Update From Josh Gross On EA Sports MMA Plus Reactions After Zuffa Warns Fighters
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 6, 2009 6:23 PM EDT
Email
Print
After it was reported in the UG, (and later on other websites, including BE) Zuffa issued a life time ban warning to any Non-UFC(Zuffa) fighters looking to be a part of the upcoming EA Sports MMA video game. Here is the original warning message posted on the UG:
I hear that all mma managers were informed that if any of their clients not currently under contract with the UFC..... sign to be a part of the EA game.......the will forever be banned for fighting in the UFC.
Interestingly enough, the gaming world has taken notice to what is going on between EA Sports and Zuffa (THQ). Between MMAScraps, Sherdog, GameSpot, MMAPayout, and other media outlets, many fans and writers are expressing their opinions on Zuffa's hard nosed and strong arm tactics, something EA has been accusued of doing in the video game world, although applying it to the product, or in this case the fighters via a life ban could cause those that are morally inclined to cringe.
What I can tell you is that the fighters themselves have so far seemed to dismiss Zuffa's warning. As a matter of fact, it appears that EA Sports had already contacted most and signed them months before the warning was issued. So far the following names have been rumored to be signed with EA Sports MMA:
Fedor Emelianenko, Gegard Mousasi, Randy Couture, Frank Shamrock, Tim Sylvia, Frank Trigg, Gina Carano, Cyborg Santos, and EA Sports is currently associated with Strikeforce and Showtime, which means Affliction fighters could be on board as well. You can now also add Josh Barnett to the list of rumored fighters to appear on the EA Sports MMA game. From his twitter:
Up stoopid early but for a good reason anyway. I can't really say but it involves video game awesomness, I just have to go to LA to do it.
Nick Thompson also informed me that EA was very clear to all the fighters that they approached that all their information was meant to be confidential. It does appear that they have reached a good amount of fighters already. That could explain this quote in the Peter Moore GamaSutra article:
Although no official announcements of fighters for EA Sports MMA have been made, several leaks have indicated that top fighters not locked into the UFC are indeed stepping up and signing for Electronic Arts' title, which is due out in 2010 and developed by EA Tiburon.
Just like the UFC banned the IFL and any fighter that has signed with them, this threat is just to scare a few fighters away. At the end of the day, as we have learned in the Cro Cop situation, the UFC and the fighters will do what is best for them, and if Josh Barnett signs with EA, and beats Fedor, there is no possible way that Zuffa would not be interested in signing Barnett back into the UFC for a for sure title shot.
Update from Josh Gross over at SI:
The EA Sports skirmish
Causing a stir over the weekend were rumors — now confirmed by SI.com — of the UFC’s attempt to make it difficult, if not impossible, for fighters to sign a licensing agreement that would put their likeness in the recently announced “EA Sports MMA” title, which is set for release next year.
Beginning the week before July 4, UFC matchmaker Joe Silva, at the behest of Dana White, called managers with this message: If you’ve been in the UFC and think maybe you want to come back someday, or you haven’t had the pleasure and plan on fighting in the Octagon, you better not sign that EA licensing agreement.
White is said to be adamant that aligning with EA is no different than declaring war on the UFC and its wildly successful THQ-produced UFC 2009 Undisputed, which sold more than a million copies in its first month. Fighters, from world-class to journeyman, were told the prudent choice was to decline money offers from EA — deals with fighters on the level of Jason “Mayhem” Miller, Nick Diaz, Mo Lawal and Jake Shields, range from $5,000 to $15,000 for a one-game, two-year nonexclusive deal, according to multiple sources.In Miller's case, potential consequences weren't enough to prevent him from aligning with EA, the middleweight told SI.com. However other fighters, such as Nathan Diaz -- who avoided signing UFC's exclusive licensing game agreement with THQ, which provides most fighters with zero compensation and was at the center of the controversy that saw Jon Fitch banished from the UFC for 24 hours -- decided against participating in the EA sports title, according to his management.
Interestingt to point out that we can add fighters such as Mayhem Miller, Nick Diaz, Randy Couture, Jake Shields and Mo Lowal to the list of fighters appearing in the game. Randy Couture will be the only fighter from the UFC to appear on EA Sports MMA, and will actually be on the cover.
After the jump is a round up of the content and heated debates the warning issued by Zuffa has spawned:
MMAPayout:
http://mmapayout.com/2009/07/robinson-the-ufc-walking-a-fine-line-between-business-and-sport/
It would seem that Zuffa, owner of the UFC, is in the middle of operation clampdown. I’m referring to the banning of numerous apparel companies (or charging them a fee of $100,000) and now the alleged threat regarding the Electronic Arts (EA) MMA game.
In most cases I’m a supporter of the UFC when it comes to business decisions. Even if I think they are harsh or delivered in a not so couth manner, they still seem to work and whether we like it or not, the running of a promotion is a business. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the UFC has done a great deal for the sport and continues to do so.
