Seriously guys...

[F34R]

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

Apples and Oranges bro...

The NFL is much more popular than the UFC, and it operates on a completely different level. There were fighters on UFC 100 who got paid 5,000 dollars to fight. When those guys make money similar to the NFL league minimum, then we can talk about UFC being comparable to the NFL.

The NFL does not bother to go after other leagues that pop up much less video game companies. The NFL only gets paid if their logo and NFL teams show up in the game. However, ANY NFL player can go out and sign a contract with a video game company, and appear in a video game without threat of being blacklisted from the league. It's like that in all the major sports.

Nope... if they are members of the NFLPA, then they can not license their name out to any video game that doesn't pay for said license to the PA. That's why EA Sports has a monopoly on NFL games now, and Sega can't make games with real players and teams anymore. EA has exclusive rights to everything NFL licensed, including the players.

Seeing as the UFC doesn't have a union or Fighters Association, the fighters are only under fighting contracts, and not licensing contracts. They can go elsewhere and license their likenesses and names to other games. Dana obviously doesn't want that.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by F34R

Nope... if they are members of the NFLPA, then they can not license their name out to any video game that doesn't pay for said license to the PA. That's why EA Sports has a monopoly on NFL games now, and Sega can't make games with real players and teams anymore. EA has exclusive rights to everything NFL licensed, including the players.

Seeing as the UFC doesn't have a union or Fighters Association, the fighters are only under fighting contracts, and not licensing contracts. They can go elsewhere and license their likenesses and names to other games. Dana obviously doesn't want that.

No, that is incorrect.

NFLPA represents players when it comes to NFL matters, they do NOT own the players name or likeness. The names and likeness of a person are their individual property. You work in the field of law, so I am sure you have references, that I don't, where you can look that up.

Players are free to embark on individual enterprises outside of the NFL, as long as it complies with the morality clause and it does not violate any specific deals in their contract. I am totally aware of how the unions work, and the reason I did not mention the NFLPA is because they do NOT restrict players from being in video games or ask for a "fee". If you know something that I don't, please tell me.

HOWEVER, you do raise an excellent point. EA does have the exclusive rights to making NFL and NFLPA licensed games, and that is why they are so popular. People like the Madden NFL games because they have EVERY team and EVERY player, but there have been problems like this in the past. There have been players who have still not appeared in games licensed by the league and the union because of previous outside contracts.

If an individual player wants to be the namesake of a game, such as "John Elway Football", "Kobe Bryant Basketball", or "Derek Jeter Baseball", they can usually do it, however they are likely to be the ONLY featured player in the game, unless they sub-contract individual players to be a part of it.

There are still some developers who manage to compete with EA, like 2K sports. In 2004, they did NFL 2k5 and it was highly regarded. They also have an NBA 2k series that I personally think is better than the NBA Live series by EA. The truth is, the details of contracts between video game developers, pro leagues, and players unions is something that changes every few years. These contracts are not signed long-term, for obvious reasons. The UFC only has a publishing deal until 2011 with THQ.

Thats another reason Dana comes off way too harsh on the situation. To suggest that he is going to "blacklist" anybody from the UFC based on their participation in a game from EA is just DUMB. He's already being a hypocrite by letting Randy do it, but punishing everybody else, then he takes it further as to say he would not let anybody involved to even fight in the UFC. If people cannot see that is a bold faced lie, then they are blind. He will sign anybody that makes him money, period. Like I told Dave, do you really think he would NOT sign Fedor next year if he chose to be the cover boy for the EA MMA game? You know he would.

Whats even funnier is that Dana has been quoted as saying that HE WANTED EA to make the UFC game. I also think it's funny that people forgot about the past games, and the likeness rights issues that came up during that. People act like Undisputed is the FIRST game from the UFC. If the EA game IS better than the THQ game, then Dana could actually have a problem on his hands, but ONLY for the next few years. Come 2011, he can just turn over rights to EA, like he should have just done in the first place, and then everybody is happy. Instead, he comes out and declares jihad on EA Sports, like a jackass, and tries to paint them as bad guys. A fight he cannot win.

EA Sports does not have a face in the public eye like Dana White does. They will not respond to his BS, and they will continue making awesome video games. He will look like a douche, and eventually EA will make the game for the UFC. The only thing that could stop that is if EA manages to make a crappy game, which has happened in the past, so I guess we will see.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

No, he could not do that.

You cannot just put a trademark on people's actual names. He does NOT own the fighters, in fact he only OWNS 10% of the UFC. Vince McMahon trademarked names of fictional characters his company created. Also, Vince does not own the trademarks to ALL to the wrestlers characters, but he does own most.

