Does the UFC's Language Get Them Exclusive Rights to Fighters' Likenesses for All Video Games?

by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 10:54 AM EST in News Comment 31 comments

With this video game licensing agreement, the claim is that UFC is asking for a lifetime exclusive deal for video game rights. Is that true, and if so, that's a pretty steep thing to ask from anybody.

That is true, that we did ask for exclusive rights to the video game. Every guy, even big stars — there's no huge stars coming out of AKA — every huge star that is in the UFC has given us their video game rights.

Do you think tomorrow there's going to be the Jon Fitch clothing line is going to come out, or the new swimwear by Jon Fitch, or the new Jon Fitch this or that? Do you think any of that's coming out tomorrow? I guarantee you the Chuck Liddell one could. The Matt Hughes, maybe. I could come up with 50 stars. The Forrest Griffin, the this or that

Like I said, there's guys that have been partners with us in million ways. Not just on the video game, but on a lot of other things — a lot of other things. This camp (AKA) has not.

Italics mine.

-- Photo via ign.com

0 recs | Comment 31 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He still didn’t answer the question why it was necessary for them to sign it.

Just because everyone else is doing it is not an answer.

Please someone needs to do a hard hitting interview on this and stay on point to get the answers. I have read ten different stories on this and not one of them does Dana answer why it is necessary they sign it. He gives some reasons like he says it’s good for them and the UFC but he isn’t answering the question.

by mattman73 on Nov 20, 2008 11:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The answer is simple…

Because he deems it necessary. If you don’t like it don’t work with Zuffa.

No hard hitting reporting required.

by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The answer might be simple

But it’s not “our way or the highway”. That’s a demand, not an argument.

by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I posted the argument already…

These guys have a problem with their “likeness”.

Their likeness is worth shit without Zuffa.

The fighters have a problem with the “demands”

Let me ask you a question… have you ever sat down with a “victim” and listened to their sob story (especially a woman) and then gone and sat down with the supposed “perpetrator”.

Two different stories right? Well guess which story the fighters hear? Do you think the aka fighters know that Zinkin has a personal axe to grind with Dana? Do you think they would appreciate it if they knew?

Again if you’re looking out for your fighters best interest what would you advise them to do in this situation?

So on one hand you have the all power Zuffa with the “my way or the highway” narrative and on the other you have Zinkin with his pride getting in the way of his clients best interests…

The problem is the fighters only hear one side of the story.

But at the end of the day… Like I said before when there is only one avenue and even if there ever comes another one in this industry only “door men” will last… if you want to be an “agent” go to hollywood.

by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That's part of the story

But not all of it. That doesn’t explain why they won’t accept likeness agreements with time limits on them. My guess is that the UFC wants to strip any other organization or entity the ability to make a MMA game insofar as using stars and not just characters. If that’s the case, say so. What you’re describing is incentivization, not a delineation of the idea why signing LIFETIME EXCLUSIVE rights away for video games to the UFC is the ONLY option. No one has made that argument yet.

by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Luke it’s the only option because if your “likeness” value is in direct correlation with your promotion by Zuffa then Zuffa states the terms.

If you own a farm you protect your crops don’t you?

I am not arguing that fitch has to sign this – only that he should understand what the reality is which I doubt his people are explaining to him.

Imagine for a second there were no movies, or theaters or video cameras.

A group set up a movie studio, theaters and created a video camera.

This group lost alot of money getting all this up and finally accepted by a decent portion of the population where people who wanted to act and direct can make a living doing what they loved.

Not only that but now people can teach acting classes, write acting blogs, etc…

This group not only created this but figured out how to sustain it. (paying the actors, etc…)

Other groups have come and gone trying to do the same thing but couldn’t.

Now this successful group in order to increase its exposure reinvests in growing the industry and asks it’s actors to do other things to get this form of entertainment more exposure.

Now as it delves into new areas like video games which could get it’s actors more exposure as well as the form of entertainment – it asks its actors to sign a lifetime exclusive because the company they are working with is investing alot in the launch of this and they don’t want to blaze a trail for one of it’s competitors…

Now what would you as an “agent” tell your client (actor) to do?

