UFC Cuts Jon Fitch, Christian Wellisch
by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 8:46 AM EST
in News
514 comments
Former number one UFC welterweight contender Jon Fitch was today handed his walking papers for refusing to sign an agreement that would give the promotion exclusive lifetime video game rights to his name and likeness, MMAmania.com can exclusively confirm.
Christian Wellisch — who also didn’t ink the paperwork — was also released. Others who do not sign the agreement could also be let go in the future.
Fitch and members of his camp were not immediately available for comment on the startling development.
While the full details are a little murky at this time, Fitch was apparently approached about the issue when he turned in his signed bout agreement to fight Akihiro Gono at UFC 94: "St. Pierre vs. Penn 2″ on January 31. And when he and his representatives attempted to negotiate the video game deal it was all or nothing.
He didn’t sign it and was terminated shortly therefafter.
It is simply unethical to ask someone to sign away their likeness in perpetuity. Period. And "others" can only mean other fighters at AKA and fighters from other camps who also don't sign the unbelievably heavy-handed paperwork.
This is an issue I've been harping on with very little attention paid. Now one of the top welterweights on the planet is without a fight or a job. More on the problems with what how the UFC treats ancillary rights here, here, here and here.
UPDATE: from Dave Meltzer, via the members only section of the Wrestling Observer website:
[UPDATE] by Nick Thomas: Dana White no longer wants to work with American Kickboxing Academy fighters:After a blow-up over the merchandise contract between UFC President Dana White and Duane Zinkin and Bob Cook of Zinkin Entertainment, which represents a slew of UFC fighters, mostly out of the American Kickboxing Association gym in San Jose, the UFC cut Jon Fitch and Christian Wellisch today...
The argument stemmed from Zinkin and Cook advising their clients not to sign the UFC’s merchandising agreement, which gives the company lifetime merchandising rights to the fighters.
While not cut yet, without a resolution, White will be cutting Cain Velasquez, the heavyweight who many considered the future of the division, as well as Josh Koscheck. Koscheck will not be cut right now because White felt that by Koscheck saving the company by taking the fight with Thiago Alves on 10/25 on less than two weeks notice, they owed him at least one more fight. Plus, it would be difficult to replace him since he is scheduled for the main event, against Yoshiyuki Yoshida, on 12/10 in Fort Bragg on the next Spike TV “Fight for the Troops” special.
"We’re looking for guys who want to work with us and not against us, and frankly I’m just so [expletive] sick of this [expletive] it’s not even funny. Affliction is still out there trying to build its company. Let [Fitch] go work with them. Let him see what he thinks of those [expletives]. [Expletive] him. These guys aren’t partners with us. [Expletive] them. All of them, every last [expletive] one of them…. I’m not a douche bag and I do a lot for these guys, a lot more than any of you will ever know.
We’re in a horrible time in the economy now, and every guy with two nickels to rub together is making a run at us. We’ve worked too hard, given too much, to let certain guys come in and [expletive] with that."
3 recs |
514 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
My thoughts exactly.
Though I would like to see what the next 24 hours brings up. I have a feeling we’re missing some details.
by pud333 on Nov 20, 2008 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
check out dana's actual remarks and see if you think fitch is wrong
link (and props) from mmamania:
"We’re looking for guys who want to work with us and not against us, and frankly I’m just so [expletive] sick of this [expletive] it’s not even funny. Affliction is still out there trying to build its company. Let [Fitch] go work with them. Let him see what he thinks of those [expletives]. [Expletive] him. These guys aren’t partners with us. [Expletive] them. All of them, every last [expletive] one of them…. I’m not a douche bag and I do a lot for these guys, a lot more than any of you will ever know. We’re in a horrible time in the economy now, and every guy with two nickels to rub together is making a run at us. We’ve worked too hard, given too much, to let certain guys come in and [expletive] with that."
by theflyingtsunami on Nov 20, 2008 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jon Fitch Radio Interview
http://hardcoresportsradio.com/content/media/podcasts/55adc4d7-8276-44b2-9d19-bce96dbc4ea2.mp3
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 3:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With his dismissal, Fitch said he will likely lose 75-80 percent of his sponsorship monies. Earlier this year, Fitch and other AKA fighters were asked by the UFC to sign a separate merchandising agreement in perpetuity. Many of the squad declined the offer.
“I never wanted anything more than to fight in the UFC and be a UFC champ,” said Fitch. “I put in a lot of blood and guts and sweat and tears into this and this is my reward I guess.”
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 3:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Charmichael Dave Interview with Dana
Left side column under 11-19.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Messed up
Wow. Poor move on the UFC’s part. Why should people give up their lifetime rights?
It’s either you start paying up or else they can’t have a future career in something like professional wrestling.
by achengy on Nov 19, 2008 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Asking someone to sign this agreement, and then cutting them is “heavy-handed” to say the least. Beyond the ethics issue, I find it extremely short-sighted. Letting a top fighter go on these grounds could give a savvy competitor an opening. Anyone who believes that the UFC is unchallengeable is crazy. The UFC has a lot of leverage, but it’s not without limits.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
tell that to the IFL and EliteXC
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The IFL and EliteXC didn’t do a good job of running their business. I’m not saying it’s not a monumental effort to compete with the UFC, but these type of things will catch up with them if they keep them up. The cumulative effect of mistakes can be deadly, and this looks like a big mistake. Of course, I’m interested to learn more about the situation before I make too many judgments.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed that they did a shitty job of running their companies, but it just proves how on top the UFC is in this market that they can pull off such a “heavy-handed” move. Most of their fighters will sign this video game deal, and if they don’t make Fitch sign it then other fighters will try to get out of it too.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally understand what you’re saying, but just notice the sentiment of the comments in this thread. Is this agreement really going to be worth it the UFC in the long-run? I think long-run is the operative word here.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 9:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think long-term this is going to be a lot more detrimental to Jon Fitch than the UFC. Fighters come and go from the UFC, but the UFC will stand strong. Jon Fitch doesn’t have a job right now, and the next biggest organization is already deep in the red as well.
In any case, we should all agree it was a bad move by Fitch if he intends to keep fighting for a living. I know everyone is going to harp on the UFC for demanding such a long term right to a likeness, but really without the UFC behind him, Jon Fitch’s likeness isn’t worth very much. He also will lose sponsorships and fight paychecks now that he’s out of the big show. On the upside for him, if they ever make a Janitor Hero video game and want to use Jon Fitch, he will have his video game likeness still available.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Long-term this is smarter
While there aren’t many options, being a top 5 WW gives him the opportunity to works wherever he wants for decent pay.
As long as he performs at a high level, he can always give in to the UFC when the time is right.
This is ultimately a long-term decision, to not give up your rights for a lifetime.
by achengy on Nov 19, 2008 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What is to say that the UFC offers him top dollar in six months if he decides to come back and sign away those rights? You should hear what they did to Matt Lindland.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Lindland
is perfectly fine though.
Jon Fitch will be fine, yes he won’t get as much money but if enough fighters get screwed over by this, Fitch will at least have his rights that he hasn’t signed over.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1. THQ isn’t the only MMA video game maker in town. EA Sports is making one too.
2. Signing over perpetual video game rights to Zuffa essentially makes a fighter worth that much less to any other organization he wants to sign with in the future. Fewer orgs interested in you means lower offers from Zuffa.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you miss the point
the fact that you even are saying jon made a bad move b/c w/o the ufc he has nothing is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM W/ THE UFC BEING THE ONLY BIG FIGHT GAME around. Because the UFC has such a powerful position in terms of showcasing fighters, and the fact that there aren’t too many other organizations for fighters to go to is why there needs to be other organizations.
No matter what you say about how bad EXC was in terms of their management or the fall of IFL & potential fall of Affliction and AFL, this bodes horribly for the fighters, who we as fans should be concerned about, as well as, our own abilities to watch FREE mma. Without these other organzations, we are severely limited in terms of what we will see and who we will see, and the fighters face the same problems. It is interesting that ALL of the other major sports organzations do not require their athletes to sign such crap and again why the UFC for as good as they are, are as bad as they are.
More fighters need to follow Fitch so that if all the fighters said “f” u to the UFC re: ancillary rights, then they would have to change their position. Right now, being one of the only big boys in the game allows them to bully everyone and anyone and that is not good for Fitch, for other fighters, for the fans or for the sport in general. Let ESPN take this on MMA live and give this issue the press they gave to Couture v. Lesnar and see what the public suddenly thinks about the UFC’s tactics and treatment of it’s fighters.
by theflyingtsunami on Nov 20, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, it would probably be better if the UFC had more competition, but this idea that because the UFC is in a powerful position it is unfair is inane. Where would MMA be w/o the UFC? What would Fitch be doing if there were no Dana White or UFC? The mindset that there is always some way to make everything “fair” is childish and does not reflect how the real world operates, anywhere.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wrong diagnosis
i didn’t say that b/c the ufc is in a powerful position that it’s unfair. i’m saying b/c they are in the position they are in, they can do what they want w/o any repurcussions. the ufc is necessary and certainly the sport wouldn’t be where it is today w/o them. …but that’s not the pt. as my previous post said.
as cliche as it may sound, i happen to believe in a free market and free rights. and one fhese very important rights to one’s autonomy is being given up to the ufc simply b/c they are in the position they are in and they know if a fighter says “no,” then they can boot them w/ the fighter having little else as recourse.
the ufc doesn’t have enough room to house all the fighters of the world and if you don’t agree w/ them and they fire you, then you’re screwed. that is the focus, so maybe if you had a job or made a living like this, you wouldn’t think it was “childish” to focus on the fact that a person has to give up what most of us are saying is unethical in what the ufc is asking them to sign w/ pretty much nowhere else to go.
by theflyingtsunami on Nov 20, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of the UFC business plan is to be able to merchandise stuff with their logo and the likenesses of their fighters on it, if a fighter says no, I want to do it my way, I say let him go door to door with his own baseball caps and let him fight in someones backyard.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you just don't get it
again, the pt. is how about the ufc actually PAY the fighter a percentage, not completely allow the fighter to control it, but pay em for the use of their likeness, etc. right now they can use it and the fighter gets zip. and why does it have to be for life thing? then if the fighter goes somewhere else, they can’t have their image used for the new organization???
by theflyingtsunami on Nov 20, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be counterproductive from every angle
for ESPN to start a feeding frenzy over this by dragging the UFC’s dealings into the public spotlight. MMA is growing, and ESPN wants a piece of that pie.
You can rail about injustice all day long, and I can get behind most of those arguments and complaints, but the truth of the matter is that MMA is better off today, as a sport, with UFC having the position it does relative to the ‘competition.’
That will change. But not today.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
blitzkrieg makes things change now
jeez, i didn’t think i’d get so many responses actually arguing that the ufc is ok w/ doing this to a fighter. maybe it sounds strong, but my pt. is, nothing changes that is bad unless the masses partake in changing it. espn was an example listed as a forum for change to occur. not simply to say to go gangbusters, but when i read this about fitch, i was pissed for him and angered about the ufc. i love mma and watch all the ufc shows, ppv, spike, etc. i kind of compare it to exc in this case, i watched all their stuff too, and while i greatly disliked their management and the way they promoted kimbo and their over the top stuff, i still thought that the fights were relatively good fights to watch and i liked seeing women’s mma so overall, i supported them even though i felt they needed to change stuff.
the ufc unfortunately has to change as well, but it’s not the shows and the way they present them, etc. it’s all the other bullsh*t that they do that squeezes the fighters and anyone who works w/ them to have to do whatever they say or you can’t play w/ them. that is my problem w/ it and them.
by theflyingtsunami on Nov 20, 2008 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The myth is that the UFC killed those two organizations but the actual truth is that their piss poor management and business plan is what killed them both. Hell as nutty as the people running ProElite were they managed to accomplish things that even the UFC hasn’t been able to do, they should of had a bright future instead of 50 million in debt and riddled with controversy. The UFC is winning because the competition keeps falling apart.
by who me on Nov 19, 2008 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
The UFC could have gotten on CBS if they wanted….just so happens they were smart enough NOT to sign that deal. You see how far it got EliteXC.
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 19, 2008 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
By the time we got to the CBS deal EliteXC was already on it’s last leg and drowning in debt, if they hadn’t of signed the CBS deal they would of died last Spring. CBS was their second chance to make something out of themselves after they had already driven the company to the brink.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So they just wasted more money and delayed the inevitable.
Their plan was to go on CBS essentially for free, and eventually get to PPV to make bank.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And that wasn’t a bad plan it was just that they completly blew it.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely blown:
^the current state of my brain…
by Tonley on Nov 19, 2008 9:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Or even Affliction...
The UFC by doing this is opening a door to competing organizations.
by achengy on Nov 19, 2008 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or asserting how confident they are in their position.
Not a lot of people ready to blow $60 million over three years to try to build a roster to rival theirs, with or without Werdum and Fitch.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Strikeforce has a good roster and they make money unlike the other guys. They are showing that slow, steady, and friendly wins the race. Even Dana likes them.
by EazyEismydad on Nov 19, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i know this is a link outside of BE but the post that rob maysey did a while back on MMAFA about the merch agreement would be another good link to add…… that merch agreement is what is motivating this…. the cagefighter ban…. this is the future……. get comfortable with it…..
Mike Goldberg on robnashville:
"His analysis is so analytical"
by robnashville on Nov 19, 2008 9:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Crap, you beat me to it! Can you delete fanposts?
On topic: This is ri-goddamn-diculous. That’s all you can say.
by Rundownloser on Nov 19, 2008 9:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
But a video game? I mean...
the rights mean that much that you let go a top 3 WW fighter? Really?
by Tonley on Nov 19, 2008 9:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Read below
I think there might be more to this. But if not, that’s total bullshit..
by Blackout612 on Nov 19, 2008 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a power play
Any other fighter who wants to resist knows what will happen to him. The brass made Fitch an example. Fuckers.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Nov 19, 2008 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m usually pretty pro-UFC, but this is really fucked. I want to learn more about the agreement he was asked to sign. Sometimes those agreements ask the fighters to remain in a game if it is presently in development or their likeness is already being planned in future iterations (so as to save the developer from future editing costs/roster changes).
by Blackout612 on Nov 19, 2008 9:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty pro-UFC too, but this and the Werdum business is really testing my limits.
by Rundownloser on Nov 19, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If this is really over video game rights, I’m more tempted to call Fitch an idiot than Dana an asshole.