Every now and then however, an issue arises that I just can’t comprehend. The threat of banning fighters from the UFC for life if they sign on with EA’s MMA game (a game that would compete against THQ’s UFC Undisputed), even if they don’t currently fight for the promotion, is simply outrageous and bordering on tyrannical. This is why I’m not completely convinced that we’ve heard both sides of the story, but just in case we have, here are my thoughts on how such a ban could actually damage the integrity of the sport, that is as long as the UFC continues with one of its other policies.
http://mmapayout.com/2009/07/ufc-allegedly-threatening-particpants-in-ea-mma-game/
The move is one that shifts the general opinion of the UFC from that of "That is a gangster move" (in a fawning "I Love Dana White’s Ruthlessness" mindset that some adhere to) to a "That is a gangster move, hmmm…let me refresh myself on what those RICO statutes cover" mindset. But I digress….
While this move is seemingly par for the Zuffa course, it isn’t exactly fresh material. The same threats were made when the IFL were enlisting fighters for their inaugural season. If fighter that appeared in the EA MMA game becomes available , White (much like Jon Fitch during the THQ debacle) will likely lack the courage of of his convictions and follow the money in making his decision to sign a fighter or not. In the meantime it adds to a general pall of animus and retribution in the air towards and coming from the UFC brass.
GameSpot:
The officia l story: Neither the UFC nor Ken Pavia's agency had responded to GameSpot's request for comment as of press time. EA declined to comment on the matter.
Bogus or not bogus?: Given the UFC's strong-arm business tactics in the past, this report seems entirely plausible. However, without firm confirmation from one of the parties involved one way or the other, it's impossible to say for certain.
Sherdog:
http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-and-the-joystick-18346
This fits in with the company’s modus operandi. It is a "you are either with us or against us" mentality that dominates nearly every relationship the company enters into. Fighters, management, sponsors and media who don’t toe the line have all felt the wrath of the overbearing giant at one time or another.
The corporate culture behind UFC is no different than what is practiced by many Fortune 500 companies. It is a maximization of profit at any cost and is seen as a positive by many in our society.
Why are people surprised at any of the actions of a company that is just one of many adhering to the "greed is good" mantra in a country that has seen business ownership -- individuals or shareholders -- take more and more of the profit while workers incomes, in inflation-adjusted dollars, have decreased.
Like a company that pollutes because the fines cost less than the savings polluting brings them, Zuffa leaves ethics out of the equation in favor of what will bring the greatest return on their investment.
Until this is looked at as unacceptable and hits them in the one place that they understand -- their wallet -- expect more of the same from them.
The Vancouver Sun:
According to the site, which claims to have confirmed the information with several fighter managers, all of whom wish to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, many clothing companies have been contacted by the UFC to inform them of the situation, and several others, such as Dethrone, Rolling Stone, and One More Round, have been shown the door.
This is the latest of a rash of recent business decisions by the UFC aimed at locking down the sport to their financial advantage. The most recent controversy came to light when managers were reportedly warned that if their fighters appeared in EA Sports' upcoming MMA video game, they would never fight in the UFC again. The UFC and game developer THQ recently released UFC: Undisputed for the PS3 and Xbox, which has since gone platinum.
MMA Scraps:
http://www.mmascraps.net/2009/06/fighters-to-forever-be-banned-from-ufc.html
In any case, if 100% true, this just plain blows. So let me get this straight, if I am an up and coming fighter fighting for an MMA organization not named UFC. I have to turn down money that I could feed my family with, just for the very slim chance that one day the UFC may sign me to a contract.
Listen this could all be smoke and mirrors or it could be misinterpreted, but we can still discuss. What happens to current UFC fighters that still own their image rights like Randy Couture and Lyoto Machida? This is just mind blowing to me if true.>
The UG:
Where the news first hit the internet boards, heated debates have broken out between fighters + MMA fans + business owners and MMA associates against Zuffa paid posters and supporters.
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/?go=forum_framed.frame&forum=1&thread=1482515&page=1&pc=3
lol, at "confirming".... is this like when he posted about speaking with his buddies at HBO and saying they had no interest in a Golden Boy Affliction pairing..... a couple of hours after ESPN posted a boxing article saying the exact same thing ... he tried to play it off like he was actually breaking that story...
btw, he's also the guy getting owned by Bo in this thread
Wharton > his University of Phoenix clownshoe ass
Even fighter/lawyer Nick Thompson joined in on the fun:
You are assuming that the employment supply and demand market is a perfect and free market. You are wrong. There isn't perfect information. Further, it is not a free market as the demand side is a monopoly (or at least an oligopoly) and the employees' are not unionized.
Conclusion: You should read some Nash and keep it with your copy of "Wealth of Nations."
