How do UFC manage Its stakeholders in Doping cases?

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is a professional mixed martial arts (MMA) organisation founded in 1993. It has recently obtained a broad prominence after its acquisition by Lorenzon and Frank Fertitta in 2001, to become a premium sports global brand (UFC, 2018). The Fertitta brothers installed Dana White as a company president, who rendered it reach a meteoric rise through adopting new administrative policies such as implementing a range of rules for the purpose of protecting from the sanction of the State Athletic Commissions and the exuberant intensive marketing and promoting campaigns resulting in more audience (MMAOdds, 2019). Therefore, to keep its prosperity UFC managers have to forge a strategy based on effectively managing the activities with its stakeholders, as they directly or indirectly influence the continuum of the fighting business. Its performances and interests are prone to their effects. Those entities' importance levels will determine their implications. Thus, due to the significant issues surrounding UFC objectives such as, merchandising, broadcasting or doping, Identifying a typology of stakeholders to keep the high performance while dealing with those entities is necessary.  This essay aims to undertake a comprehensive study about the definition of  stakeholders and how their typology is identified depending on the possession of three important attributes. It takes the UFC’s paradigm as an application specifically in cases pertaining to doping,  to elucidate how stakeholders play a significant part in impacting the organisation performances.

The notion of stakeholders was introduced by Freeman after he published in his book ‘’Strategic management: A Stakeholder Approach ’’  the principle of ‘’who or what really counts’’ and several definitions have emerged building on it, comprising narrow and broad ones. Consequently a debate was created about stakeholders definition, particularly how Freeman defined them by ‘’any groups or individuals affect or are affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives ‘’(Mitchel et al, 1997, p.2). 

Subsequently, Mitchell et al (1997) deemed this definition a broad one. It encompasses all stakeholders types with no exclusion of any potential or actual ones. Henceforth, Through their normative theory they introduced a proposal to identify  the entities to whom managers should pay attention structured on the possession of three attributes, power to influence the firm, legitimacy of the relationship with the organisation, and urgency of the claim (Mitchel et al,1997). It is complicated to identify the precise definition of the notion of power. But, its most current definition is  ’the probability that one actor within a social relationship would be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance (Mitchell, n.d,p.164). To elucidate more, power is the ability of a stakeholder group to impact on the continuum of an organisation through the access to certain resources or ownership. The higher level of access is available, the more influence this group will be able to result (Winkler, 2009). That implies when an entity has power, it has the coercive, utilitarian, or normative means and methods to impose its will (Mitchel et al, 1997).  However, Those means are considered unsteady, which impinges on power and renders it transitory. It can be acquired as it can be lost (IBID). Besides That, Legitimacy is a pivotal attribute for stakeholders salience identification. It represents the level of legitimacy of stakeholders claims. It is defined as ’‘a generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’ (Mirchel et al, 1997,p.866). Although it's imprecision, This definition is representative for the sociological aspects of legitimacy containing various utilitarian definitions or process of identifying stakeholders (Mitchel et al, 1997). Legitimacy also might be defined by  ‘’ socially accepted or expected structures or behaviours “ (Winkler 2009, p.5). It is determined by stakeholder possession of moral, legal and presumably claim, that potentially affects the organisation’s behaviour, procedures or results (Rawlins, 2006).  Additionally, Urgency is considered the third important attribute for identifying stakeholders groups. It is defined as  ’’ the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention’’ (Mitchel et al ,1997 ,p.15). It is perceived as a multidimensional construct that includes both time sensitivity and how critical is the relationship with the stakeholders for their claims. Time sensitivity is the degree to which managerial delay is unacceptable to the stakeholders in attending to the claim, and the critical relationship refers to the importance of the claim to the stakeholder (Mitchell et al,  2011, p. 6).

Therefore, To determine how to interact with stakeholders, a typology has been introduced building on those attributes and their combination. The more combined attributes a stakeholder possesses, the more his salience will be higher. Attribute combination is the key to understanding Mitchell et al’ s model. Consequently, Seven classes of stakeholders are the outcomes of it, leading to three main groups, Latent, Expectant and Definitive (Mitchel et al, 1997). Stakeholders possessing only one attribute are deemed Latents. This group contains three types of stakeholders Dormant, Discretionary and Demanding. They are perceived by managers as unimportant entities. They have low salience and they might not be recognized as stakeholders (Rawlins, 2006).  Dormant ones have only power to impose their wills and enforce their stance through utilitarian, coercive or symbolic means which predominantly remains ineffective (Mitchel el, 1997). Similarly, Discretionary stakeholders are the entity with only Legitimacy. They might represent some of the Social Corporate Responsibility Recipients. No power to impact on the organisation and no urgency of claims. Thus, they have no pressure on managers to engage with them (Mitchel el, 1997). Additionally, the group possessing Urgency, with no legitimacy or power is perceived as a demanding stakeholders group. They are described as the only irritants of managers and they might be troublesome but not dangerous to the firm running. Where urgency is insufficient to project stakeholder claims beyond latency (IBID).   