And Wellisch made the same argument? What other video game was he wanted for, Facebreakers?
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the real issue is that theyre signing theyre rights for a lifetime. EVEN IF THE UFC CUTS THEM. That would suck cause even if youve been cut and make a name for yourself outside the UFC, they still have your rights.
Imagine if you have a fighter like robbie lawler, he gets a couple of loses, gets cut by the ufc and improves a lot and becomes a bigger star after.. What if he becomes as big as fedor or whoever after he leaves the UFC. The rights still remain with the UFC even if he was a bad fighter at that time. Thats just unfair.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 2:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
that puts to rest Dana McMahons old motto, about wanting to put on the best fights between the best fighters.
by mythbuster on Nov 19, 2008 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wow. Jon Fitch is universally considered to be an elite level welterweight. If he can get cut over not signing the marketing agreement then anyone can. From here it looks like this is a loud and clear message from the UFC to the fighters. I usually don’t concern myself with the promotional BS, but seriously, screw the UFC.
by Bilbo McFonzie on Nov 19, 2008 9:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Have Kos and Swick signed over their rights or are they going to get cut too?
by Rundownloser on Nov 19, 2008 9:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
They are good friends right?
Maybe he might get cut after his Yoshida fight?
by achengy on Nov 19, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What the fuck?
If this is true, fuck the UFC. Seriously.
by Michaelthebox on Nov 19, 2008 9:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’ve warned you guys long enough that it would come to this.
Funny how this comes as shock to all of you.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 5:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not cool Dana!
UFC is totally bullying these fighters since there are a lack of other promotions out there.
by steveoc24 on Nov 19, 2008 9:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Score one for the “UFC needs competitors” crowd.
by Bilbo McFonzie on Nov 19, 2008 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where are all the people who didn’t understand why we need to support Strikeforce, IFL, ELiteXC, and Affliction?
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 5:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is there any way we could complain to the UFC directly, contact email addresses and the like? They will probably just ignore them, but I still feel like crashing their servers over it.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Nov 19, 2008 9:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fitch deserves better
After the brave performance he put on against GSP, to cut him for a video game … it’s absolutely insulting and dimishes the UFC as a company.
"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy
by thetakeover on Nov 19, 2008 9:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As others have said, wow.
I just start to turn the corner on my UFC skepticism with the awesome fights and Dana vlog and all that…then he released a top 10 heavyweight for not renegotiating and a top 5 welterweight because he refuses to sign a completely unfair and one sided agreement.
Assuming nothing else was going on, this is absolutely retarded.
by Mike Fagan on Nov 19, 2008 9:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As much as I didn’t like what EliteXC was doing, they really were needed. More reason to hate Lappen and the Shaws.
by mythbuster on Nov 19, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
EliteXC wasn’t needed but it sure would be nice if we had a good second company with a solid product and business plan that wasn’t worked out on the back of a Denny’s napkin.
by who me on Nov 19, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or scrawled into a coke-covered mirror.
You know, whichever.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
They had a better chance than anyone to do something, but putting Lappen and the Shaws in charge was the biggest mistake.
by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
keep in mind..
some of these fighters might not be aware of this and things could change.. this is probably a huge disagreement between fighter management and dana white.. once the fighter learns of this, they will probably change their mind..
by steveoc24 on Nov 19, 2008 9:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The UFC sucks with this kind of stuff. Sign over your likeness for life or we kick you out? That is so weak. Thats why Fedor wont fight for the UFC. Shit like this.
by J_Maddux on Nov 19, 2008 9:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Video game likeness.
It’s not like the son of a bitch can’t make his own posters.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
union??
While I have not heard of any legitimate attempts to unionize fighters. If true, this type of issue is exactly what can persuade people to unionize. It’s quite easy for an organization to make a few examples and lose a few valuable assets now when in the long term the benefit from others top fighters signing the agreements exceeds the short term costs. It’s another thing entirely when you are forced to collective bargaining.
by !claw on Nov 19, 2008 10:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Un fucking real. If any of us out here in the real world conducted ourselves this way, we’d all have no jobs or friends. Way to waste all the good will generated by the last PPV. Sadly, though, many people probably won’t notice this. Fitch will become a “Hey, whatever happened to that guy who got beat up by GSP that time?” for anyone who is just now being won over to the sport.
by AJB on Nov 19, 2008 10:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
After further consideration..
The UFC isn’t stupid. They’d have to know (if this story is entirely true) that this is a PR shit storm. So there’s two ways this could go down. Either there’s more to it that we don’t know, or the UFC doesn’t care about the people that are in the know about this sort of event (hardcore fans).
Maybe with their exceeding mainstream popularity, they feel like they don’t need us anymore.
by Blackout612 on Nov 19, 2008 10:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree. Its been my opinion that ever since the Lorenzo took over Danas job, the UFC has been changing. When Dana was in charge, it was about building the sport and legitimizing it. Lately, it’s looked more like EliteXC in terms of Quick Payday, insta-Sales, that kind of thing. Maybe they are at the spot where it will work for them, but the ‘business plan’ (so to speak) seems pretty different that I remember it being even just a year or two ago.
by mythbuster on Nov 19, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? Who’s gonna ask? Kevin Iole? He’ll say that Fitch should and that he’s ungrateful. Meltzer? He’ll analyze how Fitch wasn’t a draw and make comparisons to something that happened in the AWA 30 years ago.
by D.Capitated on Nov 19, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
steve cofield gonna ask him anything other than what he is benching or why he is eating so much cheese?
All of these fuckers with access won’t ask him a tough question to save their lives….
Mike Goldberg on robnashville:
"His analysis is so analytical"
by robnashville on Nov 19, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is EXACTLY why monopolies are BAD
Nuff said. We need competition in MMA. We don’t need this kind of nonsense, it is simply unethical to force this onto the athletes and the public.
Wags
by DocWagner on Nov 19, 2008 10:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
this is a bunch of bullshit!
hoping to see fitch vs shields in the UFC gets thrown out the window.. Now i dont care if they fight outside the UFC since the winner wont get a shot at gsp. fuck this.
Dana you better get your head resized, soon it will fit the entire arena.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 19, 2008 10:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This really is pushing the power behind a monopoly. The UFC is falling way down the slope that will get them considered for further regulation. Sure they’ll have their side of the story, but to go from a booked fight, to a cut contract, is some mighty big proof and a burden to overcome in court. Don’t know where Jon has his money but he could win this in court, easy.
by Tommy7 on Nov 19, 2008 10:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
pretty sure the UFC adjusted their contract after the Randy situation for the UFC to be able to cut a fighter at any time in the contract but not for the fighter to break the contract.
by steveoc24 on Nov 19, 2008 10:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It should be noted that Werdum, Fitch, and Wellsch were all coming off L’s, as the UFC generally can’t just release someone unless they lose. It’ll be really interesting to see what happens with some of the losers from the upcoming card. Wanderlei’s had his own clothing company for ages. Will he be willing to sign away his name should Rampage win? If you’re Forrest Griffin and they try to pull this, do you remind them that you’re among their 2-3 biggest names and tell them to stick it?
Additionally, if you’re, say, Gina Carano, do you sign for Urijah Faber money along with tossing off your identity forever? If you do, why?
by D.Capitated on Nov 19, 2008 10:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good point on Carano.
That’s gonna be dicey in the extreme. There’s someone who absolutely must maintain likeness rights.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 19, 2008 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Forrest Griffin told them to stick it, he'd be gone too.
There are plenty more guys with talent trying to get in the UFC.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is not easy to defend, but I'll try...
Your employer sets the terms of your employment. Dana is obiviously worried that some other video game featuring the Shamrocks, Cung Le, (possibly, until the new contract) Randy and (apparently) Fitch could steal some thunder. It finally looks like his organization can break through and end any competitor’s hopes, and now Dana has a fighter sitting across the contract saying he might want to be in another promotion’s video game. The precedent that Dana would set by allowing fighters to opt out of official UFC merchandising deals would greviously wound the organization.
When fighters get together and actually unionize, a)no fighter will even have the option of getting out of a video game, since the NFLPA isn’t about to let players begin to opt out of Madden, and b)Dana’s (admittedly too centralized) power will be diminished at the bargaining table.
The thing is, I don’t think this will cost them a single ticket sale or PPV buy. They know that now, and are beginning to play hardball with the fighters. I still support one elite MMA organization, but with a fighter’s union to smooth out the edges.
And this is a powerfully stupid move by Fitch. It’s just video game rights – and if he’s that adamant about them, what other conclusion can Dana draw than that he’s either willing to or actually thinking about leaving the company? And if he draws that conclusion, what’s his allegiance to Jon Fitch?
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 10:32 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Well said, subo.
This is one of those situations where it’s all or nothing. Either you’ve got all the fighters in the stable on board for video game likeness rights, or you don’t. There is quite literally no reason for Zuffa to acquiesce to any of these guys on issues like this.
I love Fitch as a fighter, that guy earned a ton of respect with the beating he took from GSP. But c’mon, video game likeness rights? It really does seem to be a weird place to make your stand against management.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 19, 2008 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem I have with this is that it’s supposedly “lifetime video game rights.” I guess that means he can’t lend his likeness to a video game even after his stint with the UFC might end? As far as the terms during his employment, it may be a shitty deal to not get a cut from the video game, but if that’s the terms of employment, I can accept that. What seems unethical is the UFC holding his likeness hostage after the two entities part ways.
I think some are underestimating the effect of a potential mess for the UFC. I just don’t believe the UFC can dictate what consumers will accept. They’ve got a lot of leverage over their employees, but they’re in existence because fans believe in their brand. If that’s diminished, so is their ability to create revenue.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s that “lifetime” clause that’s really offensive. So long as he’s a ZUFFA employee, I get them having Fitch’s rights (I don’t like it, but I get it). That “lifetime” nonsense is waaay too much.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Nov 19, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The brand doesn’t mean shit if the fighters aren’t there, which is why lousy cards like UFC 85 do horrid business. No matter how deep the divisions are, they aren’t going to sell PPVs off of Goran Reiljic/Keith Jardine for the interim UFC light heavyweight intercontinental title.
by D.Capitated on Nov 19, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s true, but given their model they’re going to do what they need to to keep the guys they need. That’s why guys like Chuck and Forrest got to negotiate certain terms out of the videogame deal. It’s shitty, but it’s also reality.
Pro Elite was the best chance for reasonable competition, and the people in charge blew it. Affliction is dying. This is just the beginning, the next step is going to be the lowering of pay.
by Michael Rome on Nov 19, 2008 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m really surprised that someone affiliated with this website would say such a stupid thing about them lowering the pay of fighters being next on their agenda. When has Zuffa ever done something like that? Zuffa pays as much/more than anyone unless you count Affliction, and we know where that is taking them.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lowering of pay may be a little ‘sky is falling’ – I kind of think Dana wants to pay a guy a million dollars to fight, if only to have Sportscenter mention it along with ‘skyrocketing revenue.’ And it’s not like they put those patches on their shorts for charity.
I just kind of hope you’re wrong, that’s all.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He can’t extend his likeness to a video game, but what other video game would Jon Fitch be apart of if not a UFC game? He is thirty years old, and there won’t be any real competition to the UFC in his fighting lifetime(the next 5-10 years most likely).
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The rights in perpetuity to the likeness applies to products that are: a) Approved by Zuffa, and b) contains the trademarks, trade names, logos and other intellectual property owned or licensed by ZUFFA, including without limitation, the Licensed Marks.
I think the provision is being widely misinterpreted, I’m going to post it in full soon.
by Michael Rome on Nov 19, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please do this.
I can’t get my head around what people in here are arguing about, it just doesn’t make sense in my head.
by Phildo on Nov 19, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a total oversimplification of the matter. You don’t know what opportunities might exist for Fitch in the future, even after his fight career.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What other video game opportunities could exist for a professional fighter? If another organization comes around and completely dominates the UFC in 25 years, they could just as easily buy them from the UFC which would be dying or dead.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a debate over a non-issue. The real issue is the contract grants the UFC the unrestricted right to their likeness on pretty much all merchandise, not just video games.
by Michael Rome on Nov 19, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm misinterpreting
But the article says ’ exclusive lifetime video game rights to his name and likeness.’ I take that to mean that, if Jon Fitch wants to make t-shirts or posters and sell them, that’s fine, but he cannot appear in or be mentioned in a non-UFC video game.
I look forward to seeing the actual text of the disagreement.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As soon as I get the go ahead I can post it, but it’s from a sensitive source that was off the record. Either way, the agreement deals with all licensing of all kinds of merchandise, not just videogames.
by Michael Rome on Nov 19, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that is true and the UFC chooses to exercise that right in order to stop fighters from manufacturing their own clothing line with their likeness on it I would be happy to concede the point. Otherwise it just seems like a lot of fuss over nothing. I’m sure you can see my point.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without posting the whole thing, does this exclusively tie you in to UFC branded merchandising, or does it just mean the UFC is allowed to put your face on a shirt?
by Phildo on Nov 19, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I plead ignorance on the subject. I certainly don’t understand it to the extent that I’d like to. However, the term “lifetime” would be scary for me if it were my contract in question. You might clear up a lot of this shit with your upcoming post on the subject.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Same here. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure the first rule of Contract signing is:
Don’t sign lifetime contracts – about anything.
by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There has to be more to this than just video game rights, the sad thing is it’s probably worse.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see some of your points. I think this is a dumb move by Fitch. Though I admire his willingness follow his principles, Fitch would be better off in the UFC. I also think this won’t hurt the UFC very much, if at all. Fitch has a strong following among hardcore fans, but I’m not sure how popular he is among the casual audience. My guess would be this won’t hurt the UFC at all.