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
195 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's a dick move on the part of Zuffa, but
I honestly don’t think that signing with something like EA sports will prevent the UFC from signing someone like Fedor.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.
'09 is the year of the FW's.
Nope. It’s just making fighters think twice and they hope to scare some off, but if you read my posts, it seems they could care less.
It sounds more like you people don’t know because the fighters and companies are not talking about it publicly.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
They can’t put that on paper or make it a public announcement because that WOULD cause some moral and legal problems. If you read my post above, most fighters were already contacted and signed by EA already, before the warning was even issued.
Your quotes are nebulous rumors because anyone involved is keeping their mouths shut, which is a smart idea. “Numerous top fighters” could mean anything.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
He is conveying them like they are facts and drawing conclusions from rumors. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I generally like to have what I say supported by more than just vague statements.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
You have to be more specific than that.
I am commenting or adding to the stories I find online, and share them. The fact that Zuffa issued this warning is pretty much confirmed now. Other than that, I am commenting on the reaction from the MMA community.
If you read my post above, most fighters were already contacted and signed by EA already
It’s just making fighters think twice and they hope to scare some off, but if you read my posts, it seems they could care less
So far Mayhem Miller has said he could care less. Who else? Also go ahead and list the “most fighters”, meaning > 50% of the fighters, who were signed by EA. You are using exaggeration and hyperbole to try and spin things the way you want.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jul 7, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well, my opinion is based off of the fighters that I have spoken to and the information I have found. The point of that is that fighters were already signed to do the EA video game before Zuffa even issued the warning. You concentrating on the context of the word “most” is a bit silly.
Just curious: in what context have you spoken to the fighters directly?
by An Old Friend on Jul 7, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
So, in the interest of transparency, you don’t work directly or indirectly for any entity with an interest in MMA—including groups or individuals like EA, HDNet, agents/agencies that represent athletes, etc.
by An Old Friend on Jul 7, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with some of your critiques...
However, you seem to have a lot of inside information, you possess an incredibly biased anti-UFC slant pro-everything else slant, you never get angry when flamed, and you seem to have a lot of time dedicated to the pursuit of your one sided agenda.
You’re not just an MMA fan are you?
What’s wrong with being just an MMA fan?
I love all MMA, and though sometimes people may criticize me for being anti UFC, I love the UFC and the WEC, and what they have done for the sport. WEC is one of my favorite shows to watch, and has given the lighter weight classes some name value in the states recently, which was unheard of before.
I don’t want to belabor the point any more than I have (which is plenty), but this is a serious question. There’s at least one prominent poster here who claims to work for Zuffa; most people keep this in mind when they read his posts, whether they believe it or not. I’m a little perplexed by your coy responses to a rather straightforward question.
by An Old Friend on Jul 7, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm guessing that you didn't know
that mmalogic and MMASuPreMaCy are the same person.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
Thanks for not using my name there
We would have been so over.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 7, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry if I call bullshit on you misrepresenting the facts, the few that we have, but I happen to like things to be stated honestly and as correctly as possible. Rather than saying most, why not go with “some”, “a few”, “several” or something else along those lines. You obviously put a lot of effort into your quest to spread your views to the masses, why not go that extra tiny bit and try to be more accurate and let them decide for themselves with a clear viewpoint.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Leave it to good old supremacy to root out and focus on every possibly bad thing about Zuffa.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Leave it to iiowyn to point out my posts are anti Zuffa.
=D
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 6, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Funny thing is EA deserves to get strong armed they smashed the better more inovative football game in “ESPN football” by buying out the rights to the nfl and they tried to do it with there fifa games.
This isn't a move
to fuck anyone. Its more of a protect the UFC move. By stopping the world class fighters who have earned their stripes in the UFC from using their UFC exposure to make a buck and sell video games.
I understand WHY Zuffa is doing this. I think Zuffa should match the offer from EA to make it fair. EA has a history of strong arm moves in the video game world. I think it is funny the are getting some of it back.
The fighters are the ones I feel for here. If ZUFFA really wants to keep the Barnetts/AA/Diaz etc out of this video game, pony up the cash and pay them.
By stopping the world class fighters who have earned their stripes in the UFC from using their UFC exposure to make a buck and sell video games.
Remember, the warning was issued to all fighters not in Zuffa or WEC, which means it applies to someone like Fedor or Mousasi, who have never competed in the UFC, although it is very likely this is just an empty threat, although Zuffa posters are making it seem like they mean business. =D
Its
strong arm tactics. If anyone here believes “lifetime ban” I have a bridge to sell you. Fedor, Barnett, Vitor, Shields, Diaz, hell ANY fighter who will make the UFC money next year will get a contract.
Although Zuffa guys are saying otherwise:
The reality is EA is not looking to sign up and coming fighters… they are looking to sign fighters who are somewhat established and would otherwise be looking to get into the UFC. Like a Jake Shields. If Jake Shields signs with EA, Zuffa will not and cannot bid for his services when his last 2 fights are up as lifetime video game rights is standard now to get into Zuffa. Do you think Shields will wait 2 years until EA’s license expires for his likeness?
