"I don't consider any contract that gives Zuffa the right to cut fighters after two loses, regardless of how many fights are on the deal, to be a true contract."
The number of fights on the deal is the maximum. Just because it's casually referred to as a "6 fight deal" doesn't mean that is the minimum. If the contract states it lasts until 6 fights, or two years, or a loss, whichever comes first, why is that not a "true" contract? Because you have it in your head that it's a minimum guaranteed fight deal, which it never was or was claimed to be?
orcus - JOESONDO -
Of course it's better to keep a valued employee happy but there aren't that many fighters in the UFC that have that kind if leverage to renegotiate. The vast majority fall into the lucky to have a job category. They are the ones that have no choice but sign long term contracts because that is what the UFC is offering. As far as withholding services within a contract or trying to break the contract, historically that has not ended well for the fighter. 
How would non-valuable fighters be better off by signing short term rather than long term contracts? If he's not valuable, what leverage is he going to have to get a better deal at the end of a short-term contract?
Value can change over the course of a contract. If you sign an up and coming fighter to a 8 fight contract when he is just grateful to be in the UFC you get him cheap. 3 big wins later he is now a bargain for the UFC. He could have negotiated for more if he had just signed a shorter contract but that wasn't what the UFC was offering at the time. Instead the UFC was offering a long term low pay contract that that was not guaranteed unless he won.
Who is signing long term contracts that aren't top notch fighters who have no reason to fight somewhere besides the UFC? 
What do you consider overpayment? If the PPV, TV, live gate, sponsors and merchandise revenues are "x amount" after expenses, and the total fighter payroll is 5-10% of "x amount," how are fighters overpaid?
Billy Joe Rottoncrotch - orcus -
"I don't consider any contract that gives Zuffa the right to cut fighters after two loses, regardless of how many fights are on the deal, to be a true contract."
The number of fights on the deal is the maximum. Just because it's casually referred to as a "6 fight deal" doesn't mean that is the minimum. If the contract states it lasts until 6 fights, or two years, or a loss, whichever comes first, why is that not a "true" contract? Because you have it in your head that it's a minimum guaranteed fight deal, which it never was or was claimed to be?
Because the point of the maximum number of fights is give Zuffa control over the fighters, like an indentured servant.
"We own you for this length of time and there's nothing you can do about it regardless of whether you think the deal is fair or not, but we can get rid of you anytime we want if we don't like how you're performing"
Just because the fighters have virtually no alternative but to sign the contracts they're presented with doesn't make them fair.
No, they can't get rid of you anytime they want, assuming you win, as stated in the contract.
"No one knows for sure what Benson Henderson is getting on his new contract, or whether it's actually a fair deal numbers wise."
What is a fair deal numbers wise?
"And that's exactly the way Zuffa wants it."
Apparently it's also the way Benson and every other fighter want it, as they are free to tell us exactly how much they make.
I love how people claim these contracts are bad somehow. Of hundreds of fighters, very few ever complain about pay. Sure you can easily think it is out of fear but you can just as easily think it's because they are paid very well.
Only a handful of fighters have ever wanted out of their contracts and even more rare is for a fighter to leave on a win to fight somewhere else.
And lets also not forget almost any job is the same. You can be released at anytime and you may not get paid what your worth. It's called life. If the grass is greener somewhere else, go there.
Dont mistake what I'm saying for thinking I wouldn't like to see fighters paid more. But when you don't know how much they actually make its tough to say how much more they should make.
Even in a lawsuit when Randy was trying to breach a contract he claimed was unfair, he didn't publicly reveal what he made...why not? In fact Zuffa were the ones who publicly released his pay.
Why have the fighters who have left the UFC, even under bad terms, not badmouthed the pay or stated their pay/bonuses/etc?
Certainly many fighters have publicly badmouthed the UFC and Dana over the years on many other topics.
JOESONDO - One time I spoke to a fighter about the contracts. He had just resigned with a 6 fight contract with UFC. He was happy to have a guaranteed number of fights over a certain period. He knew the contracts were slanted in the UFCs favour and they could cut him as soon as he loses. He also was aware it mostly just kept him from fighting in organizations but there are few options for the vast majority of fighters. The alternatives are just not there. That is ultimately why they sign these lopsided contracts.
It's not guaranteed tho. Also they can cut u for virtually anything.
khaynes21 - OnlyTheStrongSurvive -
Who is signing long term contracts that aren't top notch fighters who have no reason to fight somewhere besides the UFC?
+1
The UFC are not handing them out either. Only a select few, such as Champions and or ex-Champions are getting these type of lucrative offers.
There's plenty of fighters with long terms contracts. Pretty sure a bunch of tuf guys are on low paying long term contracts. Pretty sure benson was on a long term low paying contract.
"I do know that fighters who want any shot of ever fighting in the UFC again would never cross a line they know they're not supposed to cross."
So talking about what they're paid, even though their official salaries and of the night bonuses are public record, is the one line they are not supposed to cross, but they can badmouth the UFC and Dana in any other way?
"Plenty of them have."