That said, I think you are ignoring the larger point here that Zuffa can demand whatever they want at the negotiating table and cut whoever doesn’t want to play ball (for the most part, there are a few guys with leverage). It’s not fair and it leaves the vast majority of fighters in a precarious position. Jon Fitch is an exciting fighter with top tier wins. He is a top five welterweight. By those measures he belongs in the UFC, but because there is nothing to protect him he gets cut. That’s a garbage move and it’s exploitation.
by Andy R on Nov 19, 2008 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thing is, when fighters strike or refuse to fight to get ahead financially, we’ll get a wide variety of people parroting Dana White lines about how they’re “not fufilling their contractual obligations”.
by D.Capitated on Nov 19, 2008 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well… that is your name on that piece of paper, isn’t it?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So what purpose does a union serve, subo?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To get the employer to live up to HIS end of it?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They have a collective interest in something like this and it’s one time I would support a fighter’s union. I’m surprised the agents didn’t at least band together as they were willing to over EliteXC’s auction as they should be the ones concerned about protecting the fighters.
I wonder what the fighters got in return for signing rights over and how it differs? We know that a number of high-profile fighters are in the game – Chuck, Rampage, Kenny, Brock, Nog, Stevenson, etc…
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I recall correctly, Lavar Arrington was never in the NFLPA, nor Barry Bonds in the MLBPA.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll wait to have this sink in.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 19, 2008 10:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I feel for him. I’m an independent contractor and our industry is pulling similar shit with completely 1 sided contracts and bullshit unfair clauses too. Nothing like a reminder of who has total power :(
by Benicio on Nov 19, 2008 10:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The thing is, I don’t think this will cost them a single ticket sale or PPV buy.
It’ll certainly cost mine. I know that’s not going to terrify them or anything, but as long as they’re pulling shit like this I’m not giving them my money.
by FRANKIE on Nov 19, 2008 10:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i’ll be sure to tell you how nog v mir, forrest v rashad, rampage v wanderlei, franklin v hendo, shogun v coleman, silva v machida, and bj penn v gsp goes
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Feel free. By the time you tell me I’ll already have watched the fights.
by FRANKIE on Nov 19, 2008 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So your plan is to steal from both the UFC and the fighters you “support”. Well played.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s kind of a real (side) issue. Even if they think they are the only game in town, and ready to reap a windfall post Lesnar/Couture… no media organization can really afford to make themselves the “bad guy” in the eyes of their customers. Normal people being able to rationalize media “theft” seems to make a big difference.
See the RIAA dramatics, or even the monopolist Microsoft running afoul of public opinion. Some people will always steal, but most people will respect earned success. Just not abuse of that success.
by swarmofkillermonkeys on Nov 20, 2008 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nicely put. Us ‘pirates’ are more inclined to send our money to companies/fighters etc that we believe in and support. Come off as the bad guy and our wallets stay closed.
by Benicio on Nov 20, 2008 4:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t agree with this at all. However, Fitch is coming off an loss in which he was pretty much dominated. The UFC is basically flexing their muscle to their fighters in that if they cut a guy that just fought for the title, they’ll cut whoever. Basically applying pressure to the guys that haven’t signed their rights away. As someone said earlier, cutting Fitch isn’t going to cost them anything. He’s only mostly known by hard core fans, and even if he is picked up by a rival organization. Adding him to the roster isn’t going to do them much good, since he just got destroyed by GSP.
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 19, 2008 11:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
WTF
From MMAweekly.com:
Speaking anonymously with MMAWeekly.com on Wednesday, a source said more names could follow in the coming days.
This situation is getting out of hand quickly.
by Rundownloser on Nov 19, 2008 11:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I wouldn’t be shocked to see a lot of names. For one thing, if Fitch’s AKA teammates also share representation you could see Koscheck, Velasquez, Swick and any others go. Beyond that, though, Fitch is a well respected fighter, and seeing him stand up to Zuffa might inspire others to do the same.
by FRANKIE on Nov 19, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
100% with Subo
I’m no expert but I’ll try to defend the UFC as well.
I think this is a step in the right direction for the sport but the UFC has to know how to play it’s hand well. In games such as NBA Live, Madden etc – you cannot get away with not having a couple of your star players in the game. Imagine Madden without Tom Brady or NBA Live without Kobe Bryant. It wouldn’t make sense.
It really depends on the terms of the agreement. If the agreement states that the UFC can use Jon Fitch in any video game is produces then that should be acceptable to the fighter. However – this SHOULD NOT include any ACTIVE commitment from the fighter. E.g. Jon Fitch should not be required to go into a photo shoot and be on the cover of the UFC Game Box.
I don’t know how the NFL work’s their videogame franchises but I imagine the UFC is aiming for something similar. Also – this should not be an exclusive agreement i.e. Jon Fitch should be able to sell his rights to other videogame producers if he so pleases.
I agree the key should be a fighters union. The union should protect the fighters and also negotiate with the UFC as to royalties etc that the fighters should receive.
by rainmaker6 on Nov 19, 2008 11:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Also – this should not be an exclusive agreement i.e. Jon Fitch should be able to sell his rights to other videogame producers if he so pleases.
It’s not just exclusive, it’s also lifetime. That’s ridiculous.
by FRANKIE on Nov 19, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what the deal is with this “lifetime” clause.
I don’t really see why it’s necessary. The game is being made by THQ, and I don’t think they’ve had such a clause in place for their wrestling games, because the TNA game is full of people that were in past incarnations of WWF/WCW video games. I don’t see why they would even want lifetime likeness rights, the shelf life of a fighter isn’t that long, they could probably make do with having the rights for the life of their Zuffa contract and it wouldn’t be a problem for 85% of the roster.
I’d really like for someone to ask Dana what the deal is with this, Fitch is a big enough name that someone like Cofield will ask him, and this sems to be the only reason that they are cutting Fitch, especially the day after news of an upcoming fight with him gets out there.
by Phildo on Nov 19, 2008 11:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’ll be speaking on this issue as soon as more details come about.
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 19, 2008 11:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fitch f#@ked up
What’s the big deal? Why throw your career at UFC away for a stupid video game license? You are only marketable if you’re in the UFC.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 19, 2008 11:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
depends...
First, there aren’t really a lot of details and independent confirmation here. We should hold off until we have them.
If the situation essentially is as presented, I would see it as Fitch standing up for himself in the face of an insult (the lifetime part is simply insulting), regardless of the financial consequences. I would applaud him for it.
by lotuschoke on Nov 20, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just listening to
Hardcore Sports Radio..
It seems it more of feud with his manager then Fitch himself. Fitch had no idea this was coming.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets summarize...
Fitch refused to sign an unknown contract, and as a result, was let go. I’m not sure how to respond to that. What were the details of the contract? Why did he refuse to sign? What was his offer? What offers were denied? We know none of these important questions. He didn’t want to relinquish life time rights — why? How can anyone have an opinion on this?
That's just a big son of a bitch -- that's all there is to it.
by mma_dude on Nov 19, 2008 11:24 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Good point...
Damn you UFC! Damn you!
That's just a big son of a bitch -- that's all there is to it.
by mma_dude on Nov 19, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve got a point. There’s not much clarity at this point. It’s just a big shit storm. We really need more info.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a reason for this reaction
This story wouldn’t catch fire if it ran against Zuffa’s reputation. If they were a model employer the story would be ignored or sneered at. Fact is, White and Fertitas are notorious for exploiting their employees and blocking them from achieving their rights, whether it’s the workers of Station Casinos (the worst employer in Vegas) or the athletes who put their lives on the line for UFC fans. Some details might emerge that alter or even nullify this story; nevertheless, the UFC is a ruthless employer, and we all know it.
by klown on Nov 19, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you that
But I think that’s true about every sport in its infancy. I reccommend Jim Bouton’s ‘Ball Four’ as a reminder of how fucking crooked MLB was until very, very recently, given the fact it started in the 19th century.
This is why a fighter’s union is key. No fighter (or athlete) should be able to fuck up his employer’s video game, and no employer should be able to so summarily can a fighter.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with MMA is there is too big of a gap between the top fighters and the bottom fighters for this to work.
How many video games are missing Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan? Those sports are different, so the games were able to survive, but in MMA right now, there are too many people on this level that would feel (and have) no need to be in the union, so it will be a very difficult thing to get off the ground.
by Phildo on Nov 19, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The top fighters are going to have to eat some shit for those guys they train with who live in their parent’s basement because they don’t make shit.
Carl Yaztremski (sp?) tried to fuck up the MLBPA at its inception, but enough stars joined. Public pressure now is a lot worse than it was then – if we unite behind both the UFC and a fighter’s union, I am brimming with optimism that it can happen, and fast.
by subo on Nov 19, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Barry Bonds is not in the MLB video games. Shaq is not in the NBA games, or NBA Jam at least :D
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
It’ll be tough – why does Couture, Liddell or GSP care about the guy breaking into the UFC? A union would take money out of their own pockets in order to obtain benefits for the rest of the group.
When you’re fighting, you’re alone. You don’t truly care what’s happening to the next guy. Team sports are a little different.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When you’re fighting, you’re alone.
Except for the guys in your corner, and the guys that spent months helping train you for the fight. So yeah, except for all of those people, fighters fight alone.
by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
union all the way
I’m with you in that one 100%. I also believe you, that earlier sports were even more fucked up in their early days. It doesn’t mean history has to repeat itself. We can learn from past experiences and do better, like not wait a couple of hundred years before unionizing.
by klown on Nov 19, 2008 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unions are awesome
Just check out how the Big 3 are doing these days.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Right. They’ve destroyed the auto industry. Let’s have them destroy mixed martial arts now.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not forget the airline and healthcare industries.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, unions fucked up the health care industry. Not insurance companies denying coverage to sick people and charging as much as humanly possible on top of the minimum to generate profits.
Nah, that had nothing to do with it.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Insurance companies are a huge part of the healthcare problem in this country, but then so is the weight of the illegal immigrants availing themselves of our healthcare services, as well as some really piss-poor behavioral choices we make as a culture.
But when you make it impossible for smaller operators to even attempt to participate in the marketplace (healthcare is a service, just like any other) then you’re going to end up with massive, lumbering entities that have to feed their own internal bureaucracies first, and provide for the consumer second.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m so damn progressive, I don’t think health care should be a for profit industry. Firefighting isn’t, police work isn’t, road repair, public education, etc. I want to add health care to that list.
As far as airlines go, I blame Reagan for most everything and this is no different. :-)
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is great , we go from Fitch and video games to Reagan firing illegally striking air traffic controllers.
MMA rules.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only here
could this seque be completed in just two posts.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I’m a capitalist, and maybe I’m naive, but I do believe that self-interest is the most powerful motivating factor in the human psyche. As soon as you take away the carrot and stick from any situation, inefficiency explodes onto the scene. This is another part of the problem with the health-care industry in our country.
Personally, I think we’re trying to be too politically-pleasing to everyone with our health-care system. Either make it a real independent industry, with heavy government oversight like other sensitive industries, or make the whole thing state-run and be done with it.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Single payer reduces per-capita health care costs. It’s a fact. A guy that gets bit by a tick takes a round of antibiotics as soon as he feels sick, instead of waiting until he has full blown Lyme disease to see a doctor because he doesn’t have insurance. It’s ALL about preventive medicine.
But I digress.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think there’s enough to argue about here without getting into a healthcare debate. Let’s keep it to MMA.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Works for me.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
c’mon, this convo was most enlightening
by Benicio on Nov 20, 2008 5:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I assume you mean Chrysler, GM and Ford. Ha-ha.
Of course, if you were talking about the NFL, MLB and NBA, then you’d be agreeing with us.
Zing!
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The unions haven’t helped those sports. It took a long time for MLB to recover from the strike. The NHL might not ever recover from the lockout.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please read ‘Ball Four’ by Jim Bouton to hear about how MLB players had it before they unionized.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve read it previously. I won’t sit here and argue that unions have not affected positive change because they have. I will argue that I believe their net impact has been negative, however.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The unions haven’t helped those sports. It took a long time for MLB to recover from the strike. The NHL might not ever recover from the lockout.
The lockout didn’t hurt the NHL nearly as much as Bettman did, trying to turn it into a family-friendly goal-fest, and wound up making it boring as wooden train.
Off point, but I felt the need to type something.
by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah the MLBPA certainly hasn’t done anything but monumentally increased player salaries in the 40ish years of its existence.
And the fact that the NFL has the weakest player union and consequently worst deals for players is irrelevant as well….
by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 3:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The NFLPA’s weakness is the cause behind a lot of the reasons people love the NFL.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Big 3 suffer from bad management, not bad workers
They give their 900 top executives new cars every 6 months. Their strategy was to heavily market gas guzzlers at a time of increasing awareness of climate change, etc.
In fact, the manufacturing unions, especially the autoworkers, are responsible for creating the American middle class as we know it. They brought literally millions of American families out of poverty into the middle class and transformed sweatshop jobs into decent jobs.
Your argument is essentially anti-worker so I’m not surprised you oppose fighters’ rights, too.
by klown on Nov 20, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How are the Big 3 supposed to compete when they’re paying an extra two grand per car?
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The big three suffer from bad management, some really poor choices in their product lines and horrible deals with the unions that their competition don’t have to worry about. The sad fact is that the foriegn auto companies that have plants in the US pay less and don’t have the unions to fight with and it’s one of their advantages that can’t be overlooked.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What kills a company is inflexibility,
not a poor choice or marketing strategy. Unions calcify overhead expense, and they never give ground, no matter what’s happening in the real world. They only ask for more, more, more. I’m an RN, and nurse’s unions are among the greediest of all. They never consider giving ground, regardless of how the employer is faring in the P/L column.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
sheer ignorance
The unions have negotiated nothing but concessions since the 90s and often acted in concert with the companies to save the industry, which millions of Americans depend on.
by klown on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And then the savings goes right to the shareholders, and when the scheme finally fails, we all get to pitch in to bail them out.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ignorance? Really?
