Issue 050

June 2009

By Graham Smyth.

We’ll show the world that the boys are back to stay, and you all know what we can do. Heads held high, fighting all the way, for the red, white, and blue.”

‘England Belongs to Me’ is the punk anthem that accompanies Dan Hardy as he swaggers to the Octagon, and probably sums up the attitude of both teams in the new series of The Ultimate Fighter.  

One team, coached by Michael Bisping, will fight under the Union Jack, while Dan Henderson’s charges will represent the Stars and Stripes. While Dana White criticized the idea of having the UK square-up to the US, it’s an intriguing situation and one that is bound to bring out the nationalist, patriot or xenophobe in most of us.  

Internet forums are awash with cockiness, defiance and blind loyalty to whichever team the person is supporting. There are, of course, those who can look past the accent of a fighter and evaluate their chances of winning TUF based on their skill set or experience. But there are those who simply cannot see past the passport, and it is their mentality that often reigns at local shows when, regardless of whether they’ve heard of a local fighter or not, he will get cheered to the rafters, while an out-of-towner attracts boos and whistles.  

There is nothing wrong with being proud of where you’re from, and wanting everything and everyone associated with the area or country to flourish. But it is when an audience, or the vocal majority in an audience, make their feelings known from a position of ignorance, or from a fear of an outsider (instead of from a pride in their roots), that MMA strays dangerously close to becoming just another sport. Cases of crowd trouble at MMA shows resulting from clashes between rival groups of supporters are thankfully rare, although more often than not promoters rely on a local fighter’s following to boost ticket sales, resulting in partisan crowds.  

There’s little danger, if any at all, of that kind of crowd trouble at an Ultimate Fighting Championship event. But is it healthy for the UFC to be promoting patriotism over an appreciation for the skill of the individual fighter? The UK battling the US is a clever marketing ploy. It will capture the imagination of members of the British public who wish to see their countrymen get one over on the ‘Yanks’. Similarly, there will be Americans who tune in because they want to see the Brits sent home unhappy. It’s not the first time the promotion has used nationality to boost ratings or ticket sales.

Even tiny details like the emphasis Bruce Buffer places on the birthplace of Bisping, Hardy, Taylor or Etim when announcing their names at UFC events in Britain cannot go unnoticed. The UFC wants the English to support their boys and they want America to get behind their own, and for this series to be successful that is what must happen.  

It could backfire, however. Should the series become entrenched in a country versus country rivalry, Bisping may not endear himself to a Stateside audience who will be asked to fork out to watch him fight in years to come. A fighter’s marketability will be hindered if he alienates, even through no fault of his own, an entire country. When it comes down to ‘us versus them’ is the typical UFC audience going to be able to separate the facts (such as a fighter’s abilities or accomplishments) from the hype?  

Perhaps the British sense of humor will filter into American homes without annoying the viewers, and maybe the UK audience will appreciate the brashness of some of Henderson’s fighters. There may even be transatlantic camaraderie between the rival camps. We could see Brit befriend American and vice versa. Bisping and Henderson may even disappoint the hype merchants and be nothing but courteous in the run-up to their fight.

But what is all but guaranteed is this: Should the final come down to one of ‘us’ versus one of ‘them’, most of us will root for ‘our’ guy, even if he is not the most deserving, or the most talented.