Japanese league PRIDE FC that was backed by the yakuza and their dirty money, no one has done a better job of running an MMA promotion than casino magnates Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta, the majority owners of the UFC.
If the mark happens to be the casual fan being steered into buying an MMA card, so be it. Colonel Tom Parker might have paid girls to scream at Elvis’s early shows, but his product held up to scrutiny over time. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to buy watered down PPV’s or watch lackluster cards.
On the other end, when the mark happens to be the fighters, it’s a much more serious issue. Successful promotions earn tremendous amounts of revenue from pay-per-view buys, television licensing, live gate, merchandise, and other streams. MMA fighters who don’t know or understand their value will continue to be taken for a ride.
The number one negotiable expense promoters have is the fighter payroll. For instance, when Floyd Mayweather Jr. faced Victor Ortiz in 2011, his paycheck was estimated at around $40 million dollars; as the promoter, he graciously paid Ortiz, the B-side of the main event, $2 million. In the shell game of MMA journalism, media shills have a critical role in ignoring the most basic question — not merely what fighter pay is, but rather, what is fighter pay in relation to a promotion’s net revenue?
(All sports journalism, pretty much.)
It’s easy for a journalist to write an article that relays the sanitized version of news sanctioned by the promotion. All it involves is cutting and pasting the disclosed payouts from athletic commissions, parroting the party line about how stringently fighters are drug tested in MMA, and participating in the circular argument about how to make the useless UFC rankings work better. As professor of cultural research at the University of Western Sydney David Rowe noted, sports journalists in general are more like a fan club that panders to popular opinion without digging too deep into investigative reporting.
MMA promoters aren’t exclusive in their attempts to control the media, either. The NFL’s Washington Redskins recently attracted negative attention for giving media outlets partnered with the team preferential access. According to an insightful piece in the Washington Post, the Redskins collect seven-figure annual fees from media partners NBC4 and CSN. As could be expected, the Redskins media partners gave the boilerplate statement that they would never compromise their reporting.
The unsubstantiated rumor that incited our entire Shill ‘Em All series was a post on Reddit that claimed the UFC was directly paying expenses for MMAJunkie.com in exchange for favorable coverage of the UFC in USA Today. While I never found a smoking gun tying the UFC to USA Today/MMAJunkie like Tim Marchman of Deadspin.com did to tie VICE’s Fightland section to the UFC, I did talk to many high-level MMA reporters and editors who tipped me off to simpler, more obvious connections between the UFC and favorable relationships with certain media outlets — ads.
All a fight promotion would need to do is have one of its major sponsors place ads in a publication in exchange for favorable coverage of the promotion. Consider why a major brand and UFC sponsor like Harley Davidson would advertise with MMAJunkie — or even more blatantly obvious, the UFC-sponsored content on MMAJunkie.
Probing these issues and trying to learn more about the “USA Today UFC Group” that does the ads for UFC.com has been a challenging experience. MMAJunkie editor-in-chief Dann Stupp would not respond for comment. MMAJunkie reporter John Morgan referred me to Mary Byrne, the managing editor of USA Today’s sports section. Byrne gave the boilerplate denial that the UFC had any editorial pull with USA Today/MMAJunkie and referred me to senior vice president of USA Today Leagues and Properties Merrill Squires to answer questions about the “USA Today UFC Group.” Squires has been unresponsive to queries so far.
(UFC.com, “Part of the USA Today UFC Group.”)
MMA journalism isn’t getting any easier to do. At the end of 2013, ESPN.com released reporters Josh Gross and Franklin McNeil. The bright spot counterbalancing this decline in MMA coverage is that FoxSports.com brought Mike Chiappetta, Marc Raimondi and Damon Martin aboard. The UFC deal with FOX gives the television network clear incentive to promote MMA through all of its properties, but it seems unlikely that we’ll ever see news coverage like ESPN’s Outside the Lines segment on UFC fighter pay from FOX or FoxSports.com.
Suppressing the truth still is a taxing game of whack-a-mole that the promoter can’t completely win, and the MMA media will get scooped time and time again by more impartial outlets. Recent statements from Georges St-Pierre and Anderson Silva illuminate a different truth from what the promoter is selling. St-Pierre’s controversial comments about insufficient drug-testing and the UFC being a monopoly came through a Quebec publication and were translated from his native French; Anderson’s comments about how he asks his wife to drive him around Los Angeles so he could cry without being seen by his kids were given in Portuguese to Globo.
Many fans, pundits, and industry insiders truly believe that they have the supreme ability to separate fact from fiction and that they are impervious to the machinations of the promoter’s influence. Yet without Georges St-Pierre and Anderson Silva’s open and honest interviews, we would still have a Pollyanna-view of their respective situations. In a similar vein, without the unveiling of the WWE’s digital network, some MMA fans would not be able to see the flaws and shortcomings of the UFC’s Fight Pass.
