UFC seeks greater control of fighter sponsorships

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by TENNESSEAN

There are a lot of similarities in the UFC and Nascar. For any certain brand to sponsor a car in nascar I beleave they have to pay nascar first. I could be wrong but I beleave that's right. I could see the UFC using nascar as a business model. It sucks for the fighters right now but over time this could cause the spot on a shirt in the octagon to be more valuable. Just a thought I'm not defending the UFC on this one.
I would like to be a fly on the wall when Dana has to explain this one to his fighters.

I was thinking the exact same thing about NASCAR. They take a cut of the racers' sponsorship, I'm not sure of the percentage though. It sounds like the UFC wants to take all the money themselves, rather than taking a cut of the fighters' sponsorship earnings, that's BS. I think the UFC should reserve the right to accept or deny sponsorship, as they are the parent company, it's that way in NASCAR, but they shouldn't be taking the full cut (or so it seems), bur rather, a small cut, that's fair.

Personally, I don't think seeing condomdepot.com written on the fighters asses is a positive reflection on the UFC or MMA in general.

Originally Posted by Chris F

This assumes multi race deals. Many do one race deals for much cheaper but as an example Old Spice and Office Depot are paying Tony Stewart this for his car. He gets more because he wins and is a former champ.

Hood-1 million
front quatrer pannels 500K
Rear pannels 250 k
rear bumper 500 K
In car with race camera 500K

Also you are right NASCAR does charge for everything.

Nascar has helped put a premium on advertising space witch means more $$$ for everyone. I could see how this could be helpful to rookie fighters. Let's face it shady joes gun and pawn just ain't paying what they should.
How can the UFC ask Budweiser to pay ?$?$ when shady joe is in there for 500 bucks. It has to be regulated by someone for it to ever reach the payout it should.
I think the rookie fighters will benefit from this first. Fighters like Matt with the know how to go out and get good globally know sponsors are the guys I'm worried about. But these guys are the UFC's bread and butter I'm sure they have a plan.

Since the discussion has turned to NASCAR I would just like to chime in and say that DMG are slimeballs and the fact that the UFC is being compared to them is serious trouble for the UFC.

[J.B.]

Comparing this to NASCAR is apples and oranges. NASCAR is on a much bigger level than the UFC, and the sponsors involved are generally much larger companies.

MMA is big, but it's not going be raking in the really big Madison avenue sponsors anytime soon. It's still seen as a violent sport, and Dana White does not help the matter. This idea of using the 360 degree contracts will only drive fighters away in the end.

The UFC can still dominate Vegas, just like fighting and gambling have for decades in that city. They will do good on PPV, sometimes better than others, just like it's been, but these moves to try and generate more revenue at the expense of hurting the fighters will backfire on them. Why rock the boat?

One of two things can ultimately come from this. If they start signing all their fighters to highly restrictive deals, and they continue to make money and gain popularity, the fighters will likely revolt, and we could see the formation of a union, which is doubtful but still not out of the question. Or, it will end up going the way of boxing were the sports top stars consider themselves individual entities and just won't sign with the UFC unless they get their way.

By capping Sponsors, the UFC can actually limit what those sponsors do outside of the UFC, say for Strikeforce and or Affliction.

We were talking yesterday, and I think if you look at what Affliction did, if a couple of the key fighters/UFC Sponsors choose to go the same route, it would spell the end of UFC domination. A couple of big names end their contracts and "retire", to only re-emerge in a new org, yeah, def not what the UFC wants.

If you look at boxing and all the Sanctioning bodies that work together all over the world to unite boxing, looking at the UFC and there strong arming, it looks desperate and futile. Sure, some of those S.Bs are currupt, but still, boxing is a united front in the end. MMA is splintered, with the UFC standing on top doing everything they can to stop a expanding MMA market, outside of the UFC brand.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by David_Banner

By capping Sponsors, the UFC can actually limit what those sponsors do outside of the UFC, say for Strikeforce and or Affliction.

We were talking yesterday, and I think if you look at what Affliction did, if a couple of the key fighters/UFC Sponsors choose to go the same route, it would spell the end of UFC domination. A couple of big names end their contracts and "retire", to only re-emerge in a new org, yeah, def not what the UFC wants.

If you look at boxing and all the Sanctioning bodies that work together all over the world to unite boxing, looking at the UFC and there strong arming, it looks desperate and futile. Sure, some of those S.Bs are currupt, but still, boxing is a united front in the end. MMA is splintered, with the UFC standing on top doing everything they can to stop a expanding MMA market, outside of the UFC brand.

Boxing is ultimately controlled by the fighters themselves. Of course, there are still promoters and managers pulling strings, and just like MMA, the odd men out usually the ones on the lower end of the totem poll. Still, fighters are viewed as individuals, not by-products of a brand name.

That is where MMA is eventually going to go. After a while, people get sick of being ripped off. That is when they either quit, or they cut out the middle man.

There are two reasons that other orgs cannot compete with the UFC in my opinion; 1. Overall production quality. 2. Brand name association. Even when fighters leave the UFC or choose not to sign with them, it has proven to have little or no effect on the UFC at all. The only competition that has even really made a blip on the radar since UFC bought Pride has been when EXC had the network deal with ABC, and we saw how that ended....

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

I was thinking the exact same thing about NASCAR. They take a cut of the racers' sponsorship, I'm not sure of the percentage though. It sounds like the UFC wants to take all the money themselves, rather than taking a cut of the fighters' sponsorship earnings, that's BS. I think the UFC should reserve the right to accept or deny sponsorship, as they are the parent company, it's that way in NASCAR, but they shouldn't be taking the full cut (or so it seems), bur rather, a small cut, that's fair.

