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