Photo via ESPN
Given the way that the attention being paid to the entire situation had died down, I didn't really expect ESPN to publicly talk about the Outside The Lines feature on UFC fighter pay. The UFC reacted strongly after the article came out, releasing videos that ranged from somewhat asinine (Lorenzo using Friday Night Fights pay rates to try and play "gotcha" with ESPN) to actually interesting (releasing video of the entire interview with Lorenzo).
OTL's John Barr sat down for a lengthy interview with Eddie Goldman's No Holds Barred podcast and gave his thoughts on the story they did and the way the UFC handled the situation. Thank god for Zach Arnold of Fight Opinion who actually transcribed a great deal of the interview, so check out the full post over at his site. But here's some of the good bits.
On the UFC needing to learn to take the criticism:
"It's clear to me that if the UFC really wants to mature as a sports entity, it's going to have to be able to shoulder and weather the criticism. I live in Philadelphia, OK? You know, probably outside of New York, maybe Boston, I can't think of a more passionate fan base in terms of, you know, columnists who are critical of the local sports teams, sports radio hosts who bring it every day with no holds barred, pardon the expression, critiques when you know the leaders of their local sports teams don't call those shots the right way. Heck, there were people calling for Andy Reid's head after the third week of the season. But those columnists go to press conferences every week, multiple times a week, they go into the locker rooms and talk to players, they're not banned. You know, they're big boys, they can take the slings & arrows. You know, if you want to really prove that you've arrived then put up with it, you know? That's my take.
"If every story that comes out that's mildly critical or takes a critical view of what you do if every story is to be responded to by somebody coming out with a series of half-truths and, you know, what was rather telling when UFC put two videos out. One of them was a 10 minute video that included interviews with Chuck Liddell, who by the way wouldn't talk to us for our story, Matt Serra who by the way wouldn't talk to us for our story, and Forrest Griffin who we never contacted. But it also included several clips from the interview that I did with Lorenzo... I didn't tall them up but I think he may have made 10 to 15 salient points during the course of that UFC-produced video and easily 7 of them were either in the TV piece that we did or the dot-com piece that we did.
"Look, we're not, it's not our charge to do your public relations. You hire people for that. I had a news director years ago who told me, ‘PR people distort the truth, you report the truth.' You know, that sounds like, you know, I'm trying to say I fight for truth, justice, and the American way but at the end of the day that's all we want, that's what we try to get at - the TRUTH. I know people are out there just convinced that we have this agenda and there are some people that are the conspiracy theorists who think (UFC) signed a deal with FOX so ESPN's out to get them! And that's convenient and it fits into somebody's paradigm but it's just not the way we work, you know?
More after the jump
On the piece being some part of a larger grudge ESPN has against the UFC:
"I can tell you, I can reel off the last dozen stories I've done, there have been stories that have been critical of the NFL. We did a piece recently that was critical of the quality of NBA officiating. We put hundreds of millions of dollars in the NBA's pocket every year, you know. This is not about that. It's about journalism, it's what we do, and this is a story that we thought was important to do. Heck, we don't cover Mixed Martial Arts enough, you know, and the few times we do it we get blasted for not doing it in a way that essentially would have us be nothing more than shills of the UFC. That's not the kind of reporter I want to be."
On Dana White's refusal to do interviews with ESPN:
"Look, [Dana] wasn't a big fan of ESPN to begin with. He's still hacked off about a profile that our friends at E:60 did about him some months ago. You know, a very fine reporter Tom Farrey who I work with who I respect a lot did that story. He's still upset about that and that was the reason cited for Dana not agreeing to not do an interview with us, it's just the lingering... I guess ill-will he feels towards ESPN because of that feature. I actually thought that the piece was pretty fair, you know... I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of a guy who... is, you know, at times profane, at times always passionate... and just... you know, one could argue an extremely aggressive and one might even argue ruthless businessman. But, what are going to do?
On Ken Shamrock and if he they handled his grudge with the UFC correctly:
"So, there's all sorts of challenges and on some level the UFC's in a good spot because you wind up getting guys who, you know, in their minds and in their characterizations often have baggage. Does Ken Shamrock? Absolutely, he has baggage. Did we report that eh had been engaged, that he was involved in a lawsuit with Zuffa? We did. Did we do it within the context of the story? No. Bob Ley mentioned it after the story but we got the information in there. We actually received a letter from UFC's attorneys not after the piece ran but after a short tease of the story ran and there was one little comment from Ken Shamrock in that piece and I'm not sure who saw that and who decided to pick up the phone and call the lawyers but as soon as somebody saw Shamrock they had their attorneys send us a letter and... look, to be fair, yeah, we should be mentioning that Ken Shamrock was involved in a lawsuit with the UFC and he lost and he owes them legal fees. Does that make what he was saying wrong? You know, I'll leave that up to others to decide. I know what I heard from over two dozen fighters not named Ken Shamrock, so... I felt pretty comfortable with airing what we did as far as what Ken's comments were.
As I stated, Zach has tons more transcribed at Fight Opinion so I suggest giving that a read, I don't want to jack all of his transcription here.
1 recs | 192 comments
you know?
mikedh - January 20, 2012
18 times just from the pieces here
35 over all
HitokiriX - January 20, 2012
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
He's been hanging out with Nick Diaz too much
soilworker - January 20, 2012
he does have a point sort of
sometimes Dana does act like a teen girl drama queen. he’s a little sensitive girl sometimes.
daftshadow - January 20, 2012
i agree.
I like Dana and i like the UFC and most importantly I love mma but Dana needs to be able to handle criticism if he wants this to become a mainstream sport. He can’t have a bitch fit each time someone says something negative about the UFC. If I was an MMA journalist id be in constant fear of writing particular articles. What i disliked about the piece done by ESPN is that they brought in ppl like Ken who they knew would only say negative things about the UFC knowing their past history. That seems kind of sleezy.
lukustra - January 20, 2012
You know I think he might be related to Scott Coker .
You Know???
beerdo - January 20, 2012
It hurts their journalistic credibility, and the credibility of the entire piece.
I think at the moment fighter pay in the UFC is pretty fair, so the entire ESPN piece is kind of irrelevant to me.
You know?
IRodC - January 20, 2012
I was thinking that too...
You know?
HitokiriX - January 20, 2012
Those seems to be garbage arguments
They’re trying to report the truth, by underreporting median pay, leaving stuff out about Shamrock?
Doesn’t every article they do about UFC come out negative? that’s journalism? I call that a hack job.
