UFC’s legal department now lists Dethrone, One More Round, and Rolling Stone as a list of sponsors that will not be approved for UFC 100 on July 11. Unacceptable sponsors for UFC 100 also include online Poker sponsors Full Tilt Poker, Ultimate Bet, and Party Poker.
They would have to pay a $100,000 fee to the UFC for the right to sponsor a fighter
over 2 years ago
Anton Tabuena
53 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
what? why? UFC is so freaking dumb sometimes. Why are they taking money from the fighters?
by TruthSeeker1223 on Jun 25, 2009 10:44 AM EDT reply actions
The reasoning is pretty simple. The UFC pays all the costs in regards to producing, advertising, etc for a show.
One More Round pays nothing to the UFC for advertisement rights so their product can be shown on fighters shorts or whatever on a PPV or free show.
UFC says if you want your product to be advertised in our shows, you need to pay us some money.
The fighters get paid their money for plenty of other things than just getting in the ring with the logo on their shorts. They appear in ads, as pictured above, show up to events for the product, etc. So it’s well within the UFC’s rights to expect some sort of compensation for featuring their product.
Does it suck? Sure, I guess so. But welcome to the wonderful world of business. Do you think any Affliction fighters get away with not wearing some sort of Affliction garb? Doubtfully, not that I’ve paid much attention.
by LiuLang on Jun 25, 2009 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Something can be a legitimate business practice and still be unethical/shitty/etc.
I really hate this sort of defense. “Well, that’s business, nothing to see here.” It’s still limiting options for fighters and, therefore, taking money out of their pockets.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Jun 25, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Though I believe fully in the free market, I have to agree with you. Just because the UFC can justify their actions and can’t be held accountable criminally or civilly doesn’t make it ethical or even savvy. A lot of people seem to think the market is just money. But there are intangible forces at work that could come back to hurt the UFC in the long run. This seems like a short-sighted cash grab. If the UFC doesn’t treat the fighters right they will unionize or leave. Same with sponsors. Companies like Trader Joes have loyal employees who don’t feel the need to unionize because the company treats its employees right, even offering benefits to part-time employees. While the costs of cultivating loyalty may be high in the short term, it will pay dividends in the end.
But everything I just said is premised on my understanding of the situation. I don’t know anything about the UFC’s internal operations, so my opinion may be way off base.
What is unethical about it? Do you have some sort of basis to make this claim? Is 100k for the rights to have your logos pasted over a multi million dollar PPV events? Is the 100k for one event or all of them? Sounds to me like it’s a licensing fee.
And further to a point, do you know if 100k is a lot, too little or just right? Do you have any similar industry to compare it to as a baseline?
It really, really bugs me when people see a number like 100k and go “OMG SO MUCH MONEY THEY ARE BASTARDS” without having any idea if that’s actually a lot of money to any of those companies. Sure, 100k may be a lot of money to the average person, but not so much to a national company. If they didn’t have the UFC as a vehicle to advertise their products, do you think they would be as successful as they are? And be able to pay those fighters their sponsorships?
Maybe the fighters and managers should be a little more discerning before signing the dotted line and making sure that the prospects of the company look good and everything is fine with the UFC.
What my point boils down to in the end, is that people are crying foul because they see a big dollar number and the UFC is being omg evil. Yet, no one knows if this even affects the fighter or have any concrete information on the situation. Depending on the contract, he may get paid regardless of what the UFC does. I doubt they have a “we got screwed by the UFC, so you don’t get paid” clause in their sponsorship contracts.
by LiuLang on Jun 25, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It’s unethical because the UFC wants to make money? Is it unethical because the UFC want to charge us $200 for almost nosebleed seats? If no one is calling rape for paying 4x the amount we pay for Affliction seats, why are we calling unethical to the UFC for charging $100k rights to advertise? It’s called market power and they’re exercising it.
It serves two purpose: they keep condomdepot.com from appearing on fighter’s shorts and keep only the top advertisers not fly-by-night advertisers on UFC events.
Is it unethical? no not really but it’s still a dick move on their part. The UFC already controlled which sponsors got on their shows because they had to approve all sponsors already, this has nothing to do with that it’s just a squeze move and there is nothing wrong with any of us saying that it sucks ass.
