Introduction

Since World War II, the face of American big business has changed dramatically. In the 1950s and ‘60s, chief executive officers of successful companies obviously made substantially more than their employees. At that time, CEOs made roughly 25 to 30 times what their average employee made. In the 1980s, big business practices changed. Factories were being moved overseas to capitalize on cheaper labor sources while government under the Reagan Administration infringed less and less on big business practices.

In 1980, the CEO of a major company made about 40 times that of an average employee. By 1990, the ratio rose to 100 times. In 2007, a typical CEO of a major company made 350 times the average company worker. Wal-Mart exemplifies this shifting trend in business relationships vividly. It was the largest U.S. company in 2005, and at that time, Wal-Mart’s CEO made 900 times that of the average Wal-Mart worker (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2011).

Forty, fifty years ago, CEOs were more compelled to maintain positive relationships with their employees and adhere to tighter governmental oversights. Employees also had stronger collective bargaining rights and better relationships with management. Today, management and owners maintain distance from employees through protective legal mechanisms and worker disposability that together, limit workers’ efforts to unite in fighting for fair pay, health care, retirement, education, and other potential benefits.

So what does all this have to do with mixed martial arts?

In 2001, Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta paid $2 million to purchase the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). It is common knowledge that the two brothers lost $44 million in their UFC investment from 2001 to 2004. But in April 2008, Forbes magazine reported that the UFC had skyrocketed in value to $1 billion. Assuming these figures are correct, then in seven years the UFC’s value increased nearly 500,000%. No, that is not a typo.

As stated from the 2008 Forbes article:

The majority of UFC revenues come from the monthly pay-per-view events. Additional cash is made from ticket sales to live fights and licensing fees form its Spike cable shows The Ultimate Fighter and UFC Fight Night. These shows in turn act as promotional tools to drive fans to pay-per-view events. More scratch comes from sales of DVDs and T shirts, as well as downloads from UFC’s library of past bouts.

In 2008, the UFC “generated a over a quarter of a billion dollars in business in gate receipts, UFC merchandise, and licensing fees” (Lim et al., 2010, p. 50).

At present it is difficult to say how much the Fertitta brothers make specifically from the UFC on an annual basis. For what it is worth, “Celebrity Net Worth” currently lists Lorenzo Fertitta's net value at $1 billion, though this would stem from much more than the UFC. And while the Fertitta brothers each own 45% of the UFC, the remaining 10% is owned by the company’s President and public face, Dana White, who is reportedly worth approximately $150 million.

Again, it is difficult, possibly impossible, to know what the three UFC owners make on an annual basis, or what percentage they each net from the UFC’s various revenue sources. But it is probably safe to say, they are making a substantial amount. Many would argue they deserve it – they had the vision and took the risks to build the UFC. They have persevered and profited under the capitalist system.

And so have some of their workers…

As noted in the prior piece in this series of essays, Georges St. Pierre made $8,000 in a winning effort at UFC 48; today a GSP win yields the current welterweight champ $400,000 – a 4,900% increase. Back in 2007 when Rashad Evans fought Tito Ortiz to a draw, he made $16,000; more recently after defeating “Rampage” Jackson, Evans was rewarded with $435,000 – a 2,618% increase. Clearly, as a UFC fighter’s star power rises, so can his salary. However, this is not necessarily the optimal way to analyze UFC fighters’ salaries over time.

Continue reading this post »

Introduction 

This is the third entry in a series examining fighter salaries from the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Strikeforce prior to Zuffa’s takeover of the latter promotion. More specifically, this series has illustrated how social stratification – inequality based on wealth, power, and prestige – is rampant among MMA fighters, both men and women. The present article will focus solely on the UFC, looking specifically at how fighter bonuses extend the precarious nature of the athletes’ livelihood.

Methodology

A more detailed description of the methods for this piece can be found here. In short, to collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter's publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis.

For this sample, a total of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter's "purse") were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located.

There are a few important limitations to these methods. First, the public compensation made to fighters within the UFC promotion does not include "backstage/locker room" bonuses that are given to select fighters by management (as noted by commenters in the first article using this data set). Nor does the data set include possible royalties that elite fighters may secure from pay-per-view buys, DVD sales, etc. (which would expand the stratification among fighters since middle and lower-tier fighters would likely not secure such compensation).

Findings

Fighter "excitement incentive bonuses" refer to the "X of the Night" bonuses fighters receive on each UFC fight card. These bonuses are typically awarded to four competitors: for "Fight of the Night" (given to both the winning and losing fighter in the card’s most exciting match), "Submission of the Night" (given to a fighter who wins via the most impressive submission on the card), and "Knockout of the Night" (given to a fighter who wins via the most spectacular knockout on the card).

