the problem is that there has almost always been a pride/affliction/strikeforce/bellator out there to drive up prices for fighters who do have value and are willing and smart enough to step out and seek that value.
Dan henderson, gilbert melendez, eddie alvarez, tito ortiz, rampage jackson
Also, I have a hard time seeing how the UFC illegally intefered with competitors when the Strikeforce owners put it up for sale and EliteXC put themselves under with the kimbo fiasco.
Affliction went under because their business model wasn't sustainable. The UFC deciding not to allow them to sponsor athletes competing within the cage is not illegal because as a corporation you are allowed to choose what logos appear on your platform. You won't see an independent contractor for FedEx walking around in a UPS shirt.
ufc98newb - the problem is that there has almost always been a pride/affliction/strikeforce/bellator out there to drive up prices for fighters who do have value and are willing and smart enough to step out and seek that value.
Dan henderson, gilbert melendez, eddie alvarez, tito ortiz, rampage jackson
Exactly; the fighters who have value will always have a market to drive up their salary while the ones who don't will complain that they are not getting what "they feel they are worth".
I want to make clear that I am in no way a zuffa shill. I think there are guys who deserve far more money, especially guys who are able to put on 500k to 1million+ ppvs.
I just believe that the fighters and their managers not being fully aware of their value is part of that problem, and I'm not sure I really agree with the principles of this particular lawsuit, along with some of the particular people associated with it.
Thekingslayer - Also, I have a hard time seeing how the UFC illegally intefered with competitors when the Strikeforce owners put it up for sale and EliteXC put themselves under with the kimbo fiasco.
Affliction went under because their business model wasn't sustainable. The UFC deciding not to allow them to sponsor athletes competing within the cage is not illegal because as a corporation you are allowed to choose what logos appear on your platform. You won't see an independent contractor for FedEx walking around in a UPS shirt.
This is an alleged violation of the Sherman Act, not a contract dispute or a dispute about the relationships between employers and employees.
You have to look at everything the complaint alleges together. You can't just pick things out in isolation.
The complaint alleges that the UFC is not just a private corporation, but rather has a monopsony on the services of elite fighters (basically they are the only purchasers of services of the very best fighters) and a monopoly on cards featuring fights between the very best fighters.
I think that is a good argument because the UFC has all the top 5 fighters in the world, and the vast majority of the top 15.
There is nothing illegal about being a monopsony/monopoly. But you can violate the Sherman Act if you abuse your position as a monopsony/monopoly in ways that violate the Sherman Act.
The complaint lists a number of ways the UFC did just that.
TMT -Thekingslayer - Also, I have a hard time seeing how the UFC illegally intefered with competitors when the Strikeforce owners put it up for sale and EliteXC put themselves under with the kimbo fiasco.
Affliction went under because their business model wasn't sustainable. The UFC deciding not to allow them to sponsor athletes competing within the cage is not illegal because as a corporation you are allowed to choose what logos appear on your platform. You won't see an independent contractor for FedEx walking around in a UPS shirt.
This is an alleged violation of the Sherman Act, not a contract dispute or a dispute about the relationships between employers and employees.
You have to look at everything the complaint alleges together. You can't just pick things out in isolation.
The complaint alleges that the UFC is not just a private corporation, but rather has a monopsony on the services of elite fighters (basically they are the only purchasers of services of the very best fighters) and a monopoly on cards featuring fights between the very best fighters.
I think that is a good argument because the UFC has all the top 5 fighters in the world, and the vast majority of the top 15.
There is nothing illegal about being a monopsony/monopoly. But you can violate the Sherman Act if you abuse your position as a monopsony/monopoly in ways that violate the Sherman Act.
The complaint lists a number of ways the UFC did just that.
BTW, thanks for the back and forth. I appreciate your insight on the manner.
TMT - ^^^From the YG blog:
1) The complaint makes very subtle arguments. You're looking at this simply as bargaining for a contract in a competitive market.
The complaint is saying the UFC illegally interfered with the market by damaging its competitors ability to make money, which in turn makes the fighters worth less in the market.
The complaint is also saying the UFC is abusing its position as the major leagues of fighting in a way that directly drives fighters' pay down.
2) Nobody is saying the UFC should pay the same amount the NLF pays. What people are saying is that if the UFC is the major leagues, then it should pay certain percentages of its revenue like the NFL does.
In 2011 NFL players got 55 percent of League Media (including TV and radio), 45 percent of NFL Ventures (licensing products) and 40 percent of local club revenues.
If the lawsuit gets the discovery phase, then we'll be able to see what percentage of revenue goes to fighter pay, and what percentage goes into executive's and owner's pockets.
At this point, the UFC has only been saying "Trust us, the pay is fair." Now, it might possible for a judge to look at the numbers and see if it actually is fair. For some reason, I don't expect we'll find that the UFC has been paying the same percentage of revenue as the NFL. It's just a guess.
Further, the UFC is a privately-held company, and as such is under no legal responsibility to disclose salaries and other proprietary information. In fact, you can determine from the fact that they do not make salaries public that is in valuable information. While in discovery the plaintiff's attorneys will undoubtedly get access to figures like salaries, they will be under court order, on pain of losing their license to practice law, to keep that information private, and they will.
