The creativity of sports fans: the culture of participation in the digital UFC fandom

Arapov Anatolii Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0009-0007-4581-6344 Postgraduate student; Tyumen State University Mikhail Speransky str., 29, 226 block, Tyumen, 625033, Russia arapovanatoliy@mail.ru

Introduction

Research on fandoms in the modern humanitarian tradition increasingly describes fan communities as hybrid cultural entities existing at the intersection of media consumption and cultural production. ^[3-4] In the near-sports context, this logic is particularly noticeable: the digital viewer turns out to be not only an audience, but also a participant in the production of meanings around competitions and public figures of athletes.^[3]

At the same time, a significant part of the work on sports communication in social media captures participation at the level of general functions (emotional support, information exchange, self-identification), but less often describes specific microformats of creativity, local markers of belonging and ways of rationing these forms within the community. ^[3],[6] As a result, it remains insufficiently clarified exactly how fan creativity is "assembled" into stable genres and modes of expression and how these processes differ on different platforms.

Media researchers in sports note that digital platforms are changing not only the distribution channels of sports, but also the ways of "being a fan": from online commentary and memetics to the distribution of status within subcultures and "borderline work" between "their own" and "casual viewers." This is especially relevant when applied to the UFC: the mechanisms of subcultural stratification and the role of specialized discourse/demonstrations of knowledge in the status hierarchy of the fandom are described. ^[15],[20]

The purpose of this article is to describe the forms and functions of fan creativity in the UFC digital fandom as a culture of participation in the platform environment. ^[1],[5] To achieve the goal, the following research questions are formulated:

1. What speech and visual markers are used to indicate affiliation and status;

2. which genre forms of fan media creation are reproduced and replicated;

3. how the platform-based organization of communication (interfaces, feed logic, visibility modes) affects the repertoire of fan creativity. ^[5]

The scientific novelty of the article consists in the development of a classification of speech markers of belonging and status (shibboleths, evaluative categories, metalanguage sanctions) and genre forms of fan media creation based on the material of the UFC fandom.

The theoretical basis of the study and the criteria for the formation of the corpus

The theoretical framework of this study is based on the concept of a culture of participation, which describes the transition from consumption to the joint creation, processing and distribution of content within communities. ^[1] Additionally, the produsage approach is used, emphasizing the hybrid role of the user-producer and the iterative nature of teamwork with content. ^[2] In order not to reduce cross-platform comparison to "different audiences", platform optics are introduced: platforms define visibility modes, metrics, interface constraints and a set of available actions, that is, arrangements that structure the repertoire of participation. ^[5],[16-18]

In the discussion on digital participation, the position is significant, according to which the growth of interactivity of platforms does not guarantee participation in the strict sense: some user actions remain at the level of reactions and consumption, without turning into sustainable practices of joint semantic production. ^[1],[5] From this point of view, it is important to show that fan creativity in sports fandom includes not only the production of media texts, but also the maintenance of norms (rules of use of terms, evaluation criteria, aesthetic patterns), as well as the distribution of status and recognition. ^[1-2],[6] The proposed analysis proceeds from the fact that it is precisely these mechanisms of rationing and recognition that make it possible to distinguish random activity from stable modes of culture of complicity.

Separately, the concept of symbolic boundaries is used to describe status and delimiting practices: the labels "casual", disputes about "cringe" and the "correctness" of terms can be interpreted as everyday procedures for producing/maintaining community boundaries and distributing symbolic capital. ^[19],[20]

The analysis of genre forms focuses on the study of memes as cultural units that circulate through copying and variation, as well as on the discussion of fan labor as a socially encouraged activity that supports symbolic capital and community sustainability. ^[6-8]

At the same time, the present study polemically distances itself from two common optics. Firstly, it is different from expanded interpretations of digital participation, in which almost any audience reaction is automatically understood as the practice of participation; within the framework of this article, participation is recorded only where repeatable forms of joint semantic production, norm learning, and recognition distribution are observed. Secondly, it differs from descriptions of sports communities as predominantly emotionally supportive or information-exchange environments: for the UFC fandom, not only affective reactions are fundamental, but also everyday procedures for symbolic differentiation, status ranking and genre standardization. ^{[1],[3],[5-6],[15]}

From a broader cultural perspective, these processes relate to the logic of collective representations: following L. Levy-Bruhl, it is important to take into account that general formulas of address, symbolic labels and repetitive evaluation schemes function not as a sum of individual cues, but as shared ways of perceiving and interpreting events within a group. In this article, this optics is used not to directly transfer the early anthropological model to digital communities, but to emphasize the supra-individual nature of those symbolic schemes through which the fandom recognizes "its own", authorizes deviations and stabilizes its own language. ^[21]

For the analysis, publications on three platforms were used: Reddit (10 discussion threads), YouTube (30 Short videos on the topic of the UFC) and Telegram (10 posts in 5 different channels), released between 01.01.2023 and 14.01.2026. On Reddit, the unit of analysis is a thread as a communicative event: the original post, comment branches, and metalanguage negotiations about the "correctness" of local terms and evaluative labels. On YouTube, the unit of analysis is a separate Short video (up to 60 seconds) on the topic of the UFC as a microgenre unit. In Telegram, the unit of analysis is a publication (post) as part of the channel stream; the selection focuses on explicit mechanisms of engagement (surveys, questions to the audience, "suggestions", sweepstakes/forecasts) in these communities.

