Peeling The Layer(s): UFC And Ur-Fascism(?)
Trump recently announced plans for hosting a UFC event on the White House lawn for America's 250th anniversary, highlighting the troubling mix of spectacle, and exploitation.
On July 4, 2025, as fireworks illuminated the Washington sky, Donald Trump announced that he would stage a UFC fight on the White House lawn for America's 250th anniversary. With promises of a 20,000–25,000-strong crowd, Trump's gambit transformed the nation's highest office into a gladiatorial arena.
For mixed martial arts enthusiasts, the spectacle felt electrifying. Yet beneath the roar of the crowd and the clang of the cage lies a troubling convergence: a pageantry, corporate exploitation, and the unsettling echoes of Umberto Eco's concept of ur-fascism —'Eternal Fascism" defined by an array of traits that can congeal into authoritarianism.
As MMA fans, it's thrilling to witness combat on such a grand stage. But to appreciate the sport's heart and soul, we must peel back the veneer of political theater and examine how hypermasculine imagery and athlete oppression combine in a promotion that champions a nationalist spectacle while treating its fighters like mere commodities.
Match made in Heaven
Trump's ties to the UFC predate his presidency. In 2001, the Trump Taj Mahal rescued UFC 31 and 32 when the promotion was bankrupt, cementing a bond with Dana White that endures two decades later. An opportunity White credits with rescuing the organization from obscurity.
Their bond transcended business. White publicly endorsed Trump in all three of his presidential campaigns, speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention and campaigning alongside him in 2020.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, White partnered with Florida's governor to stage UFC 249—earning praise and a personal video from President Trump as other leagues remained sidelined. After the Capitol raid on January 6 and ensuing political fallout, UFC events offered Trump welcome platforms; he launched his TikTok channel at UFC 302 in 2024, tapping into the promotion's young-male audience.
At Madison Square Garden and Mar-a-Lago rallies, White energized crowds with fervent endorsements, even sharing the stage on election night when Trump reclaimed the presidency.
White's political involvement culminated in a board appointment at Meta—widely seen as a nod to Trump's influence—before he vowed in November 2024 to avoid politics going forward. Their decades-long alliance illustrates how each elevated the other's brand across sport, media, and politics, forging an enduring partnership built on loyalty and spectacle.
The Cult of Tradition
Umberto Eco's ur-fascism begins with a cult of tradition, a reverence for the past that brooks no dissent and envisions truth as already revealed—Trump's UFC extravaganza on the White House lawn taps into this impulse.
By invoking America's 250-year history, he frames the event as an inevitable, almost sacred continuation of national destiny. Tradition becomes a tool to stifle—a reminder that new ideas and critiques have no place when the founding myth is sacrosanct.
This political spectacle almost mirrors the fascist pageantry of the 20th century, where mass rallies, grandiose symbols, and choreographed violence served to unite followers in a mythic narrative.
The Octagon, normally a contained ring of athletic competition, becomes a stage for a hyperreal performance of strength, suggesting that national greatness lies in sanctioned brutality rather than democratic discourse.
Machismo and the Cult of Death
Eco describes a cult of death and machismo inherent to ur-fascism, where heroism equates to a willingness to die—and to send others to their deaths. The UFC's brutal aesthetic, with its visceral bloodsport and knockout highlights, feeds this allure.
MMA fans revel in displays of striking prowess and submission mastery, but the narrative often glorifies the idea of 'sacrifice" without acknowledging the human cost.
Fighters endure punishing training camps, chronic injuries, and repeated concussions. Yet the UFC offers no cover, or disability benefits. Medical expenses fall squarely on the athlete, who may face lifelong disabilities once the cheering subsides.
The Ngannou Episode
Eco's essay identifies the rejection of modernism and anti-intellectualism as twin pillars of ur-fascism. This can be noted in UFC's apparent dismissal of practices considered boilerplate for athlete protection.