Alright.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep they have continuously had to make consessions because they were killing the industry yet they are still a serious problem for the industry. The big three still pay a lot more than other car companies in the US pay factory workers and the union pensions are still huge. It’s not that the Union was doing a bad thing by taking care of their workers with such great deals but it is one of the things that seriously unleveled the playing field in the industry.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Jim Brown, one of the greatest running backs ever, quit the NFL to do movies, because the money in the NFL wasn’t nearly as good. Actually, if “putting their life on the line” were the main criteria for getting big money. There are a lot of people in line ahead of MMA fighters that do more dangerous tasks for less pay in some cases. The fact is that those that bear the bulk of the financial risk are first in line for big paydays.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 19, 2008 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fight promoters are rough businessmen. This is nothing new.
by dumbwhiteguy on Nov 19, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This story doesn’t run against Zuffa’s reputation. This story doesn’t run with Zuffa’s reputation. This story doesn’t run. This story doesn’t have legs.
That's just a big son of a bitch -- that's all there is to it.
by mma_dude on Nov 19, 2008 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, buddy
Why do YOU think they cut JON FITCH? And don’t you think THAT is a story – the fact that he was cut right after his next fight was announced?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anti-union isn’t the same as anti-employee.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it is. What’s a union? It means the fighters get together to maximize their power vis-a-vis their employer. They bargain collectively and they back each other up. In contrast to the current situation where the UFC has a monopoly, holds all the power, and negotiates with each fighter individually. If you prefer this situation, you are most definitely anti-fighter.
by klown on Nov 20, 2008 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
anti-union isn’t anti-worker, particularly if your a worker who loses a job because they don’t want to join a union and work in a closed shop. Unions aren’t always a good thing, they are a mixed bag.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
^^ Most even-handed description of the thread.
Rec’d.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I got your back, Richard. You’re beating me to every thought, lol.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is some seriously fucked up shit!
Theres nothing I want up say that hasn’t been said already but the UFC are bullying their fighters around wayyy too much. A fighter’s union is absolutely essential.
Very disappointing.
by cauliflower_ears on Nov 19, 2008 11:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
SHAME SHAME UFC!
Jon Fitch will be fine, he is one of the best fighters in his division and will have a strong career in another promotion.
The big loser in all this: us fans. We are deprived of a chance to see Fitch match up against the the UFC’s fine stable of welterweights.
Fighters’ rights and fan satisfaction are not antithetical.
by klown on Nov 19, 2008 11:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
No Fitch vs Gono
..makes Blackout a very sad boy.
by Blackout612 on Nov 19, 2008 11:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
DENTAL PLAN
LISA NEEDS BRACES
DENTAL PLAN
LISA NEEDS BRACES
DENTAL PLAN
LISA NEEDS BRACES
DENTAL PLAN
LISA NEEDS BRACES
DENTAL PLAN
LISA NEEDS BRACES
DENTAL PLAN
by Discman2 on Nov 19, 2008 11:41 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Apparently Randy broke a tooth vs. Brock.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Man, I leave for a few hours to go train and you guys let everything go to Hell!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, this is BS. If you business plan is to fire any fighter that won’t sign their lives away, then you need to be shaken.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
by BJJDenver on Nov 19, 2008 11:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Someone better grab Roger Goodell, David Stern, Bud Selig and Gary Bettman quick!
Honestly, what sport lets their athletes say ‘well, maybe I will do another company’s game and maybe I won’t. What’s it to ya??’
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All of them do, you dolt. They have no control over it whatsoever.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t buy that – the NFLPA licenses EA Sports, and only EA Sports, to use player’s names in Madden. That tells me a) they don’t get to opt out and b) Tom Brady can’t make ‘Tom Brady’s Football 2009’ with THQ if he wants, even if he plays for the Boston Tea Partiers.
Maybe I’m wrong, but the contrary seems even more ‘doltish’ to me – exclusive rights = concentrated buying of one game = more media = more buys = more $$$.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And Roger Goodell doesn’t run the NFLPA, nor can the NFLPA force teams to not sign nonunionized players. If Tom Brady chose to not be a member of the Player’s Association, he wouldn’t be in the game and could do whatever he wanted. Bill Belicheck is a good example of that.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Barry Bonds and Jordan also, they’re not in a lot of video games that everyone else is in.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I guess Jon Fitch ain’t Barry Bonds or Michael Jordan.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right! What were you intending to prove with this?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn’t have the stature to flip off his boss?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Barry Bonds was a .280 hitter with decent power to left field only and didn’t join the MLBPA, he could still play there assuming he got called up. His refusal to join wouldn’t cost him a place.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that all the major sports are closed shops, you have to be in the union to be part of the collective bargaining agreement and you have to be part of the collective bargaining agreement to be on a major league team.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think so, too, but like I said, I could be wrong
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope. Bonds opted out of the MLBPA. Kevin Youkilis isn’t in the union either because he was one of the scabs that played during the strike.
by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 3:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s part of why I’m a big Youkilis fan.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did he? ‘Cause apparently he’s gonna be in that EA game.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not anymore, my friend. He signed it away.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, so let’s say he did. So what? Everyone should follow his example because……he’s old?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NE Coach.
I love that in Madden ’09.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm...
My point wasn’t to include him in the NFLPA, but to refer to the fact that he isn’t named in the game, while every other coach is. He’s simply “NE Coach,” or “NE Head Coach,” I can’t remember which, and my ps3 is in another country at the moment.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought membership in the union was a condition of employment. I can’t think of any NFL players that aren’t in it, if only for the pension and whatnot.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s true, it’s only lately that the NFLPA and the NFL have gotten on the same page video game-wise.
Go back to the 90s where the NHL and NHLPA put out separate games, or the early madden’s where there is no New York Giants or New York Jets, just a blue New York and a green New Jersey.
by Phildo on Nov 20, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is all absolutely hilarious stuff, folks. Especially the apologists. Like, what are the odds that fighters are going to be cut solely over rights to image in video games? Really now? The UFC has been pushing all year for this sort of IP hijacking and now you’re seeing the big push.
The funny part will be if, as guys like sudo say should happen, fighters unionize. What the hell are they going to do in order to improve pay? I don’t believe for a second that the sport is gonna survive a work stoppage at this point. And if there is no threat of stoppage, what is the point of having such a union? What possible leverage would they have otherwise?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
And a work stoppage would bring the UFC to its knees faster than Iole when Dana walks by, because THE STRENGTH OF THE UFC IS THE ROSTER OF THE UFC. That’s it. Fuck the brand – it’s about the talent, the depth and the breadth. If the important guys are willing to risk – and lose – some money, then this can happen. Until it does, you get both a)fighters threatening to fuck the company AND FELLOW FIGHTERS IN THE VIDEO GAME by trying to skip it and b)an owner with too much power.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How are fighters in the video game being fucked over? Hell, how is the company fucked over?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s putting your interests ahead of the company’s. And the better the company does, the better the fighters do. And the better the game does, the better the company does. And this is, was, and shall remain a dumb move by Fitch if video game rights – just those – were the sticking point.
You’re Dana White. You’re trying to resign Jon Fitch. You say you want to be the only guy that can use him in a video game, and instead of hemming and hawing, he just says ‘no.’ Are you going to allow him to set the precedent that you, as a UFC fighter, can be in another org’s game?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn’t answer the first question. The answer to the second is inane. The company and its value have nothing to do with compensation for those employed by it. Affliction is apparently going to keel over and die yet they pay more than anyone.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And they allow their fighters to fight cross-promotion. In fact, almost all the orgs that cross-promote on an elite level are dead.
Weird, huh?
The fighters in the video game signed the deal. That shows a commitment to the company, the brand, the sport and, yes, each other. And Jon Fitch thumbed his nose at that.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By not signing that deal, Jon Fitch showed he has no commitment to MMA? This gets better and better.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, not to Dana’s company. And he clearly sees it as MMA’s future. You can’t argue Dana doesn’t give a shit about the sport if I can’t argue Jon Fitch doesn’t.
I guess I understand Dana’s reasoning here.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana isn’t showing him or almost anyone else a lifetime commitment of any sort either. For Fitch to return the favor because, uhh….umm…..uhhh….yeah, its a stupid thing to do.
I understand Dana’s reasoning totally. I also completely understand why Don King would park leased cars in the driveways of fighters or hand them bags of cash holding amounts far lower than he claimed verbally.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Giving away lifetime rights to name and likeness is not in Jon Fitch’s best interests, even if you think that Jon Fitch’s best interests are the UFC’s best interests.
by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, pretend the D. stands for Dana. What do you do when most say yes and a few give you the finger? Give the green light for those that signed it to reneg?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t you kind of have causation backwards? They are going to keel over and die because of their obligations.
And obviously there is some connection between company well being and salary. It just always depends on the position of fighters, but if you look at what GSP just signed for and what he could have got just a few years ago, there is correlation.
If we are going to operate in a single organization MMA world, we need a union. Frankly, I’d prefer a world with UFC and a second major competitor forcing them to act in certain ways, but the idiots in charge at other places have ruined that.
Realistically, I don’t think we’re going to get a union. Which means lower pay and harsher deals for guys on bottom while guys on top keep doing well. They are going to start structuring and cutting to survive the coming economic hard times, and they can get away with it.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its pure economics. The guys without the bargaining power are going to get screwed and get less money because they have no options.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless they unionize. Which is an option.
by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 4:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The multiple organization model is clearly better for fans. More shows, more fights, etc. Unions are never really good for anyone, higher standards raised through competition is a better model.
We will never, ever see a walkout. It’s just not going to happen.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
’They’ll never cancel the World Series’ – every MLB fan before 1994
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m gonna be pissed if the fighters decide to strike right after I buy the video game.
All that standing in line at GameCrazy just to plug it into my ps3 and see the guys holding the picket line on my hi-def TV.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't have to be a strike
When fighters are organize, immediately certain things happen. For example, they will share their contract details with each other. That alone changes the balance of power. Second, they could bargain in groups – UFC would have to either take the whole team or let the whole team go. Fighters would meet regularly and discuss issues and set priorities. Perhaps they would pool some resources to acquire health insurance for fighters, and get the UFC to chip in. On issues that were unacceptable to all fighters, they would collectively draw the line.
What if 80% of fighters all refused a certain contract clause, such as this one. Would the UFC discard all of them, or concede?
There’s so much you can, short of a work stoppage, if only you get together and start talking.
by klown on Nov 20, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bargaining rights are the strongest asset of a union. A strike is only a part of that.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do they go about enforcing these rights, subo?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously walkout is the only way, and as you have said, it’s not really conceivable.
I don’t see a rosy solution to everything here. Unless CBS signs Affliction and puts it on free TV the UFC is about to run wild.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Negotiations, backed up with the threat of a walkout. It’s a helluva lot better than what they have now, which is go to Bob’s Backyard MMA Challenge or sign with an org that might not bother to pay you (see PRIDE). It’s either other orgs to go to or a union, and I prefer the latter so all the best stay under one umbrella.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So then you are okay with fighters refusing to fight as stated in their contracts assuming it is part of mass labor negotiations? Just want to check again.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
another alternative
What a big chunk of UFC fighters – say 25%, including a couple of big names – all publicly take a stand against a certain lifetime exclusivity clause. Would the UFC get rid of all of them? Especially if public pressure were put on the UFC, with support from media, bloggers, and fans, it’s conceivable the UFC would back down. There would be no stoppage.
by klown on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And yes, if the company isn’t living up to its obligations or the fighters have a – say it with me – le-gi-ti-mate grie-vance.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there's more than walkouts out there!
Consider this one.
What if fighters agreed to share copies of their contracts with each other, and to share information with each other while bargaining individually with the UFC.
That move alone would just impose transparency on the UFC, against the UFC’s wishes and interests. It could happen if fighters simply decided to do it, in unison.
You don’t even need every single fighter to go along with it. Even a good chunk of fighters who decide to do might succeed in achieving it. You do need for the effort to be led by a one or high-profile fighters.
by klown on Nov 20, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah. I think the UFC has a clause in the contract against disclosing contract terms to others.
This came up during the Respect Randy fiasco.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Most contracts have a clause of confidentiality. Show it to anyone other than your lawyer or manager and you breach the contract.
by Benicio on Nov 20, 2008 5:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, so let me get this strait
We are calling Werdum cut because he is not longer on UFC.com AND we are calling Fitch cut (who is still on UFC.com) because a site that basicly use me as a source is calling him cut. I call bullshit. Not that they cut these people, but the sourcing in MMA news is crap. When Fich says he’s cut then I will take it from there. its all just bullshit until then.
by szucconi on Nov 20, 2008 12:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
From Melrzer:
After a blow-up over the merchandise contract between UFC President Dana White and Duane Zinkin and Bob Cook of Zinkin Entertainment, which represents a slew of UFC fighters, mostly out of the American Kickboxing Association gym in San Jose, the UFC cut Jon Fitch and Christian Wellisch today.
Fitch, who headlined the 8/19 PPV show in Minneapolis against Georges St. Pierre in a welterweight title challenge, had been scheduled to face Akihiro Gono on the 1/31 show in Las Vegas. Fitch co-holds the UFC record for most consecutive wins, with eight, with Royce Gracie and Anderson Silva.
The argument stemmed from Zinkin and Cook advising their clients not to sign the UFC’s merchandising agreement, which gives the company lifetime merchandising rights to the fighters.
While not cut yet, without a resolution, White will be cutting Cain Velasquez, the heavyweight who many considered the future of the division, as well as Josh Koscheck. Koscheck will not be cut right now because White felt that by Koscheck saving the company by taking the fight with Thiago Alves on 10/25 on less than two weeks notice, they owed him at least one more fight. Plus, it would be difficult to replace him since he is scheduled for the main event, against Yoshiyuki Yoshida, on 12/10 in Fort Bragg on the next Spike TV “Fight for the Troops” special.
