Zuffa Puts the Squeeze on
by Nate Wilcox on Oct 23, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
in MMA News
Email
PrintTwo stories out this morning point out Zuffa's whatever it takes approach to business.
First, Zack Arnold points out the "smart and sleazy" aspect of Dana's rant about Sirius Radio DJ Scott Farell:
...White talks about how UFC paid Scott Ferrall to come to their shows and cover the events. He further claimed that Ferrall was holding him up for more money to cover the events and that UFC balked at doing so.
I find it fascinating that UFC has no problems publicly admitting that they buy and pay off the media. And, of course, you won’t find too many MMA Media writers talking about this because, hey, the UFC is the only game in town. Get on that gravy train when you can.
And MMA Payout reports that MMA Authentic/Cagefighter has been banned from sponsoring fighters in the Octagon. Their crime?
CageFighter and other MMA Authentics brands have been banned from the Octagon and any UFC event.
The dispute is rumored to have arisen from a conflict over shelf space in Wal-mart stores. Sources told MMAPayout.com that CageFighter/MMA Authentics beat out the UFC for the valuable real estate in the nation’s top retailer. As a result Zuffa pulled the plug on MMA Authentics’ access to the Octagon in retaliation.
...
CageFighter and MMA Authentics has a impressive list of fighters who will be adversely affected by the ban. BJ Penn, Michael Bisping, Forrest Griffin, Marcus Davis, Brandon Vera, Urijah Faber, Sam Stout, Roger Huerta, and Chuck Liddell all have signature shirts available for purchase through one or more of the MMA Authentics brands.
As much as I love the UFC, I have to say Zuffa's business practices often disgust me. They're blatantly trying to create a vertical monopoly on all aspects of MMA, not just the fight promotions but the apparel too.
Call me a Teddy Roosevelt radical but I just don't dig monopolies.
UPDATE: Just noticed this comment in an earlier thread by BJJ Denver:
I train with a couple of guys from one of the major mma clothing companies. They told me before Tapout started clothing TUF exclusively, that UFC/Zuffa had invested huge in Tapout, monetarily. If true, i doubt that UFC would make any type of exclusive deal with Affliction.
Obviously this is an unconfirmed rumor, but if true, is certainly consistent with Zuffa's double dipping approach to business.
UPDATE2: rottweil2008 points out that CageFighter has a bad rep with some fighters with whom they've done business. Like Dan Henderson:
...Dan Henderson this week filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the clothing company MMA Authentics in California Superior Court in Vista, Calif.
The suit, which seeks both monetary and injunctive relief, claims MMA Authentics owes Henderson $50,000 plus undetermined royalties under a contract he signed with the Ohio-based apparel manufacturer on July 27, 2007.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Unfortunately, business is ugly. It really is a dog eat dog thing, I’m just glad the only people getting hurt are the businesses themselves, and not people on social security or something.
the fighters are getting hurt too
And when the fighters get hurt, the sport gets hurt.
by Nate Wilcox on Oct 23, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Paying DJs to promote events is not “buying the media.” That’s how the world works.
The Walmart/Cage fighter stuff is a little shadier, but the stuff with Ferrall is how the world works.
I'm not bothered with Zuffa over that
its how promotion works, but it is awfully skanky on Ferrell’s part.
by Nate Wilcox on Oct 23, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
another interesting tid bit
i’ve seen Rampages’ “THROWDOWN” clothing in wally world
all you gotta do is...
This isn’t the best analogy, but in a way this reminds me of the NFL trying to control every aspect of its product. The nature of the sports are different so it doesn’t translate exactly, but the desire to control every aspect of revenue as well as what the public sees and hears strikes me as similar.
Zuffa’s practices are good for Zuffa, but they suck for fighters and they suck for fans. I agree with Nate, a monopoly is never a good thing.
Zuffa’s practices are good for Zuffa, but they suck for fighters and they suck for fans. I agree with Nate, a monopoly is never a good thing.
