A UFC fight at the White House? Dana White says it's happening
That was fine with White. The UFC CEO was set to travel to Washington on August 28 to meet with Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, to catch up and discuss logistics on the proposed Fourth of July fight card next year at the White House.
Trump said last month he wanted to stage a UFC match on the White House grounds with upwards of 20,000 spectators to celebrate 250 years of American independence.
'It's absolutely going to happen,' White told The Associated Press. 'Think about that, the 250th birthday of the United States of America, the UFC will be on the White House south lawn live on CBS.'
The idea of cage fights at the White House would have seemed improbable when the Fertitta brothers purchased UFC for $2 million in 2001 and put White in charge of the fledging fight promotion.
White helped steer the company into a $4 billion sale in 2016 and broadcast rights deals with Fox and ESPN before landing owner TKO Group's richest one yet — a seven-year deal with Paramount starting in 2026 worth an average of $1.1 billion a year, with all cards on its streaming platform Paramount+ and select numbered events also set to simulcast on CBS.
ESPN, Amazon and Netflix and other traditional sports broadcast players seemed more in play for UFC rights — White had previously hinted fights could air across different platforms — but Paramount was a serious contender from the start of the negotiating window.
The Paramount and UFC deal came just days after Skydance and Paramount officially closed their $8 billion merger — kicking off the reign of a new entertainment giant after a contentious endeavor to get the transaction over the finish line. White said he was impressed with the vision Skydance CEO David Ellison had for the the global MMA leader early in contract talks and how those plans should blossom now that Ellison is chairman and CEO of Paramount.
'When you talk about Paramount, you talk about David Ellison, they're brilliant businessmen, very aggressive, risk takers,' White said. 'They're right up my alley. These are the kind of guys that I like to be in business with.'
The $1.1 billion deals marks a notable jump from the roughly $550 million that ESPN paid each year for UFC coverage today. But UFC's new home on Paramount will simplify offerings for fans — with all content set to be available on Paramount+ (which currently costs between $7.99 and $12.99 a month), rather than various pay-per-view fees.
Paramount also said it intends to explore UFC rights outside the US 'as they become available in the future.'
UFC matchmakers were set to meet this week to shape what White said would be a loaded debut Paramount card. The UFC boss noted it was still too early to discuss a potential main event for the White House fight night.
'This is a 1-of-1 event,' White said.
There are still some moving parts to UFC broadcasts and other television programming it has its hands in as the company moves into the Paramount era. White said there are still moving parts to the deal and that includes potentially finding new homes for 'The Ultimate Fighter,' 'Road To UFC,' and 'Dana White's Contender Series.' It's not necessarily a given the traditional 10 p.m. start time for what were the pay-per-view events would stand, especially on nights cards will also air on CBS.
'We haven't figured that out yet but we will,' White said.
And what about the sometimes-contentious issue of fighter pay? Some established fighters have clauses in their contracts that they earn more money the higher the buyrate on their cards. Again, most of those issues are to-be-determined as UFC and Paramount settle in to the new deal — with $1.1 billion headed the fight company's way.
'It will affect fighter pay, big time,' White said. 'From deal-to-deal, fighter pay has grown, too. Every time we win, everybody wins.'
Boxer Jake Paul wrote on social media the dying PPV model — which was overpriced for fights as UFC saw a decline in buys because of missing star power in many main events — should give the fighters an increased idea of their worth.
'Every fighter in the UFC now has a clear picture of what the revenue is…no more PPV excuses,' Paul wrote. 'Get your worth boys and girls.'
White also scoffed at the idea that the traditional PPV model is dead.
There are still UFC cards on pay-per-view the rest of the year through the end of the ESPN contract and White and Saudi Arabia have teamed to launch a new boxing venture that starts next year and could use a PPV home. White, though, is part of the promotional team for the Canelo Álvarez and Terence Crawford fight in September in Las Vegas that airs on Netflix.
'It's definitely not run it's course,' White said. 'There were guys out there who were interested in pay-per-view and there were guys out there that weren't. Wherever we ended up, that's what we're going to roll with.'
White said UFC archival footage 'kills it' in repeat views and those classic bouts also needed a new home once the ESPN deal expires.
Just when it seems there's little left for UFC to conquer, White says, there's always more. Why stop at becoming the biggest fight game in the world? Why not rewrite the pecking order in popularity and riches and go for No. 1 in all sports?
'You have the NFL, the NBA, the UFC, and soccer globally,' White said. 'We're coming. We're coming for all of them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"If You're Trying To Erase History, You're On The Wrong Side Of It": It's Been A Wild, Wild, Wild Week In Politics, So Here Are All The Best Tweets
Editor's Note: While we can't endorse what X has become, we can bring you the worthwhile moments that still exist there, curated and free of the surrounding chaos. American politics — well, frankly, global politics — is chaos right now, but I find it comforting to know I'm not alone in thinking the world has gone bananas. So, here are 27 of the best, most relatable, and sometimes funny political tweets from the last week: 1. 2. Related: 3. Paramount / Twitter: @brndxix 4. 5. Note: The images in the original tweet were replaced due to photo rights. 6. 7. 8. 9. Related: 10. 11. Twitter: @Liv_Agar 12. 13. Note: The images in the original tweet were replaced due to photo rights. 14. Related: 15. Twitter: @LilithLovett 16. 17. 18. 19. The Katie Miller Podcast / Twitter: @Enddumbness 20. 21. Twitter: @GovTimWalz Related: 22. 23. Fox News / Twitter: @jamestalarico 24. Disney / Twitter: @conorjrogers 25. Meidas Touch / Twitter: @mehdirhasan 26. 27. And finally: India Today Global / Twitter: @WUTangKids See you next week! For more political tweets, check out our most recent roundup: "Cool They're Just Doing Nazi Propaganda Now": 28 Political Tweets Of The Week That Are So Brutal But So True Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump's recently signed tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
