Fans have been wondering why they have not seen any critical comments or opinions from fighters regarding the safety measure at UFC 249. Stephen Espinoza took to social media to shed some light on the same. However, Dana White did not take to his message lightly, as it is evident from the nature of his reply.

The UFC has been very vocal about its safety measures being the best. Considering how they are organizing an event in the middle of a global pandemic, it seems almost essential. According to new developments, they hold the power of punishing any fighter that says otherwise.

Both, the New York Times and Yahoo! Sports have since confirmed the existence of non-disparagement clauses that allow the promotion to fine fighters for criticizing its safety protocols.

“It’s because they were required to sign a document which says that they can lose their whole purse and bonuses if they say anything negative about the COVID protocols,” said Stephen Espinoza’s tweet.

Dana White issued a statement to Yahoo! Sports in an attempt to set the record straight. The UFC President claims that such clauses are a routine part of UFC contracts. In addition, he clarifies that these waivers are only implemented if and when a fighter says something untrue. This is typical of defamation clauses that are often included in entertainment contracts.

“It’s called an anti-disparagement clause. If I know what that is, that scumbag (Espinoza) is a lawyer and you would think he should know what that is. If a fighter says something that isn’t true — if he says we didn’t test anyone for this — that would [violate the agreement]. But if he said something that was true, his opinion, then that is different,” said White

Discrepancies in the clause contradicting claims by Dana White?

White has been very clear about the waiver. However, according to the New York Times, nothing in the agreement states that the clause is exclusively applicable to statements that are untrue.

Word of the clause initially came out via Showtime boxing executive Stephen Espinoza. Espinoza and White share a rather contentious history. The pair has been rather public while taking shots at each other.

Top Stories

Top-Ranked UFC Star Suspended After Failed Drug Test Forces CSAD Action

Paddy Pimblett Set to Lose Half His UFC 324 Paycheck Amid Hospital Visit and Suspension

Who Is Arman Tsarukyan’s Father? Nairi Tsarukyan’s Net Worth, Profession & Businesses

Dana White Shares Update On Hospitalized Paddy Pimblett After UFC 324

Conor McGregor Fails to Convince Fans as New Training Footage Adds to UFC White House Concerns

Yahoo! Sports included specific language from the waiver that allows the promotion to do away with the fighter’s potential compensation for the event.

“If the Participant is a Fighter, the Participant hereby acknowledges and agrees that in the event that the Participant breaches this Paragraph 7, the Company may revoke all or any part of any prize monies or awards won by the Participant in connection with the Activities, including, but not limited to, purses, win bonuses, other fight-related bonuses, and event-based merchandise royalties,” states the agreement

Language that protects the UFC against legal action is nothing new. The UFC has always used such clauses and confidential provisions to protect its business interests.

The idea is to protect ideas and procedures that the promotion considers to be trade secrets. However, the new non-disparagement provision seems like new territory that the UFC is treading on amid the pandemic.

Do you think this is ethical?