UFC boss Dana White‘s move to give the fans a unique opportunity at UFC 316 has seemingly backfired! The UFC’s “Name on Canvas” campaign sounded like a VIP dream—pay $500 and your name gets printed onto the mat for a real UFC event. After the show, you get a framed piece of the used canvas, authenticated and all. But for the fans watching the event, it turned into something else entirely.

Memories came crashing back of UFC 200 and its infamous mustard-yellow mat, now mocked as one of the brand’s worst visual missteps. When UFC first introduced “Name on Canvas” back in February 2025, it was meant to be exclusive. A bridge between fan and fighter—a collector’s dream.

But as more fans saw the latest design, it was less about legacy and more about exposition. The new mat featured bold UFC lettering, corporate chickens, and plenty of yellow accents. It was UFC 200 all over again.

This backlash isn’t just about color. It’s about brand identity. UFC has built its legacy on rawness. By turning the Octagon into a pay-to-print zone, the UFC and Dana White may have unknowingly diluted the very thing that makes it magnetic.

And then there’s the price tag. Sure, the canvas gets framed. But if what’s on that canvas feels like a cheesy marketing ploy, is it still worth the cost? Here’s a look at what the internet had to say!

Fans slam Dana White and Co. as ghosts of UFC 200 blunder rear their head at UFC 316

One fan joked, “Wow I think I see my name on the UFC canvas if you really squint… and it only cost me $500.” The sarcasm hit hard. For many, this wasn’t worth the price tag. Especially when you’re paying for what looked like a billboard floor. Fans expected to feel special, but instead, they feel lost in a sea of clutter.

Others flat-out questioned the logic. “Why would anyone PAY to put their name in a UFC canvas? Seriously – what is cool about this? Why is this an interesting collector’s item?” another asked. This reaction didn’t just reject the idea, it questioned its entire appeal. To some, it’s a marketing gimmick, not memorabilia. What do you think?

And the most vocal critics? They brought out the big flashbacks writing, “Between the chicken logo and the gold UFC letters, I’m getting flashbacks of the yellow canvas from UFC 200. I still haven’t recovered from that experience…” For long-time followers, it’s not just a visual problem. It’s a symbolic one, a return to one of UFC’s most mocked aesthetic choices.

Even the UFC’s logo choices were under fire. “This f— chicken logo,” one fan posted bluntly. Another added, “UFC’s gotta rethink some of these canvas ads.”  The sentiment? There’s something about seeing a rooster next to bloodstains and leg kicks that just doesn’t sit right with purists.

To wrap things up, in trying to bring fans closer to the Octagon, Dana White may have stepped too far into the territory of commercialization. What was pitched as a rare collectible turned into a visual misfire and a branding headache. The backlash wasn’t just about aesthetics, it struck at the heart of what fans believe the UFC should represent.  So, was “Name on Canvas” a bold innovation or an expensive mistake? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!