You can’t separate “good for Zuffa” from “good for fighters/fans”. We get to watch tons of fights and a higher quality of MMA competition and production because Zuffa is making tons of money and getting bigger and bigger. Zuffa employs something like 170 fighters, a good 60 or 70 of whom are top 20 in the world in their division; those fighters would be making a lot less money if Zuffa weren’t raking in the dough.
In the long run, anything that results in Zuffa getting bigger and more powerful ends up paying dividends to the fighters and fans as well.
by Michaelthebox on Oct 23, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
To clarify, I’m not saying that Zuffa’s practices don’t ever hurt the fighters or the fans in any way. But over the long run, a bigger healthier Zuffa means more fights, more fights on free TV, and more quality fighters making tons of money on contracts and sponsorships.
by Michaelthebox on Oct 23, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Wishful thinking there.
I actually think it is the other way around.
It wil mean less free fights on TV, etc, because we won’t have any options.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Oct 23, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
There is a definite ceiling to how much money they can squeeze out through PPV. Long run, there will be a lot more revenue opportunities through having events around the world that are shown on free TV on a weekly basis.
“We won’t have any options” is a very underwhelming argument. The UFC has to compete with boxing and NASCAR and a shitload of other entertainment possibilities for their income. “We won’t have any options” only works if the UFC makes all their money from hardcore MMA fans. The fact is the opposite; most of their income derives from casual fans. Casual fans are easily lost, so the UFC has to work very hard to keep them.
by Michaelthebox on Oct 23, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
People keep overlooking that they will still need to compete for the entertainment dollar.
by Richard Wade on Oct 23, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Good Point
There are definitely benefits to a UFC monopoly. The potential for blockbuster fights surely increases if all fighters are under one promotional banner. I was more speaking to the idea that guys who don’t want to play ball Zuffa’s way, such as Couture for a time, or Matt Lindland don’t really have a viable alternative. It’s definitely a give and take situation.
Totally agree with the Couture and Lindland sentiments, although both of them brought it on themselves. I’m of the opinion there should be a fighter’s union eventually, or some sort of standardized method for payouts and fight matchups and so forth. We aren’t to that point yet, not until the UFC truly is a monopoly.
by Michaelthebox on Oct 23, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
what did Lindland do exactly?
He got fired for wearing a sponsor shirt that I don’t believe he knew was forbidden and he tried to go back several times and Dana blew him off.
I don’t believe he knew was forbidden
Source? I’ve never heard it that way.
Everything I’ve ever seen about Lindland indicates he scratches his own back first. If he was a company man, the UFC would bring him back. But Lindland is just more trouble than he’s worth.
Again, this is from what I’ve seen, I could be mistaken.
by Michaelthebox on Oct 23, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t have a source, but for what it’s worth I’ve always heard Lindland’s dismissal from the UFC was a bit sketchy. My impression is that Zuffa basically did what Nate said to get rid of Lindland cause they thought he would be a boring a champ. The UFC brass thought Rich Franklin was more exciting so they gave him the title shot instead. I searched Sherdog to see if I could find a story but I didn’t look very hard.
Again, I’m not saying this is 100% fact, just the impression I’ve gotten when the issue is discussed in the mma media.
If anyone has a solid source please pass it along.
Nate...you seem to have a mancrush on Lindland
I’m not trying to bust your balls but the times you keep badmouthing Dana, you keep bringing up him blackballing Lindland. As for Dana letting him back in the UFC, i think Lindland stated a couple times after his dismissal that UFC courted him but he was making fighting outside UFC. I guess when he wanted to come back UFC was not interested. As for him wearing that shirt that got him canned, he wore some sportsbetting shirt. I’m not a law expert like Rome but I’m going to assume UFC being a sports organization, they would not want to be associated with a sports gambling site, since it may appear as a conflict of interest.
by The Bronzeville Bully on Oct 23, 2008 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I just want to see Anderson Silva fight the best
and I think Matt Lindland merits a shot at him. Robbie Lawler too.
by Nate Wilcox on Oct 24, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
They mean business
Tapout isn’t even a publically traded company… How could they invest? Become partners with Mask? Gimme a break… The Tapout guys Partner with them… and invest… and bust their asses at developing the MMA community. They have street cred. Most of the other guys are also rans – with the exception of Affliction who’s trying their hand in the promotion business and directly competing with them. Business is war… Dana doesn’t fight in the Octagon… this is his battlefield and he plays to win.