Selection criteria for all platforms:

• thematic relevance to the UFC and fan semantic production;
• the presence of the observed repeatability of the formula/ technique (lexical or visual);
• traces of collective agreement (disputes, clarifications, votes, inquiries);
• the availability of the material in the public domain at the time of fixing the case.

The results of the study

The Reddit corpus identifies local expressions and addresses that function as shibboleth markers for recognizing "their own", verified through knowledge of the context and relevance of use. ^[10] Such markers become the subject of discussion: the community simultaneously expands access and preserves the symbolic distinction between "knowledgeable" and "newbies" through adjustments and evaluation of the correctness of use. ^[1] For example, in a video discussion with Alex Pereira and Jamal Hill, participants not only use the word "chama", but also expand a metalanguage explanation of meaning and relevance: one of the commentators interprets the expression as an invitation to a challenge, while the other clarifies the grammatical form and "corrects" the interpretation (distinguishing "chama" as a noun and the verb form "chamar"). In another thread, "chama" is used as a stand-alone sign of affiliation, and then the novice asks the direct question "What does chama mean?", receiving detailed "instructions". The responses additionally show an assessment of the norm: one of the participants directly prefers "Chama" instead of "Let's go", labeling the "correct" local option.

It should also be noted that "chama" is also fixed as a sign of status/self-irony.: It is used in formulas like "NO CHAMA" (as a sanctioning statement to an opponent) and is hybridized with "aura" ("losing your CHAMA Aura"), that is, it functions as a portable marker of "your" language, suitable for quick assessments and memetic replication.

In Reddit discussions, evaluation categories are found, with the help of which participants collectively coordinate their impression of a fighter and rank his status (for example, through the metaphors of "presence", "charisma", "aura").These categories work as formulas that allow you to quickly identify complex scores and involve other participants in a dispute about criteria. Visual fan formats complement this process by translating the assessment into a set of repetitive editing techniques (emphasis on gestures, close-ups, slowdowns, contrast), which is especially noticeable in serial YouTube edits. The term "aura" in this study is considered as a fan evaluation category. In the thread "What UFC fighter has the most aura?", participants use "aura" as a compact formula for symbolic superiority: for example, they write about Khabib that his rivals "lost to his aura" even before entering the octagon. In the same thread, the struggle for the legitimacy of the term itself is visible: from denial ("saying aura is ... dumb") to an attempt to define ("aura ... is just the vibe that you give off") and criticism as "cringe" when used regularly.

The discussion is also indicative, where the word "aura" is directly opposed to more "old" designations (for example, popularity/sw(a)g) and is described as a trendy label associated with the TikTok language. At the same time, there is irritation at the intrusive use of the term, which captures the "negotiations" about acceptable vocabulary within the community.

Additionally, "aura" manifests itself as a dynamic metric that the community "removes" from a fighter depending on the outcome and context: it discusses how one can "lose an aura" even in a certain type of victory/defeat (for example, through a decision by the judges), as well as how "aura" is attributed to entire groups of fighters and can be symbolically "lost."

In the thread about "aura discretion", the concept is applied to a specific situation of public interaction around a fight (faceoff/promo), including in the polar form of "negative aura", that is, as a quick sanctioning assessment of behavior and confidence.

In the YouTube corpus, it is not unique authorial styles that are most consistently reproduced, but a set of microgenres optimized for a short format: a short highlight without a comment, a micro recap of a fight / episode. These forms work as simple and repeatable templates that are easily copied by different channels and consistently recognized by the audience by the title/signature and the mounting structure.

The "leaflet" mode is especially indicative: the collections "Every ...", "Top 5 ...", "fastest ...", etc. translate the event /history of the UFC into a series of interchangeable issues, where serialization is ensured by the very formula of the name and the same principle of cutting (for example, compilation of knockouts/ submissions or their typologization).

The serial fan hits "After Dark" retain their analytical value as a separate aesthetic mode (longer format, musical "basis", stylization), but at the level of Shorts they are not the only or dominant way of participation. For a short format, the standardized "packaging" of a highlight and the struggle for attention through recognizable formulas and a quick "hook" are more typical, rather than through detailed authorial stylization.

The Telegram corpus more often records not "independent edits", but participation practices around curated content: reactions, comments, polls and questions to the audience, which put subscribers into the mode of co-editing the agenda and calibrating the "tone" of the channel.