In the UFC's case, White actively discourages fighters from voicing concerns about pay and healthcare, labeling such calls for reform as 'disgusting politics" unworthy of serious debate, and often leverages his relationship with Trump to safeguard UFC's model.
When fighters attempt to unionise or demand better conditions, White's retort is swift and dismissive. He uses the same rhetoric as past dictators: framing criticism as betrayal and disloyalty.
Francis Ngannou, the heavyweight superstar, requested that the UFC provide health insurance and in-cage sponsorships for all fighters, as well as an athlete advocate to assist them, only to receive the proverbial boot when White refused to extend his contract and accused him of ducking Jon Jones, resulting in a prolonged spat that continues to date.
This divide-and-conquer approach ensures that fighters remain isolated, unable to band together for better wages, or safety protocols. It echoes the operator of ur-fascism: by making the very act of questioning a betrayal, authoritarian leaders maintain unquestioned control over both physical and ideological battlegrounds.
White reinforces a cult of action for action's sake, ensuring that compliance and spectacle take precedence over meaningful reform; and he amplifies this message through conservative media allies, framing these concessions as a slippery slope toward socialism.
The Pay Dilemma
For all its blockbuster events, the UFC's financial model is notoriously lopsided. Entry-level fighters earn merely $10,000 to show plus a $10,000 win bonus, while champions rarely exceed $5 million per fight. UFC retains only 13–14.5% of its revenue for fighters which brings into question the bifurcation of its funds.
Preliminary-card athletes endure the harshest disparities. In UFC Seattle: Cejudo vs. Song, compliance pay—a catch-all for media obligations, weigh-ins, and promotional interviews—ranged from $4,000 for newcomers to $21,000 for veterans like Andre Fili, who earned that sum despite a loss.
Considering most fighters average 2 to 3 appearances a year—after training, travel, management fees, doctors and taxes, many prelim fighters pocket barely enough to cover rent. This economic pressurisation makes athletes feel crushed by larger forces—powers beyond their fathoming.
Selective Populism
Selective populism, another ur-fascist trait, treats 'the people" as a monolithic entity whose will is embodied solely by a charismatic leader. Trump's UFC spectacle leveraged chants of 'U.S.A." and flag-waving to equate cheering for fighters with patriotic duty.
Fans became actors in a populist drama, instructed to see any critique of the event or its labour practices as 'un-American". Some of the fighters themselves are roped in as proxies to add to a general sense of approval—recent examples being Merab Dvalishvili and Kayla Harrison—champions who unwittingly contribute to the optics.
Newspeak: Limiting Criticism
In Eco's framework, Newspeak—an impoverished vocabulary—ensures that only sanctioned ideas survive.
UFC discourse is riddled with slogans like 'Protect the P—pay-per-view" or 'UFC family," conflating corporate messaging with genuine community. Terms like 'fighter empowerment" ring hollow when voices are silenced, replaced by soundbites curated to glorify management's narrative.
This controlled vernacular discourages nuanced debate about fundamental assistance, representation, and political influence. Fans are invited to chant and cheer, not to question the tightening grip of corporate and political interests that exploit passion for profit.
Toward a Fighter-Centered Future
For MMA enthusiasts who breathe every takedown and celebrate each submission, confronting these ur-fascist tendencies is daunting but necessary. The sport's essence—skill, strategy, and sheer willpower—deserves a foundation of fairness and solidarity. Transformative steps include:
Establishing a genuine fighters' union to negotiate living wages, transparent revenue sharing, and comprehensive healthcare.
Demanding independent oversight of compliance pay and medical protocols, ensuring transparency in how the UFC allocates its billions.
Cultivating fan-champion advocacy, where support for killer five-round wars extends to backing athletes' rights outside the cage.
top videos
View all
By recognising the hallmarks of ur-fascism —from the cult of tradition and rejection of modernism to Newspeak—we can reclaim the Octagon as an arena of true athleticism and solidarity, rather than a stage for corporate-authoritarian theatrics.