This is the improbability. If a fighter signs with EA the chance of him fighting in a Zuffa org is nil.
Its definitely not just to stop the world class fighters. Those guys make enough money that they don’t need the UFC and aren’t worried about empty threats. The move is to stop the guys who know the UFC is their best shot at making a living in the sport in the future from jumping on board. This will only effect the borderline UFC guys which is a shame because they are the ones that could use the money and exposure the most.
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
Seems fair enough to me. Those fighters who have a plausible chance and interest to make it to the UFC have to weigh their options. If they don’t think they want to fight for the UFC then sign with EA. Makes sense to me really, seems like every other sport would be the same as well.
I’m more concerned with the ‘sign lifetime exclusive rights’ away, that seems a lot more harmful to fighters than this clause.
EA sports is one of the worst in the business when it comes to strong arming
Zuffa could learn a lot from them.
Yes, but they have yet to threaten programmers that if they work for THQ, they will never get hired by EA.
=D
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 7, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Huge Update On This Story from Josh Gross
The EA Sports skirmish
Causing a stir over the weekend were rumors — now confirmed by SI.com — of the UFC’s attempt to make it difficult, if not impossible, for fighters to sign a licensing agreement that would put their likeness in the recently announced “EA Sports MMA” title, which is set for release next year.
Beginning the week before July 4, UFC matchmaker Joe Silva, at the behest of Dana White, called managers with this message: If you’ve been in the UFC and think maybe you want to come back someday, or you haven’t had the pleasure and plan on fighting in the Octagon, you better not sign that EA licensing agreement.
White is said to be adamant that aligning with EA is no different than declaring war on the UFC and its wildly successful THQ-produced UFC 2009 Undisputed, which sold more than a million copies in its first month. Fighters, from world-class to journeyman, were told the prudent choice was to decline money offers from EA — deals with fighters on the level of Jason “Mayhem” Miller, Nick Diaz, Mo Lawal and Jake Shields, range from $5,000 to $15,000 for a one-game, two-year nonexclusive deal, according to multiple sources.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 7, 2009 1:28 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Good.
Ten grand is not worth jeopardizing even one UFC fight. Don’t take the money. Join the Borg. Assimilation is inevitable. Resistance is futile. Sorry, EA.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 7, 2009 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
In Miller’s case, potential consequences weren’t enough to prevent him from aligning with EA, the middleweight told SI.com. However other fighters, such as Nathan Diaz — who avoided signing UFC’s exclusive licensing game agreement with THQ, which provides most fighters with zero compensation and was at the center of the controversy that saw Jon Fitch banished from the UFC for 24 hours — decided against participating in the EA sports title, according to his management.
So Nate Diaz isn't in the EA game
I hope you’ll stop listing him as a potential participant.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 7, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
What I can tell you is that the fighters themselves have so far seemed to dismiss Zuffa’s warning. As a matter of fact, it appears that EA Sports had already contacted most and signed them months before the warning was issued. So far the following names have been rumored to be signed with EA Sports MMA:
Fedor Emelianenko, Gegard Mousasi, Randy Couture, Frank Shamrock, Tim Sylvia, Frank Trigg, Gina Carano, Cyborg Santos
correct me if im wrong but didn’t the UFC just sign trigg presumably after he had signed with EA
Correct, but...
Gross mentioned that Randy was the only fighter under Zuffa that will appear in the EA game. I wonder if Trigg somehow got out of it or if he was never in it in the first place. I guess we will see what else is reported on these unique scenarios.
I Thought This Was Funny...
Not only did EA Sports advertise Fight Night 4 during the TUF Finale, now, EA Sports MMA will be sponsoring the Cage Fashion Show at the UFC Fan Expo on July 10th.
I have always been an EA fan (Love the Madden & NHL franchises)
but I hope nobody feels sorry for them. They monopolized the best-selling sport in the United States, and now Zuffa is just trying to do a bit of that themselves when it comes to the fastest growing sport in the US.
If the THQ game had sucked, I might be pissed about this. But it is awesome. And it will only get better every year. An EA contribution will be nice, but not totally necessary to a huge MMA/video game fan like me.
V-I-K-I-N-G-S! Skol Vikings, Let's Go!!
Eh
If they can include a better representation of MMA, I am all for it.
You can’t possibly be pleased with THQ’s career mode, CAF mode, etc.
Also, no one is feeling sorry for EA. People feel bad for the way Zuffa is trying to prevent fighters outside of the promotion from earning money and getting on that video game.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 8, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
you're right
I’m not pleased with CAF/career mode. I’m assuming that will be the first thing that is improved, since it is the biggest complaint.
V-I-K-I-N-G-S! Skol Vikings, Let's Go!!
