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."
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.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.
"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.
"There were odd things and people I didn't know that turned up when Dana visited the building but I never felt like I was on any sort of leash. To see a tweet like that - obviously things have changed now - USA Today MMA coverage is MMAJunkie.com. Whatever is in the paper is written by MMAJunkie staff. So it is certainly a different relationship now."
While discussing the allegations and the longstanding speculation that there has been a partnership between USA Today and the UFC, Beau mentioned that much of the underlying trouble stems from the assumption by fans that media members credentialed by the UFC are required to toe the line and are therefore questionable sources of information.
"If you are credentialed by the UFC, then it is almost assumed that you are a little bit corrupted," he explained. "It has less to do with the actual people credentialed and more to do with the fact that Dana has thrown so many people out. That was something that I was certainly aware of when I was working for USA Today full time. I knew that the feeling was that if you were inside the circle that you had to be compliant."
Given Dana's history of banning media members like Loretta Hunt and Josh Gross, it is understandable why some would question those who are able to get access. However, USA Today says they have nothing to hide regarding their relationship with the UFC.