Zuffa, Tyranny and Managers: An Imaginary Clusterf*ck

By Josh Stein on Apr 01, 2009

This is Monte. He has job security.

For those who haven’t seen Loretta Hunt’s latest piece on the UFC’s removal of managers from backstage, it’s an interesting piece of journalism, but perhaps what’s most interesting is that her two named sources, Monte Cox and Ken Pavia, seem totally indifferent to the issue of banning managers backstage.

Of course, there are some managers who are very upset about no longer being allowed backstage. Two “parties” (and I use the term because we have no idea who they are), seem very frustrated that they were not issued permits for the last UFC and UFN events.

What seems to be the meat of Hunt’s article, is overlooked in a scatterbrained attempt to illustrate the problem. Normally, I would just link to her piece, but I think that it’s worth reading something a little more concise, because, whether you (the fans, generally), know it or not, the loss of managers backstage can have an impact on you. Plus, it gives a lot of insight into the way that Zuffa runs their promotion.

So, let’s look at what the problem actually is. It boils down to two things: the way that Zuffa tries to manipulate fighter finances and the role of managers backstage.

Zuffa as the Evil Empire

Admittedly, this sounds like a conspiracy theory, so I’ll try and stay in the concrete, and keep from sounding like I’ve got my hair up in a tin-foil hat.

Zuffa has worked hard to keep the focus of their promoting on their own promotions. They are careful not to reference other fighters positively, as much as is humanly possible, and they shudder at the prospect of having other organizations clinging to their coattails. The UFC, especially (though this is true for the WEC too), is careful to keep other promotions from having their names slipped in, and this has a lot to do with managers.

All of the UFC fighters who were sponsored by Affliction (and this made up a huge percentage for a long time) were seriously restricted in their ability to advertise for Affliction as soon as the t-shirt company added that strange appendage that holds fights for Fedor Emelianenko. As soon as the interests of the fighters, a way that they make money (by selling space on their chest and back as they make their way into the cage), became an advertising venue for the UFC’s competition, they ended the practice.

Monte Cox points this out in Hunt’s article, but the point is largely overlooked. Having a manager backstage is one thing, but preventing a manager from negotiating with certain companies by forcing options from the table is something that bothers a lot of the people in management. They maintain that it shouldn’t be the promotions job to make decisions that impact a fighter’s sponsorship, and perhaps their’s some truth to that. It’s certainly a restriction on their ability.

Managing from the Locker Room

It would be absurd and shortsighted of me to say that a manager serves no purpose backstage. Certainly, it’s good for a manager to be there to make sure a fighter is getting paid properly, but that’s hardly a key roll. If the UFC is, honestly, looking to reduce backstage traffic (which is a serious problem at a lot of MMA shows, not just the UFC events), then the managers are an easy group to remove.

What unique function does a manager provide backstage? There are rarely negotiations that take place backstage (“rarely” being a way of saying none without ruling out the possibility of something absolutely bizarre happening). Moral support is generally best offered by the coaching staff, or at least the fighter’s mother. These are basic functions anyone can serve.

Plenty of managers are happy to watch from the stands, because the battles a manager fights are behind the scenes, but they’re not during the event. The roll of a manager is to get his fighter in the ring and make sure that the paycheck he gets after the event will sustain him until the next time he steps in, and to make sure that companies plaster their logo wherever they’re willing to pay to put it.

Some managers are also coaches and cornermen, but those guys will stay around, and continue to be credentialled, in their capacity as coaches and cornermen. The purpose of the UFC’s mandate, however manipulative, only prevents the managers from doing something trivial.

So I return to Monte Cox’s point:

I’m more concerned about who we can or can’t have as sponsors now, something that takes money directly from the fighters.

Me too.

Frankly, the notion that the UFC is playing a roll in fighter sponsorships is really bothersome. Unless the fighters are getting paid what pro-boxers are, then I have a hard time seeing an argument for sponsorial exclusivity. The UFC’s decision does border on tyrannical, a term I only use because I think it’s a really stupid thing to do to fighters, as it takes a lot of money out of their pockets.

Of course this is a miss. Of course the feelings of anonymous sources are going to be hurt. That said, it’s not the end of the managing profession. Fighters, for the most part, are intelligent enough to know that the promoters will screw them if they get the chance.

Everyone has learned from the parable of Mike Tyson and the King with 500 volt hair. Those informed fighters understand the purpose of management and aren’t going to let their agents stray from the negotiating table just because the guy can’t watch them get their hands wrapped. It doesn’t work like that. In a lot of respects, the UFC is the Evil Empire, but this is not one of them.

Filed Under: MMA

Tags: Dana White • Ken Pavia • Monte Cox • UFC

About the Author: Joshua Stein is a writer and editor for MMA Opinion. He has worked as a photographer and journalist and has a number of print journalism credits. He also works as a moderator for MMAForum.com and a grappling columnist (covering judo, collegiate wrestling, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and submission grappling) for profighting-fans.com.