Yesterday, it was confirmed during an interview on CNBC that UFC management will begin to take an apparently radical stand regarding sponsored advertising through their fighters during UFC events.   

The internet is buzzing with nearly every opinion surrounding the issues that the recently confirmed decision brings up.  Though there are many educated opinions to be read, most are ill informed, or badly formulated attempts at voicing a childish, knee-jerk reaction.  On a ridiculous article I read, the writer even went as far as claiming that the UFC was trying to dictate what fighters wear. 

If you are a true MMA/UFC fan, distance yourself from your feelings for a minute and think about it from a business man’s perspective.  What is at stake?  The answer, a business valued at an estimated $1 billion. 

During his interview on CNBC Dana White confirmed that business for the UFC is up 20% over the last quarter.  Additionally, Dana White confirmed that following the latest and possibly most controversial decision, the UFC has scored big with blue chip sponsors such as Bud Light and Harley Davidson.  

The support of the controversial decision is based on the argument that because the cost of putting on an event such as UFC 100 is so high, that the interests of those who bare the financial risk associated with putting it on should be well guarded.  From a business perspective, this makes sense.  Given what is at stake, it is justified and mandatory from a strategic point of view that Dana White and the rest of the management look out for their best interest and build a nice big fence around their property (not the fighters, the events they put on). 

It is well known that the people involved in the decision making that affects the UFC have financial stakes in businesses often times conflicting with those of the sponsors of some of the fighters.  You don’t have to have a Harvard MBA to know that you do not serve your best interests by providing the competition with a voice to compete.  Dana White did not get the UFC this far by serving the interests of the competition.  It is clear that UFC management has the killer instinct necessary to make UFC a top sport.  Radical business decisions have shaped the professional sports industry from the beginning, do some research and you’ll know that this type of controversial decision is par for the course for a growing sport.

Normally, I would feel compelled to present an argument opposing the decision.  In this case, I don’t feel it would be right.  The fighters affected by the decision are also business men who make the same decision by stepping onto the mat and saying: “it’s me or him.” 

What is at issue is a business decision made by a business for the business; anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand business.  The conflicting interests of fighters who are to lose money from sponsors will continue to be served by the same business acumen that got them those deals in the first place.  It has become more apparent by the uproar and the number of tantrums this issue has caused that the UFC is a very profitable business to be involved in.  If fighters are smart they will find ways to cash-in on the new business environment at the UFC. 

Finally, and in my mind most relevant to the question “is the UFC on its way to financially ruining its fighters?” is the reminder that if it hadn’t been for the decisions taken by UFC management in the past and perhaps the present, our favorite fighters might still not be more than bouncers at the local bar and the UFC wouldn’t be much more than a back alley goon and G. fest. 

By: Fredy Marroquin AKA PhilosopherKing