All of these excitement incentive bonuses come in the form of supplementary income to the fighter’s guaranteed purse (i.e., "show" money), his possible win bonus, and on rare occasion are given to more than one fighter (e.g., sometimes two fighters may be given monetary awards for "Knockout of the Night"). A fighter may also "double up" on these awards; for instance at UFC 106, Josh Koscheck earned a guaranteed $53,000 to show, $53,000 to win, $70,000 for "Submission of the Night," and $70,000 for "Fight of the Night," thereby securing a total purse of $246,000. Among the sample examined in this study, these excitement incentive bonuses ranged in monetary value from $50,000 (given to awardees at UFC 108) to $100,000 (given to awardees at UFC 100).

Again, a total of 326 UFC payouts were examined. Of these 326 payouts, 57 (17.5%) included excitement incentive bonuses, and 269 (82.5%) had none of these bonus types. Contrasts were first made examining the 57 cases, comparing the fighters’ purses including these excitement incentive bonuses versus their purses had they hypothetically not received these bonuses.

Fighter Purses with Excitement Incentive Bonuses (N = 57)

• Mean: $147,477

• Median: $112,000

• Standard deviation: $92,570

Fighter Purses with Excitement Incentive Bonuses Subtracted (N = 57)

• Mean: $74,175

• Median: $36,000

• Standard deviation: $89,028

One can see rather clearly the abundant impact these excitement incentive bonuses have on fighters’ purses, nearly doubling the mean, and increasing the median (the best measure here) more than three times. Obviously for these fighters, the supplementary income is a significant reward. However, these data only present part of the information.

It is also important to compare the 57 fighters’ purses with the excitement incentive bonuses subtracted versus the 269 fighter purses in which none of these bonuses were given, presented, below:

Fighter Purses with Excitement Incentive Bonuses Subtracted (N = 57)

• Mean: $74,175

• Median: $36,000

• Standard deviation: $89,028

Fighter Purses, Never Received Excitement Incentive Bonuses (N = 269)

• Mean: $48,750

• Median: $20,000

• Standard deviation: $82,460

The key comparison here is that the median for fighters who received the excitement incentive bonuses stands at $36,000. Recall, that is the median value before their excitement incentive bonuses were included in analyses. In contrast, the median for those who never received the bonuses is only $20,000.

This discrepancy reflects two things. First and foremost, those who receive these bonuses are more often winners of matches (a relatively obvious point), who are therefore not only receiving these bonuses, but also in most cases a win bonus (unless they were losers who received a "Fight of the Night" bonus). Additionally, the discrepancy shows that a disproportionate number of fighters receiving these excitement incentive bonuses already have high status and can leverage better contracts should they not secure a supplemental bonus.

In short, the excitement incentive bonuses extend the inequality among fighters. It is far more common to see fighters with high profile names, still in top-tier competitive form who already make substantial incomes earning the excitement incentive bonuses (e.g., Dan Henderson, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones, Chris Leben, Rich Franklin). Conversely, aging fighters and those who are greener, who typically make less money, are less likely to receive these bonuses (e.g., Frank Trigg, David Loiseau, Goran Reljic, Todd Brown).

Of course since only 17% of the payouts in this sample included these particular bonus types, numerous fighters who compete in main events or co-main events do not receive them. However, these fighters are already making healthy incomes (e.g., Vitor Belfort earned $275,000 in a losing effort with no bonuses at UFC 126).

Continue reading this post »

Introduction

On August 15, 2009 Cristiane Santos and Gina Carano competed in a mixed martial arts match that had as much crowd anticipation and energy as virtually any men's match (see video).

While critics may suggest certain aspects of the match were sloppy or that the match did not yield pay-per-view buys on par with top UFC fight cards, one should also recall that generally speaking the women's MMA game has not been in play for nearly as long as the men's, and more importantly, as in most other sports, female athletes are not supported in the MMA industry as much as male athletes.

Since Zuffa (the UFC's parent company) announced earlier this month that it had subsumed the Strikeforce promotion, a number of analysts have discussed the precarious position in which fighters now see themselves (see for example, here). Narrowing the focus, a few pieces have noted the especially uncertain position of female fighters currently under the Strikeforce brand. Fowlkes' piece at MMAFighting.com offers particularly useful perspectives from three of Strikeforce's female fighters -- Sarah Kaufman, Marloes Coenen, and Miesha Tate: 

"I think one of two things can happen," said former Strikeforce champ Sarah Kaufman. "The first is that they embrace the females and still try to push them using the Strikeforce venue and then maybe pulling them over [into the UFC]. That would be great, if that were to happen. The second option would be, they run the contracts out and then that's it. I'm definitely hoping for the former, but I'm preparing for the latter."

