A UFC fight at the White House? Dana White says it's happening as part of deal with Paramount.
That was fine with White. The UFC CEO was set to travel to Washington on Aug. 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 U.S. '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
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The $62m question: does a high school really need a professional-style stadium?
When the television cameras pan around the US's newest sporting temple to show the cavernous stands, elegant brick exterior, VIP suites and massive video board, viewers might believe they are looking at a professional venue. Yet the occupants of Phillip Beard Stadium, the Buford Wolves, are not a professioanl team or even a college one. They are high-schoolers. In the exorbitant world of high school football, Buford's $62m, 10,000-capacity arena is not the biggest or most expensive taxpayer-funded student stadium in the US. But it may be the most luxurious. The Wolves host the Milton Eagles on Thursday in the stadium's first regular-season game, which will be broadcast nationally on ESPN. With 13 Georgia state championships from 2001 to 2021 and a long record of players progressing to college scholarships and, eventually, the NFL, Buford is a football powerhouse – and the new stadium is a loud statement of the school's desire to keep it that way. Related: 'The stadium is secondary': how US sports teams became real-estate speculators If it feels like half of Buford is at the big game … they probably are. The Atlanta-area city has roughly 19,000 residents and the well-regarded high school (rebuilt in 2019 for $85m) has about 1,900 students. In 2010, another educational institution in the Atlanta region, Kennesaw State University, built a smart 10,200 capacity multi-use stadium for $16.5m. In the past 15 years, however, construction costs have soared, fan expectations have evolved, streaming and social media have changed how we consume sports and college athletes are now allowed to earn significant sums by monetising their personal brands. The trend is clear: newer, fancier, costlier. Phillip Beard Stadium has the typical uncovered benches familiar to anyone who's seen Friday Night Lights. Yet it also boasts more than 1,500 premium seats, 15 suites, a 3,600 sq ft double-sided video board and a 10,500 sq ft event space with a trophy wall. Buford City manager Bryan Kerlin told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the stadium had been paid for by the city general funds and its funding 'had no impact on teacher salaries, classroom resources, or any educational funding'. Still, there may well be other parts of the city the money could have been diverted to. Besides, blending spartan spaces for students and high-end facilities for corporate clients and rich alumni is increasingly common. It could make financial sense for schools aiming to maximise revenues and claw back some of the construction and operating costs, according to Victor Matheson, an economics professor at College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts. 'The economics term is price differentiation,' he says. It's long been common in professional sports as teams adopt a strategy beloved of airlines, with their myriad fare classes and options: charging wildly different amounts for the same product based on variations in the customer experience. As the masses in the cheap seats generate the noise, corporate boxes can deliver thousands of dollars in income per event, giant video screens appeal to advertisers, and perhaps former students who've been wined and dined in air-conditioned comfort and enjoyed a perfect view of the action will be inspired to make generous donations to the alma mater. Upscale new arenas are also a way to entice fans off the couch in an era when it seems like almost every sporting contest, no matter how obscure, is streamed. 'Everyone knows their biggest competitor is being able to watch on TV,' Matheson says. Climate-controlled facilities mitigate against extreme weather, and with gargantuan video boards, televisions on concourses, myriad food and drink options and glitzy graphics on LED ribbon displays, fans can go to the stadium, experience the live atmosphere and still gaze at screens. Northwestern University in Illinois is building a privately-funded new stadium guided by the principle of 'premium for everybody,' reports Front Office Sports. At a projected cost of $862m it will be the most expensive college stadium ever, yet with only 35,000 seats it will hold 12,000 fewer people than the venue it is replacing. The theory underpinning the design is that modern fans want a more intimate and luxurious experience, with changing tastes – and a changing climate – rendering even relatively recent venues obsolete. In 2020 Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers quit their open-air 48,000-capacity ballpark, which opened in 1994, for a new 40,000-capacity building with a retractable roof. This season a minor league baseball team, the Salt Lake Bees, moved from Smith's Ballpark, which also opened in 1994, to a new home, hiking ticket prices and halving their seating capacity in the process. The concentration on high-end customers, of course, prices out fans who cannot afford to spend heavily on a night out at the game. 'In all, premium seating makes up one-sixth of seats at the new ballpark, whereas it contributed to just 3% of Smith's Ballpark's capacity,' the Salt Lake Tribune reported. 