Speaking of the NFL, I remember Jerry Jones breaking from the NFL’s certified clothing provider (can’t remember who it was at the time) and signing a deal with Nike back in the 90’s. The Cowboys then showed up on Monday Night Football with the Nike “Swoosh” displayed prominently on their gear. I don’t know that this is particularly applicable here, but it came to mind when someone mentioned the NFL.
Obviously, there’s not anyone fighting under the umbrella of the UFC that rivals the power of Jerry Jones and his organization, but I think the UFC is playing with fire here. The more mainstream they become, the more scrutiny they’re going to receive. Shit like these heavy-handed tactics to push out apparel makers isn’t going to look good in the eyes of fans. It could be exploited by another promotion. If the sponsorship dollar amounts become high enough, wouldn’t a BJ Penn, for example, consider fighting with a promotion that will allow him to earn sponsorship money from a third party? I agree that it’s tough in the interim, however. I just think this kind of behavior could end up in self-inflicted damage to Zuffa.
There is no first ammendment in a UFC contract.
Fighters don’t get hurt by the UFC making these decisions. Fighters exploit the UFC by shamelessly plugging sponsors before, during, and after every fight on the UFC’s time slot. Without the UFC, and Dana and Lorenzo, these apparel companies would have no stage to promote themselves. If the UFC invests in a particular company like Tapout, or more importantly, if Tapout invests in the UFC, then the UFC is being a standup company by offering some form of exclusivity to their partners. Beating the UFC out for shelf space at Walmart will serve Cagefighter much better in the end, than having their shirts on TV and no mass distribution. I don’t understand people who want to socialize MMA.
Unless I’ve missed something, I don’t think anyone here wants to “socialize MMA.” You make some great points about Zuffa providing a platform for these other companies. I think it’s in Zuffa’s best interests to ratchet down their tactics a bit. They should be able to do pretty much do what they want in terms of running their business. The fact is, however, that the perception of the public and the fighters directly affects their ability to operate. I don’t think they have always been as mindful of these groups as they should. Zuffa is under a microscope that gains power at a similar rate as the promotion gains power.
by Cannon Jacques on Oct 23, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s probably a lot of truth to what BJJDenver said. I’ve heard that Zuffa basically owns TapouT in the past myself, but if you look at the credits at the end of TUF episodes prior to season 7, you’ll notice towards the end that Charles “Mask” Lewis is credited. In what capacity I cannot recall at this time.
I mean, do you really think Dana would associate with the TapouT guys if he didn’t have something to gain? He’s been on their show, and Mask is/was affiliated with theirs, even before the exclusive clothing deal.
There was a Chris Lewis, part of the lighting crew. That who you’re thinking of?
IMDB doesn’t list a Charles Lewis (or a Mask) for any of the TUF shows.
No, it’s Mask. If I remember and care enough when I get home, I’ll grab a screen shot.
Also, a quick Google search reveal that Mask was also in UFC: Sudden Impact, which was a game they released for PS2 in 2004.
Mask is...
basically a talent scout for the UFC. He has said it himself. They are also exclusive with the WEC and the ultimate fighter. He also says Zuffa are a minority shareholder of Tapout.
Fighters would gain from a fighters union.
They get no benefits and now sponsorship money is being taken away.
This is a lose lose for the fighters.
Does anyone here really know the purpose of a union?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
Its true that UFC/Zuffa has an interest in TapouT… which certainly adds an air of sleaze to banning Cage Fighter on such specious grounds. They’ve basically declared that competing with the UFC in any capacity, even as an apparel company, is not allowed.
