Getty Images: Allsport Hulton/Archive
To begin with, it's oddly poetic. MMA had an intense rivalry with pro wrestling from the late 90s to the mid-00s. They openly competed against one another with live events pay-per-view offerings. They shared many of the same fans. Influential journalists like Dave Meltzer, whom I've discussed in a past column, covered the two equally. Pro wrestling legend Antonio Inoki promoted numerous MMA events in Japan as well as Brazil. There was even overlap between its competitors, with the legendary Kazushi Sakuraba beginning as a pro wrestler, Japanese pro wrestler Nobuhiko Takada's duels with Rickson Gracie being instrumental in starting Pride Fighting Championships, and famous fighters like Tito Ortiz, Ken Shamrock, Mark Coleman, Don Frye and Dan Severn all having stints, some very long, in pro wrestling. In Shamrock's case, he was a pro wrestler before, during, and after his actual MMA career! And yet, in the end, both real and fake are owned by the same parent company, which itself started as a Hollywood talent agency, the very same ones Dana White infamously ranted about when Randy Couture left the UFC to try to fight Fedor Emelianenko. White's tantrum aside, he has a point. The backdoor scheming of Hollywood talent agents is the very antithesis of the purity of combat, which is direct, honest, and beautiful.
Speaking of the UFC president, the announcement gave us another clear indication that he is a humorless d-bag when MMA journalist “The Schmo” jokingly asked Kevin Holland at UFC 287 whom he would most like to hit in the head with a steel chair, whether it was pro wrestler or fighter. White raged about the question before and after the press conference, as if there is anything remotely professional or serious about the way he runs the UFC, whether it's openly cursing at and insulting fighters who he knows can't retaliate due to their careers, slapping his wife in public, or giggling like a little schoolgirl when Paddy Pimblett lied about and name-called Ariel Helwani because the journalist wouldn't pay him for an interview. But okay, comic buffoonery aside—I'll genuinely be a bit sad when the Dana Era inevitably ends—what about the company?
Based on general principles, this is bad for the UFC, with no upside. Any business decision has an effect X on the UFC, which can be positive or negative, and Y on WWE. If X + Y is positive, the decision is positive value and will most likely be done. In other words, a decision could harm the UFC, but if it benefits the WWE by an even greater amount than that harm, X + Y is still positive and will go through. Alternatively, a move could be great for the UFC, but if it's even worse for the WWE, X + Y is negative and will be avoided. That's clearly bad for the UFC, but perhaps good overall for the sport, if competing promotions like Bellator MMA can take advantage. There's also a possibility that this new acquisition will mean less time devoted to the WWE by WME's higher-ups or running both companies in a similar manner. Admittedly, both are avoidable, especially if they keep personnel separate. However, there are no pros to the UFC here. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, having top pro wrestlers appear at MMA events or even having matches could boost live gates and pay-per-view buys. Just look at the first fight between Shamrock and Ortiz. That's no longer the case. No popular pro wrestler could compete in the UFC without being exposed and humiliated, with Phil “CM Punk” Brooks being a wonderful example. And even if two pro wrestlers fought one another in a MMA ring, it would look awful and sloppy. Again, just watch “Punk” show off his awesome striking skills when Mike Jackson blatantly carried him. So again, what benefit does the UFC get here? Nothing as far as I can tell.
But the more I look at the specifics, the more I wonder if this will change much aside from various sponsorships and other financial arrangements. The UFC has a very specific strategy it is locked into right now, which is damn effective and profitable. Furthermore, it's highly resilient, with concepts like the quality of a card barely mattering. The UFC makes the majority of its money from the ESPN deal and simply has to produce enough hours of content for ESPN+ and its own Fight Pass. Bellator light heavyweight champion Vadim Nemkov is a lot more accomplished and would likely crush current UFC light heavyweight champion Jamahal Hill, yet, it's utterly irrelevant. When the UFC championship is on the line, there is a guaranteed, built-in, loyal audience because the words say “UFC” instead of “Bellator.” I thought the promotion made this a little too obvious when Magomed Ankalaev fought Jan Blachowicz for the light heavyweight title initially, and when it was farcically declared a draw, White booked two completely different fighters, Hill and 43-year-old Glover Teixeira, to fight the following month. This screamed “we can put any two fighters we want to compete for a shiny belt and it won't matter,” and indeed, they were absolutely correct. No one batted an eye.
A lot of commenters claim I hate the UFC. In reality, it's because I love the promotion which I've been watching since UFC 7 in 1995 that I hate to see it becoming nothing more than numbers on an Excel spreadsheet, which is what those same fans are indirectly defending. The UFC can be 10 times what it currently is, but there's also no reason to. It would just cost more money and create more headaches. Just continue churning out those hours and hours of content for streaming services! In that sense, WME acquiring the WWE will change little. They have a wildly successful financial strategy and for the foreseeable future, they will stick to it. It's going to take some big developments to disrupt that. Bigger than even a dozen chair shots to the head.