Personally, I don't think seeing condomdepot.com written on the fighters asses is a positive reflection on the UFC or MMA in general.

Because of TV NASCAR is able to take a slice of pie. As do the track owners as was mentioned earlier. Each drivers signs their own deals but in turn must pay NASCAR a flat percentage. 5 years ago it was 2.5%. The track owner also gets a cut at their respective track based on volume of seats and television dollars. Kind like super bowl commercials are worth more. Not sure on their cuts because it is not contracted as firmly.

What the UFC is proposing is nowhere near fair because there is no TV dollars because it is PPV. If they had a sliding scale based on early buys maybe. But a flat fee charge to all companies and all fighters is ludicrous and possibly unenforceable legally. Contract that are to one sided become null and void. In Pro Wrestling's early days Verne Gagne (AWA) made some similar shady contracts. Gagne wanted booking fees as well as a management cut to every wrestlers. Since Wrestlers are Independent contractors we paid all expenses. So by the time those were paid and those "fees" many went broke. This is why so many left for the WWF in the early days. Said all that to say this eventually Gange was sued and all his contract were thrown out because they were no enforceable. Dana and crew have some crafty lawyers, but they are walking on shaky ground with these deals.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by Chris F

Because of TV NASCAR is able to take a slice of pie. As do the track owners as was mentioned earlier. Each drivers signs their own deals but in turn must pay NASCAR a flat percentage. 5 years ago it was 2.5%. The track owner also gets a cut at their respective track based on volume of seats and television dollars. Kind like super bowl commercials are worth more. Not sure on their cuts because it is not contracted as firmly.

What the UFC is proposing is nowhere near fair because there is no TV dollars because it is PPV. If they had a sliding scale based on early buys maybe. But a flat fee charge to all companies and all fighters is ludicrous and possibly unenforceable legally. Contract that are to one sided become null and void. In Pro Wrestling's early days Verne Gagne (AWA) made some similar shady contracts. Gagne wanted booking fees as well as a management cut to every wrestlers. Since Wrestlers are Independent contractors we paid all expenses. So by the time those were paid and those "fees" many went broke. This is why so many left for the WWF in the early days. Said all that to say this eventually Gange was sued and all his contract were thrown out because they were no enforceable. Dana and crew have some crafty lawyers, but they are walking on shaky ground with these deals.

Thanks Chris, that was interesting.

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

Boxing is ultimately controlled by the fighters themselves. Of course, there are still promoters and managers pulling strings, and just like MMA, the odd men out usually the ones on the lower end of the totem poll. Still, fighters are viewed as individuals, not by-products of a brand name.

That is where MMA is eventually going to go. After a while, people get sick of being ripped off. That is when they either quit, or they cut out the middle man.

There are two reasons that other orgs cannot compete with the UFC in my opinion; 1. Overall production quality. 2. Brand name association. Even when fighters leave the UFC or choose not to sign with them, it has proven to have little or no effect on the UFC at all. The only competition that has even really made a blip on the radar since UFC bought Pride has been when EXC had the network deal with ABC, and we saw how that ended....

I understand why other orgs can't compete with the UFC, and as I said earlier, it would take the UFC losing big names for that to happen.

As for my point, boxing consists of many sanctioning Orgs that co-promote fights. It doesnt matter how big a fighter is, without them, they won't get beyond their plastic title in Mexico City. This has been the fuel for the scandals within the sport for years actually because it has been said many times that if you want a shot at the belt, you're going to need more money then knock out power. Anyway, Dana has before touched on the curruption that has plagued boxing (WBA in particular) which I can assume is why he/UFC work so hard to make sure most orgs don't last. I understand and actually agree with him on this, but what I don't agree with is the way the UFC very publicly conduct their business.

I have been involved in boxing for 15+ years and I do not want to see MMA become currupted as boxing has. The irony, to me, is Dana says the same thing yet very publicly lashes and attempts to restrict the flow of capital in the UFC to sponsors as well as to fighters. How can a person claim to be a champion against curruption and yet seem to be the very epicenter of all money disputes and wrong doing. What bothers me worse is the UFC doesnt seem to give two s*^&s about what people think, and or how they are perceived. Its all about the money, which goes against everything Dana has claimed up until now.

Originally Posted by Chris F

Because of TV NASCAR is able to take a slice of pie. As do the track owners as was mentioned earlier. Each drivers signs their own deals but in turn must pay NASCAR a flat percentage. 5 years ago it was 2.5%. The track owner also gets a cut at their respective track based on volume of seats and television dollars. Kind like super bowl commercials are worth more. Not sure on their cuts because it is not contracted as firmly.

What the UFC is proposing is nowhere near fair because there is no TV dollars because it is PPV. If they had a sliding scale based on early buys maybe. But a flat fee charge to all companies and all fighters is ludicrous and possibly unenforceable legally. Contract that are to one sided become null and void. In Pro Wrestling's early days Verne Gagne (AWA) made some similar shady contracts. Gagne wanted booking fees as well as a management cut to every wrestlers. Since Wrestlers are Independent contractors we paid all expenses. So by the time those were paid and those "fees" many went broke. This is why so many left for the WWF in the early days. Said all that to say this eventually Gange was sued and all his contract were thrown out because they were no enforceable. Dana and crew have some crafty lawyers, but they are walking on shaky ground with these deals.

2.5 percent would be much more reasonable IMO
that way, a buy getting 5 grand wouldn't lose a sponsor because they didn't have 100K to pay just to sponsor him for 5K a fight