However, The following main group is the expectant ones. It consists of the stakeholders category which possess two attributes. It contains three types of entities, Dominant, Dangerous and Dependent and all those stakeholders are possessing a moderate salience (Şener et al, 2016). Managers have higher levels of engagement with them than Latent stakeholders, where they are considered an ‘expecting something’ due to the combination of the two attributes which leads to an active stance rather than passive (Mitchel et al, 1997).  First group within this type are Dominant stakeholders. They illustrate the case where a stakeholder is legitimate and powerful at the same time. This group has an important relationship with the organisation, and formal mechanisms might be followed to acknowledge them with the nature of their relationship with the firm (Mitchell, n.d.). Secondly, Dangerous stakeholders are the ones with powerful and urgent claims. This entity predominantly relies on formal channels to execute their needs. But they might be coercive or violent to impose their claims through various manners, namely boycotts or protests (Rawlins, 2006). Finally, The last group of the expectant stakeholders represent the dependent ones. Who only have legitimacy and urgency. They lack  power to enhance their stance and they are dependent on other powerful stakeholders to execute their wills. because power in this relationship is not reciprocal. The advocacy of any powerful  group will help them meet their needs and claims, like dominant ones for instance (Mitchell, n.d.).  Eventually, the Definitive stakeholders group is possessing all the three attributes combined, their salience is extremely high,  which requires an immediate priority to be given to them by managers. Likewise, expectant stakeholders who acquire the missing attribute will move to a definitive stakeholders. Where a misperception or inattention to their claims will impinge on the performance of the organisation (Mitchel et al, 1997).  

Overall, This Model of stakeholders salience identification is dynamic, where Mitchell et al (1997) pointed out that the possession of the attributes is variable, as well as they are objective and just a result of human perceptions. Any stakeholders group might gain or lose attributes to impact on the managerial perspective.Thus, Managers must be aware of the change in a stakeholder salience which requires an uneven degree of attention depending on attributes (Mitchel et al, 1997).  However, The stakeholders theory has become an indispensable tool for the management of different sports organisations. Simultaneously, with the growing competition in the sector, understanding key stakeholders and their mutual influential relationship with the firm will help heavily in resulting positive impacts through focusing on the most influential ones.

Therefore, UFC managers should utilise this stakeholders typology to implement expedient policies for proper managerial interactions. Especially in doping cases where the firm is dealing with several stakeholders, managers, fighters, United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), media or broadcasters for news diffusion, and surely its fanbase or followers. Each engaged entity will be affected by any fluctuations pertained to this theme.

Primarily, Doping is a phenomena deterring sports integrity and the truthfulness of its successful accomplishment, it is defined as ‘’the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample’’ (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2015, p.18). Namely fighters are the focus of the case in doping situations, where numerous deliberately resort to those performances’ enhancers for a variety of reasons, such as the non acceptance of their natural abilities or potentially they are seen as a way to meet some athletes’ expectations of being the best and obtaining legacy in what they do (FIFA, 2016) . From the managerial perspective, attention must be paid to UFC fighters due to their possession of legitimacy and urgency combined as numerous are looking for a competitive advantage. Hence, they might put a burden on the fighting organisation or make attempts to shorten any suspensions or sanctions decisions. Where we see predominantly fighters are trying to defend themselves through making excuses such as consuming legal substances containing illegal substances. Tim Means and Yoel Romero for example had their bans shortened as they were considered not to have known they were consuming a banned substance (The Stats Zone, 2017). Overall, fighters lack the power to impose their wills and to issue some alterations, keeping them in a dependent stakeholders position. But they are capable of moving into definitive stakeholders if dominant ones are backing them up or if they possess the needed attribute.  

