Blazing Knees -mrwhipple - I'm glad Blazing Knees saw fit to explain his position because we can know see what type of person is attacking Nate and his comments - an extreme laissez-faire, Ayn Rand objectivismist.
I'm not attacking anyone-IF you had bothered to read the thread, you would find that I'm a fan of Nate and remain one, regardless of this drama.
Here's just ONE example of why the UFC has to control sponsors-Spencer Fischer, one of the best, gettting ripped of by yet another fly-by-night 'sponsor'
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/thread/1661965/Toe-2-Toe-owes-me-money/?&page=1 I cold find countless other examples of guys getting screwed by sponsors-THIS is why there is a financial ante to play in the bigs
I'm a free enterprise capatalist-hardly obsessed with 'getting rich' but I find it awfully hypocritical to rail me for talkiing about capatalism vs socialism while the thread Nate started is about getting paid-
The mendacity stinks, just like your Candian income taxation rate and your socialized health care system does.
You'll notice Fisher made that complaint in June, 2010, a year after the "sponsor tax" was implimented. The tax also didn't stop Pretorian, Cage Fighter, and numerous other companies from not paying Mark Bocek, Jorge Rivera, Roy Nelson, and many, many more, (including Nate Quarry who's sponsor, Fight Mafia, failed to pay him 7 months after the tax went into affect).
The "tax" doesn't stop sponsors from not paying fighters. What it does is it guarantees that those sponsors pay the UFC first before they have the right to appear in the cage. After that it's still up to the fighters and their management to collect. What it also does is allow a company to pay extra to be an exclusive sponsor to the UFC, driving out other competing companies, giving them the field to themselves, and then allowing them to lower the amount they pay to individual fighters.