MMA Fighting reports that Jon Jones did not lose his Nike sponsorship due to his media day brawl with Daniel Cormier. But while under oath with the Nevada Athletic Commission in September, he told the commission that he lost it due the brawl.
The public revelation of this came out during a media call on Monday in which Jones was promoting UFC 182 set for this Saturday.
Jones informed the media of this during the conference call (via MMA Fighting):
When I was in front of the commission, I definitely worded it wrong.
Nike did not drop me because of that fight and I kind of owe an apology to Nike for saying they dropped me because of the fight. They actually didn’t. Nike has been known to support its athletes through much worse things than a brawl in the middle of MGM [Grand].
As we pointed out back in September, there’s a list of athletes that have been let go by Nike for far more severe indiscretions. Jones being let go due to this brawl did not seem to fit. Yet, he informed the commission that he lost Nike as a sponsor due to this fight.
Payout Perspective:
Essentially, Jones did not speak the truth (sometimes this is called lying) when placed under oath by the Commission. As we all know, just like in the movies, being under oath carries a “penalty under perjury.” Basically it’s falsifying the affirmation of telling the truth.
The commission has the authority to discipline an individual that provides it with “false or misleading information.” The discipline may include suspending or revoking a license under NAC 467.885. While Jones did misstate that he lost Nike due to the brawl, the bigger question in my opinion is whether that information led to the commission’s decision on the discipline for Jones. Thus, if the commission based its fine and community service on the fact he lost Nike, there may be an issue. But, if the commission would have decided the penalty regardless of losing Nike (or Nike was an additional factor), Jones’ misstatement might not bear any subsequent penalty.
At the hearing, the commission did appear impressed with Jones’ remorse, thus, this revelation that Jones’ Nike deal was not nixed because of the media day fight may be a non-issue to the commission. On the other hand, the commission might be upset with Jones here and call him back before the commission to have him clarify his statement and/or ask him why he said he lost Nike as a sponsor when he did not. A penalty might occur simply as an example that you cannot misspeak before the commission.
“At the hearing, the commission did appear impressed with Jones’ remorse…”
Jones is a pathological liar and a manipulator.