Equally important, USADA is a crucial stakeholder in issues pertaining to doping. It is recognized by the UFC as the official and independent anti-doping agency for the organisation which has been in partnership with it Since 2015 (USADA,2019) . And this confirms its legitimate relationship as one of UFC  stakeholders which aims to preserve the integrity of competition and protect the rights of athletes as well as the image of the fighting sport. Its adjudication process is based on the existence of evidence of anti-doping violence  where due to MMA Sport nature many athletes tend to use performance enhancers. So the anti-doping board (ADRB) has to determine whether an athlete should be charged with an anti-doping rule violation after testing his urine sample (USADA,2019). Hence, in positive test cases UFC must immediately take charge of preventing the athlete from participation in scheduled events until his case is resolved to keep its competitive credibility, as UFC Chief Legal Officer Hunter Campbell told ESPN (Okamoto, 2018). That implies USADA has legitimacy and urgency combined, making it identified as a dependent stakeholder with no power to edit or pass its desirable decisions.

IIn addition, The diffusion of doping news is the broadcasters' responsibility. Recently UFC programming has been broadcast  in over 165 countries with more than 40 different languages (UFC, 2018). ESPN's $150 million per year contract with UFC in 2018 is an example illustrating the promotional importance of broadcasters to gain wider prominence through covering fighting events (Reinsmith, 2018).  Which emphasise on the legitimate relationship between UFC and its broadcasters who have as well an urgency in their claims, because they are absolutely indispensable platform to obtain valuable stature in sports strip, any variations in their appeals such as deal expiry, or contract clauses must be taken urgently, to avoid downturns, distortion and conflicts. Managers must open up negotiations doors  as an immediate reaction for those dependent stakeholders via either amending agreement terms or entirely changing the engaged entity. 

Importantly, fans are a significant contributor stakeholder to UFC growth, and naturally, problems might occur due to delayed, cancelled or falsely reported announcements leading to fans’ dissatisfaction possibly for doping cases reasons. For instance, due to Jon jones doping test procedures, his fight moved to another arena (Okamoto, 2015).  Most fans clearly refuse dubious wins, with obvious cheating or oppression. Thus, any wrong dealing or omission towards doping violation cases might weaken the interest of fans into MMA organisations and push them to criticise the regulations and claim interventions. In doping issues, fans possess power to pass their wills through increasing the pressure on UFC via boycotting events or cancelling subscriptions, as well as the urgency in their appeals which require urgent interactions. Therefore fans are deemed dangerous stakeholders. 

Finally, UFC directors and managers have to oppose doping and keep UFC credibility and integrity in order to protect the fighting organisation from reputation deterioration. Through their possessed power, they are capable to bear liabilities, and govern UFC policies and pass their desirable rules. They need to set updated policies and rules contributing to a better performance for the mixed martial organisation. For example, after the unclear situation of Nate Diaz ahead of UFC 244, new policies were required to avoid those misunderstandings for future events (Goldberg, 2019). Likewise, Managers have urgency in their claims which require immediate attention to avoid any negative implication on the continuum of the organisation, and a legitimate and proper relationship with the fighting  business. Thus, they are in a convenient position to act as definitive stakeholders and deserve high attention and immediate interaction.  

To sum up, UFC prosperity depends on its managerial attitudes and approaches towards its stakeholders. The proposed salience model helped in identifying the most influential entities in the organisation in order to manage a better interaction with them as doping issues in UFC model have shown. However, The stakeholders typology is overall established on three attributes. Power to influence the firm, legitimacy of the stakeholders’ relationship with the firm and the urgency of their claims on the organisation .The more possession of  those attributes combined the more salience a stakeholder will require from managers (Mitchel et al, 1997). Consequently, The classification resulted in three main groups of stakeholders. Firsty, Latent group which represents entities with only one attribute, encompassing dormant, discretionary and demanding stakeholders. Secondly, Expectant groups include stakeholders with two attributes, who are the dominant, dangerous and dependent ones. Finally, The engaged entity with highest salience is the definitive stakeholders group which possess all the three attributes combined (Mitchel et al, 1997).  Therefore, the awareness about the fluctuations of attributes possession must be in the managerial vision, as this typology is dynamic and stakeholders classes might change in case of a stakeholder gain or lose attributes, or in the case of  any other group is covering other’s lack of one needed attribute or more through backing them up and supporting their claims. In addition, the UFC paradigm  has shown how the significance of stakeholders identification helped to execute proper rules and kept the fighting business in an expedient framework. In specific doping cases,  focusing on the most influential stakeholders such as fighters or USADA  is an efficient process for setting updated policies and solving urgent problems. Hence, UFC directors have to adopt this typology to deal with other important issues as well. For example, sponsorship, broadcasting or marketing. Where any activities related to those themes will be critical and requires an orderly intervention by the managerial crew.