"I believe that with the knowledge of the UFC, Strikeforce will grow even larger," said Coenen. "If Dana and the others see that women can bring him money, it will be good for us. What we need are the role models like Gina Carano and Miesha and hopefully me, as well, that women can relate to. ...I truly believe that if they can get the women's audience, and if they can identify with a girl next door like me or Miesha, then the female fanbase, which is way more loyal than the men are, will only grow from there. That's the way I think Dana and Zuffa should look at it."

"I know Dana White isn't a huge women's fighting advocate at all, and I know he's saying he'll honor the contracts, so immediately I don't think anything is going to change," said Tate. "But I'm a little concerned about when renegotiations come around for the women. I don't know how he's going to weigh our value and how we're going to get paid. I'm also more concerned about the big picture when the Showtime contract ends for Strikeforce. That's when I think there's going to be some big changes."

Tate's point regarding how female fighters are valued in the MMA indsutry can be further analyzed by examining female fighters' recent compensation in major MMA fight cards relative to their male counterparts.

Methodology

A more detailed description of the methods for this piece can be found here. In short, to collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter's publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127, as well as a sample of Strikeforce fighters' salaries who competed within the timeframe. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis. As noted previously, following UFC 127, Zuffa L.L.C. purchased the Strikeforce promotion, thereby putting the UFC and Strikeforce under the same ownership banner.

For the UFC promotion, a sample of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter's "purse") were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located. For the Strikeforce promotion, a sample of 8 fight cards were examined, with 156 payouts. For Strikeforce, two payouts were discarded from the analysis (one in which the majority of the payout was reportedly given to charity and second of which was paid in advance of the competition), rendering this portion of the sample to 154 (Total N = 480).

Analyses for this article will compare 18 cases specific to female fighters, all in the Strikeforce promotion, in comparison to their male counterparts in Strikeforce (N = 136) and in comparison to the combined cases of males from the Strikeforce and UFC promotions (N = 462). There are a few important limitations to these methods. First, the public compensation made to fighters within the UFC promotion (as noted by commenters in the first article using this data set noted) does not include "backstage/locker room" bonuses that are given to select fighters by management. Nor does the data set include possible royalties that elite fighters may secure from pay-per-view buys, DVD sales, etc. (which would expand the stratification among fighters since lower-tier fighters would likely not secure such compensation). Finally, reflecting gender stratification, the sample size for female fighters is very small.

Continue reading this post »

Introduction

In March 2011, the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s (UFC) parent company – Zuffa L.L.C. – purchased the UFC’s primary and only serious MMA promotional competitor – Strikeforce. In doing so, some have argued Zuffa L.L.C. has cornered the major MMA market. By essentially eliminating the competition, high-level MMA fighters are now deprived of options where they make take their talents and leverage their individual worth. As the MMA industry in the United States (and to a large degree globally) currently stands, only those promotions under the Zuffa banner can pay fighters a substantial amount of money for participating in a fairly dangerous line of work.

This article will be the first in a series that examines a sample of fighters’ salaries from both the UFC and Strikeforce promotions as a means of analyzing the industry before the merger.

Social Stratification

Social stratification is a sociological concept suggesting that society is divided into different layers based on wealth, power, and prestige. Wealth includes the amount of resources an individual or group holds; this includes financial resources and social networks that can provide access to resources. Power is defined as the ability to influence one’s own life and the lives of others. Prestige refers to the degree of status one (or a group) holds in society (e.g., popularity, respect).
These three components, of course, impact one another. A group with extensive wealth tends to have more power in influencing other groups. If one has a low level of prestige, he or she will have less life chances to acquire a substantial amount of wealth. A group with very little power will have a difficult time advocating for greater rights and resources.

Within the MMA industry, those with the most wealth, power, and prestige are typically promotional owners. They stand at the top of the socially stratified MMA world. As noted previously, however, the number of major MMA promotions across the global landscape is extremely small. Thus one may argue that as the number of major MMA promotions decreases (or fall under the same management), the owners of the large MMA promotions increase their wealth, power, and prestige.

MMA fighters in contrast, generally have less wealth, power, and prestige than owners. Moreover, there are stratified levels of wealth, power, and prestige among the fighters. Certain fighters are more connected to the owners than others, are more (or less) popular with the fans, and may have better (or less) resources at their disposal (e.g., an effective agent or manager).