You are really missing my point Dave... It's one thing for Dana to say that people he has under contract with UFC cannot take part in the game, even though he is being hypocritical because they are letting Randy do it. However, by sending an open ended threat that anybody who is involved with the game will never fight for the UFC, is borderline illegal. EA could potentially file a lawsuit against the UFC. It falls under the same context as collusion, and it is wrong.

Not to mention, it's a bunch of bull. Do you really think Dana would hold up to what he said? If Fedor is on the cover of the game, is he going to refuse to sign him? I doubt it. Dana White is going to end up losing this battle, so he should not even bother with EA, just worry about UFC.

Well. I dont think what he has done is right...but knowing him, and knowing how they treated him before, I think this kinda pettiness is to be expected.

Besides...have you noticed whenever he goes to far, one of the Fertitas overrules him

[F34R]

JB, EA has exclusive rights to all NFL stadiums, teams, and players...

Original deal - http://www.gamespot.com/news/6114977.html
Updated through 2012 season - http://www.gamespot.com/news/6185880.html

Today, EA Sports announced that it has extended its contract with the NFL and NFL Players through the 2012 season. That means the Redwood City, California-based publisher will retain exclusive game rights to all NFL teams, stadiums, and player likenesses and information until the Super Bowl XLVII champion is crowned in 2013.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by F34R

JB, EA has exclusive rights to all NFL stadiums, teams, and players...

Original deal - http://www.gamespot.com/news/6114977.html
Updated through 2012 season - http://www.gamespot.com/news/6185880.html

I already acknowledged that EA holds exclusive rights with the NFL and NFLPA i my last post, but the part I forgot to mention is that it only applies to specific systems, such as the PC, and major home consoles like XBox, Playstation, and Nintendo. Players, and the league, are still free to endorse and appear in games for other formats, such as mobile phones and internet games, and they do all the time. It's written right in your article, and I meant to elaborate on that point in my last post.

Not to mention that this exclusive deal with EA is only 5 years old. Before EA's Madden series TOOK OVER the football video game market, players were making their own individual games on all systems. I think that it's somewhat wrong for the union to limit their players ability to promote on those specific consoles, but the MAJOR difference is that even the lowest players in the NFL are being more than fairly compensated. In the UFC, that is not the case. Dana is threatening to blacklist anybody who gets involved in the EA game, even if they are not already in the UFC, that is beyond the pale, and an obvious bully tactic.

I am not a huge fan of the players unions, or unions in general, but that is another discussion. I don't think a fighters union could ever really work, and if they did manage to organize one it would likely follow the same path of corruption that most unions go down.

[F34R]

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

In the UFC, that is not the case. Dana is threatening to blacklist anybody who gets involved in the EA game, even if they are not already in the UFC, that is beyond the pale, and an obvious bully tactic.
.

Since we cleared the other issue up, I'll just discuss this....

I think EA could actually SUE if there were an actual occurrence of this practice happening. They could probably get this into court with some sort of anti-trust suit for limiting competition in a certain market.

What he probably CAN do, more than probably actually, is to not license anything UFC to EA. The UFC does not OWN the fighters, and unless there is some stipulation in their contracts, or the THQ licensing/contracts, the fighters can do what they want and call Dana's bluff.

I think he'd actually do it, so I don't think I can call it a bluff. If he did that, he'd be hurting the UFC more than he thins.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by F34R

Since we cleared the other issue up, I'll just discuss this....

I think EA could actually SUE if there were an actual occurrence of this practice happening. They could probably get this into court with some sort of anti-trust suit for limiting competition in a certain market.

What he probably CAN do, more than probably actually, is to not license anything UFC to EA. The UFC does not OWN the fighters, and unless there is some stipulation in their contracts, or the THQ licensing/contracts, the fighters can do what they want and call Dana's bluff.

I think he'd actually do it, so I don't think I can call it a bluff. If he did that, he'd be hurting the UFC more than he thins.

I agree 100% on what you are saying about EA suing the UFC, and them not owning the fighters, and it's almost word for word what I said to Dave in an earlier post. I'm not sure of what the "exact" definition is under the law, but it's similar to collusion, except Dana is doing this publicly.

Of course, players/fighters are bound by the contracts they sign, and they should always have good agent or lawyer review everything before they sign it. So if a person signs away their rights to participate in something like this, then that is their own fault, but Dana has taken this a step further by threatening to not let anybody who is involved in the EA game be in the UFC, regardless if they are currently under contract or not.

I think it's definitely a bluff, because Dana has gone back on his words numerous times, and I don't believe for one second that the UFC would pass up a fighter that can make them a lot of money just because of their participation in a video game. It's NOT a smart business move, it seems like a personal vendetta that Dana has with EA. He wanted EA to make the game originally, and they turned him down, so now he's pissed off and he is going to take it out on the fighters, seems ridiculous to me.