Soul Gravy - If the UFC doesn't like it, that means it's probably something we should support.
End of the day UFC weekends in Vegas usually cost me about $1500 bucks. I hope both sides factor in the people who buy the tickets and ppv. I would really hate for mma to go the boxing route and nobody but a few make money 
Great thread
CRE -Soul Gravy - If the UFC doesn't like it, that means it's probably something we should support.
The UFC has put out a consistently high quality product, that was and is still the envy of boxing promoters, they definitely deserve some trust and leverage in negotiations and bargaining.
Boxing promoters would love to be able to copy the UFC model because the UFC has far more bargaining power than they do.
If you cheer for fighters having less bargaining power, that's up to you. Most of us prefer that fighters be able to negotiate contracts that better reflect their market value.
bonnie - I've been saying for a while that extending the Ali Act to MMA would transfer some bargaining power to the fighters.
By lobbying against the Ali Act, Zuffa is suggesting they think that's true, too.
Voted up Bonnie for the truth
With respect and in my opinion, the UFC opposing a legislation that protects the rights of fighters is in my opinion very telling of how they are conducting their business and that isn't cool. I appreciate that the Ali act is specific to Boxing but elements of that can be used in drafting an act that will be relevant to MMA.
I'm very surprised how people believe that if the ufc doesn't want this that it must be the best thing for the sport.
If this goes through the ufc doesn't just lose bargaining power it basically ceases to be relevant
SupesUp - I'm very surprised how people believe that if the ufc doesn't want this that it must be the best thing for the sport.They might cease to exist as a promotion but could shift to a governing body such as the WBO. The UFC belt would still be the most sought after title in MMA.
If this goes through the ufc doesn't just lose bargaining power it basically ceases to be relevant
Good thread!
SupesUp -The best way to rank guys would probably be something similar how they rank college teams.Matt Mitrione -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.Rickmassmma -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.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.
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.
Soul Gravy - If the UFC doesn't like it, that means it's probably something we should support.Best argument that could be made.
LotionInTheBasket -That doesn't address the sample size issue.SupesUp -The best way to rank guys would probably be something similar how they rank college teams.Matt Mitrione -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.Rickmassmma -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.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.
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.
The only problem is, I don't know that you have enough people that know the sport good enough to do that.
Sounds good to me, hope it goes over. Fuck the UFC and their shady asses.
CRE -#1 without ever beating a top 10 fighter? Ha.
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'
Serious question - how many MMA managers are actually out there helping the top fighters sign their deals? It can't be more than a handful. They know what their other fighter's deals are worth. It's not like each fighter's deal is negotiated in a vacuum.
I would think applying some aspects of the Ali act.
Mainly just not having the sanctioning body create the titles.
If you have independent rankings and determine matchmaking
siebe41 - I would think applying some aspects of the Ali act.And disclose the financials. Plus limit the term of contracts.
Mainly just not having the sanctioning body create the titles.
If you have independent rankings and determine matchmaking
Limit gvnmt or it limits you.
Frankenzilla -VU, frenMatt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it: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.
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'd still like to hear from the other side of the fence, but it sounds like this is definitely needed in this sport.
pbody - Serious question - how many MMA managers are actually out there helping the top fighters sign their deals? It can't be more than a handful. They know what their other fighter's deals are worth. It's not like each fighter's deal is negotiated in a vacuum.With the disclosures being made available to everyone, a fighter who was fine with just the Reebok deal money (as some have said that they are) wouldn't need a manager and having to give them a percentage of their income. They could just hire a lawyer at $400 an hour to look over the contract and be done with it.
More government regulation of business is the wrong answer 99% of the time.
How about we just get rid of the ufc and just watch bellator. Seems it would make many happy.
