The UFC’s tribute post for political commentator Charlie Kirk prompted a major backlash on social media after former UFC media relations specialist Ant Evans publicly criticized the promotion’s decision during UFC Noche weekend.
“I’m so ashamed to have worked at this company,” Evans declared on social media, expressing his disgust at the organization’s tribute to the conservative political figure.
Evans worked as the promotion’s UK-based media relations specialist during its international expansion era starting in 2006. The response to his post was immediate and heated, with former UFC champion Aljamain Sterling stepping in to calm the tone.
“My brother, I don’t think he’s as bad as you’re making him to be. Do you have to agree with everything someone says? No. So why such harsh criticism? I really don’t get it,”
Sterling wrote.
Evans doubled down and continued his critique of Kirk‘s past remarks and public positions. He accused Kirk of advocating for televised public punishments and of treating serious criminal incidents as spectacle.
“I’m literally quoting his own words… Ergo – Mr Kirk said EXACTLY THE SAME THING ABOUT OTHER”
Evans wrote when challenged by critics. When pressed for specifics he claimed the commentator had suggested those events should be “televised, too.”
The exchange revealed deep divisions in the MMA community about when public commentary crosses a line and how organizations should respond. One user condemned Evans for the timing and tone of his remarks.
Evans replied that he was applying the same standard he believes Kirk has applied to others, and that he was defending a principle rather than celebrating harm.
The controversy also surfaced Evans’ ongoing profile in combat sports. When critics suggested he had been fired and questioned his current activities he listed post-UFC projects and claimed commercial success.
“Making $2.7million this year and counting. Writing my next best-seller, launching a merch company, published critically acclaimed essays, launched a media company, consulting with the biggest promotions in the world,”
he responded.
Evans framed his departure from the promotion as a break from corporate groupthink.
“I don’t do groupthink,”
he added.
The incident drew attention because it came from someone with institutional knowledge of the promotion’s international public relations approach and because it underscores how executives and former insiders can shape public discussion long after they leave a company.
The UFC itself has not issued an expanded statement beyond the original tribute post. The exchange between Evans and others shows how a single social post can trigger a wide-ranging debate about policy, optics and the boundaries between politics and sports entertainment.