Its not any less of a dick move by the clothing companies trying to get cheap advertising by bypassing the company providing your exposure. I wouldn’t doubt it if Tapout was getting pissed that they are paying a lot of money to have thier logo on the mats while their competitors pay a fraction of the cost for fighters to wear shirts and give plugs at the end of fights. The UFC seems to value partnerships, if you aren’t willing to have symbiotic relationship than you aren’t welcome to do business in the UFC. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.
Tapout also sponsors fighters in the same manner as the other clothing companies too, they play the game same as everyone else. It’s not a dick move at all for companies to sponsor fighters and give them extra money nor does it cost the UFC any money to have guys wander around decorated like NASCAR’s. The UFC already approves all sponsors so there was no problem with keeping out sponsors that may harm the UFC in any way either for that matter. What this comes down to is the equivalent to a kickback to the UFC in order to get through the door on a fighter’s ass, you can try and justify it however you want but it is what it is.
For starters, questions of ethics will ultimately be judged individually and there are very very few 100% objective truths in the world.
Making money isn’t a quality defense for these sorts of arguments, however. Is it unethical for a business to push the limits of environmental damage (and in some cases where there are no laws, is it OK to rape and pillage the environment) in the name of profits? Is it ethical to charge $5 for a bottle of water to disaster victims? Is it ethical to dupe old people into “investment” deals?
In every single instance, you can make the claim that one side “just wants to make some money.” That doesn’t make it OK.
This, undoubtedly, takes money out of fighter’s pockets. Even without trying to calculate the value of sponsorships and expected revenue lost, just take the $100k fee. Either a) the companies don’t pay the fee and hence, don’t pay the fighters or b) they pay the fee which is $100k which could have gone to fighters.
The UFC certainly has every right to run their business the way they see fit. That doesn’t mean they should be excused for making leverage plays like this. I’m also not trying to say this is an example of morally bankrupt behavior, and I don’t know how much this affects fighters financially. But I’m sure if you ask fighters and managers, you won’t find many who give decisions like this the huge pro-Zuffa thumbs up.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You’re saying that if the sponsors pay 100k to the UFC, then they are paying 100k less to the fighters. I don’t think it’s a zero sum game like you stated. I also don’t agree with your comparison between what the UFC is doing to the raping and pillaging of the environment. That analogy is way off base. The 100k is definitely going to put a dent into the advertising budget of a few smaller companies. That’s for sure. However, this case is directly related to sponsorship of fighters during UFC 100, the biggest UFC event in history.
This move only stop certain sponsors from advertising during the UFC 100 event (and likely future UFC events as well). It doesn’t stop sponsors from sponsoring fighters overall. How is that different from Budweiser paying to put their logo on the mat? It does not prevent sponsors from sponsoring any fighter outside of the UFC event. There are only a finite amount of advertising space for the UFC events (5 main events usually with 10 fighters). If one sponsor gets excluded, there will be others that will step in to take their place. As the UFC popularity grow, there will be no shortage of sponsors who will clamor to sponsor fighters, especially when there’s only 10 slots in any UFC event.
Sure, some fighters may lose a 10% here or there for not receiving the sponsorship from a gambling site or porn site. And sure, some other legit advertiser may be excluded from the UFC events. However, how is this any different from the NFL having an “official sponsor?” At least in the UFC, there are a list of approved sponsors to choose from. If I have to take a bet, I would say that Stitch will get a new sponsor come UFC 100. He’s in every single main event!
How much is 15-25 minutes of advertising worth to 1 to 1.5 million PPV viewers? The UFC is exploiting their market power. What used to be free is no longer free. After we step back from the initial shock, it makes perfect business sense.
by cyph on Jun 25, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not trying to suggest that the UFC’s sponsorship practices are on level with dumping toxic waste into rivers and lakes. I was simply pointing out that “there’s nothing wrong with trying to make money” doesn’t excuse unethical behavior.
And this policy is most certainly a zero-sum game. Sponsors don’t have unlimited funds. $100k going to the UFC is $100k they can’t give to fighters.