This is what I'm talking about when I refer to socializing MMA
Competing with UFC is completely allowed. It is a competition, and the two basic components of competition are winning and losing. Why should the UFC give a free pass to any sponsor of any fighter on their TV events? For the UFC to say that anyone can advertise whatever they like on UFC programming, and the fighters can wear whatever they want to make money is a joke. If a company like cagefighter beats the UFC for shelf space at walmart, thats great for them, but they just hurt the UFC’s ability to distribute their products effectively, ultimately preventing them from earning addtional review with which to sign and pay fighters. So why then, would the UFC allow a company that is cutting into their market share, to advertise themselves for free on their paid programming, to further lose merchandising revenue to a company like cagefighter? In addition, if the UFC has aligned itself with a company like Tapout, then not only would they be shooting themselves in the foot, but would also be turning a cold shoulder to their partners. The UFC pays fighters to fight. They don’t pay fighters to bring their own sponsors on the air with them. If Coke sponsors the the NBA finals, you can be damn sure you won’t see Lebron wearing a Pepsi shirt, drinking a pepsi, and thanking Pepsi in the post game interviews. If you truely believe that banning, or strong arming, or whatever the competition is bad, there are only two solutions that will satisfy you. 1: the UFC goes soft and decides that anyone at any time can advertise on the UFC’s dollar, because it’s good for fighters on the undercard who don’t have the skills to “just fight” for a living, and good for public perception (I hate all the human bilboarding. It’s tacky, and unprofessional) 2: Some governing body requires the UFC to allow complete freedom of expression of their fighters on air. To me either way you look at it, it’s socialized MMA.
I always love how the same people who agree with everything the UFC does to their employees. Are the same people who would cry on their pillows if their employer treated them along the same lines. As long as it happens to someone else it’s fine I suppose.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
same people who agree with everything the UFC does to their employees. Are the same people who would cry on their pillows if their employer treated them along the same lines
I’m curious, exactly what do you get out of making this statement? Its not a provable statement, and in a lot of ways its pure bullshit. Its just a cheap and pretty pathetic way to mock people who agree with what the UFC does.
This conversation shouldn't be limited to the UFC
Think about it. What if the UFC decided to start sponsoring fighters? Lets say they start sponsoring Gina Carano, and they want Gina Carano to start wearing UFC gear in the ring during her eliteXC fights, or wherever she’s going to be fighting. Do you think elite XC would accept that? Do you think they would ever consider the fact that Gina needs that money from UFC to be a pro fighter? That’s ridiculous.
You could argue that that’s different because UFC and Elite are both fight promoters, but the UFC and Cagefighter are both in the business of clothing and merchandising as well. No difference.
get the facts
you all think your “in the know”
The shelf space at Walmart story is an absolute fabricated piece of crap. UFC would own shelf space in Walmart if they wanted it.
Fact is Cage Fighter was simply not paying fighters for wearing their crap! Check it out right here! http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/henderson-sues-mma-authentics-14375
Scumbag t-shirt companies will come and go. They are just riding the wave.
I have actually heard that is somewhat common in the world of mma, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Strangely, if this IS the reason the UFC banned them, we should all be crediting them for doing so.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
That incident happened in 2007.
So, now Zuffa decides to ban them because of what happened in 2007?
Sure doesn’t make sense to me.
Is that what happened to all the other brands they banned? I don’t think so.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Oct 23, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, it seems that case is still up in the air:
“"The suit’s laughable," DiSabato said. "Unfortunately, there are people in this business who throw something at a wall and hope it sticks. Dan’s got a lot of people around him looking to pat themselves on the back. We didn’t breach the contract."”
by MMASuPreMaCy on Oct 23, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
MMASuPreMaCy always on the fighter’s side as long as the other side is the UFC.
by Richard Wade on Oct 23, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I have one question to ask....
Do all the critics of the UFC’s business practices have the complete picture? Do you know who’s in the right and who’s in the wrong? Bashing without understanding the complete picture is just plain hating.
A business should make decisions that benefit itself. In business, if decisions are made based on fairness and equality, then that business would quickly find itself out of business. That’s all I’m saying.
no one but Zuffa has the complete picture
As a matter of fact, I don’t have the complete picture of anything. I just go with the information I have — and for me its all things I find online, no secret sources.
I criticize Zuffa when they do things I think might hurt the sport. It’s meant to be constructive criticism, but if its taken as hating, so be it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