The other major Zinkin Entertainment fighter, Mike Swick, signed the merchandise deal and is in no danger of being dropped.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
looking for realistic alternatives.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This should be updated to the main post.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Koscheck eh? TUF1er and good soldier. He’s not a fan favourite, but this makes the UFC look awful in my opinion. He’s done everything they could ask aside from sign that contract.
Losing Cain could be a big blow, I hope his knee doesn’t hold him back from success outside the UFC.
If these fighters do actually leave the UFC, I want to see what the fallout is without them rolling over and never being heard from again.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you should link over to meltzer…. that is all he asks for folks using his stuff
Mike Goldberg on robnashville:
"His analysis is so analytical"
by robnashville on Nov 20, 2008 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It looks to me like this is a general blackballing of any fighter using these agents.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This has happend in other sports. The Orioles (who are badly mismanaged) avoid Scott Boris at every turn.
by szucconi on Nov 20, 2008 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is different, though.
This is like the Commissioner of a league declaring that Scott Boras clients are not allowed in MLB because he’s made one too many counter-demands. Even that’s not a great analogy.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, its like an agent making demand that niether side is willing to work on and a talented prospect sitting out a year and waisting a year of talent. I would think that these guys are under contract and won’t get offered fights until it expires.
by szucconi on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No it’s like the commissioner making a demand and the manager trying to get a 5 to 10-year agreement and the UFC not willing to give in.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 1:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets take inventory
AKA – Blackballed
Chute Boxe – Crushed like ants in Werdum deal
Black House/Ed Soares – Has Dana’s balls in a vice grip
ATT – Too talented to fuck with
I’m just glad Lyoto is safe. But whats happening seems intended to come as a signal to the small-time managers without major leverage: do not cross The Dana.
by smoogy on Nov 20, 2008 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they didn’t already know that, they should not be allowed to breed.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure what your post means, and how Lyoto is safe.
Isn’t it basically two groups, those who signed and those who didn’t? Since no $ has been put to signing this agreement for different fighters, there are no different levels of success here. Either a mistake was made or it wasn’t, or it’s too early to tell (for all).
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s totally safe! Well, until he loses in a robbery. Then he will be cut. His image will stay with the UFC forever, though. Maybe he will be playable in future installments of video games (while wearing a diaper)?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, we have new information now
I love Cain and Josh. Love them. But it’s up to the fighters now to do what Swick did, say ‘fuck you’ to their agents and sign the deal.
Dana has a right to require this of his athletes. Flame away, but that’s how I feel.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
A compliment if ever I’ve heard one.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, wrong or otherwise
subo’s correct. Dana is fully within his authority to demand this of his employees. His company is literally the only way most of these guys will ever sniff an endorsement deal, so while this is a touchy subject emotionally, the fighters had better sign the contracts.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana
is not fully within his authority to demand this of his employees.
It may have legal ramifications.
by achengy on Nov 20, 2008 1:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then let the lawsuits come.
That has, historically, been one of the most effective methods for punishing tyrannical employers in this country.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I’m sure that’s what Swick said to his agent (and trainer and cornerman).
(You’re an idiot.)
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he sure didn’t listen to them, now did he?
(Jar-Jar sucked)
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Them”?? Bob Cook is one guy.
You really don’t know anything about this do you? And yet you’ve sat here ranting and writing more than anyone else on the subject. Amazing.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s right about Jar-Jar, though.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you brought up three people you’re saying told him to do this. And he said no to every one.
But to satisfy your semantics, he didn’t listen to HIM, now did he?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me spell it out for you:
Bob Cook is Swick’s Agent, Trainer, and Cornerman.
You might know that if you knew anything beyond your own stupid opinion you feel the need to share with the internet.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry I didn’t know that. Thanks for the knowledge.
I’ll try one more time: HE DIDN’T LISTEN TO HIM, DID HE???
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently not. He also didn’t tell him to “fuck off,” I’m guessing.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Following this pissing match is like watching grass dry.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, in this thread, we go from subo saying that the provisions, if true, were completely horrible to demanding that fighters should tell their agents to fuck off and sign said provisions.
That. That is a thread.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This was somewhat confusing for a little while.
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It clears everything up in a hurry, doesn’t it?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What? Where did I say the video game rights were horrible?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The argument stemmed from Zinkin and Cook advising their clients not to sign the UFC’s merchandising agreement, which gives the company lifetime merchandising rights to the fighters.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is new information. And as long as the UFC is saying no other org can use your name/face, not YOU can’t use your name/face, these fighters are making incredibly stupid decisions.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If a fighter leaves and can’t be promoted without the expressed/written consent of Zuffa, what good is he?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not the case – only with video games. The fighter can still make, market and sell his own merch.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His own. So, if you’re a fighter who goes to fight for K-1 or is offered a deal with Affliction….
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then you shouldn’t have signed with the UFC. If, however, you want to be the best fighter in the world and help further the sport like you can nowhere else, you can.
It’s up to them.
And I think they should SIGN.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I get that, subo. Loud and clear, lol
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
These guys can’t be that stupid can they?, Kos/Cain/Fitch are you seriously gonna throw out your chances at big careers in the UFC because of a video game. This is why I agree completelly with Dana about MMA fighters and their agents these people get in fighters ears and fuck them up. Guys have to start thinking for themselves and realise that the UFC is the only MMA org that matters today and making enemies with Dana is the dumbest move you can do for your career. Hopefully these guys will wake up and realise the huge mistakes they made and sign the contracts and come back to the fold before they become like Barnett and Lindland irrelevant.
by Raker on Nov 20, 2008 12:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Its not about a video game. Its about signing away their names and images for the rest of their entire lives. Did you not read the Meltzer piece?
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How many Cain Velasquez tshirts are gonna sell if he’s not in the UFC?
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Cain is in the UFC, Cain wouldn’t know how many he’s selling, nor could he demand someone check.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look, does it say that UFC can use their shit forever, or that THEY CAN’T USE THEIR SHIT? As long as they can market themselves independently (make shirts, etc), I see no issue.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
GRANT OF MERCHANDISE RIGHTS / COLLECTIVE RIGHTS
1.1
Fighter hereby grants to ZUFFA during the Term (as defined below) the
unrestricted
worldwide right to use, edit, disseminate, display, reproduce, print,
publish and make any other uses of
the name, sobriquet, voice, persona, signature, likeness and/or
biographical information (collectively,
"Identity") of Fighter solely in connection with the development,
manufacture, distribution, marketing
and sale of Licensed Merchandise (as defined below) (“Merchandise Rights”).
1.2
The Merchandise Rights shall be ZUFFA’s sole property in perpetuity
throughout the
world, which ZUFFA shall hold free and clear from any and all claims
of Fighter or anyone claiming
through Fighter.
1.3
For purposes of this Agreement, “Licensed Merchandise” shall include, without
limitation, all apparel, footwear, hats, photographs, souvenirs, toys,
collectibles, trading cards, and any
and all other similar type products, including the sleeves, jackets
and packaging for such products,
hereunder made by any method now known or hereafter to become known
that is (a) approved by
ZUFFA, (b) contains the trademarks, trade names, logos and other
intellectual property owned or licensed
by ZUFFA, including without limitation, the Licensed Marks and © not
created, used or sold in
connection with the promotion of any Bouts, Pre-Bout Events or
Post-Bout Events (as such terms are
defined and included within the Promotional Agreements).
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My internet is dead, I am being thrown out of a cafe, and I dont have time to make a post, so I just put this here. Needless to say, the contract terms are being misinterpreted. They give the UFC a right forever, they do not deny Jon Fitch from having his own shirts and toys one day, it just means they can do it forever and anywhere.
by Michael Rome on Nov 20, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, Michael.
Now, with every single fact about the dispute out, I agree with Dana.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This being the case
I really can’t get behind the stand these guys are making. If you become part of the UFC, then they aren’t unreasonable in demanding to keep you ‘on the roster’ so-to-speak for future products.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Merchandise Rights shall be ZUFFA’s sole property in perpetuity
throughout the
world, which ZUFFA shall hold free and clear from any and all claims
of Fighter or anyone claiming
through Fighter.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is so much worse than just video game likeness rights.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for posting this!
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rome, you a law student, this shit can’t hold in court, right?
by The Bronzeville Bully on Nov 20, 2008 6:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A copy of the contract was released months ago. It gave Zuffa rights over their name and image for promotion, merch, etc forever.
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but not exclusive merch rights. Fitch, Cain and Kos should sign.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Um, read Michael Rome’s post after it.
‘They give the UFC a right forever, they do not deny Jon Fitch from having his own shirts and toys one day, it just means they can do it forever and anywhere.’
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He can’t read either, apparently.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then post about how the guy who broke the story got it wrong.
And get laughed out of fucking town.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Merchandise Rights shall be ZUFFA’s sole property in perpetuity
throughout the
world, which ZUFFA shall hold free and clear from any and all claims
of Fighter or anyone claiming
through Fighter.
That’s how he got it wrong.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think – think – that just means the fighter can’t claim Zuffa’s revenue from said products.
I’m going to trust Rome’s reading here when he says Jon Fitch can make his own shirts.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Read the next section, George.
1.3 pretty clearly states that it’s only referring to items which are
a) approved by
ZUFFA, (b) contains the trademarks, trade names, logos and other
intellectual property owned or licensed
by ZUFFA, including without limitation, the Licensed Marks and © not
created, used or sold in
connection with the promotion of any Bouts, Pre-Bout Events or
Post-Bout Events (as such terms are
defined and included within the Promotional Agreements).
Rome got it right.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yep Rome got it right, still signing a deal where the UFC can make products with your likeness forever and don’t need your future approval and have the percentage they pay you on this locked in for life is a very big issue. It doesn’t take away the fighters rights but it does give the UFC rights to your likeness too.
Does anyone know what percentage of revenue the UFC is offering the fighters on this? That would be very important in the discussion of whether this is a good deal or a rip off for fighters.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 1:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See, I don't think compensation matters at all.
To me, this is simply the company saying “We require these rights, and it’s part of your contractual obligation, should you choose to sign with us.”
Emotionally, it might make a difference if we knew how much money was being trickled down to the fighters, but really it doesn’t change anything legally (ethically or morally either, for that matter) for the purposes of the conflict.
The company is demanding a concession. The employee can either agree, or disagree.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well the money is a big deal in the fact that they aren’t taking rights away from the fighter they are just pushing the fighter to make a rights marketing deal with them. If the UFC is forcing guys to take an amazing deal then it makes for a different situation as them forcing a crappy one on to them. Yea I agree that they shouldn’t force any deal on a fighter for marketing, especially a lifetime one but just how good of a deal it is would be very informative.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
edit: that should be forcing not pushing. If they were just pushing guys to do it this would be a non-issue.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunnately for the fighters,
the market decides what’s amazing vs. what’s crappy. And there just isn’t a marketplace out there for any of this stuff that compares to what the UFC has built for itself.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No a crappy contract is a crappy contract even if it is in MMA because this is a marketing contract not a MMA contract. It’s the percentages that I was wondering about not the actual numbers of what they would earn because the percentages are something that can be compared to other sports.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course compensation matters. It’s contract negotiation.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Strictly speaking, no it does not matter.
As long as what they’re demanding isn’t illegal, the actual numbers themselves are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I understand that the fighters want more money, but that will be the case until the end of time. The actual issue here is whether or not the company can reasonably make this type of demand. A small group of fighters obviously believes it to be unreasonable.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No one’s arguing that it’s illegal though. We’re just arguing who has the moral high ground.
And compensation (whether or not fighters are being paid equitably) is at the very core of that debate.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We can agree to disagree, then.
I agree that this is effectively about the moral high ground, at least emotionally.
But in reality, there aren’t any alternatives for most of these guys. At least not comparable alternatives. So is it really about morality? Or is it just about legality? Why should the UFC bid against itself in these areas? That’s my main point.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Illegality is irrelevant to us internet keyboard warriors loving the sport from afar, that is something lawyers will decide not any of us.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 1:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hears the %
In exchange for granting Zuffa the Merchandise Rights, a fighter is entitled to ten percent(10) of gross revenue for sales of Licensed Merchandise completed by Zuffa, and twenty
percent (20) of gross revenue for royalties and/or license payments received from third parties.
by Shocbomb on Nov 20, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So it’s not all that impressive of a deal.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At least its a percentage of the gross, unless gross revenue is a defined term which it doesn’t look to be because its not capitalized.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea it’s not the UFC raping these guys with this deal but it’s not anything that would make these guys drool over either.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Most record deals give a percentage of the net and then they go on to nickle and dime the shit out of the equation that determines the net value.
So a contract that gives 75% of the Net Profit is actually 12-15% of the gross, but artists feel better when they see 75%. Its all a hide the money shell game.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Broke what story? The one linked from mmamania or the one linked from Meltzer? LO
by D.Capitated on Nov 20, 2008 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s the first guy I saw post the actual text (which is what I was waiting for).
Now you’re dumping on me for giving a guy credit?
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So the fighters have a choice
sign the deal, make money, become famous; or keep their rights and market their shit out of the trunk of their car.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Life’s a bitch when you’re a world-class athlete capable of pulling down mid-six-figures yearly (counting endorsements, of course).
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly, if Fitch thinks he is better off w/o the UFC, he should try it.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A bitterly angry Dana White said Wednesday the Ultimate Fighting Championship has cut highly regarded welterweight contender Jon Fitch and is not going to do business with any fighters who are part of the American Kickboxing Academy team in San Jose, Calif.
The outspoken UFC president said shortly after landing in Hawaii on Wednesday that he no longer wants to work with AKA fighters or those represented by DeWayne Zinkin and Bob Cook.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 1:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The line is drawn, I guess. I hope these guys come to their senses and sign.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kos and Cain?
This is getting out of control!!!
by steveoc24 on Nov 20, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Affliction is still out there trying to build its company. Let [Fitch] go work with them. Let him see what he thinks of those [expletives]. [Expletive] him. These guys aren’t partners with us. [Expletive] them. All of them, every last [expletive] one of them."