People feel bad for the way Zuffa is trying to prevent fighters outside of the promotion from earning money and getting on that video game.
Ignoring the fact that now the fighters can demand better compensation from EA using their likeness in the video game.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
They can do that, but they wont. EA’s contract to the fighters ins non-exclusive for 2 years, giving the fighters anywhere from 5-15K extra dollars in their pocket. There is nothing that prevents them from signing with other companies as well and making money. UFC is the only one with a lifetime exclusive image rights contract to be allowed to fight there. His stance is that you have more leverage and can demand more money, but its not really the case. Also, most fighters in the UFC don’t even get compensated for being in the UFC game, its just part of their requirement that you sign the contract to fight there. And now, with the limiting of sponsorship money to the fighters, (which was already tight due to the recession), the fighters will get even less, unless you are the GSP’s of the world.
What was the source on that EA contract again? It sounds familiar, but I can’t find the reference.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
His stance is that you have more leverage and can demand more money, but its not really the case
Please elaborate on how it is not the case. If the UFC is not at the bidding table for a fighter’s contract, then the other bidders do not have to bid as high to get the contract. Thus the fighter will be making less money. Therefore they can say to EA that their image rights are worth more than the amount EA is offering them.
This leads me to believe that this move is more focused on EA than the fighters.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Their image rights are not being compensated when they sign to EA though. And no one is stupid enough to believe that the UFC won’t sign you just because you signed with EA for a 2 year non-exclusive deal. If EA can’t use UFC fighters (which are the most recognizable names in MMA in North America), why would they overpay just to sign someone that doesn’t have much fan fare here in the states. Gomi can hold out for more cash and not sign the deal as part of his leverage, but the EA Sports MMA game is not really going to be hurting by his absence (since he is not well known), plus adding a great CAF system doesn’t hurt either.
After all is said and done, Randy Couture, Fedor, Josh Barnett, Gina, are the most recognizable names that they probably would pony up for, but they are signed already, so again, this “leverage” doesn’t really exist for every fighter.
Also, most fighters in the UFC don’t even get compensated for being in the UFC game, its just part of their requirement that you sign the contract to fight there.
Source???
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Or are you just talking out of your ass and made this up?
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Also From The Merchandising Agreement
· The Agreement does not offer any royalty or license payments for video games and DVDs.
There's an easy - and cheap - solution for EA.
All they need to do is make the game focus on ‘create a character’, sign 20 or so reasonably big names, create some fictional characters for padding, and let people create their own ‘UFC rosters’ through a roster editing side app, which could then be shared with other users.
Admittedly, it’s not the same as being able to redo Bonnar/Griffin out of the box, but if the game is good, who amongst us won’t suck it up and wait for a roster update to hit the torrents?
If you see Mark Coleman in person, drop $5 on the floor and watch the fun as he tries in vain to bend down and pick it up.
Oh. And they should do a WII version, dammit.
If you see Mark Coleman in person, drop $5 on the floor and watch the fun as he tries in vain to bend down and pick it up.
Doubt it. =(
Only a PS3 and XBOX 360 version has been announced so far.
EA is famous for their CAF mode, so we are all counting on it being excellent.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 8, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
WII is such a downgrade in hardware crossing over would not be feasible.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Lesson to be learned:
Not every game needs to be lifelike to be fun.
Anyone played Wii PowerPros?
If you see Mark Coleman in person, drop $5 on the floor and watch the fun as he tries in vain to bend down and pick it up.
If EA doesn’t come to a deal with Zuffa that is most likely what they will do and then when the UFC license is up in a few years they will buy it.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Except...
Just like the UFC invested in TapOut and are now trying to limit their competitors, they could be doing the same with THQ, and therefore, stick with them for the long run.
Wait—is the Tapout thing have any basis besides innuendo? It’s certainly plausible, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were true, but can it be stated as fact yet?
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Just like life, you can’t ever confirm anything 100%, but I have heard from a few sources that UFC has invested in TapOut, and Nick said on this very website that he had heard that TapOut was the reason the UFC started doing this.
1) I said it.
2) This might be a scoop
I have on very reliable word that Tapout asked for this and the UFC wants to distance itself from the CondomDepot.com’s of the world. Those are the two reasons stated to me.– Nick Thomas
Also this:
I am friends with the owners of Sprawl, and they told me about a year ago, that the UFC had heavily invested into TapouT. I think the presence of TapouT during that time has more than proven this to be true.
So it is just rumor and speculation at this point. These are credible rumors, but it’s still not established.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I said.
Just like life, you can’t ever confirm anything 100%, but I have heard from a few sources that UFC has invested in TapOut, and Nick said on this very website that he had heard that TapOut was the reason the UFC started doing this.
What we do know is that the UFC has done this before with Xyience, andit looks like they may have done it with TapOut. Do to their recent actions and what I have heard, they may be doing it with THQ. My whole point of bringing this up is that EA fans assume that EA will buy the license away from THQ, but, I don’t believe that may be the case.
