Zuffa denied request to restrict financials from Rob Maysey (MMAFA)

[Wild]

But that's what was in the contract though, right?

I mean if you're a studio musician and you get hired to play drums on Taylor Swift's album, and you agree to a big one-time lump sum fee, you can't then go back afterwards and say "hey, I want a piece of the album sales" if it wasn't in your contract. These fighters are independent contractors.

If you're a painter and some business hires you to paint a big mural on their building, they're going to give you your agreed price and that's going to be the end of it. You don't get a piece of the gross that business does, or get paid every time someone walks by and looks at your art.

If you're part of a film crew, you get paid for your work but you don't get a piece of the box office receipts of the movie, or the Blu Ray sales. The people who act in the big Hollywood film get their salary, they don't get a piece of the gross or pay for their "likeness" (unless they had one of those great deals in the contract).

I mean if I'm wrong here, I'm wrong, but I just don't see the real gripe.

No, you're right. That's what was in the contract...for Nate, at least. I dont think there was anything in Cung's contract that said Zuffa has the right to defame him over a faulty test, but I digress.

Anyway, one purpose of this lawsuit & the MMAFA is to have future contracts rewritten, so the UFC won't own the fighters likeness rights for life. The fact that Nate Quarry could die tomorrow, the UFC could continue to play that clip thousands of times for the next 30 years, and Nate's family would never see a dime for it is flat out wrong.

 

[Narcosynthesis]

Fuck yeah they're disgruntled. They were taken advantage of for years...I would be a bit disgruntled as well lol. A perfect example is that highlight of Quarry getting KO'd by Franklin that seemingly plays at the beginning of every UFC event. It's been shown thousands of times by the UFC, but because Zuffa owns the rights to Quarry's likeness for life, he hasn't seen a dime for it. Another example is the UFC running Le's name thru the mud, before having all of the facts in place, after that testing debacle.

Things like that need to change...hence this lawsuit and the MMAFA.

Nobody can be taken advantage of unless they allow it. These are grown men not little children.

 

[Wild]

Nobody can be taken advantage of unless they allow it. These are grown men not little children.

Sure, and that's convenient for all of us to debate, when we're not the one in the position that these guys were. It's all good though. A court of law will decide if they are simply scorned ex-girlfriends that are trying to get their share of welfare from the almighty UFC. So far, the court seems to believe there is some merit to these claims. We'll see how the rest plays out. Win or lose, with regards to the lawsuit itself...I think it's safe to say we're going to see a Fighters Association within the next 18-24 months...and future generations of mixed martial artists are going to owe the plaintiffs in this case a debt of gratitude because of it.

 

[Narcosynthesis]

I just don't see somebody decoding to go after the UFC because they're not on the payroll anymore and are unhappy. These guys have incredibly deep pockets and legal resources so its not like its low hanging fruit for an easy payday.

And these guys do have lots to lose in the process. When they make their living based on their names and rep whether it's from traing students at a gym, podcast or fighting and they are up against a guy like Dana who has 3.3 million twitter followers their rep can easily be tarnished making it hard to earn a living.

You think maybe the UFC had a hand in building their rep and giving them a name they can use to make a living off of for the rest of their life? According to you they have "deep pockets". Did they have deep pockets before the UFC plucked them out of obscurity and gave them a platform to showcase their skills?

 

[Wild]

You think maybe the UFC had a hand in building their rep and giving them a name they can use to make a living off of for the rest of their life? According to you they have "deep pockets". Did they have deep pockets before the UFC plucked them out of obscurity and gave them a platform to showcase their skills?

The flip side of that coin is, would the UFC exist if it weren't the fighters that would be living at local homeless shelters, if it weren't for the UFC saving them from obscurity?

 

[Zeph]

But that's what was in the contract though, right?

I mean if you're a studio musician and you get hired to play drums on Taylor Swift's album, and you agree to a big one-time lump sum fee, you can't then go back afterwards and say "hey, I want a piece of the album sales" if it wasn't in your contract. These fighters are independent contractors.

If you're a painter and some business hires you to paint a big mural on their building, they're going to give you your agreed price and that's going to be the end of it. You don't get a piece of the gross that business does, or get paid every time someone walks by and looks at your art.