'The seats closest to the action aren't available for sale on a per-ticket basis; instead, those are field-level suites that must be reserved in their entirety.' Sports' growing focus on premium customers mirrors a shift in the American economy as a whole: this year a Moody's Analytics study found that the US economy is now deeply reliant on the richest households, with the top 10% of earners accounting for 50% of consumer spending, a sharp rise from recent decades. Logically, better facilities should breed better players, with victories leading to bigger attendances, swelling civic pride, adding to the appeal of the fast-growing suburbs where large high school stadiums are often located and boosting the prospects of the kids who dream of reaching the NFL. The trickle-down effect from the professional and college ranks to high schools isn't only a matter of swankier facilities. It's also visible in the potential financial incentives. College players have been permitted to make money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights since 2021. In June this year a former high school player filed a class-action lawsuit in California challenging restrictions on the ability of the state's high school student-athletes to profit from their NIL rights. It could pave the way for high school stars across the US to earn income and to transfer to other schools for sporting reasons. 'Corporations see a lot of untapped economic value in high school athletics,' Yaman Salahi, an attorney representing the player named in the suit, said in a statement to Front Office Sports, 'and we want to ensure that value is shared equitably with the athletes that create it.' Like teenaged soccer starlets at professional clubs in other countries, 16- and 17-year old American football players might one day be wealthy and famous, with a status to match the grandeur of their home stadiums. 'The difference here is that it's the local public school that's doing the development,' Matheson points out. For now, stadiums as sizeable and expensive as Buford's remain rare outside Texas, the state that is the epicentre of the high school football infrastructure arms race. In 2017 the independent school district in the Houston-area suburb of Katy opened a $70m, 12,000-capacity stadium adjacent to its existing and still operational 9,800-seat venue. According to the website more than a quarter of the 1,267 high school football stadiums in Texas can hold over 5,000 people, with eight seating at least 16,500. The combined capacity of 4.4 million is larger than the populations of 24 states. About a quarter have video scoreboards and 27 high school stadiums have opened in Texas since 2020. A $56m multi-purpose venue in the Houston-area city of La Porte is set to host its inaugural match this month. Texas produces more NFL players than any other state, found a study by the data analysis firm Lineups, with Houston the leading city. On the other hand, Texas is ranked 34th for educational attainment by US News & World Report, is far below the national average for teacher pay and expenditures per student, and according to one study, this year Texas teachers expect to spend on average $1,550 of their own money on classroom supplies. Many would argue there are better things to spend money on than school sports.
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mexico, under pressure from Trump, sends 26 cartel members to US
MEXICO CITY, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Mexico sent more than two dozen suspected cartel members to the U.S. on Tuesday, amid rising pressure from President Donald Trump on Mexico to dismantle the country's powerful drug organizations. Authorities shipped 26 prisoners wanted in the U.S. for ties to drug-trafficking groups, Mexico's attorney general's office and security ministry said in a joint statement. Mexico said the U.S. Department of Justice had requested their extradition and that it would not seek the death penalty for the accused cartel members. The transfer is the second of its kind this year. In February, Mexican authorities sent 29 alleged cartel leaders to the U.S., sparking a debate about the political and legal grounds for such a move. More: State Department updates Mexico travel advisory for Americans That Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum permitted yet another large-scale extradition of Mexican nationals underscores the balancing act she faces as she seeks to appease Trump while also avoiding unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico. In a statement, the U.S. Embassy said among those extradited were key figures in the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel, which are Mexico's two dominant organized crime groups. 'This transfer is yet another example of what is possible when two governments unite against violence and impunity," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson said in a statement. "These fugitives will now face justice in American courts, and the citizens of both our nations will be safer.' More: Mexican President rules out Trump's reported military plan against Mexico's drug cartels Trump has tied tariffs on Mexico to the deadly fentanyl trade, claiming the country hasn't tackled drug cartels aggressively enough. Last week, he directed the Pentagon to prepare operations against Mexican drug gangs that have been designated global terrorist organizations. Sheinbaum has said the U.S. and Mexico are nearing a security agreement to expand cooperation in the fight against cartels. But she has flatly rejected suggestions by the Trump administration that it could carry out unilateral military operations in Mexico. (Additional reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Chris Reese, Cassandra Garrison and Lincoln Feast.)