The prestige and resources a fighter has impacts the amount of income one can push for on a contract. An important resource for a fighter is also his or her record. Ostensibly, a lengthy winning record over quality opponents helps leverage more money promised for competing in an MMA fight, assuming the fighter is still in competitive form.

It is a common perception that MMA fighters who make it to the “big time,” either having competed in the UFC or Strikeforce promotion, make a substantial income. MMA fighters, however, only compete at most four times per year, and it is far more likely that they compete roughly twice per year.

A fighter’s number of competitions each year is contingent upon numerous variables. A loss may lead to being released from a promotional contract. It is not uncommon for fighters to be injured in practice and then need to drop out of a fight. Fighters may have personal and/or occupational disagreements with promotional management that influences fights booked (or more likely, not booked). In short, if a fighter sits within a low level of the stratified MMA industry, he or she may get minimal fights per year.

Additionally, fighters’ purses vary immensely, which will be the focus of this article.

Methodology

MMA fighters do not have collective bargaining rights; they lack collective, organized power. Consequently, MMA promotions are not always required to release fighters’ salaries to the public after competition. However, commissions in some states require MMA promotions to make fighters’ salaries public. When this occurs, MMA websites typically report the information.

To collect data for this project, the available information was gathered from MMA websites for each fighter’s publicly stated earned income from UFC 100 to UFC 127, as well as a sample of Strikeforce fighters’ salaries who competed within the timeframe. Only major fight cards were examined for this project, essentially meaning cards that were held on a pay-per-view basis. As noted previously, following UFC 127, Zuffa L.L.C. purchased the Strikeforce promotion, thereby putting the UFC and Strikeforce under the same ownership banner.

For the UFC promotion, a sample of 15 fight cards were examined, in which 326 payouts (also known as a fighter’s “purse”) were made to fighters; fighter salaries for 13 UFC fight cards during this timeframe could not be located. For the Strikeforce promotion, a sample of 8 fight cards were examined, with 156 payouts. For Strikeforce, two payouts were discarded from the analysis (one in which the majority of the payout was reportedly given to charity and second of which was paid in advance of the competition), rendering this portion of the sample to 154.

Within the overall sample, a number of fighters competed more than once. For instance, Cris “Cyborg” Santos competed on four out of the eight Strikeforce cards examined; all four of her payouts were included and each was counted separately within the overall sample. Likewise as an example in the UFC, Brock Lesnar competed on three fight cards, and all three of his payouts were examined separately. The nine women’s matches were only in the Strikeforce promotion. Thus for women’s matches, there were a total of 18 payouts to female fighters; there were 462 payouts to male fighters, for a final sample of 480 payouts (N = 480).

Documentation was made if fighters won or lost their matches, and if a fighter won his/her match and was given a win bonus, what that bonus was in a dollar amount. For instance, in one match Fabricio Werdum was given $25,000 to “show” (i.e., compete), and since he won his match, he earned an additional “win bonus” of $25,000 for a total of $50,000. The $50,000 was the amount counted in the final analysis. The ratio of a win bonus relative to the “show” figure can fluctuate depending on each individual fighter’s ability to leverage a contract with the promotion. Chuck Liddell, one of the most popular MMA stars for instance, leveraged a flat rate of $500,000 to compete without any possible win bonus. Thus, even in losing his match, he still earned $500,000.

Finally within the UFC sample, “incentive” bonuses were documented. On each UFC fight card, a “Knockout of the Night” bonus is given to one fighter, a “Submission of the Night” bonus is given to one fighter, and a “Fight of the Night” bonus is given to two fighters. These incentive bonuses ranged from $50,000 to $100,000. The final value counted for each UFC fighter payout included incentive bonuses when applicable. On one card for example, Yoshihiro Akiyama received $40,000 to “show,” $20,000 to win, and $100,000 for “Fight of the Night,” earning him a grand total of $160,000 (the amount counted in analyses). Since he earned “Fight of the Night” by beating Alan Belcher, Belcher received his $19,000 “show” money and an additional $100,000 for also being in the “Fight of the Night.” Belcher’s $119,000 was likewise the amount counted in analyses.

Continue reading this post »

Promoted to the front page from the FanPosts by Luke Thomas.

