Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:02 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
Well if they are having sponsors pay more to be able to promote at UFC 100 than at the other events, that's not any different than NBC charging more money for airtime during the Super Bowl. If you have a problem with the UFC for taking advantage of this, then you should also discuss NBC.

Since this is the case, I don't see anything wrong with it.
You're wrong.
They aren't buying commercial time.

That would be like Campbells having to pay the NFL to put fighters on soup.

Sponsors aren't getting a commercial.
The octagon already looks HORRIBLE completely covered in advertisements,
the NFL doesn't choose a players sponsors, and it doesn't choose who buys advertising at each stadium.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:29 PM
logrus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

SO let me get this straight, 100,000 for a cheap advertisement plug. If a big enough group does this, then in turn they would actually be paying most of the fighters salaries that night.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:31 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

oh well, ufc has got to make money too ... this seems fair, why have the UFC pay for the sponsors advertising on PPV which millions are going to see and only the fighters getting a cut? if they want the ad time, they should pay the ufc ...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:35 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
Well if they are having sponsors pay more to be able to promote at UFC 100 than at the other events, that's not any different than NBC charging more money for airtime during the Super Bowl. If you have a problem with the UFC for taking advantage of this, then you should also discuss NBC.

Since this is the case, I don't see anything wrong with it.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges though Rock.

The Super Bowl is viewed by almost 100 million people every year, and it only happens once a year. Not to mention, the minimum amount of money a first year rookie can make in the NFL is $285,000, which is more than most of these fighters will make in one year, some won't ever make that much money.

It's entirely different when you think about the fact that charging that kind of fee to sponsors is only going to make more sponsors pull their deals with fighters. Thus, taking more money out of fighters pockets. The prices of ads during the Super Bowl don't have any effect on the players salaries.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:35 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke
this seems fair.
Well, it's not.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:48 PM
David_Banner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
You are comparing Apples and Oranges though Rock.

The Super Bowl is viewed by almost 100 million people every year, and it only happens once a year. Not to mention, the minimum amount of money a first year rookie can make in the NFL is $285,000, which is more than most of these fighters will make in one year, some won't ever make that much money.

It's entirely different when you think about the fact that charging that kind of fee to sponsors is only going to make more sponsors pull their deals with fighters. Thus, taking more money out of fighters pockets. The prices of ads during the Super Bowl don't have any effect on the players salaries.

That, and the 100 Million people watching the Super Bowl didnt each drop $60per household to watch in HD via PPV. The UFC is hustling everybody right now.

Dana says he works 20 hour days sometimes to make the UFC stronger, how can he not see the damage releasing these kind of press releases is doing to the very company he is trying to sell as "legitimate" and "a pillar of MMA"? This genuinely blows my mind. This kind of stuff is undermining and leaching away any and every bit of intergrity the UFC maintains in the market. Its really terrible to see because I love the UFC.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:52 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Banner
That, and the 100 Million people watching the Super Bowl didnt each drop $60per household to watch in HD via PPV. The UFC is hustling everybody right now.

Dana says he works 20 hour days sometimes to make the UFC stronger, how can he not see the damage releasing these kind of press releases is doing to the very company he is trying to sell as "legitimate" and "a pillar of MMA"? This genuinely blows my mind. This kind of stuff is undermining and leaching away any and every bit of intergrity the UFC maintains in the market. Its really terrible to see because I love the UFC.
You make an excellent point.

However, the reason these kind of press releases do not hurt the company is because the amount of fans who actually are informed and give a crap are few and far between. Most fight fans are only watching to see if somebody is going to get violently KO'd, half the time the people watching are lucky to even know anything about the two fighters in the main event. Let alone care about the financial situation of lower tier fighters.

And the world keeps spinning....
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-25-2009, 08:05 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
Well, it's not.
how is it not? the ufc pays for the cameras and equipment to broadcast the shows, the clothing company is going to the fighter and paying them so that people will see them wearing the clothing .... so the fighter is making money from the UFC and from the clothing company and the clothing company is getting the advertising by paying the person who wears the clothes and not the guy who is paying for the even to be broadcast ...

the UFC would be stupid not to charge the clothing company ....

what would you suggest is fair?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-25-2009, 08:14 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke
how is it not? the ufc pays for the cameras and equipment to broadcast the shows, the clothing company is going to the fighter and paying them so that people will see them wearing the clothing .... so the fighter is making money from the UFC and from the clothing company and the clothing company is getting the advertising by paying the person who wears the clothes and not the guy who is paying for the even to be broadcast ...

the UFC would be stupid not to charge the clothing company ....

what would you suggest is fair?
What would be fair?

I would suggest that FAIRLY compensating their fighters would be a good start. They pay their fighters PEANUTS compared to the profits they are making. This is exactly how unions get started, and then eventually f**k everything up.

You are looking at this the wrong way. Sure, it's fair of the UFC to say they want to get paid for sponsors that are featured on their broadcasts, but $100,000 is an ABSURD amount of money for the actual amount of promotion these companies get.

How many people do you know that have flocked to CondomDepot.com since seeing it on a fighters shorts?

Charging that amount of money to the fighters sponsors is ridiculous, and it will only serve to lessen the amount of companies that actually sponsor fighters. Dana White has openly used the argument that fighters are making good money BECAUSE OF their extra sponsorship deals. NOW, he is going to hinder that by charging an absurd amount of money to show a companie's logo for a VERY short period of time.

How is THAT fair?

Keep in mind, I did say I think it's fair of the UFC to "ban" certain sponsors IF they cause a conflict of interest with one of the UFC sponsors. That I can understand. However, what they are doing is basically extortion, and it's wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-25-2009, 08:14 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke
how is it not? the ufc pays for the cameras and equipment to broadcast the shows, the clothing company is going to the fighter and paying them so that people will see them wearing the clothing .... so the fighter is making money from the UFC and from the clothing company and the clothing company is getting the advertising by paying the person who wears the clothes and not the guy who is paying for the even to be broadcast ...

the UFC would be stupid not to charge the clothing company ....

what would you suggest is fair?
I agree with this. If anything, split the money somehow between the fighter and the UFC, as the UFC are paying for the broadcast.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.