Trading Shots: What happens when UFC broadcasters end up pleading their teammates' cases on live TV?

A debate about a controversial finish turned into a veiled accusation of bias among UFC fighters turned commentators. Is that a feature of UFC broadcasts that we just have to get used to? Retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss.

Downes: Leading up to last night’s UFC on FOX 28 main event, Ben, everyone was guaranteeing that the fight between Jeremy Stephens and Josh Emmett would not go the distance. They were right, but they did not anticipate how controversial the ending would be.

Officially, Stephens won via TKO 1:35 into the second round. Unofficially, people are asking some questions. Was that a knee to a grounded opponent? Did it even connect? What about those elbows to the back of the head? Some dork in the so-called media is even asking if Stephens knew the rules, or if he knew they just don’t matter.

I don’t have any interest in debating the strikes themselves and whether or not they mattered. Instead, I’d like to talk about the fallout.

Initially, Jon Anik and Daniel Cormier downplayed the strikes. As he saw the replays, though, Cormier had a few concerns with how referee Dan Miragliotta officiated the match. This spilled over to the recap desk, where he and Dominick Cruz entered a spirited debate. At one point, Cruz even said that a strike can’t be illegal if the ref doesn’t call it.

I don’t think Cruz was bringing us the MMA equivalent of the Eurthyphro Dilemma. Rather, I think he was trying to defend his teammate from getting a huge win diminished. Should we care that official UFC analysts are active fighters or commentate on their teammates’ fights? Is it a conflict of interest we need to be concerned about?

Fowlkes: You’re seriously going to call me a dork, then turn right around and reference Plato? OK. Cool story, bro.

First of all, Stephens’ own defense of his actions after the fight really does suggest that he completely misunderstood the rule on downed opponents, which is insane when you consider that this is a 13-year vet of the sport who’s been fighting in the UFC since 2007. Are we really doing that bad a job at communicating what’s legal and illegal in this sport?

But you’re right about that post-fight debate between Cruz and Cormier. Relying on active fighters to fill so many of those on-air commentator roles means we have to constantly ask ourselves how this person’s career, along with their allegiances and grudges, might be influencing their remarks.

For Cruz, this one was brimming with conflicts. Not only is Stephens a friend of his, but Emmett is a Team Alpha Male fighter. A loss for him means a loss for Urijah Faber and the boys, which you know brings a certain joy to Cruz’s heart, given his long and bitter feud with that gym.

What’s hard for me to figure is how much it matters. People like you and me, we hear Cruz’s spin and we’re automatically doing the math in our heads. It’s easy for us to see what he’s doing because we understand the context.

Does the average viewer understand that, though? Do they think they’re watching a spirited debate between two unbiased, totally impartial observers? And if they’re swayed by someone making a case for a friend – or a case against an enemy – does that do any real damage? You know, aside from nudging us closer to the pro wrestling model, where commentators are characters in themselves, complete with agendas and vendettas.

Downes: There are conflicts of interest in everything. Politics, judiciary, media, even your recreational hockey league probably has its fair share. How come Carl was reffing last week’s match? Everyone knows he drinks with the captain of the team at The Rhino!

The ethical thing to do when a conflict of interest arises is to 1) acknowledge it, and 2) recuse yourself (if possible).

It wouldn’t make for good television if Cruz said, “Well guys, I’m going to sit this one out since this fight involves a teammate,” but he could have mentioned it. Instead, we have Cormier referencing it when he says, “Dominick, I am just telling you that you’re wearing glasses, you can admit, hey, your boy got away with one.”

You and I know what Cormier meant (I think he wanted to say rose-colored glasses?), but did the average person watching that program know that DC was talking about Cruz and Stephens training together?

I think they could have done a better job of making that point clearer. You can’t assume that your audience knows trivial things. We’re struggling to get fans to recognize the names of fighters themselves, let alone who those fighters’ teammates might be.

I used to collect money from the UFC for freelance work. At the same time I was freelancing for MMAjunkie and other entities when the opportunity arose. In every instance, I tried to be clear about that conflict of interest. I never hid the fact that I did work for the UFC. I don’t think the (minimal) money I was getting from the UFC influenced me, but I put it in the readers’ hands to make that judgment.

You may agree with Cruz, despite the fact he was defending a teammate, or that piece of information might make you more suspicious. Either way, you have all the pertinent information at hand to do what Miragliotta didn’t do – make the right call.

One solution to this problem would be to eliminate active fighters from the broadcasts, but I don’t think that’s feasible or necessary. First of all, it’s a money thing. The fighters on the broadcasts make money doing this, and we all know fighters could use more revenue streams. They might also be cheaper than big-name broadcasters, so that helps, too.

Secondly, even if you brought in retired fighters, you’d have a bunch of conflicts of interest. The MMA bubble is a small one. Most fighters have jumped camps, had similar management, or are friends with a few coaches. Trying to eliminate all those conflicts would be impossible.

So what’s the answer? A scrolling “Conflict of Interest” alert under each analyst’s name while they’re talking? Maybe Karyn Bryant or whoever is running the desk should simply add a “for the record” addendum to let the audience know.

Or is the current model really a danger to blurring any important lines? You’ve been calling it “state-run TV” for years. What’s the difference?

Fowlkes: It’s not a huge deal, but there is some difference between the regular old UFC TV show on FS1 and actual UFC event broadcasts. You ignore the former on the grounds that it’s empty and self-serving propaganda? Big deal. You ignore the latter? Then you’re basically giving up on watching the sport.

But who else are you going to get to fill those spots? There are only so many broadcasters who know this sport, as the Goldberg-for-a-Smith exchange between the UFC and Bellator shows. Actual journalists could do it, but Ariel Helwani’s experience with “UFC Tonight” highlights the ethical problems that come with that.

Plus, you’re right, this is a good revenue stream for fighters. Guys like Cruz and Cormier and Paul Felder also offer valuable insights that improve the broadcasts. We lose something if we lose them.

I think what has to happen is either fighters need to get better at setting their biases aside, or else fans need to get used to factoring them in and filtering them out.

It’s not the end of the world if a fighter stumps for his buddy on a UFC broadcast. But he might want to think about what it’s like to be the guy on the other side of the equation, listening to your opponent’s teammate get paid to take his side on TV.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.