For those who have not read Danny Acosta’s well researched article on The Ultimate Fighter (TUF), or Cannon Jacques’ follow-up commentary, I highly recommend both. At the heart of Acosta’s thesis lies the question, “Since ‘The Ultimate Fighter’ has entrenched itself as an institution, producers must decide what course it takes. Is it a factory for future champions like (Forrest) Griffin, or is it a haven for the kind of drunken, juvenile behavior (Junie) Browning exhibited?” As TUF’s ongoing trajectory illustrates, TUF producers appear to be searching for the latter.

Much has been written about the availability of alcohol on the show and its contributions to excessively immature behavior. As early as TUF’s first installment, we saw alcohol intensify conflicts between Chris Leben and Josh Koscheck & Bobby Southworth. In additional TUF 1 episodes, other participants were shown getting sloppy drunk and engaging in expectable behaviors. Since the TUF 1 experiment, alcohol’s availability has never appeared to diminish, suggesting that athletic development is not one of TUF’s primary objectives.

An institution trying to prove itself as a legitimate sport and deserving of mainstream sporting status would not normally market itself as one that facilitates its athletes in getting drunk, often times dangerously drunk. Not only is TUF a platform for the UFC used to hype future fight cards, but the UFC also heralds TUF as a building block for its athletic pool. True, other professional sports leagues have problems with athletes and alcohol consumption (among other things), but we do not see other accepted professional sports in our society assisting so overtly in athletes' alcohol consumption over healthy lifestyles.

If in fact the UFC wants MMA to be accepted as sport, it would push its future athletes to behave in ways that build athleticism and create an environment conducive to athletic excellence. Instead, the UFC and TUF producers appear to view juvenile behavior, dangerous behavior, and that behavior’s attendant ratings as paramount over the portrayal of MMA as a legitimate sport.

Furthermore, while alcohol’s accessibility is a central and severe problem with TUF, an attendant problem is the way conflict is formally structured into the reality show. Here I am not necessarily referring to the use of two opposing teams whose individual members compete from episode to episode. Those familiar with MMA training know that reliance on supportive teammates is crucial for serious mixed martial artists. Rather, I am referring to the way rivalries are constructed into seasons and the lack of mentorship/guidelines coaches could provide regarding appropriate behavior for an aspiring professional athlete.

Of the eight seasons aired to date, five have had coaches who were slated to subsequently fight each other. Not surprisingly in some of these seasons, the coaches were bitter rivals (Shamrock-Ortiz; Hughes-Serra; Penn-Pulver), and their coaching animosity was vividly evident in multiple episodes. In fact, the coaching conflicts appear to be a bigger focus of the TUF shows than coaches’ guidance in or out of sport. Moreover, with the exception of TUF 4 (The Comeback), a majority of the contestants are not mature men. They are young men, many of whom clearly need guidance beyond simply learning MMA fighting techniques. In turn, viewers witness the ramifications – a hodgepodge of degenerate actions that resemble anything but sport.

Despite TUF’s controversy being hashed out repeatedly over the blogosphere, one cannot help but wonder what lies ahead. In addition to a poor precedent being set with Junie Browning’s behaviors rewarded, Season 9 will have the winner of Dan Henderson versus Rich Franklin coach a U.S. team against Michael Bisping’s team of fighters from the United Kingdom. Thus, on top of having coaches on board who will fight each other (albeit who hold no known animosity), the opposing teams will represent different countries, thereby constructing a nationally-based rivalry. Clearly, Spike TV’s TUF producers are looking for ways to embed more conflict into the series, which compound with alcohol’s accessibility can only result in MMA being depicted at best as a fringe sport with marginal legitimacy. What alcohol laden conflictual arrangement will they think of next?

In the end, the UFC’s trademark outreach tool may entice certain viewers and build the organization’s popularity among a tremendously narrow demographic. However, TUF’s production strategies are more regressive than progressive when it comes to mainstreaming MMA, legitimizing MMA’s sporting status, and capturing a broader fan base that could help the sport thrive during these ominous economic times.

David Mayeda, PhD, is lead author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society

Promoted from the FanPosts by Kid Nate.

Although the headline of this blog focuses on a negative dimension of last night’s UFC fight card, I thought overall, the card was really great. With regard to the fights, Swick’s speedy disposal of Goulet and Koscheck’s dramatic knockout of Yoshida were extremely impressive. And despite Brandon Wolff being a local Hawaii fighter, I have to give it up to Ben Saunders – what a spectacular display of the clinch.

Most importantly, I thought the UFC’s production for their cause to fund the development of a research center for traumatic brain injuries was very well done. I’ve never supported the war in Iraq, but one cannot deny the need for research and services that benefit fallen soldiers.