While Dana White's business acumen has propelled both the sport and the UFC to heights unimaginable, there comes a time to evolve and adapt—especially when a business model is growing ever-obsolete owing to current trends. In doing so, MMA fans honour not just the fighters they idolise, but also preserve the sport's integrity for generations to come.
News18 Sports brings you the latest updates, live commentary, and highlights from cricket, football, tennis, badmintion, wwe and more. Catch breaking news, live scores, and in-depth coverage. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
Dana White donald trump mixed martial arts ufc Ultimate Fighting Championship
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
August 05, 2025, 14:35 IST
News sports Opinion | Peeling The Layer(s): UFC And Ur-Fascism(?)
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
19 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump orders NASA to kill 2 satellites that can function for many more years - the reason will shock all
Trump NASA satellite shutdown: The White House has directed NASA to shut down two carbon-tracking satellites. These satellites monitor carbon dioxide levels. The satellites provide crucial data for understanding climate change. Scientists, farmers, and energy companies use this data. One satellite is on the International Space Station. The other will burn up in the atmosphere if shut down. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Satellites Tracking Carbon Emissions To Face Early Shutdown What Are the Orbiting Carbon Observatories? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Former NASA Scientist Raises Concerns What Are the Orbiting Carbon Observatories? Lawmakers Push Back, Call Cuts 'Catastrophic' Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs A decision that has left many scientists and space lovers scratching their heads is that the White House has ordered NASA to shut down two important satellites that are still working perfectly and could keep doing so for years, as per a report. These satellites track carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere, which helps to understand climate change and how it affects everything from farming to energy industries, as per a Futurism Trump administration's officials have reached out to NASA to draw up plans for terminating the two missions, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatories , as reported by Futurism. Both of them have been used to collect widely used data, which provide information to oil and gas companies and farmers about the distribution of carbon dioxide and how it can affect crop health, according to the READ: When is Labor Day 2025 in US and what should you know before celebrating? One of the satellites is attached to the International Space Station, and the other is collecting data as a stand-alone satellite, as reported by Futurism. The latter would see its permanent demise after burning up in the atmosphere if the mission gets terminated, according to the Trump administration's move to end the missions comes at a time when the two observatories had been expected to function for many more years, and a 2023 review by NASA found that the data they'd been providing had been "of exceptionally high quality," as reported by review also found that the observatories give detailed carbon dioxide measurements across various locations, which let scientists get a detailed glimpse of how human activity is affecting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the READ: Another Indian-American shakes up Silicon Valley - Meet Shyam Sankar, Palantir's CTO powering company's meteoric rise An ex-NASA employee, David Crisp, who worked on the Orbiting Carbon Observatories' instruments, revealed that current staffers reached out to him, saying, "They were asking me very sharp questions," adding, "The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan," as quoted by explained that it "makes no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data," pointing out that it costs just $15 million per year to maintain both observatories, which is a small fraction of the agency's $25.4 billion budget, as reported by other scientists who have used data from the missions have also been asked questions about terminating the missions, as per the the two observatories are just two of dozens of space missions that are currently facing existential threats due to the Trump administration's proposed 2026 fiscal year budget, according to the reasons for terminating these missions are not known yet, but there is only speculation given US president Donald Trump's staunch climate change denial and his administration's efforts to deal the agency's science directorate a potentially existential blow, as per the has led many scientists to argue that the move could precipitate an end to the United States' leadership in space, according to the Futurism report. Many lawmakers have also drawn up a counteroffer that would keep NASA's budget almost in line with this year's budget, as per the and top appropriator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) had siad in a July, "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA science by 47 percent and would have terminated 55 operating and planned missions," as quoted in the representative and Committee on Science, Space and Technology ranking member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said thar, "Eliminating funds or scaling down the operations of Earth-observing satellites would be catastrophic and would severely impair our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to severe weather and climate disasters," adding, "The Trump administration is forcing the proposed cuts in its FY26 budget request on already appropriated FY25 funds. This is illegal," as quoted in the Futurism farmers, environmentalists, energy companies, anyone needing detailed carbon emission will burn up in the atmosphere, and the other will stop collecting data, ending their missions prematurely.