So you’ve heard about this rumor yourself, and are not just connecting the dots? If so:
1. Where did you hear it? Links would be good, if it’s on the public record.
2. You’re kind of burying the lede. You’re the first one up with this rumor, at least as far as I know. This is probably worthy of a new post (which, to be fair, may be forthcoming as far as I know), or at least a bit more fanfare.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Nope. It’s an old rumor that UFC actually owned Tapout, but Tapout sidestepped the question, basically said no, but that they have an excellent relationship with the UFC.
You can probably search for it on Google and it will pop up.
It’s not that big of a deal, and, we will have a definite answer in a year or so. Not enough facts to make a post about it in my opinion.
Dude, come on—I think this is obviously a big deal, and I bet other people would as well. Buying/investing in Tapout or Xyience is one thing, but this is a completely different scale of investment. That’s some serious vertical integration, if true.
So again, is this plausible speculation, or did you hear something specific?
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Look, I don’t want to keep harping on this, but are you saying you’re just speculating here? Speculation has a nasty habit of becoming “fact,” so it’s in everyone’s best interests if you’re precise.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
That is all he ever does, tossing out rumors and possibilities all over the place.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
You still haven’t answered whether the potential THQ buyout is based on things you’ve heard, or speculation. You’re not trying to be ambiguous here, are you?
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
He is
It’s almost like he’s trying to convince EA that they’re never getting the UFC license so they should declare war on Zuffa. Good luck with that.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I’m a little thick-headed, so how about answering it clearly: speculation, or based on something you heard? Two or three words should clear it up.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not true.
UFC has a vested interest in THQ being profitable for two reasons.
1: They undoubtedly get a cut of every game sold. No freaking doubt about it.
2: If THQ drops, they have to restart the game franchise from scratch with a company that, right now, they’re trying to hurt.
But no, the UFC has not invested in THQ. For starters, it’s a massive company that would cost a ton to buy a significant share in, but mainly because it’s losing money hand over fist, UFC game or not.
Of course, I’m just speculating…
If you see Mark Coleman in person, drop $5 on the floor and watch the fun as he tries in vain to bend down and pick it up.
This is one of the problems with your stuff.
You have the rumor that Zuffa is heavily invested in Tapout, plus the rumor that Tapout asked the UFC to start charging the sponsors, and add those two up (when the rumor can be anything from an actual rumor, to truth, to mindless speculation) and you use those two “rumors” to come to the conclusion that Zuffa is going to be sticking with THQ.
At some point it stops being “reporting” or “opinions” and starts becoming mindless speculation.
by Phildo on Jul 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Using the words “like” and “could” usually give that away. My point was that they could stick with THQ for the long run, and I have a feeling they will.
Like and could give that away, just like ever other one of your posts about every other topic.
That’s why people have a hard time taking anything you say seriously and often question everything you post.
Everything you post reads the same way, but it’s hard to tell what you actually have sources for, what might actually be true, and what is “i have a feeling.”
Just some numbers:
"The Pacquiao-Hatton PPV buyrate is now estimated between 825,000 & 850k. That would put it behind UFC 91’s Randy Coutre / Brock Lesnar matchup – which had a buyrate of 920,000."
"Arum increased Pacquiao’s guaranteed purse to US$12 million from $11 million and a 52%–48% split. Pacquiao’s camp asked for "more demands and the deal fell apart," he said"
"Brock Lesnar: $450,000 (includes $200,000 win bonus) def. Randy Couture: $250,000"
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4165901&name=rafael_dan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_91
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 2:48 PM EDT reply actions
UFC the only organization...
… is really the best for fighters?
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
You don’t know how much money Randy and Brock got from the PPV.
You don’t take into account the fact that the UFC has to pay for things that the boxing people have to.
You don’t take into account the fact that the UFC fighters are getting paid better than anyone except the top 5 fighters in Affliction.
Everyone whines and moans that the UFC business model is evil, wrong, bad for fighters, etc, etc. Why does everyone ignore the fact that it is the only one that actually works? Every time some other org comes around and says they are going to do things differently, they die.
I'm not saying that UFC is evil...
… just that sometimes it seems to be something wrong… like AA with $1,500,000 … and this game stuff…
and I think is not just my eyes…
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
AA got that payment once.
Affliction’s business plan for fighting is not working. That’s why AA had to fight on Strikeforce and EliteXC, that’s why Sylvia hasn’t fought for them again. that’s why lindland isn’t fighting for them again.
They are paying too much.
If it’s the only one that works, how can it be wrong?
You don’t take into account the fact that the UFC fighters are getting paid better than anyone except the top 5 fighters in Affliction.
Only top 5? Is Lindland, Sylvia, etc top 5, because they make a ton at Affliction (which is where their criticism of overpaying comes from).