For better or worse, my shtick tends to be noting social concerns in MMA and providing my attendant political perspectives. The one thing that did bother me about last night’s "Fight for the Troops" was the negative welcoming (i.e., booing) directed towards main event fighter and Japanese national, Yoshiyuki Yoshida.

It is common knowledge among hardcore MMA fans that American Kickboxing Academy welterweight, Josh Koscheck, is not normally a fan favorite. At the weigh-ins for his fight against Thiago Alves, Koscheck was the fighter being booed. Now pitted against a Japanese national at an event that clearly had a backdrop of emphasized American patriotism, all of a sudden Koscheck became the fan favorite.

This is not 1882, during a time when America was ensconced in a discriminatory hysteria of "Yellow Peril." This is not 1941-42, when America decided to incarcerate approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans along the American West Coast out of racist fear that they would sabotage our country. This is not even the 1980s when the America was so threatened by Japan’s auto industry that Asian Americans were targets of the most severe racial discrimination in cities reliant on car production.

Had Koscheck’s sudden support and Yoshida’s booing fallen under those types of contexts, the fans’ behavior, while deplorable, would have at least been understandable – a sign of the times when anti-Asian racism was more overt. However, in this context, there was literally no reason to boo Yoshida. His pre-fight comments could not have been more respectful. At "worst," his comments exemplified confidence, but what professional athlete shouldn’t have confidence going into a competition? Furthermore, our country is not in any type of conflict with Japan.*

This notwithstanding, in this militaristic and patriotic fight context, the Japanese national was still turned into the bad guy to such a degree that Koscheck, a fighter who fans usually love to hate, became the overwhelming fan favorite. As a Japanese American, whose father served in the United States navy, I take exception to this personally. And on a broader social level, it is bothersome to know that simply because an athlete is from anther country, he or she may still be booed in 2008.

Undoubtedly, some readers will get through this post, roll their eyes, and think that I am some hypersensitive liberal, fixated on something completely inconsequential. To this, I have a few comments. The fact that virtually nobody in the MMA media addresses race is astounding (although there are exceptions). Even UFC President, Dana White, readily admits that the UFC fan base is overwhelmingly Caucasian (listen to the tail end of Colin Cowherd’s ESPN radio interview with Dana White from Dec. 9, 2008, the "noon" segment found HERE). Among sports sociologists like myself and mainstream sports media, race is a controversial, but fairly common topic of discussion. But in MMA, for whatever reasons, race is darn near taboo, and that in itself is a problem.

There are bigger problems in our world, and there are probably bigger problems in MMA. However, when an athlete is booed simply because he or she is Japanese (or any other nationality/ethnicity) this cannot be completely dismissed, trivialized, or laughed upon. If it is, what does that say about the mixed martial arts industry and us as a fan base?

David Mayeda, PhD, is lead author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society

* This is not to argue that if our country is in conflict with another, that serves as justification to discriminate against a fighter from such and such country. If, for example, Koscheck was taking on a mixed martial artist from Iraq, the Iraqi fighter’s nationality would be no reason to boo him. Under our current global circumstances, it would simply be more understandable, though equally regrettable.

Promoted by Kid Nate.

I was boycotting TUF this season. Prior to last night, the most I'd seen of any TUF 8 episode was one or two of Phillipe Nover's fights. However, after watching Miguel Torres dissect Manny Tapia, I was drawn into watching TUF, intrigued by a commercial showing Junie Browning throw a glass at another contestant.

Based on Nevada's Revised Statutes, Junie Browning's actions warranted an arrest, likely for a misdemeanor assault or at the least for terroristic threatening. Instead of booting Junie from the show, Dana White asked the other contestants if Junie should be expelled or fight Efrain Escudero as a kind of punishment under the presumption that Escudero would win given Browning's insecurities. Honestly, was anybody surprised that the fighters decisively chose to have Browning remain on the show and face his fears by competing?

As we now know, Browning lost. However, his loss did not represent justice by any means. His loss was convenient. The fact that Browning was allowed to fight at all was an injustice to MMA and hypocritical. The UFC and Dana White have done a great deal to legitimize MMA as a sport and disassociate it from street violence. But on episode 12 of TUF 8, MMA was turned into an arbitrating institution for non-sporting violence.

Rather than expel Browning from the show, as Dana White said should have been done three times, sanctioned mixed martial arts competition was used as a means to settle a violent non-sporting conflict. Not only had Browning just committed a violent offense, but he and his opponent (Efrain Escudero) apparently also had a strong disliking for each other. Hence the solution? - Throw 'em in the cage.