And why compare against the “Big 4” sports? Don’t they think comparing an individual sport that’s been around for 10 years to sports that’s been around 100 with multi billion dollar revenues is fair? Shouldn’t they at least do more relative analysis, such as against boxing, bowling, golf, tennis or other individual sports? Saying they don’t pay enough vis-a-vis the NFL is just, idiotic and going out of their way to get the UFC
closetasfan - January 20, 2012
To be fair, the UFC wants to consider itself the NFL of MMA
KJ Gould - January 20, 2012
True, but out of context
The UFC considering themselves the NFL of MMA just simply means they want to be the premiere organization of mixed martial arts competition. Not that, just 20 years in, they should be compared financially or otherwise to these billion dollar sport’s powerhouses.
Genki Sudo's Choreographer - January 20, 2012
Thats why its a story, its not ESPN's job to do fluff pieces that no one will read
The guy’s right. Dana can be a baby, and holding a grudge against ESPN is arrogant and self-defeating. Fighting the media never helps your cause.
warren305 - January 20, 2012
Barr’s just as much of a baby. “Hey I can’t believe the UFC would come after me. They’re supposed to take our inaccuracies and deal with it. I’m for the truth and the American way.”
DayGeaux - January 20, 2012
True
warren305 - January 20, 2012
You know.
dandeman - January 20, 2012
Word life
warren305 - January 20, 2012
It's time...
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
Wow
Yes because all your stories are nasty and MMA/UFC bashing.
Coeman - January 20, 2012
Not only bashing
They never do a bio-type story on any of the athletes in MMA (not just the UFC, but any MMA) like they do with all the other sports. The only recent thing I can think of is that Rad Martinez piece. They really are pushing to the fringe. And saying they don’t have a grudge seems preposterous when they cover cheerleading more than MMA.
tigerlee - January 20, 2012
Maybe if they wouldn't get punished/chastized for every story, that would change
Its like arguing with someone everytime you speak to them, after a while, you have nothing good to say to that person
warren305 - January 20, 2012
Translation
ESPN can dish it out but can’t take it.
IKiIIed007 - January 20, 2012
But he's a journalist. He's not under fire. He just reports the truth.DayGeaux - January 20, 2012
i don’t really know that that’s what I get out of this…
Brent Brookhouse - January 20, 2012
I did
The UFC must be able to handle criticism is his argument. And yet when his “journalism” has been demonstrated to be woefully ignorant and unfair, well, don’t criticize him.
Being able to handle criticism goes both ways.
IKiIIed007 - January 20, 2012
yeah.
you know?
nickrodamous - January 20, 2012
I did too
traydawg - January 20, 2012 via Android app
I like both Josh Gross and John Barr
But I continue to think the reporting here was flawed from the outset. There’s probably no more important number to provide when examining fighter pay than what the median income is, and ESPN has acknowledged that it got that number wrong in its initial report. And aside from the admittedly wrong median number, the reporting was focused on the extremes — the millionaires like GSP and the entry-level fighters making $6K/$6K. But the extremes just aren’t very telling, any more than it’s telling to do a story on NFL player pay and focus on Peyton Manning and a bunch of guys on practice squads. And if it was so hard to find guys willing to put their names on what they pay, why was it so easy for everyone to find out after the fact what guys like Sean McCorkle and Michael Bisping say about their pay?
MichaelDavidSmith - January 20, 2012
The whole thing reeks of yellow journalism
Josh Gross watches too much TMZ.
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
Yeah, that’s what I think is the real issue. I think there is a much more compelling story to tell than the one they told if you want to get into fighter pay.
Brent Brookhouse - January 20, 2012
I think that's the biggest problem
They get facts wrong and admit that they do so then Barr says they go after the TRUTH!
With the TRUTH, there comes something called fact-checking that they should be very concerned with while reporting.
And yes, I like that capitalization on the transcript
IRodC - January 20, 2012
they just seemed to be half informed on the whole thing
and they compared NFL rookie pay to UFC entry level guys… just not a good comparison.
and on Josh Gross’ podcast John Barr went off saying they talked to all these fighters and no one wanted to talk, but now fighters are coming out saying they are more than willing to talk. It just seemed like due diligence wasn’t done here.
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
This is pretty much what I said when this came out
In principle, it’s a great piece, but quite frankly, ESPN, Gross, etc. didn’t have their ducks in a row for this piece. They half- or 3/4-assed it and it shows.
Cory Braiterman - January 20, 2012
Exactly they didnt even try a guy like Chris Lytle..
AfroSamurai - January 20, 2012
keyboardwarrior - January 20, 2012
true
but when the only coverage of the sport or the athletes is a byline, and all the major pieces are needling very minor points it does come off as a grudge, even if it really isn’t.
tigerlee - January 20, 2012
UFC takes criticism worse than Brock Lesnar takes punches.
KJ Gould - January 20, 2012
Like a duck to lava
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
Not Really
At least they fight back
Coeman - January 20, 2012
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
BOOM!
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
GO FORTH AND BE GREEN, MOTHERFUCKER
Paulo Filho's Psychiatrist - January 20, 2012
LEAVE BROCK LESNAR ALONE!!!!!!
HitokiriX - January 20, 2012
"The UFC is gonna test Brock Lesnar" - Brock Lesnar
“Brock Lesnar is the HW champ of the world.” – Brock Lesnar
“Brock Lesnar is officially retired” – Brock Lesnar
“Brock Lesnar.” – Brock Lesnar
Who the fuck names their kid Brock anyway?
RolloTomasi - January 20, 2012
South Dakotan farmers
KJ Gould - January 20, 2012
Look at that man... Do you think his name should be anything other than BROCK?
After I see a behemoth of a man firing a .54 caliber assault rifle off the hip what do I want to hear him say?
I’m Larry Lesnar and I’m Back? nah? Kudos to his parents for knowing they were going to have a “thing” for a child, and naming that thing BROCK.
RECE ROCK - January 20, 2012
He could be a Bubba
DayGeaux - January 20, 2012
true...
RECE ROCK - January 20, 2012
Tank?
TheFilt - January 20, 2012
I think Brock is damn near the perfect name for him
other than big son of a bitch
HitokiriX - January 20, 2012
Coeman - January 20, 2012
dancingChicken - January 20, 2012
confession
I thought that was a chick and I thought she was hot.
But yeah, anyways, the journo makes one point that kinda overrides the rest for me. You wanna be bigtime? You don’t see David Stern calling people out. He does all kinds of interviews with A holes and hacks. He’s a condescending prick, but he does them, and he lets everyone know without having to say it who’s the big dog in the room. Bud Selig isn’t out there freaking out on twitter because, I dunno, a THOUSAND people a day rage about him on sports talk radio. One or two bad pieces shouldn’t even register on DW’s radar.
Can you imagine him actually addressing all the criticism say, Don KIng got? Even as I write this it makes me realize, yeah, UFC is still small town. Because when you make us compare Dana White to other league presidents we actually realize the differences. What happens when they spoof him on SNL?