If you're part of a film crew, you get paid for your work but you don't get a piece of the box office receipts of the movie, or the Blu Ray sales. The people who act in the big Hollywood film get their salary, they don't get a piece of the gross or pay for their "likeness" (unless they had one of those great deals in the contract).

I mean if I'm wrong here, I'm wrong, but I just don't see the real gripe.

Ok, lets have another example. Lets say there is 4 major MMA organizations, 3 each have 30% of the market share and 1 has 10% of market share. As a fighter in this situation you can shop around for the best possible deal to find your true market value, as there is healthy competition between the organizations to gain the best talent.

However, if over time, 1 of the promotions which has 30% of the market share acquires the other 2 organizations with 30%, taking them up to 90%, they now have a significant advantage when negotiating contracts. This is because the organization with 10% market share cannot reliably match what the far larger organization can offer, which means that the far larger organization does not have to offer market value, they only have to beat what the organization with 10% of market value can offer.

In sports where monopsony is the ideal, since you want to have all the best competing against each other, this imbalance in negotiating power has been combated by collective bargaining and lawsuits. Take for instance the MLB, who are being sued by a group of Minor League players for better wages. Collective bargaining is the ideal and will help to avoid lawsuits in the future, but for fighters in the past and present, which are having to work with no collective bargaining, then law suits are the only recourse for balance.


edit: @Splinty when I try to add 2 hyperlinks to this post, one for monopsony and one for the lawsuit, whichever one I add removes the other. In suing MLB, minor leaguers want minimum wage for maximum effort

 

[Ted Williams' head]

I think it's safe to say we're going to see a Fighters Association within the next 18-24 months...

It'll never happen IMO. The problem is the big stars who have the bargaining power are going to reject it (like they rejected and spoke out against the fighter's union a few years back) because they're getting the big money and they have the leverage to negotiate for what they want. Do they really want to pay the lion's share of union dues?

The fighters who would be for it are the lower to mid guys who, in Dana's mind, are easily replaceable.

 

[Wild]

It'll never happen IMO. The problem is the big stars who have the bargaining power are going to reject it (like they rejected and spoke out against the fighter's union a few years back) because they're getting the big money and they have the leverage to negotiate for what they want. Do they really want to pay the lion's share of union dues?

The fighters who would be for it are the lower to mid guys who, in Dana's mind, are easily replaceable.

Why do MLB, NFL, NBA players want a players association, but fighters would never agree to it?

 

[Zeph]

'According to the complaint, most minor leaguers earn between $3,000 and $7,500 for the entire year. It also alleges that, while the salaries of major leaguers have skyrocketed by more than 2,000% since 1976, the average wage earned by minor leaguers has increased only 75%, far below the inflation rate of 400% in that spell.

The reason is simple, says Garrett Broshuis, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs and a onetime minor-league pitcher himself. With no union to represent and advocate for the minor leaguers, owners have all the leverage and no incentive to raise salaries.

"On one hand you have a group of workers who are desperate to enter the industry, and oftentimes they are kids who just graduated from high school or 16- and 17-year-old Latinos who barely speak English. And they have no union at all,'' Broshuis says.

"On the other side, you have these powerful MLB owners who are sophisticated business people and they have an antitrust exemption, so they can actively get together and collude to set prices. So it makes for this perfect recipe for exploitation.'''

An exert from the article on MLB minor league players. Sound familiar?

 

[Ted Williams' head]

Ok, lets have another example. Lets say there is 4 major MMA organizations, 3 each have 30% of the market share and 1 has 10% of market share. As a fighter in this situation you can shop around for the best possible deal to find your true market value, as there is healthy competition between the organizations to gain the best talent.

However, if over time, 1 of the promotions which has 30% of the market share acquires the other 2 organizations with 30%, taking them up to 90%, they now have a significant advantage when negotiating contracts. This is because the organization with 10% market share cannot reliably match what the far larger organization can offer, which means that the far larger organization does not have to offer market value, they only have to beat what the organization with 10% of market value can offer.

In sports where monopsony is the ideal, since you want to have all the best competing against each other, this imbalance in negotiating power has been combated by collective bargaining and lawsuits. Take for instance the MLB, who are being sued by a group of Minor League players for better wages. Collective bargaining is the ideal and will help to avoid lawsuits in the future, but for fighters in the past and present, which are having to work with no collective bargaining, then law suits are the only recourse for balance.


edit: @Splinty when I try to add 2 hyperlinks to this post, one for monopsony and one for the lawsuit, whichever one I add removes the other.

To me, that's just the UFC being the best at what they do. It's the same thing in pro wrestling with the WWE. There are plenty of MMA organizations around, some with TV deals. As a layman, I have to think why is it the UFC's problem that they're more successful than other promotions? That they have more brand value than a Bellator or a KOTC?

I want the money paid to the fighters to be increased, but I'm very uncomfortable with outside parties coming in and dictating how the UFC runs it's business. I have serious fears that it's going to bleed the sport.

 

[La Paix]

You think maybe the UFC had a hand in building their rep and giving them a name they can use to make a living off of for the rest of their life? According to you they have "deep pockets". Did they have deep pockets before the UFC plucked them out of obscurity and gave them a platform to showcase their skills?

The deep pockets I'm referring to belong to the UFC not the plaintiffs. And you can't be serious with the plucked from obscurity comment. The UFC chose to employ them based on being the top fighters at the time or filled a void on TUF. Both parties gained from this agreement just seems that ZUFFA got the lions share when it came to finances and likeness and so on.

 

[Zeph]

To me, that's just the UFC being the best at what they do. It's the same thing in pro wrestling with the WWE. There are plenty of MMA organizations around, some with TV deals. As a layman, I have to think why is it the UFC's problem that they're more successful than other promotions? That they have more brand value than a Bellator or a KOTC?

I want the money paid to the fighters to be increased, but I'm very uncomfortable with outside parties coming in and dictating how the UFC runs it's business. I have serious fears that it's going to bleed the sport.

Boxing had to have legislation passed to help fight promoters taking advantage of fighters. While it may have it's problems, mainly with being enforced, it hasn't bled the sport or hurt it in any way. I would say it has helped fighters gain bigger paydays than ever, making the sport more attractive to potential athletes again.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

Why do MLB, NFL, NBA players want a players association, but fighters would never agree to it?

Those are team sports though. MMA - even though there are teams - has always been an individual hustle, and I just can't see a guy like Conor McGregor agreeing to give up a nice % of his earnings to a fighter's union so some guys on the undercard can get paid more. Rousey spoke out against the fighter's union 3 years ago. The highest paid fighters - the one's with the bargaining power - are happy as they are.

 

[Sweets]

Nobody can be taken advantage of unless they allow it. These are grown men not little children.

Ye cause Zuffa don't use there position to push people into accepting bull shit offers, come off it. They don't all have Rousey negotiating power and you fucking know it.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

Boxing had to have legislation passed to help fight promoters taking advantage of fighters. While it may have it's problems, mainly with being enforced, it hasn't bled the sport or hurt it in any way. I would say it has helped fighters gain bigger paydays than ever, making the sport more attractive to potential athletes again.

Yeah but we're talking about a sport vs. a company, and as far as I know the legislations passed helped protect fighters from being swindled by being scammed by promoters and managers, it never said anything about "likeness" rights or the things this suit seems to be asking for.

 

[Narcosynthesis]

I think it's safe to say we're going to see a Fighters Association within the next 18-24 months.

And all the top fighters are going to jump at the chance to join this new union, right? It won't work, otherwise. You just made a pretty bold prediction.

The flip side of that coin is, would the UFC exist if it weren't the fighters that would be living at local homeless shelters, if it weren't for the UFC saving them from obscurity?

It's the classic employer versus worker debate and who matters more to the success of a company. Well, they both matter but the Fertitta's and Dana are the ones who took the financial risk so they should get a bigger piece of the pie. That's the way it works. The more financial stake you have in the game the more compensation you should receive. If the UFC goes bankrupt who are creditors going to go after? Not the fighters. The fighters will walk over to Bellator and keep on keeping on.

I'm not saying the UFC can't compensate fighters more. I'm saying I need to see the financials. I want to see how much revenue is coming in and where it's going. Without that information, it's all speculation.

 

[Zeph]

Yeah but we're talking about a sport vs. a company, and as far as I know the legislations passed helped protect fighters from being swindled by being scammed by promoters and managers, it never said anything about "likeness" rights or the things this suit seems to be asking for.

Yeah, it set forth a minimum % of revenue that had to go to the boxers by law. Do you believe that would be undesirable for MMA?