Scroll.in
22 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump's revised tariffs will reduce GDP of several countries, including the US
The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase. President Donald Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods. On July 31, however, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. An economic own goal The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. Global impacts For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead.
The Wire
22 minutes ago
- The Wire
Trump Considering Hiking 25% Tariff on India ‘Very Substantially' in Next 24 Hours
He also said that New Delhi's ostensible offer to lower its tariffs to zero is 'not good enough' if it keeps buying Russian oil. New Delhi: US President Donald Trump has reiterated his intention to levy a tariff on Indian goods 'very substantially' higher than the 25% he announced last week, repeating his stance that he is unhappy with India's purchases of Russian oil even as Moscow continues its war with Ukraine. In an interview to CNBC Television on Tuesday (August 5), Trump also claimed that while New Delhi has agreed to charge 'zero tariffs' on American goods, its offer is 'not good enough' as long as it continues to buy oil from Russia. A day prior, Trump had said he would 'substantially raise' his 25% tariff on India – scheduled to go into effect on Thursday – because it was 'not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil' but selling much of this 'on the Open Market for big profits', drawing a rejoinder from the Ministry of External Affairs , which pointed to Washington as well as the EU's continuing economic links with Moscow. Speaking to CNBC, Trump said on Tuesday that he was considering raising his 25% tariff on India 'very substantially over the next 24 hours' because of its purchases of Russian oil. 'So we settled on 25%, but I think I'm gonna raise that very substantially over the next 24 hours, because they're buying Russian oil, they're fuelling the war machine. And if they're going to do that, then I'm not going to be very happy,' he told the channel. Adding that India's tariffs on the US were too high, the president continued: 'Now I will say this. India went from the highest tariffs ever–they will give us zero tariffs … But that's not good enough, because of what they're doing with oil.' Trump on July 30 announced that India would pay a 25% tariff as well as a yet-undisclosed 'penalty' for buying energy and military equipment from Russia. This levy was to kick off two days later, but the executive order Trump signed deferred the date of its implementation to August 7. In a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday, Trump blamed India for not caring 'how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine', adding that because of its dealings with Moscow he would be 'substantially raising the tariff paid by India to the USA'. New Delhi, which had stuck to its cautious approach to the issue when Trump announced the tariff and also went on to call India's economy 'dead', responded by accusing Washington and Brussels of 'targeting' India in an 'unjustified and unreasonable' manner. Charging the US with 'actively encouraging' its imports of Russian oil shortly after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, the Ministry of External Affairs pointed to the US as well as the EU's continuing trade with Russia in various sectors after the latter's invasion began. 'In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' it said in a statement. Citing the US's trade deficit with India as well as the latter's high tariffs, Trump had unveiled a 26% 'reciprocal' tariff on India earlier this year but deferred it pending the completion of negotiations over a trade deal. Talks pursuant to that deal are ongoing but New Delhi's resistance to opening up its dairy and agricultural sector to America is reportedly a sticking point. There is no sign of a deal yet even as Trump has claimed on more than one occasion that India has agreed to lower its tariffs. Bilateral ties have also taken a hit amid Trump's repeated claims – consistently denied by India – that he mediated a ceasefire to the Indo-Pakistani military conflict in May by using trade with the two countries as leverage. The perception of a tilt towards Pakistan was reinforced when Trump hosted a luncheon for Pakistan's army chief , Field Marshal Asim Munir, and more recently taunted India after finalising a trade deal with Islamabad that includes the development of its 'massive' oil reserves. Meanwhile, India since 2022 has emerged as a top buyer of Russian crude oil – which has come under heavy sanctions from the US and its allies. Russia now accounts for nearly 40% of India's oil imports, while Delhi is currently Moscow's second-largest buyer after China. The tariffs have also cast a cloud over the two sides' burgeoning defence partnership. This article went live on August fifth, two thousand twenty five, at fifty-nine minutes past nine at night. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