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
The key to success at Trump-Putin Alaska summit on Ukraine? Low expectations.
Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation and increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Trump keeps trying to find a way to end the war, but time is not on Ukraine's side. The war in Ukraine is stuck, and has been stuck for years. Despite the media frenzy over the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough, barring a dramatic change in the U.S., Russian or Ukrainian positions. When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet on Friday, Aug. 15, observers should keep expectations low. Any progress would be welcome. Since February 2022, the conflict has been a slow, grinding war of attrition in which Russia has gradually seized more and more Ukrainian territory. Russia's military progress dampened its incentives to escalate the conflict, an early source of U.S. concern. For example, in the fall of 2022, the high-water mark for Ukraine on the battlefield, U.S. intelligence estimated that there was a 50% chance Russia would reach for nuclear weapons if its forces in southern Ukraine were facing collapse. Were Russia losing today, the risks for Americans would be higher. Putin's will vs. Trump's way While Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation, it has also increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Since beginning his second term, Trump has tried to find a way to end the war, but the Kremlin has not shown much willingness to moderate its demands. Putin has insisted on Ukraine renouncing aspirations to join NATO or allow NATO forces on its territory; conceding Russian sovereignty over the four provinces it annexed in 2022; the demilitarization of Ukraine; and the 'denazification' of the country, by which it means dramatic reforms to how it governs itself domestically. Putin has also rejected a temporary ceasefire that doesn't engage on these issues. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The debate over the what to do next often obscures more than it reveals. One hears reference to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat without defining what those terms mean or what their implications would be. Does Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat mean Kyiv regaining all territory inside its internationally recognized borders? That isn't going to happen. Could Ukraine losing territory but keeping its sovereignty and military ‒ without NATO membership ‒ be portrayed as success? Many security scholars believe that such armed neutrality is the best that can be achieved for Ukraine. Opinion: I was the US ambassador to Ukraine. Here's why I resigned. Don't forget Zelenskyy's intransigence This is where Ukraine's intransigence comes in. Even though Ukrainian public support for continuing the war has cratered, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is using the Ukrainian Constitution as a firewall against concessions. As amended in 2019, it both prohibits the Ukrainian government from ceding any territory and somewhat clumsily commits it to pursue membership in NATO. In rejecting Trump's suggestion that there be land swaps as part of a settlement, Zelenskyy pointed at the constitution's provision against giving up territory, arguing that 'no one will step back from this, nor will anyone be able to.' The Ukrainian president's willingness and ability to end the war probably has less to do with high-minded constitutional principles and more to do with his own political survival. At this point, the war has produced total destruction in Ukraine, the evisceration of its territory, and all the ruinous human and economic costs of the war ‒ but without any U.S. security guarantees. Zelenskyy knows this would be a disastrous legacy, so he has a powerful incentive to obtain something he can portray as a benefit of the war. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion The question is whether Kyiv's position on the battlefield can sustain Zelenskyy's intransigence on the political issues, with or without more U.S. support. There are worrying signs that it cannot. Ukraine faces an array of manpower issues along the 600-mile front. Key towns seem to be in jeopardy. Time is not on Ukraine's side. As always, the Europeans are doing everything in their power to keep the United States at the center of the war in Ukraine ‒ and as the central provider of regional security. They called a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump two days before the Putin summit, and proposed a plan for Ukraine that would involve potential NATO membership in exchange for Kyiv conceding that it lost territory. After the meeting on Aug. 13, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President António Costa indicated Trump committed that the United States would participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. However, Trump has previously resisted European pleas for U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, and make no mistake: That is just what NATO membership would be. With two consecutive U.S. administrations revealing that Washington does not perceive an interest in Ukraine worth fighting Russia over, such a commitment would be inherently incredible. In the coming days, avoiding any traps laid by the Europeans, the Ukrainians or congressional hawks is essential. From a U.S. perspective, patience and low expectations are the right course for talks with Russia. Above all, Trump must avoid backing into a reboot of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy, which involved an endless flow of weapons and hoping for a miracle. America's resources for and interests in the war in Ukraine are limited. Trump's policy should reflect that. Justin Logan (@justintlogan) is director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