Knowing this group has the only theaters, movie studio and working video camera at this time?

knowing the chances of you making money with another video game is nil?

by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

This is more helpful. Thanks. It sounds like this is the crux of the argument:

“Now as it delves into new areas like video games which could get it’s actors more exposure as well as the form of entertainment – it asks its actors to sign a lifetime exclusive because the company they are working with is investing alot in the launch of this and they don’t want to blaze a trail for one of it’s competitors…”

by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What is Zuffa investing in the video game? I was under the impression that they were being paid for use of their marks and fighters and not the other way around.

by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn’t have to be capital investment. Zuffa’s throwing its weight behind this video game effort by supporting it with all of the top stars in its stable, and the best way to accomplish this is in solidarity.

People are confused and turned off by product wars. Look at the HD DVD vs. BluRay thing that ended this year, or all the problems in boxing these days due to all of the various promotions. You don’t want to buy a boxing game, only to be denied access to your favorite fighter.

The UFC is doing everything it can to propel MMA into the mainstream. Solidarity is still required at this point if forward progress is to be made.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way the conversatations were nice and cordial initially but then when Zinkin thought he smelled some weakness he started overplaying his hand then he got bitch slapped….

see the clients/fighters only hear about the bitch slap.

by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“I just don’t understand these knuckleheads. These fucking managers, man. You know, I ask Chuck Liddelll to jump off a cliff, he’ll jump off the fucking cliff, bro. Yet, these guys, you know, the Jon Fitch’s off the world, I ask them to go jump off a cliff – and really it’s not even that big of a cliff – and he has some retard whispering in his ear telling him not to jump. Just jump off the fucking cliff, trust me. We’re all in this together, bro.” – UFC President Dana White, being assigned quotes I make up in my head.

by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs

Rec’d for awesomeness

by Day Man on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t even agree with the sentiment, but that’s awesome. Rec’d.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

I totally disagree, but it’s too awesome to not Rec.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Nov 20, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice to finally see a comment turn green around here. Couldn’t you guys reduce the necessary number of Rec’s to 3 or something?

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Nov 20, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow...

This game better be as awesome as Super Mario Bros.

by JVelez on Nov 20, 2008 11:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i see no problem with this. Fighter don’t like it they can fight elsewhere. I used to hate playing a NBA game or MLB and go to play with the bulls and no MJ. or Play with the Giants and No Barry Bonds. Don’t wont your likeness in the game then don’t fight for the company.

"If I wanted to spend a half hour between two hairy legs I'd go to your mother's house." -Don Frye

by Pitbull on Nov 20, 2008 11:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I see no problem eather hear,I Maybe Fitch thinks he will get a better offer down the road for his video game likeness when Affliction comes out with there Video game in the future? To me this all boils down to Duane Zinkin and Bob Cook trying to over play there hand with the AKA fighters.

by Shocbomb on Nov 20, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

business sucks

by Patrick79x on Nov 20, 2008 11:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Biting the UFC right now is dumb for anybody. The Economy is in the toilet organizations are falling by the wayside and the UFC is getting stronger. Brock Lesnar is pulling in new revenue and new eyes into the sport. The video game good or bad will fly off the selves. Fighting with a company you may have to crawl back to is stupid. Sign the contract grit your teeth and wide the wave to financial security. I rather take a deal where i may feel under paid then take a deal i know im getting overpaid and in all likely will never receive. Affliction and other company’s give a big shiny contract with small print saying if we fall you fall. UFC aint falling. Go with the sure thing than wishing on a prayer.

"If I wanted to spend a half hour between two hairy legs I'd go to your mother's house." -Don Frye

by Pitbull on Nov 20, 2008 11:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

What if the UFC wanted exclusive rights to negotiate with you and a no-compete for 3 years after your contract expired? Should fighters continue to bend over backwards in that sense?

The fact of the matter is that some terms are going to be unacceptable from the side of the employed.

by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fighters simply can’t possibly hope to negotiate against this without a union.