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And now we can be certain
that this is all happening for real. We’ve got honest-to-God [expletives] in the story, so we know it came from Dana!
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kos is still on the website because he just saved the event a few weeks ago and is one of the main events for the upcoming event. They need him but rest assured that afterwards he’ll be dropped.
(formerly TheFightJournal)
by Lucas2 on Nov 20, 2008 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana might be offering a chance
for these guys to publicly ditch their management teams. I’m sure they can do it if they want to, changing representation isn’t easy, but it’s doable.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with AKA guys doing that is they have to change where they train, who their trainers are, and who their training partners are. Not to mention, they would most likely have to move completely to get with a decent camp.
(formerly TheFightJournal)
by Lucas2 on Nov 20, 2008 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get that it’s hard for them to do, but they really do have a choice right now. I’m afraid most of them will choose their camps, but we’ll see. A few might break ranks.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
if you’re ever going to swing this particular hammer, now is the time to do so.
If you wanna make an omelette, you’ve gotta break some eggs. I just hate that they have to be top-10 eggs.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Dana needs a video blog on this.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was actually in the process of typing just that when you posted.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t expect to unwrap the latest Nascar video game and not be able to drive your favorite driver’s car. Join the UFC party and sign the papers.
by casey manrique on Nov 20, 2008 1:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
mmatko.com and mma-core.com here i come for free PPV
Your going to cut AKA and sign Carano?? This is ridiculous..
by steveoc24 on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fitch should take up acting
He wanted our lifetime. He wanted our souls forever
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
So Dana is Shang Tsung now. Got it.
Good luck with Infection, Jon.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
[Expletive]
Wow. For the record, 13 [expletives] from Dana in that Iole story. Plus one uncensored “douchebag.” Gotta be a new Dana record for one interview.
by andherewego on Nov 20, 2008 1:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cain's got the wrong people talking in his ear
Velasquez, one of the sport’s rising stars, clearly is on the outs with White. White said Zinkin wanted standard language that is part of every UFC fighter’s contract removed from Velasquez’s deal.
"Can you believe that?" White said. "Chuck Liddell has that language in his contract. Randy Couture has it. Anderson Silva has it. And Cain [expletive] Velasquez, with two [expletive] fights, wants us to change it for him? That’s [expletive] nuts. He can get the [expletive] out.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 1:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's really too bad.
I was looking forward to his rise through the ranks.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, F that guy. Negotiate? Who does he think he is, some kind of professional athlete?
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he negotiated very well.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not, but it seems to me that Dana is more upset that a fighter had the audacity to attempt to negotiate one of the set terms in the fighter agreement. To me thats a completely unprofessional stance, but I wasn’t privy to the negotiations so I don’t know whos the real dickhead.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cain (or his rep) says I want it my way or no deal, Dana says ok no deal. Simple.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know that it went down like that?
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 2:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The contract is out for everyone to see, if Cain didn’t sign it and still wants to fight in the UFC, he’s asking for a change. Dana says no changes, buh-bye.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 3:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It sounds more like Zuffa said “my way or no deal” because Fitch seems completely open to a 10 year licensing of his likeness, he just doesn’t want it to be forever.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What’s wrong with “my way or no deal”?
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 3:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You just said that was Cains stance. Now its Dana’s stance?
Trust me, I understand negotiations I just don’t understand what you are trying to say.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not impressed with your performance.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 3:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not impressed by Dana White’s performance
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What is so hard to understand? The contract is not top secret, you can find it everywhere on the web. Many top fighters have already signed it. If you don’t sign it, Dana can release you. What’s the hang up?
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 3:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, actually he can’t. He can release a fighter after they lose a fight. He can’t release a fighter for failing to agree to these new terms.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh good grief, Velasquez just won, right? He’ll bench you, cut you ,release you, put you on the back burner, whatever the f#ck.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 3:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you have a signed contract with your boss. You have been a loyal and hardworking employee and are one of the best in the company. The boss decides to bring you new terms that are favorable to them without giving you anything in return. If you don’t agree to the new terms you will be fired. You don’t see a problem with this?
Personally I find it completely opposed to the purpose of a contract in the first place. Especially when you consider how slanted the original contract is towards the UFC in the first place.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding. He didn’t sign it. Now hes gone and we don’t get to see him fight in the UFC. Thats my problem.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then your problem is with Fitch, he hired a rep that sent Dana sideways.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 4:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
300+ comments??
Wow. Dana should have had this on PPV.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:26 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Come on, Iole
I want to hear the audio of this interview!!!
by steveoc24 on Nov 20, 2008 1:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This changes the perspective, to some degree. The release clearly stems from an agreement regarding the videogames produced by THQ. It would be for the rights of past fighters— a guy like Royce could be offered a similar contract for his lifetime, but it doesn’t seem so crazy because he’s semi-retired.
I feel for Fitch because it seems like he’s in the dark. I feel he may be misled by his management, because it also seems that he doesn’t have a firm understanding of the terms and appears confused by the situation.
Seems like a situation where everybody loses. Fitch seems open to discussing this with White and returning. Hopefully this all boils over. Sounds like the management company is fucking things up for everyone..
by Blackout612 on Nov 20, 2008 1:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
exactly
it sounds like these agents are somehow pissing off the UFC at the expense of these fighters’ futures. Dana doesn’t want to deal with agents, but I hope he doesn’t hold a grudge against these young, promising fighters
by nandez44 on Nov 20, 2008 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you need an agent
seriously, it’s an agent’s job to advise their client not to agree to a terrible deal, that’s the opposite of greed.
I’ll make you deal, if you disagree than you hereby agree to:
The Message Board Rights shall be Bigners’s sole property in perpetuity throughout the
world, which Bignerd shall hold free and clear from any and all claims of Poster or anyone claiming
through Poster.
Let me translate:
Poster (meaning you nandez44). You will post at my discretion even if I decide you can never post another comment ever again, this message board and other I (Bignerd) hereby choose. If you write something on a post-it note I will have my lawyer review and will possibly sue you ass.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 2:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
first of all, that’s hilarious. but I’m not sure I’m following your analogy all the way. it’s not the same scenario
you haven’t given me the platform on which I am posting, so you have no claim to my posts.
UFC has given Fitch his platform, through which he has gained popularity, fight purses, and endorsements. therefore, he has a decision to make, with or without his agent, as to whether he wants to continue on the UFC’s terms.
my point about the agents is that I think most of them are looking out for themselves before their fighters. fighters, like most folks, don’t want to get screwed, and assume that the person they hired to look out for them is in it for their best interest. dangerous assumption.
Now, back to our deal. what are you offering me for sole rights to my posts? they can’t be worth too much, but I’m all ears.
by nandez44 on Nov 20, 2008 4:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct, fighters get the UFC platform. But the contract asks for the merchandise rights even if UFC is no longer supplying the platform, or if the platform is coming from some place else. TV Networks have tried similar contracts and failed in court.
Yep, your posting are worth as much as mine, zilch. At least you give me the rights to erase all your comments. Even worse, I can take maybe edit your comments and post them on whatever forum I want (under you name). That was more my point.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 5:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he’s too confused.
He states clearly he doesn’t feel it is fair for the UFC to profit from him when he and his family would get zero compensation.
by Simco on Nov 20, 2008 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s how I read his quotes. He seems well-informed on the subject.
Too bad. I guess Hektor had to die, after all.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
100% Disagree
He insinuates that the UFC would create commemorative figurines in the event of his death and that his family wouldn’t see any of the money. That’s purely ridiculous, regardless of the terms of a contract. I don’t feel like that sort of rhetoric would occur if he were well read on the terms of the contract. Saying “Ten years sounds better than lifetime” doesn’t implicate anything specific.
by Blackout612 on Nov 20, 2008 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rhetoric and hyperbole like he is using are exactly how a well-informed person would make their case in public. The whole misty-eyed “C’mon, isn’t 10 years long enough? ::sniffles::” act is a pretty clever, if predictable play to the audience.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Deliberating on whether or not it feigning ignorance on the specifics..
..would tend to side with me— looking at his words literally. Particularly the part I mentioned regarding his family seeing zero dollars from memorabilia in the event of his death. That’s hilariously overblown.
by Blackout612 on Nov 20, 2008 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is no jab, Blackout,
but I can’t make any sense of this post, and I never have trouble understanding you. So I’m taking that as my cue to go to sleep, lol.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You said he was feigning ignorance; playing it up
I say he’s not and that your take is more presumptive than my own. I think his management knows more about it than he does. He hasn’t even spoken to Dana and he’s on the outs. Speaks volumes..
by Blackout612 on Nov 20, 2008 2:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s what it sounds like to me too, but I always assume the worst of agents
by nandez44 on Nov 20, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s what it sounds like to me too, but I always assume the worst of agents
by nandez44 on Nov 20, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, as predictable as ::sniffles:: “The economy is really bad” act that Dana is using as an excuse to leverage perpetual clauses in fighter contracts.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok so we know what the rights look like that they are trying to get fighters to sign, now the missing peice is the comparison to other similar contracts for boxers or maybe if we can get our hands on a players inc. deal. I am no lawyer and I can’t decrypt the language enough. It could be that they need perma-rights to release a game or after the term expires the fighter can sue for a larger portion of the income? How are players that are no longer in the NFL treated when they are still in the Madden game? still a lot of questions.
by szucconi on Nov 20, 2008 1:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
None of the long-term questions surrounding video game royalties have been answered.
There’s actually quite the outcry going on right now over the Madden franchise’s lack of compensation for certain older members of the NFLPA. I don’t have a link handy, but it was up on FoxSports.net on the front page a few days ago.
The industry is too young for these types of rules to have been tested and refined thoroughly.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really mean, in the short term, you get cut and play in the CFL do you still get your cut from players inc.? I am aware of all the issuse of older players and the union trying not to pay them for the game (they told the game maker to scramble there names so they didn’t have to pay them). Infact, I had a game when I was younger called “Cal Ripkin Jr. Baseball” and there was a 2nd baseman named Billy or Willy Pipkin a scrambled version of Cal’s own brother.
by szucconi on Nov 20, 2008 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh..
I just got fucked out of an explanation of the NFLPA situation. Anyway, a quick synopsis… The retired players are upset that the NFLPA sold off their rights for a paltry 400k; significantly below value (for use as “legends of the game”. I can’t tell if shit fucking thing is still trying to post my old comment, but it’s going haywire over the 400 comments it’s trying to load..
by Blackout612 on Nov 20, 2008 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh..
I just got fucked out of an explanation of the NFLPA situation. Anyway, a quick synopsis… The retired players are upset that the NFLPA sold off their rights for a paltry 400k; significantly below value (for use as “legends of the game”. I can’t tell if this fucking thing is still trying to post my old comment, but it’s going haywire over the 400 comments it’s trying to load..
by Blackout612 on Nov 20, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i am guessing that there are more things to come…more truth behind the story..but hopefully the fighters who are supposedly are gonna be cut wont like cain and kos etc.,…i really hope they dont get cut.
by bigislandboi808 on Nov 20, 2008 1:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
None of these guys are really that popular
Cain is too young, Fitch is a lay n pray guy, and everyone hates kos
3 boring wrestlers being cut = doesn’t hurt the Zuffa machine at all
It really feels like Dana just had a temper tantrum and went ape shit though lol
Who needs the UFC when you can fight for Strikeforce for a whopping 10g’s?
by dbcb on Nov 20, 2008 1:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think I’m one of many who like the way Kos fights. I hold no grudge over his early years ass an assbag, and I feel like he may qualify as one of my favorite fighters. people who don’t feel the way I do probably love to hate him. either way, he’s a valuable asset and a draw.
by nandez44 on Nov 20, 2008 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ask Fiorivanti, Carneiro and Alves about Fitch’s “lay and pray”
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 2:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All for one, and one for all.
Cutting the #3 guy in the world over a fucking videogame is disgusting.
We could send an open letter saying we will stop buying PPV. Mistreatment of fighters by Zuffa is getting out of hand. We need to inform everyone who will listen of the situation. If money is all that Zuffa cares about, a boycott will get their attention.
When they notice the outrage among the fans they will have to take notice. I for one was planning on getting UFC 92, and in light of this I am not going to buy it now.
by Ubernoober on Nov 20, 2008 2:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
We could be like PETA!!
Start spray-painting Dana’s bald head whenever he gets off an airplane. It probably wouldn’t gain much national traction, but it would be fun to watch.
So long as someone else holds the spray paint. I ain’t doin’ that part.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 2:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not outraged
Only amused at what some people expect the UFC to do when fighters play chicken with them.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I expect them to act like adults and negotiate terms that are favorable to both parties instead of calling professional fighters bad names and blaming it on things like the economy and network television.
by George Lucas on Nov 20, 2008 2:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The whole issue sounds like Dana is tired of messing with a certain fight agent so he’s punishing all the fighters that guy represents. Yea he has the leverage and yea this is most likely legal for him to do but it does really suck and it does seem really childish at this point. I mean honestly how dare loyal employee Fitch want his family paid for the use of his likeness by the UFC if he happens to die. This is one of those times when Lorenzo needs to rein Dana in and at least get him to stop making horrible sounding statements on the issue.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hopefully the other guys just get a different agent and get back to fighting. Fuck. Its a vieo game for christs sake.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 2:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The terms are clear, others have signed. Again, Jon didn’t like the terms so he didn’t sign. That’s Dana’s fault? Maybe Jon can get better terms from M-1 or Senguko/Dream or whoever.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but you still have a sucessful and loyal fighter released from a fighter contract for something that has absolutely nothing to do with his performance or the actual sport at all. The ethics of this are real questionable and if the UFC continues down this path it could lead to anti-trust issues for them in the future. It could be the start of the perverbial slippery slope not to mention the fact that as a fan of the sport I just got screwed out of a Fitch/Gono fight over a video game I couldn’t give a rats ass about and that just sucks.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps he should have hired a different agent.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, its Dana’s fault that he has taken a hard line stance of negotiating terms of the fighter contracts so now we don’t get to see high end fighters fight in the UFC.
