UFC struck a landmark deal with Paramount+ and CBS last year, closing a massive $7.7 billion agreement. Following the broadcast deal, the promotion saw a financial boost as its stock rose rapidly. However, after the partnership officially began in January 2026, a whistleblower’s accusation involving the UFC’s current broadcasting partner’s president has sparked fresh drama.

According to a report by The Hollywood Reporter, R.J. Cipriani, a renowned high-stakes gambler and past federal whistleblower, has accused Paramount Global’s president, Jeff Shell, of sharing confidential information about the multi-billion-dollar, seven-year deal with UFC, which they finalized in August last year. As per the report, Shell disclosed the timing, price, and structure before the deal was officially announced, which is often considered improper disclosure in the market.

Following Cipriani’s allegations, Paramount Global’s president has hired an outside law firm to investigate the accusations, and the report further confirms the involvement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is scrutinizing the matter to determine whether any securities or insider-related rules were violated in this case.

Taking us further into the legal fiasco, the popular outlet also contacted Jeff Shell’s attorney, Patricia Glaser, to clarify the unfolding situation. Interestingly, Glaser previously represented the whistleblower Cipriani and now sides with the Paramount+ president.

“We were presented with a draft complaint riddled with clear errors of fact and law and the threat that it would be filed, but if he makes the mistake of going ahead with it, we will strongly respond,” Glaser told The Hollywood Reporter.

News served to you like never before!

Prefer us on Google, To get latest news on feed

Prefer Us on Google

Furthermore, as Jeff Shell moves toward a legal collision course with Cipriani, this is not the first time he has faced trouble from the whistleblower. The two have engaged in legal back-and-forth over other matters, including consulting services, while they continued settlement talks.

However, as Paramount+ undergoes investigation, a UFC fighter openly questions and criticizes the platform’s partnership with the promotion he competes in.

Michael ‘Venom’ Page isn’t thrilled about UFC’s partnership with Paramount

For the most part, UFC fans were thrilled to watch the promotion grow under its lucrative Paramount+ and CBS era. But on the other side, another question loomed: What’s in it for the fighters? So far, the promotion has introduced a new bonus structure under the new broadcasting partners. But the overall pay remains a burning dispute, especially for UFC fighters.

Recently, Dana White and Co. signed the famous British boxer Conor Benn, reportedly for $15 million to fight under the Zuffa Boxing banner. That move definitely set a mark on the TKO Group Holdings ’ endeavors in boxing. But at the same time, it also displayed the disparity between boxers’ and MMA fighters’ payouts. Addressing that issue, Michael Page reflected on how the UFC’s partnership with Paramount+ has affected this gap, as he feels largely unexcited.

“It’s not something that I’m happy about,” Page told Yahoo Sports. “What I would say is when the announcement of the Paramount, big-money partnership [with the UFC] came, people were asking me, ‘Are you excited about this?’ And my answer was, ‘Well, what does that mean for the fighters? Until we understand how that’s going to translate to the fighters, there’s nothing to really be excited about.’”

As ‘Venom’ opened up about the UFC’s marquee deal being unexciting for the fighters, Justin Gaethje also revealed that he did not make bigger money under the new broadcasting partners ahead of his fight vs Paddy Pimblett at UFC 324. Although later it was revealed that Dana White had offered him a much better contract in terms of money, he rejected it.

That said, with all the goods, the UFC’s partnership with Paramount is also seeing some turbulence on multiple fronts. But would that affect their partnership in the long run? Let us know in the comments section below.