ATTN: UFC Fighters RE: Reebok (PICS w/ LINKS)

Huge respect to all the fighters expressing his/her concerns. Only a few of you have spoken up thus far, but these crucial few have opened up the path for everyone else.

If you, a professional fighter, are either unhappy about your pay or unhappy about the Reebok deal yet you choose to stay silent then you deserve to simply STFU about your pay. In other words, once things change – and they will – don't expect to ask for better once others have done all the legwork. Also, if you're happy where you are now but don't really care about your friends who fight, or the proper treatment of all professional MMA athletes, then be that guy. Just know you will be remembered that way, by not only your friends but also future generations.

For everyone else: voice yourself over whatever medium suits you. Send out tweets. Give interviews. Post on The UG. Be wary UFC's continued efforts to stifle you.

Speak loudly but also thoughtfully, so that when look back on this time you're proud of what you did.


https://twitter.com/MMAFA

Awesome RickStorm VU. Macedawgg is the man Phone Post 3.0

Muerto - 


Question Brian Rule, where does your agenda against the UFC stem from? Just out of curiosity.


I don't think it's an agenda. He is just Pro-fighter.

Muerto - 


Question Brian Rule, where does your agenda against the UFC stem from? Just out of curiosity.


I like how you equate being pro-fighter to being anti-UFC.

So when is anybody going to call out sponsors for dropping fighters??? Phone Post 3.0

Fuck Zuffa, and I've had no bad business dealings. Fighters need a union plain and simple

It is the poor republican conundrum. There should be no such thing as a poor republican, because being a republican is all about keeping the govts hands off your stuff, which includes taxes, etc.
A lot of poor people think they will be rich some day, so they side with the current rich people now, which is a detriment, but they believe they are investing in their future.
UFC fighters will always think they will fight to be champion, where the good money is, so they will not rock the boat at the bottom. You fight for the dream when the reality is very few ever make it there, but as long as there is a 0.0001% chance of making it, they will not take a chance and jeopardize that.
A union would would just piss off the UFC and they will go looking for all of the other dudes who do not need to be part of it and still have their 0.0001% chance in their pocket.
The fighers need something, but it will need to come from the UFC themselves, and it is pretty apparent that is not going to happen. Especially when they know there are plnty of fighters who would "scab" as it were.

Where is the WAMMA link? Phone Post 3.0

Ramsey - So when is anybody going to call out sponsors for dropping fighters??? Phone Post 3.0


Excellent point.



 



In other sports, sponsors are more than willing to work with athletes without any on-field recognition.  Peyton Manning doesn't get to wear a Nationwide patch on his uniform, but they still work with him.  Donovan McNabb doesn't get to wear a Campbell's soup patch, but they still work with him.



 



Why can't MMA sponsors do the same thing? 

Muerto - 


Question Brian Rule, where does your agenda against the UFC stem from? Just out of curiosity.


My "agenda", if you want to call it that, involves improving the quality of life of those who deserve it – in this case, the vast majority of pro fighters.

I have no beef with the people of Zuffa but I'm happy to stand against any business practices I see as unfair; for me the same thought process applies to any company, authority, or agency, be it an Athletic Commission, even the Fighters' Association that will inevitably develop from all this.

I met Dana on several occasions and I like him for far too many reasons to list. CindyO is a great person, and unlike many I appreciate her candor on here. Back when it was UFC vs Pride, I was fully on team UFC (ask Macedawgg himself if you don't believe me). I could go on this path, though I might buy too much into your fallacy.

My concern revolves around power structures unjustly controlling individuals, or in some cases, the selfishness of a few restricting the fair treatment of many. Outside the UG I argue against the practices of various governments, militaries, religious authorities, cults, etc – whatever entities hold all the cards – and question which actions they conduct are justifiable and which are not. Everyone should do this. Few do.

When it comes to MMA, I believe that either UFC needs to set up a Fighters' Association or one will be set up for them. Without collective bargaining, pro fighters simply do not have a fair shake at asking for what they feel they deserve, whether upfront or as revenue pours in. Zuffa wants all the power, which is why they've fought this tooth and nail. You be the judge why.

I've explained myself enough and I'd be happy to explain more over a beer or coffee.

Out of respect for my effort, please go back to my argument proposed and explain your views on pro MMA fighters and collective bargaining. The fallacy of asking my "agenda" leads me to think you're against my argument but wished to avoid it, and out of curiosity, I'd like to know where you stand.

Steve4192 -
Ramsey - So when is anybody going to call out sponsors for dropping fighters??? Phone Post 3.0


Excellent point.



 



In other sports, sponsors are more than willing to work with athletes without any on-field recognition.  Peyton Manning doesn't get to wear a Nationwide patch on his uniform, but they still work with him.  Donovan McNabb doesn't get to wear a Campbell's soup patch, but they still work with him.



 



Why can't MMA sponsors do the same thing? 