Like who? What did they say? So they can get away with revealing their pay after all? Did they also say that they were pressured not to say a word about their pay?
orcus - Billy Joe Rottoncrotch - orcus -
"I don't consider any contract that gives Zuffa the right to cut fighters after two loses, regardless of how many fights are on the deal, to be a true contract."
The number of fights on the deal is the maximum. Just because it's casually referred to as a "6 fight deal" doesn't mean that is the minimum. If the contract states it lasts until 6 fights, or two years, or a loss, whichever comes first, why is that not a "true" contract? Because you have it in your head that it's a minimum guaranteed fight deal, which it never was or was claimed to be?
Because the point of the maximum number of fights is give Zuffa control over the fighters, like an indentured servant.
"We own you for this length of time and there's nothing you can do about it regardless of whether you think the deal is fair or not, but we can get rid of you anytime we want if we don't like how you're performing"
Just because the fighters have virtually no alternative but to sign the contracts they're presented with doesn't make them fair.
No, they can't get rid of you anytime they want, assuming you win, as stated in the contract.
As a practical matter. Yes they can get rid of your pretty much whenever they want.
Standup29 - I love how people claim these contracts are bad somehow. Of hundreds of fighters, very few ever complain about pay. Sure you can easily think it is out of fear but you can just as easily think it's because they are paid very well.
Only a handful of fighters have ever wanted out of their contracts and even more rare is for a fighter to leave on a win to fight somewhere else.
And lets also not forget almost any job is the same. You can be released at anytime and you may not get paid what your worth. It's called life. If the grass is greener somewhere else, go there.
Dont mistake what I'm saying for thinking I wouldn't like to see fighters paid more. But when you don't know how much they actually make its tough to say how much more they should make.
Huh? Very few fighters don't complain about the pay
orcus -
Even in a lawsuit when Randy was trying to breach a contract he claimed was unfair, he didn't publicly reveal what he made...why not? In fact Zuffa were the ones who publicly released his pay.
Why have the fighters who have left the UFC, even under bad terms, not badmouthed the pay or stated their pay/bonuses/etc?
Certainly many fighters have publicly badmouthed the UFC and Dana over the years on many other topics.
Pretty sure there is some type of confidentiality clause
"As a practical matter. Yes they can get rid of your pretty much whenever they want."
In the history of the UFC, how many fighters have been released with fights remaining on their contract who did not lose? Almost none afaik. The only ones I can think of are Marquardt (tested positive before a headlining fight) and Lindland (banned sponsor or something?). Maybe Torres for his rape tweets? Can't remember if he lost immediately before that.
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - orcus -
Even in a lawsuit when Randy was trying to breach a contract he claimed was unfair, he didn't publicly reveal what he made...why not? In fact Zuffa were the ones who publicly released his pay.
Why have the fighters who have left the UFC, even under bad terms, not badmouthed the pay or stated their pay/bonuses/etc?
Certainly many fighters have publicly badmouthed the UFC and Dana over the years on many other topics.
Pretty sure there is some type of confidentiality clause
I thought you had Eddie's contract. Is there a confidentiality clause regarding pay?
orcus -
"As a practical matter. Yes they can get rid of your pretty much whenever they want."
In the history of the UFC, how many fighters have been released with fights remaining on their contract who did not lose? Almost none afaik. The only ones I can think of are Marquardt (tested positive before a headlining fight) and Lindland (banned sponsor or something?). Maybe Torres for his rape tweets? Can't remember if he lost immediately before that.
Yeah they don't exercise it often but the reality is they have the power. Point is the ability to exit te relationship is very one sided so longer contracts favor the ufc
orcus - Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - orcus -
Even in a lawsuit when Randy was trying to breach a contract he claimed was unfair, he didn't publicly reveal what he made...why not? In fact Zuffa were the ones who publicly released his pay.
Why have the fighters who have left the UFC, even under bad terms, not badmouthed the pay or stated their pay/bonuses/etc?
Certainly many fighters have publicly badmouthed the UFC and Dana over the years on many other topics.
Pretty sure there is some type of confidentiality clause
I thought you had Eddie's contract. Is there a confidentiality clause regarding pay?
I didn't read everything through. I will check later.
"If there aren't any repercussions to disclosing the details of their contracts as you say there aren't, then why don't any of them do it while on the Zuffa roster?"
I don't know. Why don't they do it once they're off the Zuffa roster and don't have to worry about those repercussions? Tim Sylvia is never getting back in the UFC. Paul Daley appears to have no shot either. For whatever reason Arlovski doesn't seem to either. Throw Huerta and many others in there as well.
Randy obviously wasn't worried about repercussions when he flat-out attempted to violate the entire contract by fighting for another promotion, but he still didn't talk about his deal.
GSP has in fact said he makes around $4 million a fight. Coincidentally he is one of the few with a real agent like the guys in those other sports you mentioned.
By the way Dana has publicly said that while he will never reveal money, the fighters are free to do so. Obviously this could be a lie, but no fighter has called him out on this, yet they do call him out on every other topic.
Is it also in the contract that they can't say Dana is lying about their being free to talk about pay if they want?