As for the promoter, they don’t actually need to convince all of the people all of the time. They simply have to keep the game running, utilize misdirection through their shills, and continue raking in the mark’s money.
There are many contentious subjects in mixed martial arts, from the use of performance enhancing drugs to the corruption and ineptitude of various athletic commissions. Before the issues come into focus, they are often filtered by the entity that draws an epic amount of criticism within the sport itself — the so-called “MMA media.”
Yet far from being a homogonous group of “bloggers,” “hacks,” or “shills,” the public would be surprised to learn that there are actually different individuals that comprise the MMA media. Some were drawn to MMA because they love the sport, others were assigned to cover the UFC by their editors, but whether they’re writing as a hobby or as part of the special entourage of writers who get the best seats at shows and special events, the MMA media operates under circumstances that directly impedes their ability to report accurate and truthful stories.
Corruption and controversy have always been at the heart of mixed martial arts since the sport’s modern inception in the 1990s. Then again, maybe Mark Coleman (Olympian, UFC heavyweight champion and PRIDE open weight GP champion) didn’tthrow his fight against professional wrestler/PRIDE founder Nobuhiko Takada (career record: 3-6-2) at PRIDE 5? And all the fighters who’ve tested positive for performance enhancers were maliciously framed by athletic commissions, or were taking legal (but tainted) supplements, or had the drugs administered by their doctor without their knowledge?
The media matters because they can bring attention and scrutiny to the dark corners of the sport. Greasing by an athlete? Suspicious judges’ decision? Rival promoter extorted at gunpoint for the rights of their fighter? There have to be news stories that shed light on the truth, especially when you consider that accurate information isn’t always volunteered by the fight promotions or state athletic commissions.
The current mixed martial arts landscape is dominated by the UFC. The question over the hold the UFC has over the media needs to be examined so fans understand the constraints that the MMA media works under.
(Dana White spends some quality time with his fans. / Photo via Jake Roth-USA TODAY Sports)
There are many contentious subjects in mixed martial arts, from the use of performance enhancing drugs to the corruption and ineptitude of various athletic commissions. Before the issues come into focus, they are often filtered by the entity that draws an epic amount of criticism within the sport itself — the so-called “MMA media.”
Yet far from being a homogonous group of “bloggers,” “hacks,” or “shills,” the public would be surprised to learn that there are actually different individuals that comprise the MMA media. Some were drawn to MMA because they love the sport, others were assigned to cover the UFC by their editors, but whether they’re writing as a hobby or as part of the special entourage of writers who get the best seats at shows and special events, the MMA media operates under circumstances that directly impedes their ability to report accurate and truthful stories.
Corruption and controversy have always been at the heart of mixed martial arts since the sport’s modern inception in the 1990s. Then again, maybe Mark Coleman (Olympian, UFC heavyweight champion and PRIDE open weight GP champion) didn’tthrow his fight against professional wrestler/PRIDE founder Nobuhiko Takada (career record: 3-6-2) at PRIDE 5? And all the fighters who’ve tested positive for performance enhancers were maliciously framed by athletic commissions, or were taking legal (but tainted) supplements, or had the drugs administered by their doctor without their knowledge?
The media matters because they can bring attention and scrutiny to the dark corners of the sport. Greasing by an athlete? Suspicious judges’ decision? Rival promoter extorted at gunpoint for the rights of their fighter? There have to be news stories that shed light on the truth, especially when you consider that accurate information isn’t always volunteered by the fight promotions or state athletic commissions.
The current mixed martial arts landscape is dominated by the UFC. The question over the hold the UFC has over the media needs to be examined so fans understand the constraints that the MMA media works under.
The most obvious way to control the media comes through barring individual reporters or outlets from receiving fight credentials. When you take away access, outlets either have to get creative or look for a way to get their credentials back. That gives fight promotions leverage over the media.
Consider the last time MMA website Sherdog.com had its UFC credentials pulled in March 2010: It was believed that statements made by Sherdog staff in the Matt Lindland documentary Fighting Politics incited the wrath of the UFC. Now that Sherdog has its credentials back once more, do you think they’ll make similar statements — or write news with the same critical focus on the UFC?
A less-known, but much more effective way to control the media comes through offering financial enticements—indirectly. No one understands this better than UFC president Dana White, who explained how the game works in an exclusive interview with MMAJunkie.com in 2010:
“My biggest beef with a lot of these MMA websites is that these guys are for-profit websites. They’re not [expletive] news sites. They’re for-profit websites,” explained Dana White.
With the exception of the BBC in the United Kingdom, the CBC in Canada, and other state-funded media outlets, White ineloquently states the obvious: Media outlets are businesses that need to earn revenue to fund operations.
The article went on to state that “White doesn’t necessarily contend that media members are taking direct payments for placing a fighter in a top-10 list. Instead, he believes that the advertising that promoters often purchase on MMA websites can easily skew journalists’ opinions.”