Exactly Phone Post 3.0

Stevicus - It is the poor republican conundrum. There should be no such thing as a poor republican, because being a republican is all about keeping the govts hands off your stuff, which includes taxes, etc.
A lot of poor people think they will be rich some day, so they side with the current rich people now, which is a detriment, but they believe they are investing in their future.
UFC fighters will always think they will fight to be champion, where the good money is, so they will not rock the boat at the bottom. You fight for the dream when the reality is very few ever make it there, but as long as there is a 0.0001% chance of making it, they will not take a chance and jeopardize that.
A union would would just piss off the UFC and they will go looking for all of the other dudes who do not need to be part of it and still have their 0.0001% chance in their pocket.
The fighers need something, but it will need to come from the UFC themselves, and it is pretty apparent that is not going to happen. Especially when they know there are plnty of fighters who would "scab" as it were.

Partly true about Republicans. Being "all about keeping the govts hands off your stuff" more closely (though not fully) describes American Libertarianism, which is a growing faction of the Republican base, one that may eventually branch off into it's own party.

The 'poor Republican' connects less to riches and more to the underlying fundamental jingoism and racism that comes with being Republican, or, being 'Murican. We all want a better life, and likewise when we make more money (hopefully) we're wary to 'have it taken by The Man', at least without a damn good reason. Outright some folks are more selfish than others, but that's not the greater picture. Poor Republicans cannot relate to 1% wealth, nor do they understand the loopholes and creative accounting the super-rich utilize to dodge whatever taxes they're supposed to pay; instead, fear of foreigners, fear of blacks, fear of Muslims, fear of Commies, fear of gays, fear of change, fear of fear itself: fear hits straight to the heart of the "Bible Belt", which explains why Republican leaders rally them so effectively atop golden pulpits and 10-bedroom mansions.

So I agree, should any intelligent discussion of economics occur within the party, free of fallacies and distractions, then the party would crumble. But those fallacies and distractions are crucial and deeply embedded. All this said, Democrats aren't much better. (And I've digressed enough.)

As for your latter point, UFC will work with a genuine Fighters' Association just as all the other leagues respective to those associations linked above do. When all the best talent in a field is organized that must happen. Strikes cripple league revenues almost as bad as having a league with obviously sub-par talent. Conflicts sort themselves out, and everyone gets back to making money together. It's business as usual, you might say.

Anonymous voice is better than none at all:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/5/27/8665437/ufc-survey-on-reebok-deal-what-fighters-really-think-sponsor

FYI, the PGA stuff you posted has nothing to do with professional golfers on the tour, it's a group made up of club professionals who tend to fold clothes and make coffee for rich people! Phone Post 3.0

I agree that being pro-fighters association is not synonymous with being anti Zuffa or anti promoter.

Frankly, having a viable fighters association where minimum standards can be negotiated for all pro fighters accross the board is in the long term interest for all stakeholders in the sport.

Having minimum standards with issues such as contract length, insurance, intellectual property rights, free agency etc, perhaps even revenue split can benefit everyone.  The more attractive the sport is for athletes the more talent comes to the sport creating a richer pool to draw from which in turn creates a better product to sell to the public.

I respect all the fighters taking a public stand knowing they can be targetted by Zuffa.  If enough fighters stand up together the MMAFA can take off and help give fighters a fairer shake in negotiating their deals and help grow the sport.

NFL franshise owners are no worse for wear given the NFLPA, these guys rake in record profits.  A balance can be achieved that helps everyone be better off in the pro MMA landscape.

Super late to the party. Phone Post 3.0

thekindone4 - FYI, the PGA stuff you posted has nothing to do with professional golfers on the tour, it's a group made up of club professionals who tend to fold clothes and make coffee for rich people! Phone Post 3.0

good catch.. rushed and added wrong link VU

ErikMagraken - 


I agree that being pro-fighters association is not synonymous with being anti Zuffa or anti promoter.



Frankly, having a viable fighters association where minimum standards can be negotiated for all pro fighters accross the board is in the long term interest for all stakeholders in the sport.



Having minimum standards with issues such as contract length, insurance, intellectual property rights, free agency etc, perhaps even revenue split can benefit everyone.  The more attractive the sport is for athletes the more talent comes to the sport creating a richer pool to draw from which in turn creates a better product to sell to the public.



I respect all the fighters taking a public stand knowing they can be targetted by Zuffa.  If enough fighters stand up together the MMAFA can take off and help give fighters a fairer shake in negotiating their deals and help grow the sport.



NFL franshise owners are no worse for wear given the NFLPA, these guys rake in record profits.  A balance can be achieved that helps everyone be better off in the pro MMA landscape.


This man gets it. VU

(Posted in another thread)

Realistically, there has to be a good number of UFC fighters who will be pissed about this, as with the Burt Watson situation. I'd say most UFC fighters are pissed, so at least 50% are pissed, likely closer to 90%-95%. Oddly enough we'll hear little if anything from them about it though.

"Fine", you may say, but here's the problem:

To whom can fighters genuinely voice their concerns about UFC policy, such as the firing of Stitch, without the threat of repercussion? Does UFC allow them to talk openly with their managers? Maybe their parents? In either case, what good would it do?

Unlike UFC fighters, athletes in other major sports can voice grievances to their respective player associations, who, in turn, can then take legitimate grievances to task on their behalf. Among other duties, association reps do this so that individual athletes do not suffer simply for having a grievance. UFC is nothing without its fighters, yet at this time, UFC fighters cannot express reasonable grievances about the UFC either collectively or publicly

So, putting Stitch's own dilemma aside, is UFC's current grievance policy a fair situation for fighters?