Wanna know the big time, pro reaction? Swallow it. All of it. And still do interviews with ESPN, maybe with a different guy next time. But that next interview politicking, it’s all done with higher ups, the actual reporters would find out from their boss, not Dana’s twitter feed. And a quiet freeze out on the reporter you don’t like, but never direct acknowledgement. Maybe do a counter piece with a reporter from another outlet who is more sympathetic to make sure your argument was reframed on your terms. But having a drunk NFLer-style twitter rampage is most definitely not what a big time league pres would do. IMO Overall, I am still a bit surprised at how defensive the MMA community is about this.
DankNabbot - January 20, 2012
This John Barr guy...
Is an idiot.
Seriously, most of the criticism is by crazy pro-Zuffa fanboys? Most of the criticism from the MMA media has been that ESPN was factually incorrect or missing information. They don’t mention Ken Shamrock’s lawsuit, nothing about sponsorship pay or other money fighters get for appearances/signings.
Furthermore, I don’t understand what Barr is talking about in regards to how the UFC handles criticism. He’s basically saying that they just have to sit there and take it. Why? If they choose to go ballistic, that’s their choice, and I think the UFC went a bit overboard. But why should they just sit around and say nothing? They have the right to counter. Barr acts like they should never do such a thing.
Leland Roling - January 20, 2012
I don’t really think John Barr is an idiot. He’s actually a very smart guy.
Their story had some flaws (I don’t think you include sponsorship when talking about what a promotion pays its fighters, I do think you have to mention in story the Shamrock situation)
But I think it’s the way the UFC reacted to the criticism that he’s talking about, not THAT they reacted.
Brent Brookhouse - January 20, 2012
Intellectually, John Barr is probably very bright. But his reaction to this entire fiasco makes me think he’s being an idiot at this moment. I disagree that you don’t have to include sponsorships in the discussion. That added money is because of their appearances in the UFC. Without the UFC, they would never get most of those sponsorships or payouts.
What did ESPN expect from the UFC? Are they seriously going to stand on their high horse and say the UFC went too far? I think the initial reaction was a bit overboard, but so what? Who are we to sit here and say they shouldn’t go after ESPN? Because ESPN is the worldwide leader in sports? The UFC obviously hates ESPN, but that doesn’t mean we should sit around waving fingers at the UFC for countering an argument. Overboard reaction, yes, but was it wrong? No. To be perfectly honest, I’d expect more sports organizations to counter these types of poor pieces.
Leland Roling - January 20, 2012
Couldn't agree more.
I don’t know John Barr from Adam, and Josh Gross seemed like a humorless censurer with an axe to grind even before he had his notorious scrape with Zuffa, but it’s apparent that the flaws in their piece are less about incompetence as journalists and more about deliberate omissions in the interest of most effectively scandalizing the UFC’s business practices without crossing the line into rank sensationalism. The only “overreaction” one can point to by Zuffa is White’s predictably antagonistic language in response to the story. Everything else is fair game and the type of PR that they would be irresponsible not to engage in at this point in time. And one thing more — I personally think Leland should be able to label Barr an idiot for his unpersuasive defense of this timely hit-job if Brent can refer to Lorenzo Fertitta as “asinine” for his strategy of defending UFC’s pay-structure.
Charlie Custer - January 20, 2012
This is where Dana being "raw" is just immature though
Yeah, they made him look like an asshole on the E:60 thing 3 years ago. There’s obviously an element of truth to the brash angle they played, but they made him out into a caricature. The answer however is not to pout publicly via tweets that have the grammatical and content quality of a 13 year old girl complaining about her boyfriend not sitting next to her at lunch for the next 3 years.
As he himself likes to say, you have to play the game, and playing the game with ESPN of all entities is critical. ESPN I’m sure welcomes criticism, but when it comes in the form of “THEZE GUYS ARE HACKS” after they release a preview of the story, it’s hard to take it seriously. ESPN didn’t portray Lorenzo in a poor light, they played about 90% of his points from the full interview—-what more do they want?
joker24 - January 20, 2012
but dana IS a caricature.
the guy was an aerobics instructor. suddenly, he’s this loud-mouthed, tough talking hardass. dana has gone out of his way to blur the line between who he was and who he thinks he needs to be to promote the UFC.
tha dude - January 20, 2012
i disagree about your take on the sponsorship money
in no other sport is an athletes sponsorship money ever mistaken for what his team or sport pays him. lebron james gets a check from nike because he plays in the NBA, but that doesn’t let the miami heat off the hook when it comes time to pay him.
tha dude - January 20, 2012
That’s not a perfect example because they are making so much money that it’s ridiculous.
And to add to that, it does come into play. Players take less money to play in states with no/low income tax, people take less money to play in NY or LA because they can make up the cash in sponsorships.
The most important number to an athlete should be their bank account. 10k to show and 10k to win with 8k in sponsors is better for them than 12k to show and 12k to win and 2k in sponsors. The UFC is the reason they get more in sponsors, so they deserve some of that credit.
Phildo - January 20, 2012
I think they should also include what the lower level fighters who make 6k in the UFC made in their recent fights outside of the promotion, and what they make after they leave the UFC
keyboardwarrior - January 20, 2012
One of the most effective sports documentaries I’ve ever seen was an HBO piece about jockeys. It showed guys trying to break into the sport, starving themselves, forcing themselves to vomit, always injured, making next to nothing for it. Then showing older jockeys whose bodies have been ruined by the age of 30, whose teeth had all decayed away from forced vomiting and whose internal organs were mangled from the years of dehydration.
The guys who fight for 6k/6k contracts, and the guys who make far less in regional shows, would seem to be a much more compelling subject. I am sure that a piece which contains “UFC” in the title is going to draw more attention than anything about regional promotions… but the fact is that the guys who have made it to the 6k/6k level are the lucky ones.
Stanlee - January 20, 2012
UFC is the big leagues, tho. They should pay more than the regional circuit. But they shouldn’t just pay more. They should pay a lot more.
NoHo - January 20, 2012 via mobile
I also don't think John Barr is an idiot
But I do think that if Ricco Rodriguez was going to be brought in, then sponsorship needed to be more thoroughly explored. Because the genesis of the problems between the UFC and Ricco is that Ricco broke the UFC’s sponsorship rules. If you want to say those rules are unfair to the fighters and that Ricco was right to take a stand against them, fine, say that. But don’t just ignore the issue.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 20, 2012
I think it is a different issue entirely
Sponsorships were left out because they are not direct fighter pay, which was the subject of the piece by Barr. But I would enjoy (hopefully) a piece on the subjest opf sponsorships. There is so little detiled information that I have seen.
By opening up sponsorships, you would need to delve into the independent contractor portion of the business relationship and Zuffa’s barrier’s of entry for sponsors along with all that entails with those discussions. It would be too large of a piece for any non-hardcore fans and based upon the way this smaller piece was finished, I cringe at the thought of that end product.
