While the UFC grows in stature and popularity, it appears to be attempting to control as much of the message about UFC as possible. Certainly, having its own reality show helps since UFC President Dana White can control every frame of the presentation. Showing events through pay-per-view also helps keep all of the messengers in-house.

MOVABLE BUFFET, a Vegas blog from the LA TIMES, noticed other restrictions when trying to get credentials to cover UFC 84 and was less than pleased. According to Richard Abowitz of MOVABLE BUFFET, the restrictions would limit what he could write, when he could write it, and where the writing could be distributed. It led to quite the tête-à-tête:

“UFC events manager Diann Brizzolara wrote me: “We have the right to protect our brand and how coverage taken from our events is disseminated.” Actually, UFC does not have that right to control “how coverage taken…is disseminated” at all.”

We spoke to Michael David Smith of AOL FANHOUSE about his piece on this story (and the erroneous report by Robin Leach that helped spur the MOVABLE BUFFET article) and his experience at UFC 84:

“I did fill out a credential application, I didn’t think it seemed particularly restrictive, and no one from UFC has ever said anything about my coverage beyond just the typical interactions reporters and sources always have.

…Obviously, I can’t speak for any other journalists, and maybe some
have had problems working with UFC. For me, I came away from UFC 84
with no complaints about my access.”

While Smith’s coverage of UFC has been generally favorable, he has pointed out how the UFC has not found a network television partner yet and how other organizations could step into that breach (like EliteXC).

Finally, while Abowitz insists the UFC isn’t the NFL and shouldn’t try to control its message, all the other major sports leagues control their coverage as much as possible. However, they do it with internecine business deals and financial leverage, not legal language for journalists.