I’m wondering how many people are just thinking about the big name guys. Because if you break down how much mid- and low-tier fighters are making, UFC sponsor embargoes are a huge deal. Just looking at a guy who makes $40k/$40k (I think someone like Diego is in this group)…30% of that is going to taxes right off the bat. Then you have to pay for trainers/corners/etc. $80k quickly becomes something like $30-40k. Of course there are potential official and unofficial bonuses, but those are still subject to tax, etc. And that’s a guy who main events smaller shows. Look at the guys making $8k and $8k who already have trouble getting sponsors.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You can’t assume the apparel companies are giving fighters as much as they can. Of that 100k fee, what if fighters would have only gotten 50k, but now they grudgingly give the UFC 100k? Yes, the fighters are getting the short end of the stick, but that is different than your point.
One positive is that it may test the bounds of what amount of money can be drawn from sponsors. But again the downside is that the bigger beneficiary of this will be the UFC, not the fighters.
Also, everyone pays taxes. I’d imagine there are some ways for fighters to minimize taxes on their training costs, probably by starting their own company which would take in purses/sponsorships and expense training/nutrition/travel/etc…
This is no different than any other major sport in the US.
All players unions/organizations have to approve sponsors before their players can be signed. In the case of the UFC, these fighters would have little or no notoriety at all without the UFC & therefore not even receive these offers if they were not in the UFC.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
you've accidentally hit the big rub
there’s no fighter’s union in the UFC. Nor is there full time pay. Nor is there comprehensive medical coverage.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Does this mean
we might see a one more round MMA organization soon?lol
It means they will quickly run to Strikeforce like Full Tilt did.
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, growing up as a child Kimbo Slice was never given any bread with his meals. This is why he insists people... give him his bread."
by xFenixKnightx on Jun 25, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t One More Round Stich Duran’s company?
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jun 25, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
UFC 100 is a huge event, and I see what their point is…but 100,000 grand to even be on a fighter’s shorts? Until the UFC is capable of providing more for fighters in the way of medical coverage, ect, I think a more feesable approach would be for companies to pay 1/4 of what the fighter gets to the UFC. I hate to see money taken out of fighter’s pockets…but I suppose if the UFC wants to be the big leagues of MMA, they need to get rolling early, before they really are a major sporting event.
by Kaleb Kelchner on Jun 25, 2009 11:28 AM EDT reply actions
this isn't about the money
this is about the UFC wanting to position themselves as the merchandising agent for the fighters giving them even more power over the fighters’ careers.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jun 25, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Correct!
But this is not breaking news. UFC wants to control every aspect of a fighters career and rights (merchandising contract, video game, toys, sponsors, etc). Pretty much what the WWE does except the UFC may let them keep their birth name if they leave the promotion. =)
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jun 25, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I never thought about the “free advertising” for the clothing manufacturing so I guess that makes sense, just that $100k seems awfully steep. Some sort of fee seems reasonable but $100k seems rather excessive to me.
It’s not free, they used to pay the fighters and now they will have to pay a whole lot more, but instead of the fighter it will go to the UFC.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jun 25, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
These seem to be sponsors that are a ton of fighters stuff. Maybe they are targeting the big fish for this large event? I remember when Joe Lauzon sold space on his walk out shirt at 78 to pretty much anyone. I wouldn’t think this is a global thing applied to all sponsors, but I would like to hear more about it. I doubt we have anywhere close to all the details.
There are exceptions I guess,
Like guida’s carpenters union.
by Anton Tabuena on Jun 25, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Word on the street is One More Round is bankrupt and/or going out of business very soon. Dethrone is just getting themselves on their feet (formerly Stagr and Mar brands).
Ecko is going to have two fully sponsored fighters on this card – Mir and Bisping.
It’s likely that this $100K limit is for any new sponsors that are trying to capitalize on the branding exposure opportunity that is UFC 100. It also seems (totally my speculation) that they are forming a kind of pecking order for companies that are similar in business. For example, the poker companies, the clothing companies, the alcohol brands, etc. Seems like there are primary sponsors, secondary, etc.
by TheCava on Jun 25, 2009 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
That’s right, they do. Guess that’s out the window now.
