« Frank Shamrock chose WrestleMania 25, while we choose WEC in Chicago | Home | Monday MMA notebook – April 6, 2009 »
A response to a Sporting News writer
By Zach Arnold | April 5, 2009
I am turning comments off on this because this post is simply a matter of me responding to comments made by a Sporting News writer about the Dana White/YouTube rant situation.
I am tired of the story. I’m tired of talking about it. What I am not tired of, however, is pointing out the obvious to anyone who writes something about the fight business that is inaccurate or naive.
The Sporting News has a long response in regards to the Dana White YouTube rant on Loretta Hunt. In short, the writer says that Dana acted in the wrong, but that the heat should be on MMA ‘journalists’ to step up their game. Seriously.
Let me address point by point some claims by the Sporting News writer:
Second, Dana is right. The article that set him off was saying managers needed to be backstage. Why? A manager’s job is to negotiate a contract, give his opinion about fight offers, and find sponsorships. None of those things should happen backstage. And if by some chance they do, the fighter could easily say “my manager is front, let’s talk there”. The only reasons I can see for a manager to want to be backstage is either to feel important and like a big shot because they are backstage or they want to find new clients who may be fighting on the card. Neither is a good reason for them to be there. If a fighter wants the manager there, they do have the right to issue them one of there 3 corner credentials. If the fighter chooses not to use a credential on a manager maybe they aren’t that important to have backstage.
Let’s state what we publicly know based on past problems between talent and management with Zuffa. We know that there are ‘shower room bonuses.’ The salaries listed for fighters by athletic commissions most of the time is not what an actual fighter got paid. We know about UFC’s bonus structure and how there is as much unsaid as there is said when it comes to doing business.
This idea that managers/agents shouldn’t be backstage is ludicrous. A promoter can easily threaten a fighter if they want to if a fighter doesn’t sign a piece of paper giving up their rights (such as likeness for a video game), and conversely a promoter can get into the ear of a fighter when the manager/agent isn’t around. The idea that shenanigans like this doesn’t happen in MMA is downright false — PRIDE was full of politics. Just look at the situations that happened with Fedor and Mirko Cro Cop in relation to how they changed representation and how it was noted in the whole mafia scandal involving the company. As I noted before, I quoted an agent on the record who managed several top names during the PRIDE days who flat out said that there were plenty of shady things going on at events, including one fighter (Stefan Leko) who took painkillers before his fight with Naoya Ogawa because of his bad back.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons that managers/agents should be allowed backstage with fighters. The fact that people can’t connect dots as to why this should be is the real story here.
Third, we as MMA fans need to demand more from our MMA journalist. An article printed with no sources should not be acceptable. Loretta claims she sent “an email” (that is singular) to the UFC to get comment but they didn’t respond. One attempt to contact an organization as large as the UFC is sad. And that attempt was an email where it may not have been delivered or someone may have accidentally (or intentionally) deleted it. It simply not enough effort.
This is the “Kevin Iole” portion of the Sporting News article. I am amazed at how much Loretta Hunt has gotten trashed here for her report. Dave Meltzer, who was at the Nashville event this past week, basically confirmed what Loretta reported about some agents/managers not being given backstage passes at the event. The idea that Loretta does not have sources for articles or does not do her due diligence is inaccurate.
The Sporting News writer has a real penchant for wanting to go after Hunt here and boy, does he ever do it.
Coincidently, this is not the only time Loretta Hunt has been involved with this type of behavior. She was part of the broadcast team at The Fight Network that violated their contract by airing footage of Tim Sylvia/Randy Couture fight minutes after it happened.
How was that her call? What does this have to do with whether or not the story she wrote on Sherdog about UFC and managers/agents is factually correct or inaccurate? One has nothing to do with the other.
Loretta is not the only MMA journalist doing these types of things. Sherdog reported the finalists on TUF4 before the show even begun airing. It was retaliation to UFC denying them press credentials after a public argument. That is simply not professional.
Here’s the accurate rebuttal to this red herring claim.
The real ‘crime’ committed here and the reason people criticizing Dana White are getting heat is because of this:
I will miss the video blogs but they never impacted my interest in the sport. I may miss Dana being out in front of the organizations even more.
Surprise. The ‘free crack’ is now gone from YouTube. In the eyes of Dana White’s defenders, that’s the far bigger crime than what he said. UFC has spent a lot of time cultivating the image that their fans are smart, educated, and affluent (remember the infamous $70,000 figure floated a couple of years ago?). By exposing sunlight on White’s supporters in this matter, it demonstrated to a broader sports audience who makes up the UFC fan base and what their true feelings and opinions are.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |