A provision in the UFC’s conduct policy allows for financial penalties against fighters who say or do the wrong thing. Is that a problematic move, or a genuine attempt to rein in bad behavior? MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes discuss in this week’s Trading Shots.

Fowlkes: I got a look at the new “athlete conduct policy” the UFC sent to fighters this week, Danny. In addition to the slight upgrade to lower Reebok pay tiers, there was also this:

“In the event an athlete engages in derogatory or offensive conduct, including without limitation insulting language, symbols, or actions about a person’s ethnic background, heritage, color, race, national origin, age, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation, such conduct will result in sanctions in the form of contractual reduction from the athlete’s purse for his/her next bout.”

I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, this sounds like a positive step if you’re tired of supporting a sport in which the athletes regularly hurl anti-gay slurs at each other without consequence. Want to make fighters act like decent humans? Hit ’em in the wallet the way other sports leagues do.

On the other hand, how much do we trust the UFC to apply such a policy fairly and evenly? This doesn’t say how big a “contractual reduction” we might be talking about, but it does cover a broad swath of behavior. Will that apply to superstars as well as newcomers? Will it be applied at all? And is it a little too convenient that the punishment results in the UFC having to pay fighters less?

Downes: Part of me thought the Yuletide spirit might move you to do something positive this week. Then again, I’m sure you’d like to add saying “Merry Christmas” to the list of offensive conduct that the new UFC policy outlines.

I don’t know if I find this as positive of a step as you do. Something isn’t always better than nothing, and I don’t know if this policy is better than the previous status quo. That doesn’t mean I’m “pro-hate.” It means that this policy won’t solve the issue it’s trying to tackle and will most likely make things worse.

First off, UFC management has not exactly had the best track record when it comes to policing its own derogatory conduct. I’m specifically thinking about UFC President Dana White. We can run through all his greatest hits and come up with a number of comments that we could characterize as homophobic or misogynistic.

White has apologized for his use of gay slurs (although he hasn’t shown any contrition for the way he treated Loretta Hunt or other female reporters), and I realize you shouldn’t hold someone responsible for mistakes made in perpetuity, but it does strike me as odd that a man who has never faced repercussions for his misdeeds would now like to oversee the punishment of others.

Secondly, if you think the UFC will apply this policy “fairly and evenly,” I have a bridge to Mt. Xyience I’d like to sell you. Conor McGregor has been caught on camera using homophobic slurs on multiple occasions. Can you tell me what punishment he’s received?

Let’s say he gets fined under this new policy. What amount of money would be appropriate? “Mystic Mac” drops $10,000 on a pair of shoes. He might just make a down payment of $50k and save himself the time of writing the checks.

Would Chael Sonnen have been fined under this system when he demeaned Brazilians for “playing in the mud?” Oh, that wasn’t racist, he was just trying to sell a fight! Is it OK to demean your opponent if it’s part of your schtick?

Let’s think about Colby Covington, the less charismatic Sonnen wannabe. When he calls Brazilians “filthy animals,” would that qualify as demeaning someone’s national origin? I’d say so, but how else will Covington garner interest for a fight against Rafael dos Anjos?

There are numerous other hypotheticals we could go over, but the point remains the same. This is an organization that has used offensive speech to profit for years. This is also an organization that has unfairly applied the rules for years. If you don’t believe me, just ask Jason High.

You honestly expect this to work? This is a cheap PR ploy and nothing else. This is like when people want credit for “making a difference” when all they did was run in a charity 5K.

Fowlkes: Yeah, but in this case it’s more like running a charity 5K that potentially puts money in your own pocket. That’s the part that concerns me, potentially more than the uneven application of the rules. As written, seems like the punishment for breaking the rules is that the UFC gets to do something it might like to do anyway, which is pay fighters less for performing the same work.

That gives the UFC an incentive to find fault. It also seems extremely tone deaf, especially considering what a persistent issue fighter pay is.

Remember when word spread that the UFC had rendered Al Iaquinta temporarily ineligible for performance bonuses as punishment for a series of perceived missteps? That was not a good look for the UFC. It played directly into the criticism that the UFC uses its own bonus system as both carrot and stick. Plus, you know “Ragin’ Al” still hasn’t forgiven and forgotten.

But just because there are concerns with how this is all going to work, does that mean it’s all a useless effort? You raise good points about the line between hyping a fight and just being a jerk. That line can get blurry in fight sports.

But look at that interaction between Covington and Fabricio Werdum in Australia. Werdum hit the man with a freaking boomerang, Danny, and the UFC’s response was that it would have to check and see if that violated the “athlete conduct policy.” Which, come on, if it doesn’t, then you effectively have no conduct policy.

Same with Covington throwing out anti-gay slurs in response, or with Werdum throwing the same slurs at Tony Ferguson a few weeks prior.

Seems to me that either we want the UFC to do something about fighter conduct outside the cage (a topic we’ve discussed in this very space pretty recently) or we don’t. And if we don’t, then buckle up for a good old-fashioned slur-a-thon, my man. And I can’t think that will be a good long-term look for the UFC either.

Downes: Ben, you always struck me as a “participation trophy” guy. I had my suspicions, but this confirms it. Now, I don’t have anything against participation trophies per se, but I believe they should be used prudently. A bunch of kids on a T-ball team? Sure, let’s give them a trophy. It will encourage them to stay active and learn some life skills. A multi-billion dollar company? I don’t think they should receive kudos for just trying.

You, on the other hand, want to give the UFC a pat on the back for doing nothing to limit “offensive conduct” while exerting even more leverage on fighters.

This conduct policy will be used to intimidate and harass fighters. The UFC can barely get high-level officials to understand misogyny and derogatory comments, yet we trust those officials to explain the finer points to hundreds of fighters spread across multiple countries?

The goal is honorable, but there’s no system in place for how this will be adjudicated. Advertisers are increasingly concerned with the conduct of the people they support. Pressure from people on social media and elsewhere caused companies to drop their support of Sean Hannity, Cam Newton, USA Gymnastics, the NFL, YouTube and many others. Each one of those sponsorship losses has their own specific set of circumstances, but they’re part of a larger trend in advertising.

This UFC policy isn’t interested in creating a more inclusive sport. It’s about covering their behinds. They want to keep that [insert Kevin James movie] money coming and will do what they can to ensure it doesn’t go away. If that means they have to be heavy-handed to some mid-carder, so be it. In the battle between advertiser and gatekeeper, who do you think wins?

We do want to do something about fighter conduct outside the cage, but this isn’t it. This is a haphazard policy that will only make things worse. There’s no foundation to this code, and it will collapse on itself. Anything worth doing is worth doing right the first time. But if you still want your participation trophy, I can mail it to your house in time for the new year.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.

Filed under: Featured, News, UFC