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.
They should just be hiring a lawyer in the first place
The Ali Act isn't about big government vs. small government. It's about correcting distortions in the market for MMA fighters. Right now the UFC holds all the cards. The Ali Act would give some bargaining power back to the fighters so that they could get paid closer to what their market value is.
For example, I see nothing wrong with the UFC paying the market rate for world championship fights instead of using its overwhelming bargaining power to ensure that none of its champions will ever be able to test the market.
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.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
bonnie - The Ali Act isn't about big government vs. small government. It's about correcting distortions in the market for MMA fighters. Right now the UFC holds all the cards. The Ali Act would give some bargaining power back to the fighters so that they could get paid closer to what their market value is.
For example, I see nothing wrong with the UFC paying the market rate for world championship fights instead of using its overwhelming bargaining power to ensure that none of its champions will ever be able to test the market.
Distortion how. It's the free market. Just because one group has more power or leverage than another doesn't mean things are distorted unless you believe in a socialist utopia.
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.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
You may be right but the Ali act is not the proper way of going about this. Fighters wealth is not more important than the health of the sport.
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.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the ufc contracts state the fighter is to be given 3 fights per year or paid for 3 fights per year?
I think I remember an interview with dfw about that.
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.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
You may be right but the Ali act is not the proper way of going about this. Fighters wealth is not more important than the health of the sport.
yeah...i have no idea why fans dont get this...its like they all hate the ufc and want to see it burned to the ground, yet everyone is here because of the ufc
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.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
The Ali Act was indeed successful at giving some bargaining power back to boxers. I don't know how you can think otherwise.
The bottom long is this: If you're fine with the UFC's habit of paying less than market rate for high-end fights and pocketing the difference, there's no way I can convince you otherwise. That's why legislation like this is left up to the political process.
bonnie - The Ali Act was indeed successful at giving some bargaining power back to boxers. I don't know how you can think otherwise.
The bottom long is this: If you're fine with the UFC's habit of paying less than market rate for high-end fights and pocketing the difference, there's no way I can convince you otherwise. That's why legislation like this is left up to the political process.
Im not arguing that the ali act would give more leverage to the fighters. clearly it would. im asking why its a forgone conclusion that having the government step in to artificially create that leverage is a good thing.
what exactly is market? what is reasonable? weve seen free agents go to bellator and other orgs and weve seen them go to the UFC. thats the market.
^ The entire free market is an artificial creation. Property and contracts require government enforcement. The government must print money. Interest rates must be set. Bankruptcy laws must be in place. Etc.
Since the industrial revolution the question has been, How do we encourage free enterprise while at the same time checking abuses of that system?
Maximum hour laws, safety laws, overtime pay laws, etc. are all examples of such efforts. The Ali Act is just another one of those laws, but applied specifically to what were perceived as abuses in the market for boxers.
Whether the UFC should similarly be checked is a political decision.
bonnie - ^ The entire free market is an artificial creation. Property and contracts require government enforcement. The government must print money. Interest rates must be set. Bankruptcy laws must be in place. Etc.
Since the industrial revolution the question has been, How do we encourage free enterprise while at the same time checking abuses of that system?
Maximum hour laws, safety laws, overtime pay laws, etc. are all examples of such efforts. The Ali Act is just another one of those laws, but applied specifically to what were perceived as abuses in the market for boxers.
Whether the UFC should similarly be checked is a political decision.
enforcement does not equal legislation...they are two different things
what abuses are you talking about? noone forces anyone to fight, let alone fight in the UFC...
if i was managing a fighter i would not put them in the UFC until they have the skills and experience to be a champion (at which point they would likely have more leverage)...the problem is too many tuf noobs just want to say they fite UFC so they go into the UFC green, with no leverage and are locked into long contracts, but thats not anyone else's fault
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.
Matt so we're do you stand with this? I understand your points but am not sure on if you're for or against it after reading thag
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.
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.
Makes complete sense.
For a long time the UFC (mainly Dana) has hidden behind the idea that the fighters don't want their earnings disclosed for their own private reasons.
This is nonsense: anyone with any business knowledge knows it's done to control bargaining power.
The only big purses they're happy to disclose are the heavy hitters. This is because it pumps up the average disclosed fighter pay and acts as a "look what you COULD earn if you fall in line" to the newcomers/uncooperative.
They're also happy to disclose the Reebok pay because they can wash their hands of that and claim "Hey, it's not our fault - blame the sponsors".
There needs to be more transparency (and solidarity) for the sake of the fighters.
People like Conor calling out other fighters as 'bums' and mocking their pay grade is counter-productive for the sport IMO. After all, if it wasn't for the likes of Tito, Chuck, Randy, GSP etc. Conor might not even be able to earn a living from the sport he 'loves'.
Fighters should start looking out for each other more, and pull together, as it's one big connected situation IMO.
Point by point I can think of at least one fighter being bent over by each example. The recent rise of Nate Diaz is a good example. His ranking was dropped due to inactivity after being put of the shelf for an extended period of time over contract disputes. It took the UFC brass underestimating Nate, and trying to cash him in (his name recognition) to build Connor's brand. They expected an easy win for Connor with Nate having no camp as a late replacement. I am sure that was a calculated decision. I also think this is why there was so much catharsis among other fighters.
Sadly, that's the kind of rare situation that it takes for a "journeyman" fighter to buck the UFC narrative. The UFC is attempting to put together a product. A pre-packaged and marketed product in which they can minimize costs, and maximize profit. The issue is that the product's primary ingredient is people. This is an issue, because you can't do that without objectifying these people. How can anyone call themselves a fan of the sport, and not feel some loyalty towards the people that comprise it?
The argument that the UFC is the fastest growing sport BECAUSE of their business model is horseshit. The largest sports organizations aren't exploiting their athletes to the degree that the UFC is. There are laws in place to protect athletes; the UFC made huge efforts to legitimize MMA as a sport for regulatory purposes. It's time to act like it's a legit sport with legit athletes. That includes legit compensation, and benefits.