Ulf Murphy - January 20, 2012
You’d also be able to counter sponsorships with the much bigger sponsorships that the other sports have.
DayGeaux - January 20, 2012
The UFC ones are slightly different though
The NFL, MLB etc don’t let the players wear custom advertisements on the jerseys. If they did, then yeah. But the UFC sponsorships are kind of like if NFL/MLB players got a cut of on-field sponsorships, which they don’t.
joker24 - January 20, 2012
true
DayGeaux - January 20, 2012
Yes they do. That’s actually what the biggest holdup of the NBA lockout was this summer. It was over BRI. Basketball Related Refenue meaning all revenue from merchandise, advertising, concessions and ticket sales. Any revenue generated by basketball and how it gets split up between players and owners.
Players wanted 53% of the revenue but owners wanted 50/50 split.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7194222/basketball-related-income-affects-nba-lockout-talks
NoHo - January 20, 2012 via mobile
Right
But fighters get 100% (minus the fee thing…) of the walkout/shorts sponsor stuff. They are the ones responsible for going out and getting the sponsors, negotiating the deals etc. It’s not the same thing at all.
joker24 - January 20, 2012
Fighters don’t get 100% of the sponsor money. They used to, until UFC implemented their sponsorship fee where sponsors have to pay the UFC to be allowed to sponsor fighters. Now that money is being split up between paying the fighter and paying the UFC for the opportunity to pay the fighter. If the fighter was getting 100% of that money before, they’re now getting whatever is left over after the sponsor pays the UFC.
And I doubt that, if given a choice, the fighters would choose to get the split up (between the UFC and the fighter) sponsorship money over a 50/50 split of all UFC generated revenue just like the NBA players would never in a million years choose to have sponsors on their jerseys and have to split the money they make off of that with the NBA instead of receiving 50% of all NBA related income.
UFC puts their brand on everything. Fighters would love to get a 50/50 split of all UFC related income over getting 100% of the sponsorship money if they had the choice.
NoHo - January 20, 2012
You're kind of proving the point
If you’re going to make the comparison to other sports (which itself is flawed and stupid), the sponsorship money needs to be included in figuring out the fighter pay because that’s effectively included in basketball/etc players contracts even though it’s not direct.
If the UFC’s revenue is 300M, pays fighters 100M but then there’s 50M in sponsorship money, the fighters would be getting 150M out of 350M in “UFC related revenue” to put it on even standing with NBA calculations. Obviously those numbers are totally made up BS, but that’s the point I’m making.
joker24 - January 20, 2012
And the fact that sponsors have to pay the UFC a sponsor tax for the chance to even sponsor a fighter in the first place.
NoHo - January 20, 2012 via mobile
I'm just talking about the inclusion of Ricco Rodriguez
If you’re going to put Ricco Rodriguez on the air to talk about how he and Dana White have a grudge, you need to explain what the grudge was about. And the grudge started with Ricco breaking the sponsorship rules.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 20, 2012
Agreed
Full Disclosure is always the best course of action, but I think adding it raises as many questions as it answers. Personally, I thinkthat teh Ricco’s and Shammy’s should have not even been included because of the baggage, but then you are left with apiece including fighters that very few have ever heard of.
Ulf Murphy - January 20, 2012
apologies for having to translate my horrible typing.
Ulf Murphy - January 20, 2012
It'd be like discussing what waiters/waitresses make
and leaving out the tips.
jhf884 - January 20, 2012
No, youre wrong, he definitely is……“you know?”
Bj Leben - January 20, 2012
Reposting my thoughts from FightOpinion
#
First of all, I’d like to say that I don’t think the E:60 piece was a hatchet job. It was basically a MSM treatment of a bunch of issues the online MMA media has been covering since 2005. No new ground was broken and it wasn’t terribly biased one way or the other. That said, Barr is clearly tap dancing around the truth on a number of issues.
In regards to Serra, he admits that they interviewed him but didn’t use him in the piece because they ‘felt’ he was being evasive. Funny how they determine that guys who say what they want them to say are being honest but Serra was ‘being evasive’ and therefore was not used. He also goes on later in the interview to say that Serra was not willing to do the interview, when that is clearly not the case. Serra sat down and did the interview with Greg Amante. If he weren’t willing, he wouldn’t have wasted his time doing that interview. Finally, he implies that Dana is lying about Serra’s encounter with ESPN when Serra himself has come forward.
In regards to Shamrock, he admits that he completely omitted Ken’s legal entanglements with Zuffa in his piece. The fact that Bob Ley covered his ass after the fact does not change that.
They also didn’t mention that Ricco Rodriguez has admitted that he knows exactly why he was banned from the UFC. His Golden Palace henna tattoo darn near got UFC 39 cancelled. Yet Ricco goes onto the show and claims he is banned because he didn’t kiss Dana’s ass and that he has no problems with Lorenzo. Ricco explains it all here in his own words to Cagepotato. Funny how that story changes when ESPN puts a camera on him.
http://www.cagepotato.com/exclusive-ricco-rodriguez-explains-why-the-ufc-wont-have-him-back/
Finally, he mentions Monte Cox, who has gone on the record on the UG that he is ‘disappointed’ in how ESPN cut his interview. Monte has flat-out said he has no problem with fighter pay in the UFC, and that the clip they used was misleading.
At the end of the day, I think both sides come off looking terrible. Zuffa looks bad for over-reacting to a pretty tepid report that barely scratched the surface of what the MMA media has been covering for half a decade. Barr looks bad because he clearly went into the story with a narrative in mind and omitted people who didn’t support that narrative and included people with an axe to grind to support the narrative without disclosing their bias. Zuffa would have been better off ignoring the report. Their reaction made it "can’t miss TV" for the hardcore fan base and probably doubled the ratings for the show.
Reply
#
Norm says:
January 20, 2012 at 6:47 am
So if this wasn’t a smear campaign aimed directly at the UFC, why didn’t they speak to Monte Cox regarding the pay structure of all the shows he runs? I can’t imagine he’s allocating 50% of his gate/revenue towards the fighters themselves.
Also, MMA/UFC is sport still in it’s infancy. Wasn’t there a time when professional football players and professional baseball players had to supplement their income by working job in the off season?
I have no personal feelings regarding this story or any kind of personal investment in the UFC or ESPN. I really enjoy the sport, but isn’t the decision fighters face in whether the pay is worth it the same as what any other joe blow faces?
If fighter A doesn’t feel like the time, effort, and physical punishment is worth the pay they are receiving, couldn’t they become a desk jockey like the vast majority of us? If I had any legit athletic or fighting ability, I know I much rather try my hand at MMA.
Steve4192 - January 20, 2012
cut and paste fail
Please ignore the last few paragraphs of that post. Everything from “Norm says” on down is another poster’s opinion that I mistakenly cut & pasted along with my own.