"BTW, thanks for the back and forth. I appreciate your insight on the manner."
agree
^^^
A judge would look at revenue and salaries and decide whether fighter pay is fair.
If the judge awards the plaintiffs damages and/or orders changes to how the UFC pays fighters, I think we could infer the judge did not think the UFC was paying fairly.
TMT - ^^^
A judge would look at revenue and salaries and decide whether fighter pay is fair.
If the judge awards the plaintiffs damages and/or orders changes to how the UFC pays fighters, I think we could infer the judge did not think the UFC was paying fairly.
now if the judge does decide this, who is to decide how that money is divided up?
IMO, that money goes to a GSP so he gets 8-10mil when he sells an 800k to 1mil card, moreso than to the anonymous #30 ranked fighter who is no different to the fans than your ordinary bellator, wsof guy.
Though I would be in favor of some kind of regular scale. Something like a 3 or 4 fight 8/8 contract for the rookies who are basically no different than fighters from any other promotion. Once they get through that contract and prove they really are legit ufc talent, they get a bump.
TMT - ^^^
A judge would look at revenue and salaries and decide whether fighter pay is fair.
If the judge awards the plaintiffs damages and/or orders changes to how the UFC pays fighters, I think we could infer the judge did not think the UFC was paying fairly.
Coming from an accounting point of view there is so much more than revenue. COS will be taken into account and the judge may decide off of the margins.
ufc98newb -TMT - ^^^
A judge would look at revenue and salaries and decide whether fighter pay is fair.
If the judge awards the plaintiffs damages and/or orders changes to how the UFC pays fighters, I think we could infer the judge did not think the UFC was paying fairly.
now if the judge does decide this, who is to decide how that money is divided up?
IMO, that money goes to a GSP so he gets 8-10mil when he sells an 800k to 1mil card, moreso than to the anonymous #30 ranked fighter who is no different to the fans than your ordinary bellator, wsof guy.
Though I would be in favor of some kind of regular scale. Something like a 3 or 4 fight 8/8 contract for the rookies who are basically no different than fighters from any other promotion. Once they get through that contract and prove they really are legit ufc talent, they get a bump.
No idea. I assume they'll get experts in their to say what they think fighters should have gotten.
I assume that if anyone had their wages unfairly suppressed, it's most likely the highest earning fighters.
But there are also other issues.
The complaint mentions that the UFC has so many fighters they could not possibly offer every fighter 3 fights per year. (The complaint says the UFC does this in part to keep those fighters away from other promotions.) So that might be part of the conversation.
Thekingslayer -TMT - ^^^
A judge would look at revenue and salaries and decide whether fighter pay is fair.
If the judge awards the plaintiffs damages and/or orders changes to how the UFC pays fighters, I think we could infer the judge did not think the UFC was paying fairly.
Coming from an accounting point of view there is so much more than revenue. COS will be taken into account and the judge may decide off of the margins.
I'm sure there's a ton of factors.
that is a big problem, imo. If guys want three fights and are physically able, they should get that. I've seen it stated that it's in their contracts that they get a minimum number of fights within a timespan, but no idea if that's true.
TMT -Well where are the guys that can draw huge number like a Floyd mayweather type athlete?Mynameisburns - Fighters are also going to Bellator, WSOF, and One FC now. How are they not allowed to shop around? Gilbert Melendez did it and got himself into a sweet deal same with Travis Browne
According to the complaint, the UFC collects 90% of worldwide MMA revenue. If that's so, then merely paying Melendez (or any other fighter) what other promotions can afford to pay will often be unreasonably low.
If you want to be the major leagues, then you should pay like it.
People whine that fighters should be making millions but ufc is not NFL class yet
Blame the market not ufc. How much do you make at your job compared to what the owner makes? Yet who is the one doing the work and busting ass? That's just capitalism for you. You only work for a small piece of the pie and a fraction of what the higher ups make
Mynameisburns -TMT -Well where are the guys that can draw huge number like a Floyd mayweather type athlete?Mynameisburns - Fighters are also going to Bellator, WSOF, and One FC now. How are they not allowed to shop around? Gilbert Melendez did it and got himself into a sweet deal same with Travis Browne
According to the complaint, the UFC collects 90% of worldwide MMA revenue. If that's so, then merely paying Melendez (or any other fighter) what other promotions can afford to pay will often be unreasonably low.
If you want to be the major leagues, then you should pay like it.
People whine that fighters should be making millions but ufc is not NFL class yet
Blame the market not ufc. How much do you make at your job compared to what the owner makes? Yet who is the one doing the work and busting ass? That's just capitalism for you. You only work for a small piece of the pie and a fraction of what the higher ups make
I agree that the UFC can't pay as much as the NFL because it doesn't make as money.
Here's what I said before (with some modifications):
Nobody is saying the UFC should pay the same amount the NLF pays. What people are saying is that if the UFC is the major leagues, then it should pay certain percentages of its revenue like the NFL does.