With every new piece of info that comes out, my support for Dana solidifies.

by subo on Nov 20, 2008 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dana is well within his rights to runs his business how he see fits. This includes releasing Jon Fitch.

IMO, he still comes off as a major douche in this whole thing. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that any time a fighter has contractual issues with Zuffa, Dana wants to kill the fighter’s management (see Couture, Randy and Emelianenko, Fedor). It seems like Dana has a hard time separating personal feelings and business, and anyone who isn’t willing to automatically tow the company line must have a personal vendetta against him.

by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With every now piece of info that comes out I don’t blame the UFC at all for taking this stand with AKa fighters, If there was a MMA union Fitch would have no choice at all to sign over his rights . Just look at the Video games that MLB players union backs and other shit like Baseball cards all players are on them and have no choice in the matter. This happens in all other major sports why should it be any different for the UFC.

by Shocbomb on Nov 20, 2008 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It’s really not against the AKA fighters per say but the AKA management.

by mmalogic on Nov 20, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s not true at all.

Go search “barry bonds mlbpa” and click on the first link (should be titled, “ESPN – Bonds will be individually licensed – MLB”).

There’s a reason guys like Bonds, Jordan, etc. aren’t in video games.

by Mike Fagan on Nov 20, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

White says it isn’t about the agreement now. (here)

by mythbuster on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That’s just a rehash of the USA Today article.

by Luke Thomas on Nov 20, 2008 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m all for the UFC counter-programming, and doing what’s best to defeat their competitors within reason. If a competent competitor can come along and challenge the UFC that’s fine. Conversely, if that doesn’t happen I’m certainly not going to support a promotion with a bad product. Obviously, if Fitch or others don’t like the terms, they don’t have to work for Zuffa. I’m generally about as free market a person as there is.

With that said, White’s argument that, because Fitch isn’t as popular as other fighters, the agreement shouldn’t be a big deal isn’t an argument at all. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the situation to make a judgment, but any sort of agreement that includes the word “lifetime” shouldn’t be glossed over. Situations in life are ever changing, and I don’t believe anyone here is qualified to predict the future certainty. I think those who says that Jon Fitch’s decision is stupid are dealing in premature conjecture at this point.

by Cannon Jacques on Nov 20, 2008 12:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

People Are Forgetting A Few Points Here

1) The UFC has made it pretty clear with their Merchandising Agreement that the UFC wants to ow your name, meaning that if the UFC cuts you tomorrow, they can continue to make money off of you and PREVENT you from making money yourself. That was the original deal that all agents were against. If the UFC offered me this deal before, I would be very very cautious to sign a new one. I believe this is NOT JUST A VIDEO game likeness contract, but a likeness contract for all merchandising, which inclues action figures, video games, clothing line etc.

2) The UFC made it clear that they were giving “Certain” fighters the privilige to modify the contract. That means that Chuck could have signed it, but, he have had that stipulation removed from the contract. UFC would only let their cash cows have the privilige to these negotiations.

Because of their track record, the comments that I hear, and what has transpired, I don’t see how anyone can side on behalf of Dana and the UFC.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Nov 20, 2008 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I can tell you exactly how…

1. The UFC is the only mma org that is making money, they are the one’s who’ve taken the sport from the fringe to the big time. They have done this by doing things their way and their way only, if they aren’t gonna bend over for CBS why in the world would they bend over for AKA?.

2. Jon Fitch is not a marketable fighter, the idea that his video game rights or anyother rights are going to make him millions without the Zuffa brand is stupid and silly. Thanks to the UFC Fitch made 170k in one night plus sponsorships, where else is he going to make that kind of money?.

In reality Fitch has made a horrible mistake that he is going to regret for the rest of his career, he was on the doorstep of being a star and has ruined that because he’s listening to bad advice from management. The UFC brand is the only thing that matters to the vast majority of fans without it you might as well not even be fighting because most people don’t care who you are. Also by signing this agreement Fitch can guarantee some stability for himself and his family the fact that he threw that away is amazing to me because now he’s pretty much screwed.

by Raker on Nov 20, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs