This is Part 1 of a dissection of Boston City Council President Stephen Murphy’s comments regarding the UFC and it’s views on the acceptable and unacceptable behavior of fighters.
In a recent media interview, Murphy had a lot to say about the UFC (and not really MMA in general) and almost none of it was good. One highlight? Actually…THE highlight. He said, “They are promoting violence against women, teaching kids how to rape…”
Whoa. What?
Before we go further, let’s be clear. He was referring to a video Quinton Jackson put up on youtube last year, a tongue-in-cheek joke video which would certainly and understandably be offensive to some people, while to others it would be taken for what it was: an attempt at brash comedy that was part of a strategic move to get booted out of the UFC.
The UFC did not cut Jackson and who knows what kind of disciplinary action they took against him.
But regardless of any of that, without pulling any punches, what Murphy said is a complete crock of shit.
Murphy chose his words poorly. It makes it sound like the UFC puts out advertisements about workshops they are going to run on how to beat up women and use chloroform to put females to sleep and molest them.
Did Rampage make a video doing what he did? Absolutely.
Now did he do that under the direction of the UFC? Did the UFC require him, as a fighter under contract, to put out videos like this on a regular basis? Give me a break.
Obviously, no sports organization can control what their athletes say or do at any time, and these athletes have access to platforms that can reach a lot of people. With the power of social media in current times, there is a new story every day about something controversial an athlete said or did. Some leagues punish or fine those players and some don’t. The line is hard to draw. What should be against the rules and what shouldn’t? If it is against the rules, what should the consequences be? Look at Rampage’s video, one of many examples. It’s hard to say right off the bat what should happen next because a lot of the stuff we’re seeing now is all for the first time.
It’s becoming common knowledge that the laws of society are having a hard time keeping up with the never-ending changes in technology. Edward Snowden anybody? Julian Assange? These are two famous examples of how laws apply to people dancing that fine line between legal vs. illegal in terms of technology.
Typical examples in the sports world are obviously not so grandiose, consisting mainly of controversial pictures and tweets from pro athletes. But all of this is still relatively new and constantly changing, and there is no clear precedent for athletes across the board, and there probably never will be unless the policy is: no social media whatsoever, no facebook, twitter, nothing. Some universities and pro sports teams follow those guidelines, but the vast majority does not and the line between acceptable and unacceptable is still up in the air.
How many times have you read about an athlete tweeting a controversial comment, and then later deleting it and apologizing for it? It’s a common occurrence and today it is the norm.
Should Rampage have been publicly reprimanded by the UFC for a not-so-serious video he made outside of the organization? Maybe yes and maybe no, but either way, why would we think for a second that the UFC supports it? There is such thing as a neutral ground and your typical MMA fans, who in all likelihood are the only people interested in watching a video made by Rampage Jackson, are not going to take that video seriously.
Much of Murphy’s argument is based on the novelty of the UFC and it’s exploding popularity and roster. It has nothing to do with the UFC favoring fighters who put out ridiculous videos or promoting violence against women.
Stay tuned for Part 2 which will look at this issue in a little more detail and discuss real issues in the UFC.