I suppose this makes for good ratings. Heck, the commercial finally got me to watch a full episode of this season of TUF. But what message is the UFC - the world's premier MMA organization - sending about sanctioned mixed martial arts? That one of its functions is to solve street violence?

MMA is evolving; we just witnessed its positive evolution via the great mainstream sports media coverage of UFC 91. Why bring the sport back down by turning it into an institution that manipulates our concept of justice?

David Mayeda, PhD, is lead author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society

Fronted by Luke Thomas.

Good morning from the Aloha State (may be afternoon where you are, but not here).  I just read through Luke Thomas' post, "Why Any Mature or Reasonable Person  Doesn't Enjoy "The Ultimate Fighter 8" and its subsequent comments.  Personally, I stopped watching TUF this season precisely because of the in-house antics.  I was on the fence in season 5 after the two contestants got into a legitimate fight by the campfire and the other bystanders either encouraged it or did nothing to stop it. Now, I simply read the TUF blogs across the internet and shake my head when I read about behavior that aired last night.

First off, what follows is long, way too long for a typical internet blog entry, so if you don't want to read the whole thing, I completely understand.  It's a portion from a chapter in my book which addresses media portrayals on MMA fighters with a major focus on TUF.  The contents obviously have my own spin, but are also heavily influenced by my interviews with TUF contestants like Chris Leben, Anthony Torres, Travis Lutter, and coach Randy Couture, as well as interviews with non-TUF MMA fighters (e.g., Guy Mezger, Dan Henderson, Tony Fryklund) and hobbyists about TUF. Bottom line, I argue TUF - the single most important media outreach source for MMA that introduced the sport to the mainstream - simultaneously perpetuates deletereous stereotypes of MMA fighters and in the end stymies the sport's growth. Enjoy or hate...

Continue reading this post »

Fronted by Kid Nate. Flattered to have you posting here Dr. Mayeda!

When I interviewed "Rampage" Jackson back in 2006, he said of boxing and MMA:

I think the boxing community is player hatin’ on us ‘cause you have the athletic commission, it’s often called the boxing commission, and they’re over MMA too. So I think we’re getting player hated on a little bit ‘cause we’re comin’ up and they’re goin’ down. Right now all the heavyweight champions are Russian, except for one, and it’s bad for boxing right now. In America, boxing is going down fast, and mixed martial arts is goin’ up fast. So people can’t just be happy for each other and work together.

"Rampage’s" point regarding the international flavor that now characterizes many of boxing’s top athletes illustrates the separate directions in which the two sports are moving. Like boxing, MMA has an enormous number of mixed martial artists not from the United States. However, American MMA fans have embraced some of those from foreign soil, such as Georges St. Pierre, Anderson Silva, Wanderlei Silva, and even Mirco Filipovic not too long ago. On the contrary, how many American fans get behind the likes of Manny Pacquiao or Wladimir Klitshko? More to the point, how many mainstream American sports fan even recognize those latter names?

Historically, boxing’s fan base has been immensely diverse in terms of socio-economic status. Boxing has always had its upper-class fans who reveled in watching minorities of color bash each other into oblivion. But boxers of the past also stood for working- and lower-class communities and symbolically represented those communities’ needs. Over the decades, this influenced urban youth of color prior to the 21st century to identify (often times politically) with Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Oscar De La Hoya. On the contrary, MMA’s development was much more sudden and immediately took on an international identity when Royce Gracie dominated the UFC in the mid- to late-1990s.

Yet when the UFC began attaining mainstream sporting status as a result of The Ultimate Fighter (TUF) in 2005, many of the champions who built the organization at that time came from wrestling backgrounds – a sport whose demographics tend to be much more white and middle-class. Just look at the first four coaches on TUF. Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, and Matt Hughes were the UFC poster-boys, all of whom came from strong wrestling backgrounds. Likewise, Rich Franklin was heavily marketed as a proud UFC representative, commonly celebrated as a high school math teacher with a masters degree. None of these heroes who took MMA into the sporting mainstream represented urban America, and certainly not communities of color.

In turn, MMA has had difficulty reaching America’s urban demographic, which boxing captured for decades. In most working-class, urban communities across the United States, it is still easy to find boxing gyms where memberships are not terribly expensive. Locating a pure boxing gym in an upper-middle class American neighborhood is virtually impossible. In comparison, MMA gyms are popping up all across American suburbia, and it is not uncommon for monthly membership costs to exceed $200 if one wants to learn the multiple fighting disciplines that comprise MMA.

