UFC Boss Dana White Comments on Gun Ban

January 27, 2012
Comments off

The right to carry arms is a freedom of U.S. citizens, but UFC fighters won’t be able to carry their brand names on their shorts or banners any longer.

UFC president Dana White confirmed on Thursday that any gun-related brand will no longer be allowed to sponsor UFC fighters in the Octagon.

“Yeah, guns and ammo are not sponsored in the UFC,” White said following the pre-fight press conference in Chicago.

Reports circulated that the UFC’s relationship with Fox may have something to do with the ban of gun-related sponsors. The UFC president admitted some relevancy, but advised the ban has more to do with the organization’s efforts to expand internationally, and is not an issue to fuss over. White explained that fighters feel the effects of such a ban, but that’s just the way things are.

“It wasn’t necessarily a Fox decision. I don’t know what the big deal is,” White said. “I know that some of the fighters get affected by it, but it is what it is.

“The reality of it is we’re going into other countries now. If you’re sitting in China, you want to see a United States Marine commercial? Holy (expletive), no! It’s all part of the growing pains of building a business like this and building the sport.”

The UFC has history in banning sponsors for a number of reasons. Some of the more notable bans from recent history have been names such as Affliction – which is no longer banned – and CondomDepot.com.

The Good4U Drinks company, another banned brand, was told by UFC officials in 2010 that their product was seen as a direct competitor of Zuffa-owned Xenergy, and wouldn’t be allowed sponsorship of fighters for UFC fight cards. UFC heavyweight Shane Carwin, who was sponsored by Good4U at the time, made his displeasure known by tweeting, “another worthy, great, honorable company supporting fighters banned by the UFC.”

Carwin’s post was later removed from his Twitter timeline.

Like most other sports entities, the sponsors the UFC often refuses conflict with other sponsors or interests already ingrained with the promotion, such as the case between Good4U Drinks and Xenergy. Other brands that promote subjects that the promotion doesn’t feel fit its image, like this case with firearm related sponsors, are often refused.

Follow @Erik_Fontanez on Twitter or e-mail Erik Fontanez.
For more 
UFC News and UFC Rumors, follow MMAWeekly.com on Twitter and Facebook.

  • Such an ignorant and stupid decision

  • bajafox

    Don’t agree with it but it is what it is.

    If it does have anything to do with FOX then they also need to ban Joe Rogan

  • “the gun store” sponsorship was kind of bush league anyway.

    As time goes on I think shorts and banner sponsors will be done away with as well (for FOX, FX and Fuel aired programming anyway). The whole “ambush marketing” thing can’t sit well with the network execs at FOX whose revenue comes from selling ad time during the broadcast.

  • maddawgmar

    This is ridiculous. If a fighter is getting paid by a brand to wear there logo, who is the UFC to tell them no. The fighters don’t make great money like boxers, so they have to supplement thier income somehow. Maybe I’m bias in this because I am an advocate for gun rights laws, but I don’t care, this is a BS reason, expanding internationally. I don’t think the Chinese is gonna care if some fighter is wearing a Winchester logo on thier ass. Does that mean that a Marine fighter has to cover his EGA tatt. Another way for Corporations to impeed free enterprise.

    • MikeMc1983

      Really? Okay, I understand.

      So if buger king decided to pay some McDonald’s employees to wear Burger King logo outfits while they’re working that should be fine. Who is McDonald’s to tell their employees what they can wear. It’s not like the guy running the register makes much money. He needs all the money he can get.

  • bbtakayama

    Why are MMA fans so fuc*ing sensetive? Always crying about how people don’t get paid enough, Dana White is a meany, now I can’t look at pictures of guns on my favorite fighters a*s. Get the f*ck over it.

    This is a privately owned business. It is run by the Fertita’s and Dana White, if you don’t like the way they do business, don’t be involved. Seems pretty simple to me.

  • sirreadsalot10

    If I understand this correctly, the US Marine Corps will no longer be affiliated with the UFC. That is a shame. As a former Marine, I have always been proud of the relationship between the Corps and the UFC.

  • smill0313

    Just bugs me a bit because a lot of these banned brands have been around since the times when the ufc could barely get a sponsor, and now the ufc is basically saying ‘we don’t need your type anymore’. I understand the need to appeal to a broader audience, especially when going global. No, Chinese people probably won’t want to see a us marine commercial anymore than the Brits or Canadians. Just keep it to your commercial and mat advertising. There is no need to ban who a fighter puts on THEIR shorts. Does this mean Stann couldn’t have a marine corps logo on his shorts? Or an American flag for instance? This ends with fighters eventually wearing nothing but ufc logos on their shorts, like a lot of other professional sports.

  • webs24

    the UFC has every right to control which companys names are shown during their programming.
    Just like NFL players etc. who get fined for uniform violations.
    they are employees of a company, as sad as it is if they dont like it, they are free to leave

  • webs24

    this is not surprising at all though, being that they jumped ship from Spike TV to get a bigger payday with FOX
    Its all just a business, nothing personal

  • maddawgmar

    Your comparing apples and oranges. How is a gun company a competitor to the UFC. And in a business that is driven by endorsements, a fighters sponsors is how they make a living. A McDonald employee make there money, however small it is, by flipping burgers.

    But to play your game, if a McDonalds employee were payed to wear adidas, and they did, McDonalds has no right to tell them they can’t. Adidas is a brand not a competitor, same as let’s say glock isn’t a competitor to the UFC.

  • webs24

    of course mcdonalds has the right to tell them what to wear, or else they wouldnt be wearing uniforms

    anyways to the guy thats getting uptight about the marines, Dana didnt say the marines were banned, he was just using it as an analogy

  • gregoryladewig

    Yeah…I’m done with this jag bag. No longer a UFC fan. I’m going to find something else to support.

  • CSB

    Dana, you’re an idiot! You ask what the big deal is? These men that are going out and fighting for your company are not paid much as it is, they are doing everything they can to make up for the lack of money you pay them. Without them, you are nobody! If it’s not a big deal then why don’t you make up the difference of what each of these fighters are losing because of your stupid new rule. In other words, put YOUR money where your mouth is. It’s not a big deal to you because you are losing any money. Why don’t you ask some of your fighters how much they’re losing. This just proves you are out for you and nobody else. I think that signing this contract with FOX is fantastic because it is only a matter of time before you drive your company in to the ground so that somebody with some business sense can pick it back up and do it for the fighters instead of just themselves. So it’s OK to have alcohol sponsors and condom sponsors but you can’t have sponsorships that are part of our Constitution. Wow, it’s really too bad because I sure enjoy the product but hate the company!

  • He will allow condoms but not guns, HS,WHY NOT BAN ALL ADVERTISING.I would rather see a logo for a gun mfg than a condom.He has a strange outlook as to whats proper.I am beginning to think this is turning into wrestling,fixed and fake.Some of the matches just seem to predictable.