The UFC's ban of Affliction is one of the most interesting and perhaps under-appreciated stories of recent months in MMA. The brand is one of the most coveted and lucrative sponsors in the industry with a who's who of MMA on its sponsorship roster including Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, Quinton Jackson, George St. Pierre, and Sean Sherk to name a few. Through royalties from signature shirt sales its sponsored fighters stand to make several hundred thousand dollars per year.
The root of the ban has been the subject of much speculation inside the industry. Last week Dana White offered his explanation of the ban. "I never had a problem with Affliction clothing until they took a picture of Couture and Fedor with no Affliction shirts on, but it looks like a fight poster," White told The Canadian Press. While the ban was inevitable once Affliction's promotional aspirations were revealed, MMAPayout.com has learned that the ban originally stemmed from Affliction's relationship, or at least perceived relationship, with Couture.
The UFC responded to Couture's resignation last fall by enacting a ban on all things Couture. This meant no mention of Couture on UFC broadcasts, no camera shots of Couture cornering fighters, and no Xtreme Couture apparel in the octagon as of UFC 78. The ban affected not only Couture himself, but also a number of fighters sponsored by his brand. The company went so far as to force Wanderlei Silva to move his training from Xtreme Couture for the filming of his All Access Special.
Eight days before UFC 79 the ban was suddenly and unexpectedly extended to include Affliction. The ban was apparently the result of the UFC's belief that Couture was a part owner of Affliction, a common misconception. While Couture and Affliction are co-owners of the Xtreme Couture mark, Couture has no ownership interest in Affliction.
The immediate victim of the decision was St. Pierre who, after wearing Xtreme Couture in August, was scheduled to wear signature Affliction apparel at the event. However, it was Karo Parsiyan, not St. Pierre, who forcefully raised the issue with Joe Silva, Vice President of Talent Relations at the UFC.
Parisyan placed what has been described to MMAPayout.com as a heated phone call to Silva after hearing about the ban. Silva was unaware of the ban, but understood the actual nature of Couture's relationship with the company. He was ultimately able to get the ban reversed after explaining the situation to White. St. Pierre entered the octagon on December 29th in full Affliction regalia.
However, the reprieve was short lived. On January 18, Affliction staged the now infamous photo shoot featuring Couture and Emelianenko in the shirtless stare down referenced by White. Affliction hasn't been seen on a UFC broadcast since.
The company's control of the fighter's "commercial identification" is addressed by three clauses in the standard Zuffa contract:
Fighter covenants and agrees that no wording, symbols, pictures, designs, names or other advertising or informational material (i) for any beer, alcohol, beverage company, tobacco, casino or gaming company, media company (including, but not limited to, HBO, ABC, SET, FOX, ESPN and any Internet related company); (ii) of any sponsor in conflict or competition with ZUFFA or any of ZUFFA’s sponsors; (iii) of any sponsor causing injury to the reputation of ZUFFA or ZUFFA’s sponsors and/or their respective officers and owners; or (iv) which has not been pre-approved in writing by ZUFFA and iN DEMAND, L.L.C. shall appear on the trunks, robe, shoes, regalia or any other part of the costume or the body (including by use of temporary or henna tattoos) of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates during or at any Bouts, Pre-Bout Events or Post-Bout Events.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, ZUFFA shall have the right to include any advertising or other informational material of ZUFFA, ZUFFA’s sponsors or other entities designated by ZUFFA on the trunks, robe, shoes, regalia or any other part of the costume of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates during or at any Bouts, Pre-Bout Events or Post-Bout Events.
For television purposes, Fighter must be clearly distinguishable. Therefore, Fighter shall provide one (1) pair of dark-colored trunks and one (1) pair of light-colored trunks for each Bout. If it is necessary to distinguish Fighter from his opponent, ZUFFA shall have sole discretion to require Fighter to wear either the dark-colored or light-colored trunks.
At first blush this control might seem unjustified, but upon further consideration it makes perfect sense to a degree. It is obvious that for most companies sponsoring a fighter is merely a means to ride the UFC's marketing coattails. As a result, it is more than reasonable for the company to seek to exercise some control over which brands it allows into the octagon and the company has generally been very judicious in its use of the power.
However, their are those in the industry who believe that fighters should be given some financial consideration in the event a sponsorship is blocked, particularly if it was approved when the deal was signed. This is an issue, along with other ancillary rights, worth keeping an eye on as the sport continues to grow, sponsorships become more lucrative, and promotional opportunities more plentiful.
