USA Today responds to UFC payola allegations

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

La Paix

Fuck this place
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
38,273
64,597


Karim Zidan and John Nash speak to various past and present USA Today representatives to analyze the recent payola allegations made by UFC President Dana White.

Dana White's twitter tirade took an interesting turn on Thursday night. Apart from lashing out against fans on social media with various references to obesity and intelligence, he topped it off with a controversial tweet that referenced USA Today. So questionable was the tweet that Deadspin speculated that White was shedding light on a potential pay-to-play partnership between the media conglomerate and the largest promotion in Mixed Martial Arts.

The allegations are not recent ones; the Internet is sprinkled with articles dating back several years that speculated that a relationship existed between the UFC and the USA Today-owned MMAJunkie.com. However, none have been able to provide substantial evidence to incriminate either party.

BloodyElbow reached out to USA Sports Media Group President David Morgan for an official comment on White's potential allegations. Morgan was unsure why White would offer such a statement and was quick to invalidate it.

"I was surprised to see [Dana White's comments]," Morgan informed BloodyElbow. "There is no substance to them. I honestly have no idea what was going on with Dana at that point."

Morgan went on to explain that the UFC, like many other sports organizations, purchases advertising space across at USA Today outlets, yet that does not infer a specific agreement between the two entities.

"Promotions buy advertising across all of our platforms like every other sport. There is no specific deal with the UFC. We do not have an agreement with them."

According to a source previously employed at USA Today, the newspaper's decision to begin covering MMA was based on web traffic and took place long before the promotion even began purchasing ad space on USA Today. However, the UFC likely paid for insert sections in the newspaper, which is what other sports did as well. However, according to the source, this had no impact on editorial decisions, as the insert section also included posts covering Strikeforce and other competing MMA promotions.

Beau Dure, a USA Today sports editor who was responsible for the MMA section between 2008-10, spoke to BloodyElbow about his time working for the media conglomerate.

"I felt that, maybe because we were the nation's largest newspaper, Dana wasn't going to push us around," Beau told BloodyElbow. "I felt like I had a lot of freedom and I covered all the controversies. The UFC was professional about that. They obviously didn't want to say too much but they weren't any different to any other league to work with. I never felt like I was on a leash. If he was paying for my coverage, then he must have paid for me to go cover the Affliction: Fedor vs Barnett press conference."

However, Beau noted that his understanding of the UFC-USA Today relationship only encompasses the time which he was with the newspaper, which was until 2010. He is aware that much has changed with USA Today's coverage since purchasing MMAJunkie.com.

Read more here...

USA Today responds to UFC payola allegations - Bloody Elbow
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jason73

Yuri Bezmenov was right
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
72,789
134,171
one of these days the real media is going to catch wind of something dana has done or said and bury him.
 

Judobill

First 100
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
5,979
10,057
Is this a surprise? If there is full page ad for an upcoming UFC event, there are also articles about the fights. No ads, nada coverage. It's obvious. Even a retard like me can see it.
 

dacofty

Yea..Ok..Whatever
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
9,485
9,454
If i had to guess id say that the UFC does pay for press and that the USA Today has written UFC friendly articles and will continue.