Published 66 days ago
UFC Under the Spotlight: Dana White Accused of Twisting Facts After Zuffa Boxing 10
Hidden h2 tag if not homepage
At Zuffa Boxing 10 in Dublin, UFC president Dana White claimed the absence of ring girls was due to a supposed British law. A statement quickly debunked, revealing a geographical mix-up and a controversial attempt at justification.
To remember:
- Dana White attributed the absence of ring girls to a British law at Zuffa Boxing 10 in Dublin, a claim that was factually incorrect.
- Ireland, the host country, is not subject to UK legislation, making this justification invalid.
- British organizations like Matchroom or Queensberry still use ring girls, highlighting the inconsistency in White’s remarks.
- Social media amplified the controversy, with a viral clip surpassing 120,000 views in just a few hours.
On October 20, 2023, during the Zuffa Boxing 10 event in Dublin, a statement by Dana White, UFC president, sent social media into a frenzy. Claiming that the absence of ring girls was mandated by a British law, he was quickly proven wrong by the facts. Ireland, where the event took place, is not subject to UK legislation—a geographical mix-up that sparked widespread ridicule.
This attempt at justification was seen as clumsy, especially since British organizations like Matchroom or Queensberry consistently feature ring girls at their events. A glaring inconsistency that fueled criticism of the UFC. Social media didn’t take long to react: on platform X, a clip of the exchange was shared by the account Happy Punch, racking up over 120,000 views in just a few hours. Users highlighted the irony of such a blunder, given that Dublin has been the capital of Ireland for over a century.
A Controversy Revealing Tensions Around Ring Girls
The incident shines a light on the ongoing debates surrounding ring girls in combat sports. While some organizations, like the UFC, have chosen to do without them, others, such as British boxing, continue to include them. This divergence in practices reflects different visions of the spectacle and tradition. Yet, the argument put forward by White seems far removed from legal reality, turning a simple anecdote into a full-blown controversy.
Reactions on social media were unanimous: White’s statement was seen as an attempt to mask an organizational choice with a false legal pretext. A strategy that, far from convincing, only fueled mockery and criticism of the UFC’s leadership.
This controversy underscores the sensitivity of topics related to traditions and the evolution of combat sports. While the UFC has long abandoned ring girls, its president might have been better off avoiding a justification based on a factual error. A lesson in humility that reminds us that, in the age of social media, any statement can go viral in an instant.