Steve4192 - January 20, 2012
You still get a rec
IRodC - January 20, 2012
Its a good response either way, Very well spoken sir.
dandeman - January 20, 2012
When you say they both come off looking terrible
I agree-to the online MMA community. But…That’s a small piece of who is watching that story! Guys! We here reading this are a miniscule piece of the sports news watching demo!
Try, for a moment, to remember who we are. We are a niche fan community within a niche fan community. Do you really think that’s the audience that would learn from this interview? No. All these opinions seem to be totally placing themselves as Joe Sports fan who watches ESPN when in fact most here would be considered the elite snobs of the MMA fanbase. I considered myself a knowledgable MMA fan, and so did all my friends and family, before I found the online community of BE, SB Nation, CagePotato, etc.
So to the greater public this is what it looks like: ESPN did a piece. It was asking some tough questions, questions that are discussed every year or two as CBA agreements expire in the various major sports. Which to a totally uneducated and possibly only mildly interested viewership might seem tough but fair. And then Dana White loses his mind on twitter and raises the issue to a newer, higher profile, and possibly, hyping the piece. All kids of attention comes to it. And his relationship to the largest sports media company suffers. And what average Joe sees is that DW is a bantam rooster who can’t take the pressure. Shrug. Just imagine that your only knowledge of MMA is that Chuck Liddell has a mohawk, and then see what you think about this kerfluffle.
The truth is, this is a clusterfuck made out of a mild disappointment. And this follow up interview will not be seen/heard/read by anyone outside the core fanbase, us.
DankNabbot - January 20, 2012
Damn some major truth right there
esp about the Monte Cox shows
AfroSamurai - January 20, 2012
yeah that is what Jon Anik was for!
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
Helwani!
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
I was thinking of ESPN guys
none waved the Zuffa banner more proudly than Anik.
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
Ah, gotcha. Never really watched that show they had, prefer Inside MMA.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
Right
Because guys like Schlereth and Keyshawn are constantly criticizing the NFL, and holding them to a higher standard. You could do better than to pick on Anik, methinks..
Charles Awad - January 20, 2012
For a second I read that as "Kreayshawn" and reflexively threw a chair across the room
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
I'd be impressed if she knew enough about the NFL
to hold a 30 second conversation about it
Cory Braiterman - January 20, 2012
The fact you know her name
says a lot about what’s wrong with the world.
TheFilt - January 20, 2012
It says everything that's wrong with the world
Also “Lana del Rey”
I hate stuff. a lot.
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
Anik was not a reporter
Coeman - January 20, 2012
he was a journalist and member of the media as the host of MMA Live
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
But
He didn’t bring forth any stories he was the host reading off the teleprompter and voicing an opinion on the stories brought on by the journalists like Gross
Coeman - January 20, 2012
He's the Trey Wingo of MMA
Not sure what you’re expecting of him..
Charles Awad - January 20, 2012
Okay, that was mean
I actually like Anik.
Charles Awad - January 20, 2012
Criticizing Anik?
The guy never said a bad word about SF or Bellator either. To call him a UFC shill pretty much defines you as biased. The guy is an enthusiastic MMA fan and one of the very best in the business at conveying that enthusiasm effectively to his audience. Should he not have taken his new job? I guess he should have stayed at ESPN with the Franklin McNeils of the world while they downsize his role even more. The guy could become a household name and should be congratulated not ripped.
Charlie Custer - January 20, 2012
he was not actively attack other promotions
and I like Anik a lot. Seems to really enjoy the sport and like covering it.
but every-time he was asked to list fighters, rank fighters he was basically a lock to not just list only UFC fighters but to way overrate ones that had been on recent PPV cards. (example: when Clay Gudia cracked his Top 5 Lightweights in MMA list)
I don’t know if he was trying to balance out Pat Miletch putting nothing but Strikeforce and Dream guys on his lists.
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
another example
when he listed Jon Jones as the #1 LHW in MMA after he beat Vladly
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
That is an example of exceptional foresight and nothing else!!
;)
KGNLuc - January 20, 2012
lulz clearly
T.P. Grant - January 20, 2012
was anik a reporter or simply a commenter?
i don’t expect scott van pelt to be called a “reporter”, he simply gives us the scores from the days games.
tha dude - January 20, 2012
To me the big problem is that the UFC, and especially Dana White, come off as angry teenagers. “We are going to blast these hacks!!!”, etc, instead of being more cool about it. It’s fine that they want to respond to something like this, but the way they do it is so silly. Instead of putting up evidence and well-thought out points to support their cause, they chose personal attacks and some diversion about low-level boxer pay. I guess it works to some extent on the “Zuffa zombies”, but it can’t earn them any favors with anyone else than that.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
The thing is ESPN looked like hacks with this piece.
Neither side is in the right here. In the end both sides look bad.
IRodC - January 20, 2012
Yeah, I’m not saying the ESPN piece was all that great either. They chose the wrong area to focus on (entry level fighters), and had some errors and questionable choices for interviews. Still though I think the UFC should be able to handle it a little better.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
With Dana White in charge?
It was actually tamer than I expected.
Ulf Murphy - January 20, 2012
Well, it’s still not a pretty look. He reminds me of my father, who is a fairly successful executive in the military industrial sector, negotiating deals and so on. But every time I get a text message or e-mail from him, it looks like it’s from a child. Stupid abbreviations, way too many !!! or ??? in a row, confrontational, not the best spelling, etc. It always makes me wonder if he writes the same way in his professional correspondence, and if so, how can anyone take him seriously. Same with DFW.
Maybe that’s not super relevant, just an anecdote I guess.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
I’d say it could’ve made it into the ESPN piece.
wonderfulspam - January 20, 2012
Haha! Thanks.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
It isn't
Part of why Lorenzo was instated as the head of the organization. At least he is able to carry on a professional conversation with someone.
Ulf Murphy - January 20, 2012
Yeah, true. We’re going to see a lot more of him going forward.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
I think that the UFC’s reaction gave the story more traction than it would have gotten if they didn’t make a fuss about it. dana released that vid basically saying it was a total hack job and promising to release more video basically saying “i got something for your ass, ESPN” then lorenzo’s video and this went on for a few days.
They better get used to getting critical coverage every now and then, because i can guarantee that will never go away.
phantom5691 - January 20, 2012
Yep, agreed.
Horselover Fat - January 20, 2012
He's got a point...
until that bit about the TRUTH… Dana and co, need to grow thicker skin. ESPN needs more fact checking, and data gathering.
Anton Tabuena - January 20, 2012
And they need to cover MMA, whether its the UFC or other promotions.
tigerlee - January 20, 2012
Wait....
So Barr says Serra refused to be interviewed when Serra said ESPN walked out of the interview and wasted his time because they didn’t like what he said….hmmm?
rtwil - January 20, 2012
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
Luke Thomas - January 20, 2012
But he's got the gist.
Charlie Custer - January 20, 2012
I agree with everything the guy said.
He’s right. ESPN is not a PR firm.
warren305 - January 20, 2012
You have to be missing your irony gland
to work for ESPN and get on a high horse about journalistic purity. No single entity has done more to redraw, blur and outright erase the line between entertainment and journalism than ESPN.
Also, as someone who has spent a lot of time in both journalism and PR, I can say categorically that “they distort the truth, we report the truth” line is a load of horse shit reporters use to feel better about the fact that they’re paid like bathroom attendants.
Dave Strummer - January 20, 2012
What?! ESPN is synonymous with integrity and thought provoking programming
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
Y U EAT MY LINK SBNATION LINK FUNCTION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacked_Up!
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
I've worked in and around news and the media for the last decade
To journalists, truth is strictly whatever gets the most people reading their article or watching their segment. Journalistic integrity is dead and the idea of ethics in journalism is laughable.
Worldisart - January 20, 2012 via mobile
I'm a teensy bit less cynical than that
I know a lot of good, ethical reporters still doing very good work, but none of them work at ESPN.
Dave Strummer - January 20, 2012
I know one guy who's doing good work
But he does it under the auspices of digitaljournal.com which is far from a mainline media outlet.
I know a lot of bright reporters and journalists who would like to do some good work but are held back by their superiors.
Worldisart - January 20, 2012 via mobile
I don't see why everyone believes the UFC
I personally have known a few fighters who have been in the UFC (none in the past couple years) and they did not get paid very much. What you guys have to consider is even in a simple comparison of boxing to MMA a lot of promoters also pay for training camps for a boxer. When it comes to MMA the fighter pays his training camp. So when the ufc pays out let’s just say 5k to a fighter that does not pay for a training camp. And if it does it usually means the fighter training for that camp ends up helping other fighters train for their camps in return. Sponsors is where the fighter will try to make back his lost money from the UFC.
ESPN may have had some facts wrong but I am not sure why people seem to believe every word that comes out of Dana white or the UFC’s mouth. They are after their own best intrest and as we have seen in the past they just puff up their chest to try to make a point.
In other sports when reporters do pieces or reports you never see the coaches or GM’s pull a UFC. If the UFC ever fails as a company I think its going to be ego that kills them. Sometimes especially when you are dealing with the big leagues in media, take the high road.
t0dd - January 20, 2012
you haven't been reading the comments section much have you
Cory Braiterman - January 20, 2012
I think he barely understands the gist of what you are saying.
dandeman - January 20, 2012
UFC doesn't have the luxury to just "ignore" criticism from a major media outlet
Fox contract or not, the promotion is still a small-minded piece of legislation away from losing their empire. Furthermore, the UFC is well aware that the key to mainstream growth is educating casual sports fans who are likely at least somewhat curious about the spectacle but are turned off by the brutality, “two dudes hugging,” or some other roadblock. It’s situations exactly like this that win the future wars for the UFC and they know it.
Trust Doesn't Rust - January 20, 2012
This piece was done by a major media outlet, but it was for a show with a minuscule viewership. OTL and E:60 usually hover around 100K viewers. Zuffa could have ignored it and it would have been forgotten within a week. Instead, they attacked it, probably doubled it’s ratings, and now the story is part of the ‘news cycle’ of every MMA blog under the sun.
Making such a fuss about the show was a massive PR fail.
Steve4192 - January 20, 2012
As punishment for his slanted reporting,
Barr should be forced to sit still while the next UFC PPV is projected onto his ample forehead.
POW - January 20, 2012
Luke Thomas talked about the weird loyalist mentality UFC fans have for the UFC. He gave an example of a cult like chant from the crowd during the James Toney/Randy Couture fight where the crowd started to chant “UFC, UFC”. And he’s right, Dana has the UFC fan base trained like drones who blindly follow the doctrine of Dana. So whatever he says they believe because he’s the creator of this product they’ve become addicted to.
It reminds me of Barack Obama supporters in 2008, especially the young college students who would shout down someone by chanting “Obama, Obama, Obama” . They even chanted “Obama, Obama” during the inaugural ball when he and Mrs. Obama had their first dance as President and First Lady. It was like something out of a weird sci fi flick man.
The UFC has become a cult to a lot of people who just can’t stomach any type of criticism leveled at Zuffa. As if Dana and those guys can’t handle criticism…oh wait
CollegeDropIn - January 20, 2012
yeah, you never hear that at a Michigan-Ohio St football game or Premier League Soccer. Those UFC fans are a cult.
tigerlee - January 20, 2012
But the fans at a Michigan-Ohio St. football game aren’t chanting “BCS! BCS!” Nor are the fans at Premier League Soccer chanting “Premier League! Premier League!” It’s the difference between rooting for a team and rooting for a league. Fight fans chanting “Bones” are rooting for an athlete who fights under the auspices of a business. Fight fans chanting “UFC” are rooting (apparently) for the business. And that’s a little weird, in my opinion.
JoshSBooks - January 20, 2012
SEC SEC SEC SEC
You absolutely hear that at any game between an SEC team and a non-SEC team.
And that’s ONE example of a clear MMA vs Boxing fight. Nobody chants UFC UFC UFC at a Bones of GSP or Lesnar fight.
Jeremiah Johnson. - January 20, 2012
Never heard that outside of the Couture/Toney fight, it was an occasion not the norm. You can’t call people drones based on one instance of chanting ‘UFC’ during one fight over the course of the promotion’s history. People chant shit all the time, in every sport, it’s a real stretch to say Dana exerts any control over them.
tigerlee - January 20, 2012
I think it’s the fact that most UFC fans didn’t come from other sports, but they came from WWE. So they feel UFC is theirs and something they made and discovered so they need to protect it.
Also UFC fans have been programmed by Dana and the Zuffa controlled media who don’t want to get their press credentials pulled to always feel like the sport is right on the cusp of being bigger than the NFL, NBA, MLB and every other major sport so they get very defensive when any outside force tries to slow its growth since they perceive that as someone being scared of the UFC taking over. In reality, UFC seems to have already had its peak in 2009 and 2010 and seems to be tapered off a bit and settled into the level it’s probably not only going to operate in from now on, but also have to maintain to not taper off any further.
NoHo - January 20, 2012 via mobile
The Truth? LOL.
The UFC likes to throw childish tantrums at the grownup table, but to say that ESPN is out there to get the truth is ridiculous. This altruistic notion that this type of journalism is going for the truth is a big a joke as Dana’s petty grudges. If ESPN was so concerned about he truth, they would have done a better job presenting more sides to the story. Both sides looked terrible in this. There is no objectivity, everyone has an angle they’re trying to push, and agenda they’re trying to get across. I’m not saying that ESPN hates the UFC and wants to “get ’em,” but at the same time the white hat they’re trying to wear doesn’t quite fit, you know?
pud333 - January 20, 2012
What's too bad, is that he and Gross have some decent points
bout here and in their story. Dana’s treatment of the media IS childish and ultimately self-defeating. But it’s just so hard to take seriously given the baggage these guys bring to the table.
Dave Strummer - January 20, 2012
Yeah, ESPN could have done a really nice piece.
Instead, it was just badly done. And Dana’s gotta understand he can’t ball bust big news agencies like ESPN the way he shuns and makes fun of the “internet blogs.” It’s a different ball game.
pud333 - January 20, 2012
Why Not?
Also, a nice piece would have been covering the athletes maybe? They consitenly try to discredit the UFC.
Coeman - January 20, 2012
Thaty’s why I said ESPN isn’t really the good guy they’re trying to present them to be – going after the truth. What they do is far from it.
As for Dana’s reaction, I don’t expect the UFC to do nothing, but there’s a finess that they don’t seem to understand or care about. And that’s fine. It’s just they seem to expect everyone to bend down to them and if they don’t they feel like the can steamroll them with pure billigerence and confrontation. Sometimes less is more.
pud333 - January 20, 2012
There are some issues
You need to stand up for yourself. Dana have spared with many reporters like Ranallo and Kevin Iole he can take it and even if he doesn’t agree he still in relationship with theses reporters. I think its the way ESPN brings these stories it comes from a place that is intended to humiliate and hurt the UFC not necessarily an objective view.
Coeman - January 20, 2012
Man that transcript was painful to read.
Seems to me like this story needed a wee bit more work before being released. All it is really doing is making both sides look unprofessional.
NickRingp4pGOAT - January 20, 2012
Theres a good point hidden in all of this though
The UFC should be able to just let some things slide. They haven’t exactly helped themselves by going on about it so much. Maybe ESPN should just get over it too.
jim-ma - January 20, 2012
Why does the UFC throw boxing under the bus whenever they get criticized? It’s become an instinctive reaction at this point. “UFC fights are boring” “Boxing sucks” I mean come on.
CollegeDropIn - January 20, 2012
It’s a combat sport they’re competing with for viewers? Just throwing that out there.
tigerlee - January 20, 2012
I don't think the piece was particularly harmful
Nor was it as eloquently produced as John Barr at his best seems capable of, since he’s one of the more (read: only) intelligible journalists on ESPN. I don’t think he can be pleased with the end result, but hindsight is 20:20. It was a lazily done feature that would have been more carefully pieced together had they known the attention it would garner. That being said, Zuffa went overboard as they always do in their distaste for the final product. They certainly have a right to do so, but they need to expect increasing criticism and gather their thoughts as a professional entity before reacting. This should come as a wake up call to them in future matters such as these.
Charles Awad - January 20, 2012
Yeah that's the thing: The UFC made things worse by reacting the way they did.
The piece would have come and gone in a day or so, but instead, it’s been going on for days. The UFC gave it longer legs with their freakout.
pud333 - January 20, 2012
It's not necessarily the attention to the story that concerns me
It’s the attention to the reaction. I think it’s perfectly healthy for people to see this stuff and react however they want. If you really care, you dig deeper. People who make snap judgments are armchair politicos who don’t really know what they’re talking about, so they’re about as harmful to the growth of the sport as King Mo shaking energy drinks all over the cage like it’s a Cinco de Mayo parade. The piece itself wasn’t hard-hitting enough to cause real concern for me. These questions are worth asking.
Charles Awad - January 20, 2012
Genuine LOL moment. Thanks. Made my morning.
Yes, the questions are definitely worth asking. I just wish Dana and crew would realize there’s a time and place for everything and getting on a blowhorn whenever heat is thrown their way – as weak as it was in this case – isn’t always the right way of going about things. Personally, I didn’t think the piece was that hard hitting either.
pud333 - January 20, 2012
I agree with a lot of what John Barr has said…..
If the UFC wants to become a major sports organization in the viens of a MLB, NFL etc, they are going to have to take these criticism leveled against them.
Holding grudges and leveling gut shot reactions to detractors like ESPN, Josh Gross or Loretta Hunt only makes them look bad in the long run and IMHO will limit their growth
The UFC needs the media, it’s not the other way around. Even negative critism labelled against in certain cases can still put eyeballs on the sport
jack knight starman - January 20, 2012
It’s not that they have to take it, because they don’t. But their response should be less aggresive.
IRodC - January 20, 2012
I dont think they should have to take it but I dont think they should retort level 10 when a criticism is only say level 3. You need not go to extremes,
just do a video with Dana White where he hits them with the points that they fail, list them and then ask the viewers to judge their journalistic attributes and finish it by saying we at the UFC bring fighting at its purist form, for the entertainment of our fans. We care about our fighters and have done a lot of things others sports do not. Please go to UFC.com to see what the UFC is all about. ’
This kind of response would dig at ESPN but still not show the UFC going off the deep end. You can still speak in a low even tone and still have people scared the shit of you.
dandeman - January 20, 2012
I think the best thing that the UFC could have done is ask for a retraction. I also think retractions usually go unnoticed so I doubt it would’ve gotten any attention.
Question:
If ESPN doesn’t own to their mistakes is there any way that the UFC could sue for slander?
DayGeaux - January 20, 2012
I think it's possible
But how often does that happen to a major news organization?
Actually maybe I should be asking, how often is it reported?
jack knight starman - January 20, 2012
Chris Barton - January 20, 2012
A challenger to Guy Fieri's midlife crisis haircut title
menckenstein - January 20, 2012
This just reminded me my lease is up in June...thanks.
RECE ROCK - January 20, 2012
His name is John Barr, he's gonna sell you a car!
I miss that commercial.
ElliotMatheny - January 20, 2012
What matters here
Aren’t the facts of the story, whatever those may actually be. This is all about perception, and Barr’s right: the UFC comes off looking at best like cry-babies, and at worst their response actually lends more credence to ESPN’s claims. Whether the story was accurate or not is largely irrelevant; in a nutshell, the average reader (i.e. not us) is more likely to believe ESPN than the UFC. ESPN has already won here.
Patrick Wyman - January 20, 2012
Wishful thinking on your part.
Akemi Homura - January 20, 2012
Huh?
In a PR battle, the UFC isn’t going to beat the Worldwide Leader. That seems fairly self-evident to me.
Patrick Wyman - January 20, 2012
they don’t need to. The UFC got where they are without major help from ESPN, they can keep moving with Fox at the helm.
Phildo - January 20, 2012
I agree with that first bit about responding to criticisim
But not mentioning Kens relationship with the UFC or Riccos is irresponsible.
MaZZacare - January 20, 2012
The media needs to start being accountable for what they write they seem to think they are above reproach and that certainly isnt the case. This goes for everything from politics to sports etc.
The_Devil_You_Know - January 20, 2012
I like how he uses the NBA officiating...
…as an example of a critical piece they’ve done on other major sports orgs, but the difference here is that those stories were warranted and justified. This story about fighter pay was just ESPN picking a fight, as no one outside of hardcore fans and the fighters themselves seem to care at all about fighter pay. It wasn’t a major issue at all. If anything, the piece they should have done should have been on the grassroots MMA scene blossoming all over the nation or the popularity of the sport in developing nations like Brazil. That’s the real story. Also, ESPN airs highlight clips and favorable pieces about the NFL and the NBA 24 hours a day. What do they air about the UFC? How often does a clip from MMA make it on the network? About a hundred times less than soccer does, and we all know MMA is far more popular than soccer in this country. What about MMA Live, is airing it after midnight (and most often not even in the time slot it’s supposed to be) giving the sport of MMA fair shake? Hell no. ESPN pushes what they want, like with soccer, and ignores what they don’t want, like MMA. I’m just calling it how I see it, and clearly these guys have a beef.
TheBlackChip - January 20, 2012
And if they wanted to be fair and balanced...
…they could have at least mentioned all the major stars of the UFC that are millionaires. Anyone see Jon Jones’ Bentley lately? Seriously, who cares if these guys declined to comment, that doesn’t mean you can ignore that they exist. For every UFC cast-off that hates the promotion there are dozens that love it and are genuinely happy with their compensation. Why ESPN chose to completely ignore that aspect of the story is beyond me.
TheBlackChip - January 20, 2012
Dana and the UFC are going to have to lead to just deal with criticism, whether it’s warranted or not. It comes with the territory of being a major sport.
Gone are the days when UFC controlled the media because if someone was critical of them or not reporting on the UFC the way Dana wants them to, he could just pull their credentials and ban them from UFC’s
NoHo - January 20, 2012 via mobile
Exactly
That’s not going to work with an organization like ESPN
Let’s be honest. The UFC needs them (their covereage) more then they need the UFC
jack knight starman - January 20, 2012
Pretty much.
And what Dana and the UFC fan base doesn’t understand is that ESPN didn’t do that piece because they hate the UFC and want to bury it. They did it because they wanted to create controversy because that sells.
And it worked.
Hook, line and sinker, Dana and the UFC fan base fell for it and has made it a bigger deal than it needed to be, and that’s fine with ESPN. They got what they wanted.
NoHo - January 20, 2012
bffs
DamnSevern - January 20, 2012
DW looks like he's slightly developmentally disabled in this picture.
RECE ROCK - January 20, 2012
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
Charles Awad - January 20, 2012
I thought Dana's said that he's "never done the fist pose"...
BROCKLESNAR!!!!! - January 20, 2012
John Barr
I find his comments extremely passive aggressive. He is one of those guys who smiles at you while stabbing you in the back and at the same time asking you, “what’s wrong, are you okay?” People like that are just so… agghhhhrguwgu… you know?
Come6acKid - January 20, 2012
The fact that Volkmann, Roop, Phan, and McCorkle all went on record right after this article being very open about their pay shows me that this was a case of weak investigative journalism. All these guys are right in the fighter demographic that this article was targeting, and apparently he missed them, dispite the fact that McCorkle is very outspoken about everything, and Volkmann isn’t very shy either (He has been on FoxNews at least once).
dpk875 - January 20, 2012
What I find most amusing,
is that I haven’t heard much “UFC Fanboy”-ish criticisms of the piece.
I think John is just used to the old model of ignorant viewers blindly nodding to whatever is shovled their way. Now folks are a bit more proactive and do more research…and come to the shocking conclusion that the piece (particularly Gross’s dotcom piece) sucked.
And that equals attacked by fanboys?
jhf884 - January 20, 2012
Two different issues
One issue is whether the ESPN piece on fighter pay is fair and accurate. I’m not qualified to speak to that, but from the responses to previous articles, it seems like there are plenty of people on both sides of that one. The second issue — and the one that’s really at play at this point in the game — is whether the UFC’s response to perceived criticism is damaging to MMA’s prospects at achieving mainstream success.
Even if the ESPN piece WAS a hatchet job, the response has got to be the sort of response one would expect from a professional organization. One of the reasons that the NFL, NBA, and MLB can get away with responding to concussion-palooza, steroids, and handgun incidents with meaningless bromides and no real change is that the responses are delivered in a way that deflects future attention. Respectfully disagreeing, downplaying the severity of the issue, offering vague promises to “investigate” are all ways to defanging the piece without looking deranged.
JoshSBooks - January 20, 2012
In other words, Dana’s response was the executive equivalent of “Just Bleed!!!!!”
JoshSBooks - January 20, 2012
I haven't been following this story to closely.
I heard rumblings but decided to catch up on it. Is anyone surprised about ESPN doing this? I watch the Dan Patrick show sometimes and he rags on ESPN so much its funny he calls them the mother ship he had a guest on that wrote a book about them and some of the shady shit they do. It sounds like DP and the mother ship parted on pretty sour terms. He even does an occupy game day thing where they have the fans of his show go to ESPN’s college game day events and sabbotage them with signs if you try to bring in a sign with anything that has Dan Patrick or anything releated to his show on it they take it away from you. So ESPN has always been shady for christ sake they are owned by Disney.
nickrodamous - January 20, 2012
So basically.
take anything you see on ESPN with a grain of salt. Like an entire salt shaker.
nickrodamous - January 20, 2012
Blame Disney...
RECE ROCK - January 20, 2012
yup
I know your favorite movie is probably the little mermaid but disney is evil.
nickrodamous - January 20, 2012
No it's the Toy Story Trilogy...
Buzzzzzzz Light year to the Rescue!
RECE ROCK - January 23, 2012
What really kills me is that he admits ESPN doesn't cover enough MMA
and then basically says UFC should be happy to be getting this coverage… Why would the UFC be happy to get this bad coverage?
AfroSamurai - January 20, 2012
This guy talks
out of both sides of his rear.
You know?
KGW - January 20, 2012
ESPN guys really shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on handling of criticism. Didn’t they just fire one of their reporters for writing a book critical of them? After they gave him permission to write the book that was clearly going to be critical of espn?
Phildo - January 20, 2012
9/10th of Stories Worship Mainstream Sports
So when 1/10th of the stories are somewhat critical of NFL or NBA (usually in retrospect) it doesn’t carry much weight with me especially when they walk on eggshells with those sports as they usually do.
And yes Dana is defensive in general but it’s also not honest to pretend that ESPN has been completely fair & honest in how it represents the UFC & MMA presently and in the past.
kibbled_bits - January 21, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.