When directly asked whether UFC was wrong for “supposedly taking Craig’s idea,” Mikey Musumeci delivered a lengthy response that seemed designed more to muddy the waters than address the core intellectual property concerns surrounding UFC’s new grappling venture.
Musumeci‘s response to the pointed question about UFC copying Craig Jones reads like a masterclass in deflection. Rather than addressing whether UFC properly licensed or credited Jones‘ innovations, Musumeci launched into a convoluted explanation about how
“when someone does something right you don’t try to do something different you take the best of what someone else did and make it better right?”
The UFC BJJ star attempted to dilute Jones‘ contributions by claiming UFC “took the best of all of these things” from multiple promotions including “Adcc Ibjjf Craig Acb karate combat one championship fight to win.” This kitchen sink approach conveniently obscures the specific patent and format issues at the heart of the dispute.
What Musumeci‘s response fails to address is the concrete legal reality: Craig Jones licensed the arena patent from Karate Combat, which was granted a patent. The patent covers a specific arena apparatus with angled walls that “prevents the athlete from standing on the wall” – precisely the design UFC appears to have adopted.
The patent includes 14 specific claims covering everything from the floor construction to the adjustable wall angles. Jones didn’t just “have an idea” – he secured legitimate intellectual property rights to the arena design that UFC now appears to be using.
Musumeci‘s deflection comes amid UFC exec Claudia Gadelha‘s recent claims that UFC has been considering these rule changes since June 2023. In her interview, Gadelha stated:
“We tried in June of 2023, we tried this different rule set and worked very well, but we felt like we needed some time with the judges and the referees to make sure we sharpen the rule set.”
However, Gadelha‘s explanations for the rule changes sound remarkably similar to arguments Jones made public months earlier. When she explained the rules fans immediately recognized the talking points as nearly identical to Jones‘ promotional explanations for his Craig Jones Invitational format.
The similarities became even more apparent when Gadelha described the scoring system:
“This way here, you’re not getting two, three points. If you get taken down, if someone take you back, you don’t have to worry about anything other than a submission. And we want a lot of submissions in this events. We want the wow moments.”
These explanations mirror almost word-for-word the rationale Jones provided during his detailed discussion on the Lex Friedman podcast in 2024, where he explained his approach to making submission grappling more spectator-friendly.
Perhaps most tellingly, while Musumeci claims
“Craig definitely deserves credit for his contribution to this format,”
neither he nor UFC officials have made any public statements about licensing agreements, royalty payments, or formal acknowledgment of Jones‘ intellectual property.
Saying someone “deserves credit” while simultaneously using their patented innovations without apparent compensation or licensing agreements is exactly the kind of corporate doublespeak that has angered the grappling community.
The grappling community has been quick to call out what they see as UFC’s appropriation of Jones‘ innovations. Social media users have posted side-by-side comparisons of Gadelha‘s explanations with Jones‘ earlier statements, with one user writing:
“I’m sorry but is @ufcfightpass really trying to take credit for using the 10 point must system for jiu-jitsu? Like f**king really 😂 gave almost a word for f**king word explanation for it that @craigjonesbjj gave almost a f**king year ago.”
Musumeci‘s attempt to frame this as simply taking inspiration from multiple sources misses the point entirely. The issue isn’t whether UFC can create their own grappling promotion – it’s whether they can use patented arena designs and copy specific rule innovations without proper licensing or attribution.
When Musumeci says UFC made
“their own version of the pit which is super super cool because you can do Jiu Jitsu on the sides of it now,”
he’s describing modifications to what appears to be Jones‘ licensed patent design. Making modifications doesn’t necessarily avoid patent infringement – it can sometimes make it worse by showing deliberate copying with minor alterations.
Musumeci‘s lengthy non-answer reveals more about UFC’s position than a direct denial might have. By refusing to address the specific patent and licensing issues while simultaneously praising Jones‘ contributions, UFC appears to be trying to have it both ways – benefiting from Jones‘ innovations while avoiding the legal and financial responsibilities that come with using someone else’s intellectual property.
The grappling community deserves better than corporate deflection when legitimate questions are raised about intellectual property theft. Either UFC properly licensed Jones‘ innovations, or they didn’t. Musumeci‘s word salad response suggests they know exactly which category they fall into.
