Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies. By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party: I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts. You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Is the ranking thing really a big deal? I'm curious for your perspective. I ask because there are already several other places to get rankings other than the UFC's website that only ranks their fighters, and everyone sees through it when they drop a guy out for BS reasons. To me, all their rankings really are is a way for them to market a fight by saying how highly ranked certain guys are. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing.
Do they really sit down with you during negotiations and say "Matt, you're ranked 9, and you can't get paid more than the guy ranked 8?"
To me, the thing about having an outside party regulate championships is a terrible idea, and I think that's the reason boxing has so many worthless titles. They'll tell a guy after winning the belt that some scrub is their mandatory #1 contender, and the dude gets stripped because he doesn't want to defend it against the guy who only deserves it in the eyes of that sanctioning body. If done correctly, it's a great idea, but seeing as though I don't see one sanctioning body in boxing doing it correctly, I hate the idea of eliminating UFC & Bellator champions and going with outside sanctioning bodies.
Rankings are a big deal, yes. They SHOULD have direct relationship on who gets title shots and when. I completely agree that boxing is a disaster and it's turned itself into a farce of money grabbing and greed but in theory, it's correct, imo. To fix the issues could take effort and determination but why not try something new with us. Modify things a bit. Why not take a chance.
Is there actually a legitimate way to do rankings? With the small sample size of fights for each fighter per year, different levels of competition, different paths to victory as well as all the times you have well A has a win over B who has a win over C who has a win over A I have never felt there is a clear way to rank fighters. The ufc system is definitely arbitrary but it's one of the things I can say I agree with because of how difficult it is to rank guys.
Keeping fighter pay and conditions secret only helps the promoter, and the same goes for multi-year contracts.
Fighters eager to get into a major promotion are at risk of signing contracts which they will often later regret.
I think this is true and agree with Mitrione as well. I also think that there wasn't so much regret in regards to signing long term deals just to get in to the UFC before the reebok fiasco took place. Granted, there were still some issues, but fighters could still make pretty good amounts from sponsorships just being a UFC fighter. Even after the UFC started taking sponsorship fees, guys were getting paid decent amounts that could still offset the lower end show/win payouts.
SupesUp - Considering the overall state of boxing I can't say I'd be happy with it, but I'm not a fighter.
So your logic is that boxing is in a shitty state, the Ali act applies to boxing, and therefore the Ali act would be bad for MMA? Please explain.
Well the Ali act takes the power from the promoter and gives it back to the fighter. This system is what caused boxing to be so fragmented. Without any long term contracts fighters will not be forced to fight the best in the world. This results in fighters picking and choosing fights. I agree fighters > promoters but I believe the overall health of the sport is what's most important for me, the fan.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies. By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party: I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts. You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
I read the article and came away still not understanding the ramifications it would have on MMA. Then along comes a guy known as "Meathead," and he makes it simple as fuck to understand.
I'd still like to hear from the other side of the fence, but it sounds like this is definitely needed in this sport.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies. By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party: I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts. You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
With promoter control, to even ascend to contender status or obtain a title fight, the fighter must sign the contract presented by the promoter. If they don't--they simply will not move up the ladder. Think about what this does to the leverage between a fighter and promoter.
Further, if rank/title is not independent, the promotion can simply "strip" it away from the fighter. Again--think what this does to leverage. In boxing, a fighter can work up the ranks, win a title, and then become open for bid from all other promoters who want to promote a champion.
In MMA, at a time when marketability and leverage should be at their peak, the promotion can simply strip it away from the fighter.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies. By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party: I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts. You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Thanks Matt, Which would you say is the most important thing to argue for in the MMA case? I'd imagine knowing the revenue generated and other fighters contracts would strengthen a fighters negotiating position hugely, as would yearly contracts. If you could only have one, what would it be.
I was in Purdue when you were in TUF, was down at one of your viewing nights. Weren't you there with Rampage one night? Missed that
I think the financial terms are by far the most crucial.
Yeah as a fan the money is the only thing I care about for the fighters. In all honesty though, I don't want the outside rankings unless they are strictly tied to the money because as boxing has shown, it turns into a clusterfuck. Lastly, the one year contract is too short and current ones are too long. Maybe a 2 year 3 fight deal (whichever happens first barring injury) with a clause that a fight must be offered every 6 months plus perhaps a Champions contract that is longer, maybe 4 years but is guaranteed witg certain payout along the way?
Not sure how and why the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which was created specifically for BOXING, would ever apply directly to MMA or the UFC.
Seems like laziness, hastiness and a general lack of foresight would lead individuals to try and make the Ali Act apply to MMA, instead of coming up with a unique act specifically for the sport of MMA.
Why should the SPORT of MMA as a whole have to inherit some of the same problems that this caused for boxing?
Obviously something could and should be done, as far as increasing sportsmanship and integrity within the MMA industry, plus protecting the rights and welfare of MMA fighters, but to think that some antiquated Ali act should apply to MMA is insulting to intelligence.
The Ben Askren Mixed Martial Arts Reform Act sounds about right.
Ben is the #1 contender @ 170 lbs.. but the UFC controls the rankings.
There's no reason for Woodley to be fighting Robbie Lawler instead of this guy. 15-0, defended the Bellator belt 4 times. Former Olympic wrestler of the Cormier and Cejudo cloth, 2x Hodge Trophy winner. The UFC SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO PAY HIM
Since much of MMA's growth is fostered through amateur wrestling avenues and Askren is one of the faces of amateur wrestling.
Even Matt Brown said he doesn't know who wins between Askren/Lawler, but he called Woodley an easy fight for Lawler. Politics, blackballing and a lack of a Ben Askren Act kept this guy from realizing his dreams and held the sport back from seeing the best fight the best.
Ben Askren says at this point, UFC move 'probably never will happen'