In 2011 NFL players got 55 percent of League Media (including TV and radio), 45 percent of NFL Ventures (licensing products) and 40 percent of local club revenues.
If the lawsuit gets the discovery phase, then we'll get a sense of what percentage of revenue goes to fighter pay, and what percentage goes into executive's and owner's pockets.
At this point, the UFC has only been saying "Trust us, the pay is fair." Now, it might possible for a judge to look at the numbers and see if it actually is fair. For some reason, I don't expect we'll learn that the UFC has been paying the same percentage of revenue as the NFL. It's just a guess.
I just want to give it up to you guys for actually having a normal conversation. It's so rare on this site to see a thread like this that has no name calling. Nicely done and good read. 
RyannVonDoom -Mynameisburns -TMT - brahmabull81 -
The fighters in the lawsuit are arguing the UFC cost every fighter some amount of money by artificially suppressing their value in the market.
How? If I remember correctly, the complaint made the following arguments:
1) Getting a stranglehold on major league fighting, and bargaining with fighters as the only game in town. In other words, you're stuck in the minor leagues if you don't take their offer, no matter how unreasonable you think it is. So you have no choice because there is nowhere else to go (if you want to be considered elite and get the notoriety and sponsorships that come with that).
2) Contracts you can't wait out (they keep tolling) so the UFC can put you out of work if you don't want to fight for them anymore. Further, the UFC has far more leeway in ending the contract early than the fighter does.
3) Discretionary pay structure (how often you fight, who gets a title shot, who gets a bonus). This means how much the UFC brass likes you can determine how much you get paid. This in turn decreases your bargaining power when you try to negotiate a contract.
4) Likeness rights that make fighters less valuable to other promotions. Likeness rights agreements that are on unfavorable terms. Likeness rights did not seem to be the fighter's choice. They either signed them away or were banished to the minor leagues.
5) Exclusionary contracts. These keep fighters from testing the market to see what other promotions would pay for them. It also keeps an enormous pool of elite fighters from signing with other promotions. This means other promotions can only get top fighters before or after the UFC wants them. And this hurts their ability to get top fighters, and their bottom line. That in turn affects how much they can offer fighters. A related issue is the UFC signs far more fighters than they have fights available for, so many fighters cannot fight three times per year, and those fighters are made unavailable to other promotions who could use them.
6) Champions clauses. These make all champions unavailable to other promotions, and continuously extends their contracts (even beyond their original terms).
7) Lack of co-promotional events. This has an adverse effect on other promotions and the amount of money they can offer fighters. This also ensures you have to sign with the UFC in order to be considered the consensus world number one fighter.
8) Interference with sponsorships. Not just the sponsor tax or deciding for everybody Reebok is the only game in town. The complaint alleges the UFC did some crazy stuff with sponsors Rampage had offers from.
9) Requirements that fighters promote the UFC, but no requirement for the UFC to promote fighters. The UFC is free to go to the media and drag your name through the mud, and make you less valuable to sponsors.<span class="User-246904" id="userPost51975323">So what is different here from let's say the NFL? <img alt="Phone Post 3.0" border="0" src="/images/phone/apple.png" style="vertical-align: middle;" /></span></blockquote> <span class="User-246904" id="userPost51975323">Lol <img alt="Phone Post 3.0" border="0" src="/images/phone/apple.png" style="vertical-align: middle;" /></span></blockquote>.
DalyDentedDecimated'sDome - I always fall back on the CDL argument. No one forced these guys to be professional mixed martial arts fighters. If they didn't like it, and were aware they may not make much money from their fighting, they should've gotten a Commercial Drivers License instead.
A fighter might spend $30,000 in a year to get $10,000 in win money. Truck driver spends $8000 in school (one time ) and can make $35,000 in a year starting, often more.
I've known guys who started trucking in their 30s 40s or even 50s.
Fighting pay will always be shaky, rewarding only to the top 5%.
That's because the types of people who tend to run fight leagues are alpha aggressors, ball busting dick wrenching hardhead sneaky cutthroat sons of bitches. It's the business of whores, the mob, drunk and bloodthirsty fans, corrupt doctors etc. etc.
I agree with your basic point that MMA is a bad career choice for most people. But what the lawsuit deals with is a very specific class of the most elite MMA fighters.
Here's what I wrote earlier about what the lawsuit alleges on behalf of that specific group of people:
You're looking at this simply as bargaining for a contract in a competitive market. But the complaint is much more subtle than that.
The complaint is saying the UFC illegally interfered with the market by damaging its competitors ability to make money, which in turn makes the fighters worth less in the market.
The complaint is also saying the UFC is abusing its position as the major leagues of fighting in a way that directly drives fighters' pay down.
The complaint makes other arguments, but these most directly address what you said.
newtotheinterweb - Yeah I think it comes across as a bunch of bitter fighters who never quite made what they hoped. At least that's how the ufc will defend I think. By early accounts I was expecting a few bigger name, current fighters. That would have given more merit to the suit and rumors were that was the case. Does anyone know if there is other names involved that haven't been made public?
people will be able to join as the case goes on.