Macedawg:
I like the idea of 3rd party rankings that would ideally determine number one contenders. It would give even more legitimacy to any UFC title by making more of a true world title and not just a company's title. MMA is supposed to be a sport, not just mere entertainment. The most skilled fighters should always be fighting for the title.
I still think a union (or whatever synonym is chosen) is the best deal for the average fighter in terms of monetary compensation.
FingerorMoon:
Don't get me wrong, I fully realize that Nash and co. didn't ever give a shit about anyone but themselves. The point was that with even a handful of people working together, you can achieve a lot more than you can separately. I was using the term 'union' in the broadest sense.
pattitude - Macedawg:I agree--and I think the best platform for this is what boxing evolved too--an independent panel of journalists, that do it just because. What gives them legitimacy? The talent themselves should recognize the panel. The rankings are not for profit, or affiliated with a for-profit "sanctioning body".
I like the idea of 3rd party rankings that would ideally determine number one contenders. It would give even more legitimacy to any UFC title by making more of a true world title and not just a company's title. MMA is supposed to be a sport, not just mere entertainment.
By design, these "sanctioning bodies" are flawed, without any outside influence--which of course, follows hand in glove.
JDOKLR - A fighters "Association" could bring about an independant MMA Commision free of the medievil Boxing Commission and it's archaic administration of it's own MMA rules and regulations.
I think Randy and Fedor could get this done by themselves. Think of the possible ratings. $1million purses would be peanuts in 2 years.
An independent Commision would be illegal.
If Fedor and Randy did their fight on their own it would sell less than 100k buys and they would lose tons of money.
So other than being really bad for the fighters and the sport (and illegal), your idea makes great sense!
"What sport has it destroyed?"
Hockey.
Unions are good for any worker.
smac 2.0 - "What sport has it destroyed?"
Hockey.
Wrong. Check out the player contracts that are being issued. I am sure the players are distraught. The arenas, in most of the markets, generally sell out. In arena advertising, in most markets is healthy. Hockey, outside of television ratings, is alive and well, unless you think the contracts such as those below are given in an act of charity.
Last night NHL superstar Alexander Ovechkin signed a 13-year, $124 million contract extension. This is the second recent super-long deal, after Rick Dipietro’s 15-year deal.
^
the money comes from tv. the lockout ruined the sport, it's really that simple. lmao @ pointing at contracts considering they have owners already had to lock the players out once when contracts got out of hand.
The biggest contract in the history of the sport is worth about $9m a year. Meanwhile the UFC paid Tito Ortiz well over 5 million in 1 year, despite him being far from the best fighter and that not being the biggest deal in the sport.
So Ovechkin the highest paid hockey player is making only marginally more than top level MMA fighters are without a union. Meanwhile hardly anyone is watching hockey and the owners had to lock out the players because they were going broke.
"Unions are good for any worker."
I'd likely be looking at a 60% or greater reduction in pay if my industry had a union.
smac 2.0 - ^
the money comes from tv. the lockout ruined the sport, it's really that simple. lmao @ pointing at contracts considering they have owners already had to lock the players out once when contracts got out of hand.
The money comes from TV? Not in hockey, it doesn't. Hockey has very little revenue to speak of in terms of television.
Locked out when contracts got out of hand, and the owners were already locked in?
Only one problem with your theory Smac--that contract was signed just this year.
So, are these NHL owners just operating charitable enterprises, and giving the money away, or in actuality, are they still making money? Attendance is fine, good even, so is in-arena sponsorships. Owners still making money. Hockey is fine, even without the huge TV deals.
" The money comes from TV? Not in hockey, it doesn't. Hockey has very little revenue to speak of in terms of television."
Agreed, that's the point I was making. The big money in team sports is TV, and the NHL does not get this money, and a big part of why they don't is because the owners had to lock the players out because they could not afford to pay them. It was better financially for the owners to cancel a season than try to pay the players.
"Only one problem with your theory Smac--that contract was signed just this year."
Obviously I am talking about the fairly recent collective bargaining agreement that forced the owners to lock the players out because they were losing money.
"So, are these NHL owners just operating charitable enterprises, and giving the money away, or in actuality, are they still making money? Attendance is fine, good even, so is in-arena sponsorships. Owners still making money. Hockey is fine, even without the huge TV deals."
Right, because the players took a contract that drastically reduced how much money the were making to get the sport started again. "Fine" is a relative term, I think we all can agree that more people would be watching the sport and there would be more money to go around if they had a major TV deal, which they almost certainly would have if they didn't just recently cancel a season.
5-10 years ago I could have named the 5 best players on every team and likely all of the starting goalies, today I quite literally could not name 10 players in the league.
Just because things have gotten better since then does not mean that the players union is not culpable in creating a situation that caused the sport to become less popular and caused a season to be cancelled.
A simple question was asked, there is no question the union made a huge blunder that cost players a lot of money. That's a fact.
I don't agree at all Smac--and I knew hockey would be used as an example as a sport that was "killed' by the union. It wasn't at all. Hockey's TV woes weren't caused by the strike/lockout.
Players are making more money than ever, there are more teams than ever, and more jobs for players than ever. I am not sure by what measure you are saying it was "killed" by the union. By what measure? Players are doing better now all the way around.
As to whether the uniion made a blunder--tough to say. Its possible. Has the union made hockey players money? Without question--and that's also an indisputable fact.
I also think its beyond question that players are in better position because of their association.
Changing the subject...sort-of.
Philisophically speaking:
Dana White is fucking the sport up. He's no Vince McMahon or Don King.
Why was Pride so exciting?
1) The fights that needed to happen happened.
2) The show was larger than life. It made the fighters "Rock-Stars'
3) The show and the fights were more important than the promoter.
4) No Dana White
Why is Pride gone?
1) Dana White
Thought I'd bring this one back as it's very relevant to what's happening now. Workplace fairness, regulation, fighter rankings etc.
An oldie but a goody.
This just got bumped to the top of my subscriptions. What happened to my posts on this thread? LOL...
And Maysey is still trying to ambulance chase his way to a payday here (as if that was ever in question).
On the positive side, since this thread was created all those years ago, I've helped to essentially eliminate public sector unions in my state, and this week we're going to pass Right to Work legislation. So that's good. 