The case of SiriusXM radio personality Scott Ferrall is worth reexamining. It was purported that Ferrall was paid to attend UFC shows, however a representative from Zuffa was quick to clarify the arrangement between Ferrall and the UFC was a “talent fee” that is commonly paid to radio personalities as part of a marketing agreement.
“Scott Ferrall was sent to do his show at a number of UFC events around the country due to a legal advertising agreement struck between Zuffa and Sirius XM Satellite Radio to promote the pay per view events, which is standard practice in the fight business,” a representative of Ferrall told CagePotato.com.
Other sources confirmed that in previous years, Zuffa did indeed offer media outlets compensation of expenses in order to cover their events. If the payments were included as part of an advertising or marketing agreement, then Zuffa didn’t directly pay journalists for coverage. Respected outlets like the New York Times would never let advertising taint editorial, but there’s no oversight to stop other media far down the evolutionary chain from making a backroom deal in exchange for money, exclusive scoops, or other partner benefits.
Yet another enticement a fight promotion can offer journalists — a profession bled dry by economic recession, corporate budget-slashing, emerging technology, and cheap user-generated content — is the promise of employment.
Most fans know about the ongoing discord between current ESPN.com writer Josh Gross and Dana White, dating back to the first ban of Sherdog.com from being credentialed in 2005. The fact that just two weeks after banning Sherdog.com (where Gross was employed at the time), Dana White flew Gross into Las Vegas and offered him a $28,000 raise to run the UFC’s website is a lesser known anecdote.
Gross turned the job offer down, but if other MMA journalists cultivate a friendly relationship with Zuffa, they always have the option of applying for a position at the UFC. Public relations positions are far more numerous, stable, and better-paying than most reporting jobs — facts that aren’t lost on reporters who already have the required skill-set to do PR.
The final reason journalists have been historically biased when covering mixed martial arts has to do with the matter of self-preservation. PRIDE was threatened in 2003 when a rival promoter, Miro Mijatovic, signed Fedor Emelianenko and hosted his own competing show on New Years Eve. Retaliation was swift when Mijatovic was subsequently held hostage at gunpoint and had the rights to Fedor extorted out of him after three days of threats in January of 2004.
Throughout the following period, the Japanese media who covered mixed martial arts were complicit in not only ignoring the yakuza attacks on Mijatovic occurring under their noses, but in adding credibility to PRIDE president Nobuyuki Sakakibara’s denials of reality:
“They just continued to repeat Sakakibara’s bullshit as if it was the gospel,” said Mijatovic.
Former prosecutor turned anti-yakuza crusading lawyer, Toshiro Igari took notice of Mijatovic’s case, and after a prolonged case with investigators, successfully brought enough heat down to get PRIDE taken off of Fuji TV in 2006 with a “cease and desist” order from the Police to Fuji TV.
As for the Japanese MMA media, while it was certainly unethical that they had withheld the truth from the public over the yakuza’s dirty dealings (actions that had spanned years of criminal activity), it was also a survival instinct: In the wake of PRIDE’s demise in 2007, many of them lost their jobs.
Toshiro Igari, also author of several books on the subject of organized crime and a frequent commentator on national TV programs, was found dead in August 2010 in a Manila, Philippines hotel room. While his death was ruled a suicide by the Philippine authorities as both of his wrists were cut open and pills were found littering the room, it was much more likely that the yakuza enemies Igari had made over the years had caught up to him.
While Igari was a media-savvy lawyer and not a reporter, the type of work he did was relevant and close in nature to the often dangerous profession of journalism. Data collected from the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ) shows that 70 journalists were killed during the course of their work in 2012 alone. That so many are willing to risk their lives by working in war zones, taking on organized crime groups or handling stories so dangerous that they are murdered for daring to tell them is demonstrative of the line that subdivides all types of journalists.
Going by a dictionary definition, a Taekwondo practitioner who spars for points with chest protection and headgear can define himself or herself as a “fighter.” In a similar vein, someone like MMAFighting.com’s Ariel Helwani, who works as a personality for various UFC television programs (and therefore lacks the freedom to publicly criticize the promotion’s actions), can proudly self-identify as a “journalist.”
Given all of these factors, is it likely that the MMA media will improve or decline in its ability to cover the sport over the next few years? As things stand, it isn’t just fans or discontent outsiders who notice the low quality of coverage.
“We got a bunch of media guys who really don’t know a ton about the sport,” lamented analyst Chael Sonnen on a recent episode of UFC Tonight.
It’s curious that Sonnen is denigrating the very situation that the major promotions and power brokers of mixed martial arts have specifically engineered. After all, they benefit the most from all the scandals, corruption, and other information that is being swept under the rug by media members who prefer to feign ignorance in order to keep their spot on the gravy train.
The next time that Dana White tweets “Pride is dead dummy! I killed em!!!” let’s hope that there is someone left with integrity to report what really happened — instead of using their current job to interview for their next one.