Why does everyone ignore the fact that it is the only one that actually works?
Strikeforce’s model seems to be working.
This is disingenuous (the KOTC thing even more so). Neither promotion is paying at Affliction rates, let alone boxing.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
dude
i’m just saying MAYBE UFC prefer money rather than give more money for the fighters…
… I’m not saying it’s evil… I would do the some the same… BUT I’M A FAN… not a Dana friend!
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m assuming this was directed at someone else? I actually think Zuffa could afford to pay at a higher rate and still be very profitable. They do a whole lot more business across a wider range of platforms than Affliction. But the fact remains that only Affliction is paying that much.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
it’s supply and demand. They are paying what they can.
Do you think they like the fact that AA left? No. AA left because UFC decided they couldn’t afford to pay him 1.5 million for a fight, so if someone else was going to pay him that much to fight, he should go take that fight.
And you can’t just simply compare PPV/Gate numbers to reported salaries for about a million reasons. For starters, the reported salaries are not close to accurate. Also, the UFC spends money that no one else spends. How much has Affliciton spent lobbying Congress or the NY government in recent history? How much has Bob Arum had to pay to get boxing legalized places? How much did Arum pay to film/edit/produce that boxing fight.
It’s stupid to try to discuss the numbers because we don’t know the majority of the numbers.
The thing we know is that people that spend more on fighters than Zuffa fail, that’s seems like an important thing.
“They are paying what they can.”
conjecturing
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
“It’s stupid to try to discuss the numbers because we don’t know the majority of the numbers.”
Stupid is not be suspicious about a organization that just put a good employee like Jon Fitch just because a game… I would do the same for money… but again I’m not Dana… I’M A FAN!
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
If the UFC is going to withhold purse information to suppress fighter salaries, I’m not sure why fans and pundits should give them a free pass with “Oh, you don’t know how much they’re getting in shower bonuses.”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I meant the top 5 salries in affliction.
And Strikeforce’s model is working. And they are paying less than the UFC, so how does that prove any point?
Just saying, there is more than one model that works.
KOTC, UFC, and Strikeforce have models that work in North America.
Yes, but that really isn’t what I was talking about. There are plenty of models that work, but none that pay more than Zuffa, which is the point.
In North America. I am sure PRIDE (back then), and now DREAM and Sengoku models work and they pay good money.
I thought Pride was paying approximately what UFC is paying now, superfights between Olympic judoka aside. I mean, Cro Cop jumped for a contract that didn’t exactly break the bank.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
You also have to remember that witch these new policies that the UFC is implementing, the higher profile fighters will still get paid their sponsorship money, but the other fighters will get less now. Most of the money fighters make is through sponsorships, not through base salary.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jul 8, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So then the UFC matches the lost sponsorship money with locker room bonuses. I can do the rumored conjecture bullshit as well.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jul 8, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
AND THUS I RESERVE SPEAKING ON IT AS I DO NOT KNOW
Give it a shot sometime.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Ask Saddam Hussein.
The UFC treats, pays and protects fighters unlike any organization in the history of the sport.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 9, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not PROVING something...
just saying that UFC fighters make less money than they deserve…
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
How can you say that they deserve more money when no one has been able to successfully pay them more?
You are just conjecturing...
so am I… I don’t know… and you too…
but just looks every time that Zuffa are not thinking about fighter… of course, it’s a business… i would do the same… but again, I’M A FAN…
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Not for those on the undercard.
I’ve been told by a fighter I know that they were offered $1200 to fight on a Strikeforce PPV. It wouldn’t have covered time off work, so the fighter politely declined.
If you see Mark Coleman in person, drop $5 on the floor and watch the fun as he tries in vain to bend down and pick it up.
The amount they make on the PPV depends on how many it sells but it is somewhere around $1.50-2.00 per fight sold.
Due to Cheick Kongo's atrocious takedown defense....
Walla walla walla, I’m an idiot
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
How much did undercard boxers make in that? Boxing vs. MMA payouts are completely different animals.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
SOMETHING WRONG HERE...
UFC 91: total payroll for the event was $1,118,000.
De La Hoya-Pacquiao: HBO announced that the fight generated 1.25 million PPV buys totaling more than $70 million in PPV revenue.
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, how much were the boxers on the card not in the main event paid? Boxing has the vast majority of the money paid out to the headlining two boxers’ camps/promoters. MMA is focused more on promotions building themselves as a brand and supporting large amounts of fighters under that brand. There is also the fact that boxing promoters get better rates from PPV companies and often have other groups pay for the running of the event while the UFC covers most of those costs themselves. There is also the thrust of the UFC at getting MMA sanctioned across the US and spreading out into international markets.