Said MMA veteran fighter Antonio McKee, who owns and operates The Body Shop Fitness in Lakewood, California in a personal interview, "There are very few African Americans who own their own gyms and who reach out to kids from the inner city. We’re gonna see more African Americans and fighters of African descent dominating in MMA, like "Rampage," Anderson Silva, and Yves Edwards, but because the gyms aren’t bringing in the kids from ghetto, it’s gonna take longer for MMA to have a big urban fan base."

The real key to building a truly diverse fan base and assemblage of fighters over time lies at the grass roots levels through the gyms. Tiger Woods has not built an extensive African American fan base for golf because golf is still an inaccessible sport for most African American communities, or working-class communities irrespective of race. Let’s face it, golf’s general demographics have not changed to the degree people thought they would after Tiger stormed onto the golf scene back in the late 1990s. The same is true for tennis – Venus and Serina Williams and James Blake have not stimulated an enthusiastic wave of young African American athletes who now try to break into tennis.

The National Basketball Association is popular among multiple socio-economic and ethnically diverse communities not only because it is an exciting sport, but also because youth from numerous demographics play basketball and remain fans into adulthood. As Antonio McKee suggests, if MMA gyms do not begin increasing their outreach efforts to urban communities and make MMA training programs affordable to all families, MMA will remain a sport whose fan base and fighters are disproportionately Caucasian and upper class.

David Mayeda, PhD is author of the book, Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society

Fronted by Luke Thomas.

MMA 808: INSIDE HAWAII'S FIGHT GAME (Documentary)

URL to see the documentary in its entirety - http://pacificnetwork.tv/mma-808.asp

Aloha members of Bloody Elbow,

For the past six months, I have been working with PacificNetwork.tv to create a documentary on MMA in Hawaii.  Titled "MMA 808: Inside Hawaii's Fight Game," our one hour documentary takes a behind the scenes look at Hawaii's mixed martial arts industry. 

"MMA 808" tracks amateur MMA fighter, Steven Saito, into his first full MMA match, mentored by Chris Leben and Travis Ewing.  It follows the 42 year old Egan Inoue and his family through Inoue's come-back match with Hans Marerro, a competitor 20 years Inoue's junior.  And it showcases the story of B.J. Penn and his family as they built their family gym in Hilo, Hawaii. 

In addition, "MMA 808" pays significant attention to women in the sport, youth in MMA, the pros and cons of regulation, MMA's influence on street/internet violence, and civic responsibility.  Also included are exclusive interviews with UFC President, Dana White, and ESPN's Jon Anik of MMA Live.  It was a lot to pack into one hour! 

We hope this documentary pushes the MMA industry in some positive directions, not only in Hawaii, but internationally.  Feel free to write me here for questions and comments (feedback is greatly appreciated).  Thanks to Luke Thomas, BloodyElbow.com Editor in Chief, for your help and support.  Also of note, this documentary preempted the entire broadcast of the CBS 10:00pm news across the entire state of Hawaii this past Saturday night.  Yes, we canceled the news!  Kind of crazy...

David T. Mayeda, PhD

URL to see the documentary in its entirety - http://pacificnetwork.tv/mma-808.asp

YouTube Preview:

Fronted by Luke Thomas.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BLOOD SPORT OR MISUNDERSTOOD?

MMA 808 - Inside Hawaii’s Fight Game

Mixed martial arts… MMA.  The fastest growing sport in the world and Hawaii is home to some of its most elite players: BJ Penn, Chris Leben, Egan Inoue and Kendall Grove.

In a one-hour televised special, award-winning filmmaker and Executive Producer, Edgy Lee, in collaboration with co-writer, David Mayeda, PhD, author of “Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society,” and co-director Johann Bouit, present…"MMA 808 - Inside Hawaii's Fight Game", a behind-the-scenes look at MMA featuring rare interviews with BJ Penn, Chris Leben, Egan Inoue; actor, Jason Scott Lee, ESPN’s Jon Anik, President of the UFC, Dana White, and many more.

Clearly, MMA’s evolution in Hawaii is complex and sparks high emotions of support and resistance.  This program asks us to examine our tolerance for violence as entertainment.

If mixed martial arts is the fastest growing sport in the world and clearly a potential revenue pathway for west coast and Asian fans, who will step up?  Government? Promoters? Coaches? Players?  Fans? Who will step up and take responsibility for MMA’s impact on this and the next generation?

MMA 808, Inside Hawaii’s Fight Game addresses these provocative issues.

MMA 808 Broadcast information:

KGMB 9 Hawaii, Saturday October 4th @ 10pm (immediately following CBS’ EliteXC MMA event)  and PacificNetwork.tv  (global platform) October 5th through 2008.