Sure, the UFC’s extraordinary run of success under Dana White long predates the Trump era. But ever since 45/47 descended the golden escalator, the league White bought for $2 million in 2001 has reached remarkable heights. The outfit is six months into a seven-year, $7.7 billion media rights deal with Paramount; it has multimillion-dollar sponsorship deals with brands like Bud Light, Meta, Monster Energy, and Ram Trucks through the end of the decade; and 10 days from now, it will host a card on the White House lawn, heretofore the site of Easter egg rolls and Thanksgiving turkey pardons. Not bad for a league that was still banned in the state of New York 10 years ago.

In many ways, the June 14 event signals how far the organization has invaded the mainstream. The temporary arena, dubbed “The Claw,” will accommodate between 4,000 and 5,000 fans, and has become the stuff of memes and group chats as it has slowly been erected this spring. But some in the sports world have started to openly wonder whether White’s genuinely close friendship with Trump is good for the business in the long term. A couple weeks ago, even UFC commentator and manosphere chieftain Joe Rogan dismissed the spectacle as the “White House thing,” before distilling his impressions more simply: “I don’t like it.” (Rogan still will be ringside…)

That said, nearly every sports media professional I heard from this week believes the UFC still has much more room to grow. “There’s just very little risk to the business,” Guggenheim’s Curry Baker told me. It’s a common sentiment among financial analysts, who point to the UFC’s myriad long-term deals and the remarkable upside to the Paramount partnership, which involved scrapping the pay-per-view regime that prevented the league’s expansion under ESPN. “UFC is at the apex of exposure right now,” said LightShed’s Brandon Ross, “given that it went from a pay-per-view model where not that many people were seeing their best content, to being very well-featured with easy access on CBS and Paramount+.” (Interestingly, CBS is not scheduled to carry any of the White House fights, although Paramount+ will stream it all.)

And yet, while financial analysts are generally positive about the UFC’s future, they see some potential red flags the sport needs to address. The biggest issue—raised by nearly every analyst I chatted with—was the absence of household names currently fighting in the octagon. “It starts with star generation,” said Wolfe Research’s Peter Supino. “The league is in a soft patch for superstars, and it needs to come up with more.” Take next week’s White House fight, which features two main events and four fighters (Ilia Topuria vs. Justin Gaethje and Alex Pereira vs. Ciryl Gane) whom almost no one beyond the league’s existing fans will recognize.

On the bundle’s revenge: “I was especially amused with your podcast on Sunday, when you discussed the MoffettNathanson piece saying the bundle was being re-created (mainly by Charter) and might be acting to slow cord-cutting. Here in the U.K., Sky has used a similar strategy. Charter has had some success, such that its TV losses had slowed right down. But Comcast is having less success, which is ironic given that it now owns Sky.” —A media executive

On the NBA Finals: “ESPN is going to have to really step up their game for the Finals and going forward, because NBC just showed everyone how to make a broadcast look like an event. ESPN has some catching up to do.” —A Varsity subscriber

Errata: “Mike McQuade’s last name was misspelled in your column. While McQuade is quite humble and unlikely to mention it himself, I figured you’d want to know.” —A media executive

[Ed. note: This is one of nearly a dozen notes I received after misspelling McQuade’s name on Tuesday. My sincere apologies to Mike for the error.]

Have a great weekend. See you Monday.

John