A separate mechanism used in the Telegram space is "suggestion" and addressing the audience as the source of the agenda: some channels explicitly mark the space for suggestions/requests, which forms an input for the subscriber: to suggest a meme/ topic/ occasion, after which the material appears in the feed as a curated publication.

The proposed classification of speech markers and genre forms

Based on the comparison of the material, the following classification of speech markers of affiliation and status is proposed. The first group is shibboleths, that is, local formulas for recognizing "their own" (for example, chama), which require knowledge of the context and are checked through the appropriateness of use. The second group consists of evaluative categories, with the help of which the impression of a fighter is collectively calibrated and symbolic status is distributed (aura, cringe, casual, etc.). The third group consists of metalanguage sanctions and adjustments: explanations, corrections, preferences for the "right" option and ironic remarks through which the community trains newcomers and maintains normative boundaries.

The genre forms of fan media creation are also proposed to be divided into three stable types. The first type is Reddit's discussion and interpretive threads, where detailed argumentation, debate, and metalanguage reflection are important. The second type is microgenres of short videos on YouTube Shorts: no commentary highlights, micro—recaps, top/fastest/rarest format lists, and serial edits that standardize the "packaging" of an event. The third type is the curatorial—involving Telegram formats, where participation is organized through surveys, questions to the audience, a "suggestion", forecasts and other mechanics of co-editing the agenda.

Platform differences in rationing and visibility

A comparison of the sites shows that the platform infrastructure defines different ways of rationing and different forms of visibility of fan participation. ^[5], Reddit supports detailed interpretation and debate through branching threads and voting, which makes visible meta-discussions about the "correctness" of terms. YouTube Shorts is focused on an algorithmic feed and a short format, therefore, it fixes the formulaic microgenres and serial titles / cuts. Telegram is built around subscriptions and forwarding, and engagement is often organized through mechanics where the audience is involved in maintaining the agenda and pace of publications.

The results obtained clarify the understanding of fan creativity in sports fandom: participation is manifested not only in the production of media texts, but also in joint work to maintain norms and evaluation criteria, to teach newcomers the local language and to distribute symbolic status. ^[1],[6] This is especially important for the UFC fandom because of the eventfulness and serial nature of the sports product: the repeatability of tournaments and narratives around fighters creates favorable conditions for serial fan formats (editing patterns, repetitive memetic formulas), which are fixed as "rules of taste" within the community. ^[8]

From a platform perspective, the differences between sites should be understood not as working for different audiences, but as different modes of visibility and encouragement: algorithmic feeds, engagement metrics, and comment interfaces structure which forms of creativity become sustainable and replicated. ^[5] In this sense, fan creativity turns out to be a cultural practice.^[5]

Summing up the results of the study, it is necessary to formulate three main conclusions. Firstly, in the digital UFC fandom, speech markers of affiliation and status form three groups: shibboleths, evaluation categories, and metalanguage sanctions. They ensure the recognition of "their own", the collective coordination of impressions and the daily maintenance of the normative boundaries of the community. Secondly, the genre forms of fan media creation also fall into three stable types: Reddit discussion and interpretive threads, microgenres of short videos on YouTube Shorts, and curated and engaging Telegram formats. Each of these types sets its own mode of participation — from dispute and explanation to serial replication and co-editing of the agenda. Thirdly, the differences between the selected types are explained not only by the preferences of the audience, but also by the platform organization of communication: the architecture of the site sets the modes of visibility, the pace of replication and the methods of rationing, affecting the stability and spread of fan formats.

As prospects for further research, it seems advisable to expand both the empirical base and the analytical tools. First of all, the transition from a limited time slice to a longitudinal analysis seems productive, which allows us to identify the dynamics of fan genres, assessment categories and local discursive markers depending on the UFC tournament cycle, media agenda and changes in platform algorithms. In addition, the study of the cross-platform circulation of memes, speech formulas, and visual formats (in particular, their adaptation during the transition between Reddit, YouTube Shorts, and Telegram) has significant research potential, which will make it possible to more accurately describe the impact of platform affordances on forms of participation and mechanisms for replicating user content. It is also promising to supplement the analysis with high-quality interviews with the authors of fan edits, channel administrators, and active community members to clarify motivational structures, ideas about normality, and criteria for the value of content within the digital fandom. Finally, a comparative analysis of the national and linguistic segments of the UFC fandom, as well as the relationship of fan creativity with the processes of monetization, platform moderation and symbolic hierarchization within the community, requires separate consideration.

The article is published in its final version as approved following the last positive peer review recommending acceptance for publication. It incorporates revisions made by the author in response to prior negative peer review reports that did not recommend publication. All peer review reports, including initial negative reviews, are published in open access alongside the article. All versions of the author’s revisions are archived in the publisher’s repository and may be made available upon reasonable request in accordance with Elsevier’s editorial policies and applicable data availability requirements.
Read all reviews on this article