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, growing up as a child Kimbo Slice was never given any bread with his meals. This is why he insists people... give him his bread."
by xFenixKnightx on Jun 25, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Wrong
Stitch is sponsored by One More Round; he has nothing to do with them other than that. I’ve met the guy that owns One More Round – name of Jim Baltutis; seriously nice fella. Might shoot him an email to find out wtf is going on…
by VikingPhotography on Jun 26, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
this isn’t taking money out of the fighters pockets, its opening more doors for more fighters. the ufc is the only successful promotion (affliction is about done, strikeforce hasnt proven itself, and dream could croke at any moment). we watched what happened when affliction spent all sorts of money, great for the fighters, but how many? it broke the promotion and 20 fighters benefited out of what, 200 top fighters, and maybe 600 high level pro fighters.
the ufc provides a home for for fighters, provides money for fighters. the ufc has talked about weekly live shows, for that they’ll need to atleast double their roster (more fighters benefit) and they’ll need more money. stop bitching every time the ufc (a business) tries to make money.
Heres why this really sucks for a fighter
They enter into these sponsorship agreements that most likely contain clauses preventing them from being sponsored by companies in a similar field (and there are very few fields that sponsor MMA). The fighter is now completely out of luck if that company can’t get cleared (and they wouldn’t know until after they signed the agreement).
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
by Day Man on Jun 25, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It is a very dangerous game to play. These up-n-coming mma clothing brands will live and die by the exposure they get from UFC ppvs. Look at Silver Star, they have been around for nearly 10 years, and only recently have blown up, selling out of their styles right after UFC events – specifically due to the GSP and Spider Silva sponsorships (this info comes directly from the CEO himself, in recent interviews). So if I’m the UFC and I’m seeing vendors make big $$ off of my product, I have to put guidance in place to get a piece of that action.
Since there is no union to represent fighters rights to earn $$ from sponsorships, the UFC has every right to run their business how they see fit. They are reaching a point where they are putting a premium on their brand. It’s part of the evolution of the sport.
by TheCava on Jun 25, 2009 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Fighters unite
Until there is a fighter’s union, the UFC management has all the power in its relationship with fighters, and that should come as a surprise to no one.
Hang on
If you’re watching golf, or tennis (I know most people here aren’t, just work with me here), do you see the players pause mid-interview and say “I’d like to thank CondomDepot, Jesus Didn’t Tap, Golden Palace,” etc.? No, you don’t. There’s no equivalent to this in other major individual sports. The big-name sponsors like Budweiser and Harley Davidson are paying big money for the right to be associated with the UFC’s broadcasts. Why should they allow third parties to advertise on what are increasingly valuable broadcasts without getting a cut of the action?
Now, if you want to point out that the UFC has gotten away with lowballing fighters with the implied promise they can make up for it in sponsorships, and that should feel obligated to upgrade undercard fighters’ pay to make up for the lost revenue, that’s fair game. But I can’t blame UFC at all for not wanting all these small-timers cluttering up their broadcasts without getting compensated for it.
Exactly...
If you make it more difficult for fighters to get sponsorship money in the front end, you should increaase their base pay. Let’s see if this happens.
by E_liminatorjr on Jun 25, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
They don’t “thank their sponsors,” but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think golfers are paid for the brands on their hats and clothes.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If UFC didn’t want the condom depot to air on their events then all they would have to do is not ok them, charging them $100k for the right to pay fighters money for advertising is irrelevant to controlling which sponsors are or aren’t allowed to sponsor fighters because the UFC always had that power.
I think that every one has a point here. Yeah is it kinda shitty to take away a clothing brands legs (One More Round) at at the same time take a little money away from the fighters. There are a few things to look at.
For example Affliction featured GSP in their little video on their site and also have a GSP sig shirt. If GSP worked the deal much like other athletes he gets royalties from each shirt that is sold (Chuck has a shirt there wo along with a PIT one). Velasquez has two shirts with dethrone (the team V one and the brown pride). Cain probably gets money for each shirt that is sold.
Also when you see a fighter in a main event (Ken Flo at 101) a fan who just sees him thinks wow i like him i wanna get soe thing with his name on it. Many of the fighters have a shop tab on their web sites that connect the fan to all sig items (GSP fight club use to have it). Im sure losing a spot at UFC 100 is bad and it sucks for the companies but the fighters will still get paid.
I think its a greedy move by the UFC but i get why they are doing it.
I wonder if the UFC is going to start charging arena’s 100k for each sponsor that appears on the inside of the arena. You know, for all those paying ticket holders who get bombarded with advertisements when they go to the arena. Those UFC fans would never see the advertisements if there wasn’t a UFC show.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