Its also his fault that he comes off looking like an unprofessional tyrant through his public statements on the matter.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just imagine how this would go down if ESPN decided to cover this. He just cut a guy from a fight contract over a unrelated video game contract without actually talking to the guy first. This is one of those times when the UFC is helped by mainstream media ignoring them.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn’t understand that the public coverage works both ways. Could you imagine a transcript of his comments, complete with profanity (bleeped out obviously), at the bottom of the screen while the talking heads debate about the oppressive nature of the UFC.
The craziest thing is that it isn’t just any guy, its a guy that just finished headlining a pay-per-view.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For all the talk of competition and unions in this thread mainstream media coverage is one of the things that would work most to cleaning up a lot of this type of crap. A ESPN special report or two or ending up in a segment of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for stuff like this could be devestating for the UFC, even if Dana was theoretically in the right with what he is doing.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 4:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that is they have nothing to lose in the game of chicken. The fighter is on a bicycle and the UFC is driving a pick-up. The UFC has no reason to swerve.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a great idea. When he realizes that several dozen guys on the internet who probably download the events illegally are going to boycott, they’ll definitely respond by making a move to hurt their business.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s more of a privilege to fight for the UFC, then it is for the UFC to have you fight for them.
At this point, UFC is the MLB, NFL, NBA, of MMA, therefore, fighters really don’t have a choice.
Take into account that this is still very new. Look at the difference in rights that old NFL players or old ballplayers have compared to now. I would imagine that if MMA is still a legit sport in 20 years, and I think it will, then you will see better fighters rights.
I think if the fighters are really that bent, then they need to form a union. That’s really the only way I see anything changing.
I think the smart thing for most of the fighters is to sign it and fight their way to the money. The better fighter you are, the more money you make, through sponsors or fights. The best thing is to make them pay you, and that’s when you are worth money. Cain Velasquez is not worth any money to the UFC at this point. No one outside of MMA’s bigger fans don’t have the slightest idea who that man is. Top fighters make top money. Until you are a top fighter, then just fight and shut up.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 2:19 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
The thing about this situation is
that basically AKA was forming a mini-union, and Dana kicked the shit out of it where it lives.
Like I said earlier, if you’re ever going to swing this particular hammer, now is the exact time to do so.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good point
but it will be a real bummer for the fans if Cain never fights in the UFC again. I hope, if he gets away from his agent, Dana doesn’t hold a grudge.
by nandez44 on Nov 20, 2008 2:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
What more can i say, “Love the UFC fights and production” even like how Dana sorts some things out.
But this is simply “FUCKING INSANE” gosd know’s how many good fighters are gona loose out. GSP may have beat Jon and i do Like GSP myself. But jon was a cool dude great fighter and i always keep an eye on what he is doing, looking forward to his next fight.
The UFC just doeas not pay these gys the amount of cash needed to say that there being asked to signe the life way,with no protection from been cut after bad fights
by Filby1 on Nov 20, 2008 2:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fitch made the decision, he could have signed. He didn’t, now he doesn’t have to worry about the UFC and their silly marketing rules.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you live at home and you don’t like your old man’s rules, you move out.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 2:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is completly irrelevant to financial contract negotiations.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think in the long-term, it would have been better for Fitch to have signed it. Yes, you lose out on these marketing opportunities, but you do still get to keep fighting in the UFC making a lot of money doing that and comes with more sponsorship money. Which takes me back to my first point, keep winning and they pay you.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 2:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know I’m not going to fault Fitch for not wanting a lifetime deal when he is more than willing to sign a long term one that isn’t “lifetime” or sign one that has his family paid for the deal after he is paid (i.e. longer than lifetime deal). What we have here is a top level fighter released from his fighting contract for not wanting to take a unrelated marketing deal that had nothing to do with fighting or what he is actually contracted to do in the first place. This isn’t like the cutting of Werdum deal this is them cutting a guy they liked and who performed at a very high level because of a freaken video game deal that has nothing at all to do with the actual sport of MMA.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Jon Fitch and I like watching him fight. I, however and assuming yourself, am a HUGE MMA fan. However, just like any sport, they try appeal to the common person, not the hardcore fan. Hardcore fans will always show up and watch no matter what. Fitch isn’t exactly an exciting fighter. I don’t think the UFC is losing much by not having him.
All that said, I do not fault Fitch for not liking this deal and not signing it, but I do think that this was something he should have expected. I also think that these terms are something that the UFC eventually would re-negotiate if Fitch became a star. He lost considerably, albeit admirably to GSP. At that point, where is he marketable?
Plus, these video games, IE Madden, 2k series, etc, do make athletes a decent amount of money eventually (I would assume, I don’t actually have any idea). I think where the sport is currently, fighters do not have many bargaining chips as other sports because they haven’t been around as long. And for that reason, and mostly that reason only, I think he should have signed the deal.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not going to say what is right for Fitch to do because I’m not him but this is a dick move on Dana’s part, particulary since he hasn’t even talked to Jon Fitch about this. Dana got made at Fitch’s manager and is cutting pretty much everyone he represents.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will. I believe he said this will cost him 80% of his sponsorship money. That’s incredibly stupid to throw away.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, same deal.
Don’t like the UFC rules? Move on.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but now we have a guy cut from his fight contract because he didn’t sign a separate marketing contract. Hell Fitch was supposed to fight Gono at UFC 94 and we the fans just lost out on that because of a silly ass video game.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We need Joe Rogan!!!
wonder if he sold his rights..
by bigweeze on Nov 20, 2008 2:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He might have, it’s not like he plans on making MMA money outside of the UFC anyway and this agreement doesn’t affect him ability to make money with his image in any other industry.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you heard his stand up? The UFC is all he has.
by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funnier than just about anything Joe Rogan has ever said.
by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UFC Contract Explained
UFC has been trying to push this contract on their fighters for months now. The details of the contract were released months ago.
Here is the deal, UFC owns lifetime merchandising rights to the fighter be it video games, t-shirts, toys you name it. Fighters compensation is pennies on the dollars.
If the fighter gets cut by the UFC, hasn’t fought in years for UFC, is in another organization it does not matter. The fighter can no longer sign a merchandising deal with another company, only the UFC has rights to market their name and image.
Legally it could probably intrude on sponsorship deals or even if another promotion puts your face on their event flyer. Now what idiot in the right mind would sign that contract . . . expect Mike Swick?
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 2:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
It’s not pennies on the dollar it apparently is 10% of UFC gross and 20% of third party gross. It’s not earthshaking but it isn’t a “bad” deal.
It also apparently isn’t for marketing their likeness for everything forever it’s for marketing their likeness for UFC products forever and that is a completely different deal. It wouldn’t affect sponsorships or outside of the UFC deals it just lets the UFC market your likeness long after you are gone in UFC products(the actual wording is posted back a ways in this thread).
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No thats not correct.
10% might seem like a good deal to Justin McCully but what if you go on to be the next Chuck Liddel. Don’t you think you would want a bigger piece of the pie because your name brings more recognition and sells more product than the next guy. What if the fighters get together a realize the UFC can’t make a video game without their names and want 30. Well they are already fucked, cause a deal is signed. That’s why you never, ever sign a lifetime deal. Did the fighter’s get together and agree to 10 or did UFC come up with the figure and tried to push it all on them?
“isn’t for marketing their likeness for everything forever”. Can you legal guarantee that? Are you a lawyer? You know whose seen a lawyer on the deal, Jon Fitch’s agent! What if Fitch joins Affliction and they produce a video game to compete with the UFC, who get’s Fitch’s likeness?
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 3:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The actual agreement is posted in this thread, I can’t legally guarantee anything because I’m not a lawyer but I can read that the agreement is about Licensed Merchandise and that is defined in the agreement. I didn’t see anything in there that said the fighter could only have UFC licensed merchandise for life and that would be sketching what is and isn’t legal if it did say that.
I;m not going to argue the lifetime part or them being forced to sign part because I don’t agree with that either but honestly unless you know that 10% of gross is a horrible deal in sports then it’s just your opinion. Your example is sort of silly though, if Justin McCully and Chuck Liddell both have 10% cuts then Chuck’s 10% is a lot better for Chuck that McCully’s 10% would be.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its also pretty hard to fully interpret a section of a contract without looking at the contract as a whole.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it is and yes we are only going by the specific section of the contract that this involves that we have to look at but that specific part doesn’t say what some people are thinking it says (although I am not saying it is by any means good or right).
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get where you’re coming from, however, from listening to Fitch’s interview, his agent seems to have informed him that signing the deal would keep him from signing other marketing agreements in the future. At this point I would trust the interpretation of the guys who have read the entire agreement and (hopefully) got a legal opinion.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll have to listen to the interview because what he said in Iole’s article didn’t seem to lead in that direction it was him talking about the length of the agreement not that it would interfere with outside agreements.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully Fitch actually knows and this isn’t just the case of an agent covering his ass.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is also quite possible, one of MMA’s problems is a lack of high level athlete representation (I know nothing about Fitch’s agent but I think we can be assured he’s no Drew Rosenhaus).
Honestly I can’t imagine that the UFC is trying to tie guys up for life in a way where they can’t sign marketing agreements with future employers because that is really skirting the edges of legality (if not blatantly illegal, I’m not an expert in marketing law). A deal like what some people are saying this says would instantly make every fighter with their own clothing line or sponsorship in default of their contract and I can’t see where anyone would of signed that (particularly a guy like Randy Couture). Heck that kind of deal wouldn’t even let guys be advertised in fliers and commerical that showed their face for the rest of their careers unless it was in the UFC. There is no way anyone would of ever signed that deal, even if it meant being cut from the UFC.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 4:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Still have to go to court
Legal or not legal I can say you never want fishy terms in any contract. The problem is you have to go court and pay a lawyer a ton of money to fight the language.
Especially if the person you are fighting in court has much more money than you. Even if its 100% illegal they can tie you up so long in a legal battle that it might be cheaper and easier to give up.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 3:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If this is illegal then them forcing guys to sign it could very well end up as a anti-trust issue and that brings the very very deep pockets of the US justice department into the picture. Of course that is something that we can’t really address as internet fans of MMA.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 3:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially with all of the UFC’s monopolistic practices. I would imagine all of the counter programming that we were so happy about wouldn’t be looked to kindly upon.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the counter programming would really be an issue, competition isn’t anti-trust, hell everything on tv is direct competition for everything else on tv. Thing is you can have anti-trust issues even if you aren’t a monopoly (which the UFC isn’t a monopoly currently). Forcing fighters (which are independent contractors not actual employees) to sign specific disadvantageous terms by using market pressure could be construed as similar to what they got Microsoft on when they used their muscle to force computer manufacturers to include only internet explorer(which was anti-trust not monopoly). I’m not going to say this is the case (because I can’t) but this is a slipperly slope kind of thing that the UFC could fall into if they aren’t careful.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 4:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the anti-trust issues in the major sports are more along the lines of multiple entities working together and whether individual teams are considered individual entities or the league as a whole is one entity.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that Major League Baseball has a anti-trust exemption from the government and the NFL has been sued and has lost monopoly and anti-trust cases in the past. The actual monopoly laws are fairly complicated and a monopoly is not always seen as a bad thing, even by the Justice Department.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 4:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is known as the Al Davis strategy
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, Lane Kiffen knows it will cost him more than his paycheck to go to court and sue Al Davis for the money he didn’t pay.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 3:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(except) Mike Swick?
Randy Couture, Chuck Liddel, Anderson Silva- recognize any of those names?
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
brock lesnar, gsp, bjpenn
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 2:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think those who have backup plans of fighting for another organization are those that have problems with the contract. Those who are pretty much set in the UFC till they retire like liddell etc.. are probably okay with the contract.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 3:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
KOS and CAIN, SIGN THE DAMN PAPERS PLS. I know theyre dicks but cmon. its your career were talking about. Fuck the video games. Stay in the UFC and cash in on the sponsors.
PS, DANA youre an asshole. Kos Saved you a PPV and youre just gonna cut him for his damn video game rights. Take off the lifetime thing and just leave it to as long as he’s fighting for the UFC then you have his rights (or maybe a couple of years after his contract expires). then everybody’s happy.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 2:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
With his dismissal, Fitch said he will likely lose 75-80 percent of his sponsorship monies. Earlier this year, Fitch and other AKA fighters were asked by the UFC to sign a separate merchandising agreement in perpetuity. Many of the squad declined the offer.
"I never wanted anything more than to fight in the UFC and be a UFC champ," said Fitch. "I put in a lot of blood and guts and sweat and tears into this and this is my reward I guess."
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 3:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I feel for Fitch. I hope some healthy end to this situation is to follow.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 3:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SIGN THE FUCKING PAPERSSSSSS! ..so what that you have your rights now? who will make a video game for you? who will sell shirts or merchandise for you? Is affliction gonna make a game for you? Are you gonna sell them in the back of your car? If you are fighting for the UFC you get lots of sponsorship money. so just pls sign it so we can see you fight in the octagon again. ok? kkthxbai. :)
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and christian wellisch, who in the right mind would include you in a video game if your not with the UFC? It doesnt affect you that much you know, you shouldve signed it and earned big bucks, and you couldve had a chance to make it big. Now what are you gonna do? hope 2Ksports make an MMA game for b level fighters outside the ufc?
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 3:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think Christian Wellisch is the odd man out here.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think he was just siding with the sentiments of his Team. but he should think about his career more. Swick signed and now he’s off the hook, he still has sponsors and he’s still making money. Whats christian gonna do next?
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 3:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fitch showed them
Now he will be able to pass along all that money to his next of kin.
by dualdiagnosis on Nov 20, 2008 3:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jon Fitch Interview
http://hardcoresportsradio.com/content/media/podcasts/55adc4d7-8276-44b2-9d19-bce96dbc4ea2.mp3
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 3:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tough to listen to that interview and not side with Fitch. Also interesting is that the individual bout agreements can be terminated by the UFC at any time regardless of whether or not they are fully executed.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the thing that sucks is that if he was the one who talked to dana instead of the manager i think that things couldve been different.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Nov 20, 2008 3:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, its completely possible that the agent tried to get into a pissing contest with Dana and Dana flipped his shit. Its his right to negotiate how he wants. I wouldn’t want one of my employees letting his ego get in the way of cultivating a roster of the best fighters on the planet and then making public, obscenity laced, statements about the matter, but what do I know, I didn’t build the organization in the first place.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 3:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Charmichael Dave Interview with Dana
Left side column under 11-19.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 4:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I’m from the big IL.
I’ve seen Davado post on Sherdog, but I don’t tend to post there.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 4:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana said Fitch made $169,000 for the GSP fight, what was the reported number?
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UFC Reported Numbers are Wrong
Dana is probably telling truth. Although fighters aren’t allowed to disclose real salaries so I am not sure Dana can either.
Still, you have to think that is the biggest the pay day of Fitch’s career. Really, only $169,000? That’s all the main event pays in the UFC? Seems like a lot of money, but you consider an MMA career is 10 years long than you spend the rest of your life dealing with injuries which hamper your ability to work afterwards.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 4:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know the reported numbers are wrong, Im trying to get an idea of how high above the reported numbers the actual payments are. I believe that Dana is absolutely telling the truth on that number (although I’m not sure if hes including Fitch’s sponsorship money).
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sponsorship money is only between Fitch and his sponsors. Well that is suppose to be theory.
In truth Dana will let you get away with CondomDepot.com sponsoring your ass but UFC has always stepped in and tried to get a cut of any good sponsorship deals a fighter might be getting.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 4:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Minnesota numbers are not reported. He made 60k for FOTN however.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 4:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And he made a reported $60,000 ($30,000 to show, $30,000 to win) at UFC 82 vs Chris Wilson.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 20, 2008 4:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think FItch might of confirmed that in the Iole article, of course Fitch said he was happy with how the UFC has been taking care of him and that this had nothing to do with the money.
The payouts for the Fitch vs GSP card were never released (not every state releases that information). FItch made $60k at UFC 82 ($30k to show and a $30k win bonus). We do know that Fitch got a $60k fight of the night bonus for the GSP fight so we can sort of figure out what his official pay was and what is backroom pay was with some simple math if we assume that his base pay didn’t change from UFC 82 to UFC 87.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana just blackballed the shit out of AKA. “That includes fighters that aren’t even in the UFC yet”. Basically he just said that if you train at AKA you won’t have a job in the UFC.
Will see how this plays out but if he can crush an entire team with a move like this it doesn’t bode well for any fighter negotiating moving forward.
by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 4:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yep it seems this has less to do with anything Fitch said or did and more to do with Dana getting mad at Fitch’s agent and punishing everyone he represents for listening to his advice.
by who me on Nov 20, 2008 4:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was pretty much on Dana’s side already before that interview and after listening to it, it’s hard to see the fighter’s perspective in this. His best line was saying, honestly if Fitch was a megastar in another promotion, why would I still promote him? Obviously, he wouldn’t.
I would say he is accurate in Fitch’s pay because remember when the Couture business went down, he produced check stubs and what not. Plus in Iole’s column at yahoo, he said that Fitch did not dispute the number.
I also completely agree with him in that, if you do not like it, go somewhere else. I come from a management background, and I totally agree. The UFC is what is providing these fighters with all the money opportunities. You could say, well the UFC is nothing without the fighters and that is true, however, it goes both ways. It’s like in sales, maybe you don’t really want to sell a product, or don’t feel comfortable, and that’s fine. But if you don’t they will find someone else that will sell it.
As far as blackballing AKA, it’s obvious that that is essentially what he is doing. He also reiterated that hey, Swick called and said he’s on board. I don’t think any of these fighters are going to get blackballed personally. It would surprise me zero to see later this week or month that Fitch or whoever else is back. Dana may come off like a dick, but he has also always shown, with the exception of someone like Lindland or Barnett, that he is a smart businessman and can see who makes him money.
At the end of the day, UFC is an employer, and you have to look at it that way. This is a smart business move. Since the fighters don’t have a union, UFC needs reassurance that they won’t go run off doing other thing, notably this Frank Shamrock video game (allegedly). If you are in the NFLPA or the MLBPA, you cannot use your likeness for a videogame or whatever, because there is a contract. In this case, there isn’t something like that to protect the UFC. If I was with the UFC, I could definitely see the disrespect angle from fighters not signing this. Honestly, where would Jon Fitch ever had made that type of money. If he had a title fight with Jake Shields at EliteXC, would he have made $169,000, highly doubt it.
I can definitely understand people seeing this as being unfair and monopolistic, but that is the price you pay when getting the exposure and everything else that comes with fighting in the UFC. Again, at the end of the day, win fights and the money will take care of itself.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 4:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Two things:
1st. I keep hearing the contract says you cannot sign a merchandise deal outside of UFC. Which means if the fighter left UFC he is not allowed to sign a merchandise deal with Affliction. He can fight for Affliction, they just can’t create and sell a t-shirt named after him. So now the fighter cannot make money off anyone promoting him.
2nd. Lets say you are absolutely great outside the UFC. What prevents Dana from sticking you his video with ineptitude of the Detriot Lions were your character is setup to get drubbed and embarrassed the whole time.
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 4:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of their merchandising type deal, I have absolutely no idea what is in those thing as far as the language goes. If that is indeed the case what you said, I would imagine the UFC’s stance is, when you fight for us, you are getting all these sponsorship deals that you would not get anywhere else and I believe that to be true. Is it right? Probably not, but I think there is some truth to it. I’m just guessing, but I am assuming that in no other league, now or in the interim, are you going to make the same amount of money. Other leagues, past, present, or future, do not have the marketing machine or the marketing sense that the UFC has.
It’s really about give and take. It’s kind of like with MLB contracts. Players salaries are dictated by the club for their first 6 seasons, except through arbitration for years 4,5,6. The good ones, Wright, Reyes, Hanley, Longoria, Shields, Pujols (back in ’04), the list goes on, they sign deals before they hit free agency giving them security, but they essentially are missing out on their biggest payday until they are much older. Some players like Upton, Lincecum, Hamels, Francouer (which this has backfired), choose (some I listed WILL choose) to roll the dice and go from year to year so they will be eligible for a maximum payday when they hit free agency, but also risk injury and possible down seasons.
Now I understand that there is absolutely no comparison between MLB salaries and fighters, some players make more in a week than fighers do the whole year. The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to these athletes and their contracts in any sport, their is a massive risk/reward with how they approach and ultimately settle on. Sign with the UFC, you maybe miss out on some merchandising, but in return you get sponsors, promotion, etc. Stay away from the UFC, there is a lot less security, but maybe you get 1 or 2 large paydays with Affliction before they go belly-up. Now it is true that the UFC can cut you after a loss, but they have shown with A LOT of fighters, that if you come to fight and put on a great show, they will take care of you and that is where the security comes from.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 5:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are dead on with your analysis. UFC will use their marketing machine to promote your name and you get a cut of the sales. Still, sign on for a lifetime? What if the deals are 10 times better 5 years from now? A sane contract would at least last a few years or as long as you are employed. What if UFC sucks at getting merchandise deals? Or decides Brock Lesnar is the only merchandise they want to sell? You don’t get to negotiate any of these issues?
by bignerd on Nov 20, 2008 5:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree that lifetime is extreme. But this is also where I think they get you with the whole maximum exposure thing. UFC probably says we get your merchandising rights because we made you who you are. But I really have no idea. I do not have any idea what fighter rights are. That Iceman dvd, how much does Liddell get? I have no idea. Any of the DVD sales, what do the fighters get? No clue.
Does anyone know about the WWE people? Obviously your Austins, Michaels, Mick Foley, Undertaker, etc. SURELY they got a very nice chunk of their merchandise. I actually think some of them designed it themselves, pretty sure Austin did anyway. But I mean, also think that there are some people that don’t deserve any money because the WWE made them who they are. They gave them their character and name, etc. (Not all of them of course). With the UFC using the WWE model, allegedly, this makes a lot of sense. UFC didn’t create characters obviously, but they did make these fighters into stars or whatever you want to call them.
by RollinOnShabbos on Nov 20, 2008 5:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, people still think I am Biased Against The UFC?
I have been warning this may happen earlier this year, specially with the merchandising contract and the banning of sponsors. Basically, fighters are getting screwed left and right to the benefit of the UFC.
But, not like anyone cared because the UFC could do no wrong.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 5:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I still don’t think they did, buddy. Oh, and EXC is still dead.
by subo on Nov 20, 2008 7:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unlike some people, I support all MMA and fighters, not just orgs.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Something that is bothering me… In baseball or football, it is a team’s best interest to perform well. This means that teams are always looking for the best players, and an elite performer always has a job. The playoffs and championship reward those teams that excel in the sport.
At this point in time, in the sport of MMA, skill is not valued to the same degree.
by starvin on Nov 20, 2008 7:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
absolute bull shit
most call me a UFC nuthugger, and its pretty much true. but this is an absolute load of crap. you cut someone because of their ability, or their behavior, not because they wouldnt sign over all their rights. this pisses me off.
by MicahW on Nov 20, 2008 8:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I still think it’s retarded that everyone pretty much shitted on both sides(UFC and Fitch) without knowing all the details…and we STILL don’t know all the details.
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 20, 2008 8:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Damnit… hopefully they work something out… sucks to see it all go public like this. But maybe this is what it needed.
by Nick Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 9:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
UFC is now the new WWE
WHAT A BUNCH OF HORSE SH—. Am I the only one who thinks Dana is so envious of the fighters life styles that he does everything he can to always be the center of attention. Correction he wants to be bigger than all the fighters. Didn’t we just have one of the biggest live gates for a UFC event? Every time I see him or hear him talk he sounds more and more like Vince Mcmahon. Do the WWE have life time rights on likenesses? “its true its true” “Can you smell what the rock is cooking”. Its a Heman power play telling everyone else do what we say or your out. They’re trying to make an example out of Fitch, and AKA. Mike Swick and Kos are bitches if they don’t up for their team and the principle of it. Divide and conquer. Brock is the heavy weight champ Dana wanted to fight Tito. this is becoming scripted sports entertainment.
by son of mark on Nov 20, 2008 9:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone think Koscheck...
will send a message when(if) he fights on the Fight for the Troops card? I would not at all be surprised if Koscheck ran away the whole fight or came in over weight. I wouldn’t be surprised at all. He knows he’s getting dropped anyways, so why give the UFC a good fight? That doesn’t help him out at all. Neither does putting up a shitty performance, but at least it hurts the UFC.
by Discman2 on Nov 20, 2008 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That’s a guaranteed way to kill your career ala Kalib Starnes.
by cyph on Nov 20, 2008 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No way in hell
All that would do is make him look really bad to everyone, and kill any future chance he has to fight again.
by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve always supported Dana in all the things he’s done, sometimes it was hard to agree, but I still gave him the benefit of the doubt…
But I am in awe of this. Jon Fitch fought for a title in his last fight. And he got cut because he didn’t want to sell his likeness for a lifetime?
I always thought the whole, we need a fighters union idea was trash. But it is apparent we really do, because the UFC is asking alot of these fighters, and cutting them because of something so petty is foolish.
I see Dana’s view, but there has to be a better way. I can only hope that the AKA fighters find new management or come to some sort of compromise.
Just…wow…
The UFC is playing a dangerous game. I think they’ve got everything under control…but god, if they piss off enough people…anything can happen.
by kyfm621 on Nov 20, 2008 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not happy with this, I think it’s terrible that the UFC is using their power in the industry to black-ball fighters into signing or get cut. I also think that fighters are really taking a giant risk by not signing.. Where are they going to go to see the kind of money the UFC is paying them, with that sort of exposure and access to top-tier sponsors?
It’s a shame that it has to come to this really, I expect those fighters that don’t sign will likely never see themselves on a PPV again (for any org), certainly not a successful one. Depends on they feel about that. They’ll probably have to look for a new career but they didn’t have to sell themselves out. In this economy I don’t think I’d want to be looking for a new job though.
by pr0cs on Nov 20, 2008 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
UFC dolls, that's what you fired them for?
The more I think about this the more it seems the ufc wants to dominate every aspect of the industry even dolls or “ACTION FIGURES”. I really don’t see a 6-12 year old kid wanting a Randy or GSP doll for Xmas. Will they come with a title belt or special gi with sponsors on it. So who is there real target demo? Us, twenty to forty five year olds buying dolls. Sound really close to fruity. They will not crack the children’s demo because most parents don’t like to think of their kids getting payed to fight. Maybe I’m wrong but Fitch and company are warriors all of them and to cut them for that reason sounds petty.They are saying If you don’t want to play my game get the Fu&k out. His example will set a president. There is a growing number of world class fighters on the outs with Dana. He’s creating his own competition and Bastardizing his own brand. The list of top fighters not involved with the UFC is growing.
by son of mark on Nov 20, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
My bad video games
Sorry I wanted to say video games insted of dolls. Playing nofriendo is much more important than dolls. Or is it?
by son of mark on Nov 20, 2008 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
what can the hardcores do for Jon Fitch and AKA
the hardcore community needs to band together and help AKA fighters stand up to this crap. enough is enough, if Dana is cutting fighters just to make a point to other fighters then that is absolutly crap. we need to find a way as the core fanbase fo the UFC to make dana white’s double parking his ferrari ass treat people with respect. i dont have any ideas yet but jesus mary and joseph i am livid right now
by bearcox13 on Nov 20, 2008 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
!["I matured a lot after leaving the UFC, I began to see things with different eyes, I changed my game to follow the trend of the MMA world. They pay you to fight and want entertainment, and if you're not entertaining, if you're boring, there's a line behind you waiting to fight. It's a job market. To keep up, you have to struggle to stay exciting... Wanderlei (Silva) [has stayed in the UFC] even while losing three of his five fights, because, even though he is losing, they're the best fights of the night. He puts on a show, and that's what guys want." -- Thales Leites](http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/103198/2_small.jpg)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