 

[Wild]

I want the money paid to the fighters to be increased, but I'm very uncomfortable with outside parties coming in and dictating how the UFC runs it's business. I have serious fears that it's going to bleed the sport.

Then how do you expect that to happen? The UFC following the honor system? And what about sponsors, likeness rights, etc? Expect the UFC to change the Reebok pay tier out of the kindness of their hearts, because the majority of fighters are losing money on the deal? Think the UFC will start allowing fighters to wear individual sponsors during fight week, because they care? Maybe they'll share likeness rights because the fighters deserve it as well.

But what if the UFC decided that things are perfectly fine like they are? I know, it's crazy to think they would take that position. But what if? How can the fighters force change? The only answer is an Association.

 

[Zeph]

I'm not saying the UFC can't compensate fighters more. I'm saying I need to see the financials. I want to see how much revenue is coming in and where it's going. Without that information, it's all speculation.

Which is what is happening with this lawsuit. No one had access to that before except Zuffa, who kept it tightly hidden. Now some fighters have taken them to court to challenge this and a judge is going to decide with that information in hand. It is a good thing for the sport, and if Zuffa has been equitably sharing like they claim, then they shouldn't have anything to worry about, and the court will rule completely in their favour. Right?

 

[Wild]

And all the top fighters are going to jump at the chance to join this new union, right? It won't work, otherwise.

Those at the top are likely pretty satisfied. But there's probably some things that they feel could be improved as well. Likeness right, having expenses covered for more than 1 cornerman, less media obligations unless they're fairly compensated for it, protection against Athletic Associations, etc. I wouldn't be so sure that the top dogs are 100% satisfied with every aspect of their dealings with the UFC.

And at the end of the day, majority rules. Those at the top make up 5-10% of the roster. It's those other 90-95% the UFC needs to be concerned about.

 

[Zeph]

The top dogs in the UFC are the people who are losing the most money compared to boxers. They would benefit the most from collective bargaining.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

Then how do you expect that to happen? The UFC following the honor system? And what about sponsors, likeness rights, etc? Expect the UFC to say to change the Reebok pay tier out of the kindness of their hearts, because the majority of fighters are losing money on the deal? Think the UFC will start allowing fighters to wear individual sponsors during fight week, because they care? Maybe they'll share likeness rights because the fighters deserve it as well.

But what if the UFC decided that things are perfectly fine like they are? I know, it's crazy to think they would take that position. But what it? How can the fighters force change? The only answer is an Association.

Well the UFC has made changes on it's own, like the increased minimum salary for new fighters. Personally, I have no problem with what the lower and mid guys are getting. I believe the top guys and champs should be getting more. I think the payout problems of the UFC are much smaller than most people here do I guess.

Sponsorship is the biggest problem I have: the UFC never should have signed the Reebok deal, it hurt the fighters, but it's 100% their right to do so and make a deal for their company like that IMO. No fighter has a god-given right to be able to wear whatever sponsors they want on a UFC show: that was a UFC-given priviledge.

As far as likeness rights, getting paid every time the UFC shows one of your fights, or shows you in a HL video or graphic? Hell no, I'm not for that at all.

I think the UFC should be paying them more on the purses and they shouldn't have signed the Reebok deal to restrict the sponsorship revenue guys can make. But I don't support any legislation or unions that would effect the UFC's ability to run their business. That's just my view on it.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

The top dogs in the UFC are the people who are losing the most money compared to boxers. They would benefit the most from collective bargaining.

Two different sports, two different businesses.

These guys, on average, are not going to make boxing money, and if they want to make boxing money they should find a boxing gym and learn how to throw a jab.

I don't think it's Dana's responsibility to match the money from another sport.

 

[Zeph]

Two different sports, two different businesses.

These guys, on average, are not going to make boxing money, and if they want to make boxing money they should find a boxing gym and learn how to throw a jab.

I don't think it's Dana's responsibility to match the money from another sport.

Bullshit. Boxing is the closest sports business to MMA.

 

[Narcosynthesis]

Two different sports, two different businesses.

These guys, on average, are not going to make boxing money, and if they want to make boxing money they should find a boxing gym and learn how to throw a jab.

I don't think it's Dana's responsibility to match the money from another sport.

I don't know. I kinda feel like table tennis players should make Serena money and pro minature golfers should make that Tiger money.