They are two very different animals.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
ok is different… but not 10x different I guess… maybe I’m wrong, but maybe not…
I’m just saying that if the Zuffa turns into a monopoly, it will hurt the sport… begin with the payroll…
Is just a suspicious guys…
by Brasil com luvas on Jul 8, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I am of the opinion that all the best fighters under one organization is the best possible result for MMA. Monopolies in sports are not bad things at all, just about ever successful sport in the US is effectively a monopoly.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jul 8, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Attaboy.
At least I’m not the only one.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
There are two ways to have the best fight the best, co promotion or one dominant promotion. I am of the opinion that co-promotion is what eventually leads to the situation that boxing is in right now.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
I am with you until that whole “leads to where boxing is at right now”. Thats not the reason, although, I can see where people could think that. K-1 has all the best kickboxers in the world, but they can also compete outside of K-1.
MMA is not like NBA, MLB, and NFL. when will people stop comparing. MMA is an individual sport (combat sport at that), so the comparison doesn’t even make sense.
Ok, how about the PGA? All the best golfers playing the same course is better than multiple tours diluting the elite talent pool. And the Asian Tour etc still exist to provide golfers with jobs and develop them further.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL! Golfers can compete in any tour they want, it still wouldn’t dilute the talent field since they are not exclusively signed to compete just for one tour.
MMA will be better off when all it’s top talent is with the UFC.
You’ll see. Won’t be long now.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The final exception to the rule. And I don’t think him coming is impossible.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 9, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
European soccer does well enough without an EU monopoly.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
BUT I WAS TOLD MMA WOULD NEVER BE SOCCER
It’s a shame the American public is far too lazy to fuck with that – we want our sports in a straw, thank you.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 9, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
More Info From MMAPayout:
The situation with the UFC ban on NON -Zuffa fighters who sign on with the EA MMA game remains a bit murky but MMAPayout has been able to glean a bit more additional information on the genesis of the ban and reaction. Sources indicate to MMAPayout that UFC Talent Relations head Joe Silva was the contact man form Zuffa who got the word out to agents and managers about the ban. The word on the ban got out to the fighter management, but almost as quickly got back to EA MMA brass. Within a short time after the announcement, reportedly half a dozen fighter agents/managers had contacted the video game titan to inform them of the ban. MMAPAyout spoke with the Product Manger for the EA MMA game, but he offered no comment at this time. The EA embargo plan went sideways when word of the ban hit the UG, though, as Dana White is said to have gone through the roof when getting out the message went a little too well.
Rampant, unwarranted speculation
Fixed.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Everything is speculation to you when your desires are not met.
I am sure you never do any of that.
=D
My speculation – mainly, the UFC will continue to UTTERLY DOMINATE the MMA landscape and in fact accelerate its domination over the next couple of years – doesn’t seem very unwarranted.
Fedor/Monson in Japan, however, seems farfetched.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
‘Dana White is said…’ ‘Sources indicate…’ ‘reportedly…’
There isn’t one solid confirmed piece of information in the entire fucking article.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Although this has been reported by 3 different outlets, them all saying the same exact thing? Of course, you would still consider that speculation. =D
Three different people being wrong doesn’t make a story confirmed.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL! Only Subo.
Of course, they have sources (they are wrong). You don’t have anything other than your biased opinion (you are right). =D
Who were their sources on DREAM/Affliction’s Monson/Fedor supernova show?
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I was, and mmalogic even confirmed it (however much credibility you want to put into that). The problem was that DREAM didn’t want to do it in the long run, so Affliction had to come back and do Affliction 3 on their own, although Affliction is still hoping to co-promote with DREAM so Fedor can fight for them on NYE, although, Fedor would need to resign with them after his Affliction Trilogy fight. There was a reason why WAMMA, M-1, Affliction, and DREAM all met together and why Aoki fought Fedor in the grappling exhibition. Their inability to execute that deal also hurt WAMMA (you see everyone quitting after that).
Is that clear enough for you.
=D
Tell me you’re not paid to post here.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 8, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
So, is that a yes or a no on answering your question above?
And no, I am not. Are you paid to post here for giving your blinded support to a promotion?
=D
Maybe fewer people would accuse you of this if you were a little more straightforward in attributing your sources. I still don’t know how many of your arguments are speculation and how many are based on information not available to the rest of us. And I’m starting to think you like it that way—better to put up with occasional rounds of badgering questions than lose that ambiguous position between superfan and insider.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I was replying to Subo here, and I gave him my sources above.
I didn’t give you any sources, because I don’t have any for those, as it is still mostly speculation, living in the middle of Rumorville and Facttown.
=D
Seriously—“mostly”? Why can’t you just say it’s informed speculation, if that’s all it is? It’s a good theory if it came out of your head, but if there’s more to it than that just say so. Wouldn’t you prefer if your harshest critics no longer had the luxury of choosing to attack you as a fanboy or as a shill, depending on which best suited the current argument?
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. I’ll try not to badger you again any time soon.
by An Old Friend on Jul 8, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
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.
