Full Tilt Featured As Major Sponsor at UFC 93
It would be hard for anyone watching this past weekend's event to ignore the prominence of the Full Tilt Poker logos. Robert Joyner of MMA Payout discusses the company's emergence inside the octagon and the possible negative ramifications for future deals:
Full Tilt Poker made their first moves into the MMA space with a sponsorship of Randy Couture, but that may have been subsequent to a larger deal with the UFC being in the offing. The handling of approvals for Full Tilt sponsorship at UFC 92 and Fight For the Troops indicated that there was some larger force in effect as it pertained to the UFC and Full Tilt. Those that were getting deals were in a carrot and stick scenario with UFC, and others were rebuffed in getting the OK for similar deals. Full Tilt’s move into MMA and the deal with the UFC is a double edge sword. It opens up a new avenue of sponsor dollars to the fighters, one that wasn’t there before, but by virtue of the larger deal with the UFC, precludes other similar companies from entering the market (Zuffa contracts preclude fighters from having sponsors that directly compete with those of the UFC), which stifles competition ad limits the overall sponsor pool.
The addition of Full Tilt is a good sign considering the marketing cutbacks being undertaken by many companies. The acting commissioner of the Arena Football League explains how the contraction of sponsorship dollars contributed to his league canceling their 2009 season:
"The problem is with sponsorship dollars, primarily those related directly and indirectly to the automobile and mortgage industries," he says. "The long-standing cliché is that the economy in sports is somewhat bulletproof. In our mind, it might be considered somewhat bullet-resistant, but this has been a bazooka."
Though some may disagree with how Zuffa handles sponsorship matters, the fact that they're able to add new sponsors in the current economic climate is impressive. Increasing the number of revenue streams is of paramount importance to the growth of the UFC and, by extension, the entire sport. Cultivating a diverse portfolio of corporate sponsors from various industries will help Zuffa maintain a steady stream of marketing revenue when certain companies and sectors of the economy experience unique financial difficulties.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Comments
how smart is it for the UFC to accept money from a company which runs a business that is illegal in the United States
by #5mmafan on Jan 19, 2009 5:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
probably smart enough to know that there is nothing illegal about having them as sponsers. the ufc didn’t get to the point where it is today by being stupid.
by bdw on Jan 19, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i know its not illegal for them to accept the money, FullTilt runs commercials on TV. But those televison networks are not fighting to become sanctioned in various states around the country.
by #5mmafan on Jan 19, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you check, there is no way to gamble money on full tilt poker.net, which is who sponsored the UFC.
by Phildo on Jan 19, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup. All the poker sites have a free .net site and a for cash .com site. That way they can still advertise their brand legally in the US with the fulltilt.net site while trying to convert free game players into cash game players at their fulltilt.com site.
by Dropkick434 on Jan 19, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Online gaming hasn’t been established to be illegal in the U.S. From what I’ve seen, there’s no legal precedent one way or the other. It’s certainly no more illegal than wagering online on an MMA bout or a football game. The case can also be made that it’s a skill game and not even the same as a game of chance like sports wagering or casino games. As Phildo pointed out, gambling real money on the Full Tilt Poker.net is non-existent although one can on Full Tilt Poker.com.
by Cannon Jacques on Jan 19, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s all very confusing. The part of the law that puts online gaming into question was tacked onto a bill to tighten up security at ports in the US. The illegal part is getting the money from the bank to the poker site. But that’s not important here, the fact is, you can’t gamble on fulltultpoker.net, so #5mmafan’s point is completely wrong.
As a poker player, I find it interesting that Zuffa and the fertitas are on board with this. Real casinos and online poker sites/casinos really don’t get along very well.
by Phildo on Jan 19, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I play some online. I realize the whole thing operates in a huge gray area. Really, the poker sites and brick and mortar casinos are in direct competition, so the rivalry is logical in that sense. I would guess that Full Tilt’s money eased the casino/online tensions.
by Cannon Jacques on Jan 19, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
where does fulltiltpoker.net recieve the money they use to pay for advertising, and why does a company advertise for a service that brings them in zero dollars. i play poker online and i am very aware of the .com/.net scam that all major online card rooms use. as for the legality there is no grey area, it is illegal to gamble or place a bet online or through any transmission wire. the UIGA which was placed in the safe ports act makes it very clear and removes any ambiguity in past laws such as the Federal Wire Act, which the 5th circuit court already ruled made internet gambling illegal.
by #5mmafan on Jan 20, 2009 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















