White’s Pay for Play Charges

Speaking with ESPN’s Bill Simmons last week, UFC’s Dana White dismissed the validity of media rankings by charging that some sites (or journalists) received “lots of money” from “the smaller promotions.” White was ambiguous over what exactly would be the result of that transaction, but dismissed the idea that Fedor Emelianenko or Jake Shields should be on anyone’s pound-for-pound list.

Despite the critical reaction to White’s comments, it’s unlikely he was suggesting promotions hand sites bags of cash in order to garner favorable coverage: he probably imagines a situation involving promotions paying for ad space and sites somehow feeling obligated to acknowledge their athletes in return. Either way, it’s something approaching slander. (Not to mention hypocrisy. More on that shortly.)

It’s less prevalent now, but there was a time when I was on a rotating shift of suspicion over having a paid-for bias for (or against) promotions. If an editorial had anti-UFC sentiment -- whatever that means -- I was charged with being paid by Strikeforce. The next week, the opposite. In literal terms, the idea that a business would establish a paper trail of paying for favorable coverage is ludicrous -- moreover, it applies far too much importance to the agenda of the media. You’re going to get good ink and bad ink, and singling out individuals makes precious little difference in the bigger picture.

In naming Shields and Emelianenko, White is likely making reference to either Sherdog or Yahoo’s rankings, both of which slot those men in their top 10. What burns his argument is that the voting pool for Yahoo's site includes Ariel Helwani, a very capable and respected interviewer who nonetheless receives compensation from Versus.com, a WEC business partner; another voter, Elias Cepeda, has seen his byline appear on UFC.com.

I do not suggest either man has been unduly influenced by their relationship with Zuffa -- not suffering from paranoid delusions, I would wager they’ve done nothing improper. But there is considerable irony in White fretting over payoffs when at least two voting members of the rankings he detests have closer ties with his businesses than others. (How offensive is the list? It contains only eight Zuffa athletes. For shame.)

There’s also the matter of radio host Scott Farrell -- best known as the most unfortunate ring announcer ever at Yamma Pit Fighting -- having his travel expenses paid for by Zuffa at one time. I would imagine no one involved expected Farrell to offer any real criticism of the shows he attended. The only evidence of promotional impropriety when it comes to journalists exists with the UFC.

As for White’s perpetual issue with ranking Emelianenko: if he does not belong on any list of the best, why did White offer him an unprecedented multimillion dollar UFC deal when he was a free agent? Is it customary to take an overhyped fighter and promise him lifetime financial security? What about Shields, who White doesn’t believe deserves a pound-for-pound ranking but is aggressively suggesting he not re-sign with Strikeforce? Shields just beat Dan Henderson and hasn’t lost in nearly six years. If he’s not a quality athlete, why bother signing him?

There’s no rational answer, save to say it’s all more dangerous hyperbole from White, who commands a legion of followers via his social networking efforts: if he claims media members are behaving improperly, a good portion will take it at face value. Having that platform has been a boon for his UFC, but comments like these are a strong indication he doesn’t feel any sense of responsibility. It’s nonsense.

Strikeforce, by the way, has an excellent show coming on June 16. Order Showtime today and use the coupon code “JAKEROSS” to get 15 percent off your first month’s bill.