References :

FIFA (2016). Reasons behind doping - FIFA Anti-Doping. [online] No-doping.fifa.com. Available at: https://no-doping.fifa.com/en/what-is-doping/reasons-behind-doping.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2019].

Goldberg, R. (2019). UFC Makes 'Significant' Revisions to Drug Policy to Fight Tainted Supplements. [online] Bleacher Report. Available:  https://bleacherreport.com/users/55185   [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Mitchell, R., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997). “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts “. The Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), pp. 853-886. Available: https://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199710%2922%3A4%3C853%3ATATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0  [Accessed: 4 November 2019 ].

Mitchell, R., Agle, B., J. Chrisman, J. and J. Spence, L. (2011). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Salience in Family Firms. [ebook] Business Ethics Quarterly. Available: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/rawlsbusiness/people/faculty/management/ronald-mitchell/documents/TowardaTheoryofStakeholderSalience.pdf  [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].

Mitchell, R. (n.d.). "Assessing Stakeholder Interests in Prosperity and Cultural Well-being", MASTERS IN OUR OWN HOUSE: THE PATH TO PROSPERITY,[online] Available: https://www.ronaldmitchell.org/publications/app.pdf  [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

MMAOdds (2019). History of the UFC - How the UFC Started. [online] MMA Odds. Available: https://www.mmaodds.com/history-of-the-ufc/  [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].

Okamoto, B. (2015). Why is UFC 232 moving, and what does it mean for fighters and fans?. [online] espn.co.uk. Available: https://www.espn.com.sg/mma/story/_/id/12343412/ufc-drug-test-fighters-year-round-part-new-anti-doping-plan  [Accessed 13 Dec. 2019].

Okamoto, B. (2018). UFC changes anti-doping policy; more may come. [online] ESPN.com. Available:https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/story/_/id/24825931/ufc-changes-anti-doping-policy-discussing-more  [Accessed 11 Dec. 2019].

Rawlins, B. (2006), Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, [online] Institute for Public Relations. Available: https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2006_Stakeholders_1.pdf  [Accessed 14 Dec. 2019].

Reinsmith, T. (2018). UFC's $750 Million Deal With ESPN A Reminder That Fighters Don't Get A Negotiated Share Of Revenue. [online] Forbes.com. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2018/05/08/ufcs-750-million-deal-with-espn-a-reminder-that-fighters-dont-get-a-negotiated-share-of-revenue/#568d001f7ac1  [Accessed 12 Dec. 2019].

Şener, İ., Varoğlu, A. and Karapolatgil, A. (2016). Sustainability Reports Disclosures:Who are the Most Salient Stakeholders?. [online] Antalya: Turkey: Elsevier Ltd. Available: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1877042816315622?token=34CE676C5779B7A7EC75E783779D49E562C8E35A97EBD482F87E9C5F44D4E9709B8C67872B9C22A5A7B4C6DF3AAF15A8  [Accessed 13 Dec. 2019].

The Stats Zone (2017). Doping In MMA – How Much Of An Advantage Does It Give A Fighter? - The Stats Zone. [online] TheStatsZone.com. Available: https://www.thestatszone.com/archive/doping-in-mma-how-much-of-an-advantage-does-it-give-a-fighter-13342  [Accessed 6 Dec. 2019].

UFC (2018). History of UFC | UFC. [online] Ufc.com. Available: https://www.ufc.com/history-ufc [Accessed 30 Oct. 2019].

USADA (2019). Adjudication Process - Results | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). [online] U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). Available: https://www.usada.org/athletes/results/adjudication-process [Accessed 5 Nov. 2019].

Winkler, I. (2009) “Stakeholder Salience in Corporate Codes of Ethics:Using Legitimacy, Power, and Urgency to Explain Stakeholder Relevance in Ethical Codes of German Blue Chip Companies”,  Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, [online], 14(1), 9. Available: http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol14_no1_pages_4-13.pdf [Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].

World Anti-Doping Agency (2015), WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE, [online] Montreal, Quebec: World Anti-Doping Agency. Available: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf  [Accessed 7 Dec. 2019].