<div class="Article" style="float: left;">
<table>
<tr style="vertical-align: bottom;">
<td>
<h3><a href="/go=news.detail&gid=440412" target="_blank">
Lauzon discusses UFC sponsorship landscape
</a></h3>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="/go=news.detail&gid=440412" ><img class="photo" src="http://img.mixedmartialarts.com/method=get&rs=100&q=75&x=296&y=64&w=310&h=165&ro=0&s=joe-lauzon-12-12-2013-19-34-20-95.JPG" /></a>
<div style="clear: both; line-height: 1px;height: 1px;"> </div>
</div>
<p>In his fight with Joe Lauzon, Mac Danzig made a statement about the current state of sponsorship, choosing to forego sponsors for the UFC on FOX 9 bout. Although Lauzon doesn't share the exact view point, he says the current situation can be good and bad:</p>
“I feel the UFC sponsorship program is really good, because it limits all these random t-shirt companies, but it definitely hurts sponsors on the other end, though, too,” he told MMAjunkie Radio. “It’s good and bad.”
“Before, it could be anyone that wanted to pay you, you could wear their shirt,” he said. “Whereas now it’s, ‘Here are the approved people.’ So you’ve got to pick from them, and you’ve got to find the best deal from these very limited people. It’s a little tougher than it used to be. It used to be the wild, wild west from sponsors.”
Lauzon said the most he ever made in sponsorship money was $30,000, which he secured for a headlining fight with Kenny Florian in April 2008. He said he now averages between $12,000 and $25,000 per fight.
I am not sure that the positives outweigh the negatives. Sure, probably harder for the holzer reichs of the world, but your options are limited to what they Uncle Dana says is ok.
Where it mentions he wasn't able to make more from his sponsors when his fight was bumped from FS1 to Fox, that's not always the case. Sometimes agreements are made ahead of time that if the fight does happen to make it onto Fox, there's a bigger payout.
Bummer to see that's not happening for some guys, there's a huge difference between FS1 and Fox televised cash.
I'd like to know what the problem is with random t-shirt companies? HR is one thing - the rest is just Zuffa taking money out of the pocket of the fighters.
Especially prelim fighters - they're the ones that need sponsors the most and suffer the most by the lack of them.
granted i didn't read the entire article, however, there is a potential upside for the fighters of this arrangement if the UFC requires them to provide at least a base level of sponsorship.......
ziggystardust - I'd like to know what the problem is with random t-shirt companies? HR is one thing - the rest is just Zuffa taking money out of the pocket of the fighters.
Especially prelim fighters - they're the ones that need sponsors the most and suffer the most by the lack of them.
I believe there were two arguments from the UFC on this:
1) The sponsors are receiving essentially free (or very cheap) ad time by appearing on a UFC produced product when they should be paying a fee for this.
2) These low level sponsors sometimes weren't paying the fighters, so this was an attempt to protect their fighters from being screwed out of money.
surfing - granted i didn't read the entire article, however, there is a potential upside for the fighters of this arrangement if the UFC requires them to provide at least a base level of sponsorship.......
They don't. Sponsors can pay whatever they think you're worth. That could be $200.
It's #1 I have a problem with. #2 is not worthy of being addressed. It's not free ad space if it parts of what finances the fighter's camp.
A $10.000 sponsor who just wants to feel out a new marketing tactic won't pay a fee as well. The sponsorship market has dried up as it is. The Fertittas wetting their beaks makes it even smaller.
ziggystardust - It's #1 I have a problem with. #2 is not worthy of being addressed. It's not free ad space if it parts of what finances the fighter's camp.
A $10.000 sponsor who just wants to feel out a new marketing tactic won't pay a fee as well. The sponsorship market has dried up as it is. The Fertittas wetting their beaks makes it even smaller.
Well not really. It's free advertising in a sense if that fighter wears a sponsors t-shirt on a UFC produced product. A fighter wearing a t-shirt outside of the UFC is different because the UFC isn't paying for the distribution of that advertising.
It would be like an actor wearing a personal sponsor's t-shirt on a tv show. It would never be allowed without working out a deal with that network or production company beforehand. They're the ones paying for the distribution of that ad space so they're going to want a fee. It's the same concept.
ziggystardust - It's #1 I have a problem with. #2 is not worthy of being addressed. It's not free ad space if it parts of what finances the fighter's camp.
A $10.000 sponsor who just wants to feel out a new marketing tactic won't pay a fee as well. The sponsorship market has dried up as it is. The Fertittas wetting their beaks makes it even smaller.
Well not really. It's free advertising in a sense if that fighter wears a sponsors t-shirt on a UFC produced product. A fighter wearing a t-shirt outside of the UFC is different because the UFC isn't paying for the distribution of that advertising.
It would be like an actor wearing a personal sponsor's t-shirt on a tv show. It would never be allowed without working out a deal with that network or production company beforehand. They're the ones paying for the distribution of that ad space so they're going to want a fee. It's the same concept.
The fee is locking out sponsor money for the low level fighters. The difference to an actor is that the fighter's sponsor money enhances his skill and thereby indirectly raises the quality of the UFC product.
But I understand Zuffa's reasoning. I just think they're assholes for maximizing short term profits at the expense of their fighters and the development of the sport. You don't have to take the max money route just because it's there.
Serious question...has ANYONE here ever bought a product because it was on a fighter's shorts? I am surprised that companies even consider it viable add space.
Im not even trying to be an asshole by saying that, it is just that when I watch a fight I am watching the action and am not trying to read the little logos on their shorts.
GodSaveTheReem - Im not even trying to be an asshole by saying that, it is just that when I watch a fight I am watching the action and am not trying to read the little logos on their shorts.
I definitely find a lot of logos are hard to read, just bad designs to put on something where the viewer needs there attention grabbed, and the fact some take up such a small piece of the short. If I was a company I'd want a deal like Mighty Mouse has. Just a big XBOX logo, that's it. I don't know if I would buy an XBOX for it but I really do associate XBOX with Mighty Mouse now, I find it effective advertising.
GodSaveTheReem - Im not even trying to be an asshole by saying that, it is just that when I watch a fight I am watching the action and am not trying to read the little logos on their shorts.
I definitely find a lot of logos are hard to read, just bad designs to put on something where the viewer needs there attention grabbed, and the fact some take up such a small piece of the short. If I was a company I'd want a deal like Mighty Mouse has. Just a big XBOX logo, that's it. I don't know if I would buy an XBOX for it but I really do associate XBOX with Mighty Mouse now, I find it effective advertising.
I can agree with that, the big single logo is a lot better than the many small ones. But the big logos usually go to the high end fighters who don't have to worry about pay as much as the lower-tier ones.
