Should the UFC Have the Power to Veto Outside Projects?
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:44 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
Rampage Jackson's decision to pull out of UFC 107 in order to star in The A-Team has those inside and outside the company considering how these incidents can be avoided in the future. The guys over at MMA Payout think the UFC should add some kind of clause to its contracts that would tie fighters to a certain date in the future:
MMAPayout.com colleague David Wolf suggested that the UFC might need to create some sort of guarantee – either by veto or contractual obligation – and I agree. The fans are going to be upset, and claim that the UFC already has too much power, but it’s simply good business to protect your investment. It’s also quite fair to add a little insurance into a contract like the Ultimate Fighter series, "if you agree to particpate, you’re agreeing to a fight at this time and date."
There are a few issues with this approach. First, all bout agreements basically include similar language, but you can't sue for specific performance in the fighting context, so it doesn't help. This happens all the time with UFC bout agreements. Guys agree to a date, but then for one reason or another they can't do it. No court in the United States will force a fighter to fight if he doesn't want to, so the UFC could sue for damages or just reschedule. Since they aren't going to sue, they're left with few options.
Another possibility would be language giving the UFC veto power over outside projects for fighters. But a clause like that would probably be unenforceable unless the fighters were actual employees. The fighters are independent contractors, not employees, and the UFC benefits extensively from that classification. If they're to remain independent contractors, the UFC can't control what they do on their own time outside of fighting.
Of course, there are a number of provisions in UFC contracts that appear unenforceable on their face. Fighters are generally unwilling to spend a ton of money and years in court to fight against these clauses, so they tend to be effective even if they wouldn't hold up in court.
The best option would be to add a contractual obligation for fighters to disclose any outside projects that could possibly interfere with a regular fighting schedule, and to keep the UFC updated on the status of such projects. The clause wouldn't give the UFC veto power over the projects, but would contractually obligate fighters to disclose them, thus giving the UFC time to line up alternative options instead of being caught by surprise at the last minute.
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
addendum
I’m POSITIVE the UFC wants this movie to happen, and for it to have a TON of publicity, because they’ll sell the crap out of the Rampage/ Rashad fight, especially if this season of TUF does well
by Austin Martin on Sep 10, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
POSITIVE?
i mean, they had memphis all lined up, the timing was perfect coming out of the ultimate fighter season… this screws up a major, major PPV event.
major event that will happen AND make more money in the future.
by Austin Martin on Sep 10, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They would need rashad to play the bad guy for the movie to promote the fight!
You don't look like a Tanaka.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
If you can make a “movie star” out of one of your marquee fighters, what’s the downside in the long run? Do you think Chuck on DWTS is bad for the UFC? You are sending one of the most beloved fighters in your org’s history to be seen by 20million pairs of eyes every week.
The UFC could never buy this sort of mainstream exposure.
by Screwface on Sep 10, 2009 5:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Its bad if he gets offered another part next year and decides to stop fighting all together. Plus, it degrades the hype coming off the TUF season. Anyone who thinks its good that Rampage is taking time off for this severely overestimates their businessman skills.
You’re overlthinking things.
Hughes/Serra did way better than hardcores imagined and that was a year and a half after it was supposed to happen.
It’s not the ideal situation for teh UFC (right after TUF) but rampage will generate more publicity doing Mr. T than he did on TUF. They can still get a real countdown show in for the Rashad/Rampage fight when it happens, and then they can set his next fight up for around the time of the movie release and get hype from that.
It cracks me up that people are overlooking the fact that RASHAD v PAGE IS A HUGE FIGHT WITH OR WITHOUT TUF!
TUF would help build the anticipation, but this fight legitimately sells itself.
by Screwface on Sep 10, 2009 9:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If you can make a "movie star" out of one of your marquee fighters, what’s the downside in the long run?
Ask Vince McMahon how much Dwayne Johnson’s movie career has helped the WWE.
“The Rock’s” body started shutting down on him. He was no longer under contract and actually while he was acting and doing the WWE, their ratings were the highest in the company’s history. So I’d say it worked out just fine.
by Screwface on Sep 10, 2009 10:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also, look at John Cena.
If you we’re trying to make a case against Rampage acting, you could not have picked a worse analogy.
The Rock wrestled in the WWE full time for 3 years after he started acting and to this day makes the occasional cameo. John Cena is still under contract with the WWE and has a quite lucritive acting gig.
So once again, I’m failing to see the downside of Rampage acting…
by Screwface on Sep 10, 2009 10:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
lucritive = lucrative*
Damn, BlackBerry’s have a spell check feature, I should look into using it.
by Screwface on Sep 10, 2009 10:47 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The Rock did not wrestle full time after he started acting. Mummy Returns came out in 2001 and that was 4 minute role where he was off t.v. for a solid two months until July. He stayed more or less active until he left again to film Run Down and Scorpion King. Came back for a quick feud with our UFC champion, then left for four more months.
Wrestled maybe five times between Jan – Apr 2003 and that was it until Wrestlemania the following year.
Not even close to full time for three years.
As for Cena, 2 movies doesn’t sound lucrative to me, especially two commercial/critical flops that barely recouped their budgets with surprisingly strong DVD sales. Not to mention the company he works for made those films so if they needed him for something, they could film around him until they were done.
by black dragon on Sep 11, 2009 4:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Isn't Vince Bankrolling?
If he keeps putting his money into producing these movies you think maybe he’s happy about what The Rock did? I mean the movies star Dwayne Johnston is killing my business, Let’s go into movies! I’m going to call John Cena one of my biggest stars and continue this string of bad moves.
Rock started taking rolls in 2001, arguably the peak of wrestling. After Rundown came out, ratings were higher than they are today, but still a noticeable drop off from the year before when he did Scorpion King. Ratings continued to drop way before Rock became a part-timer.
by black dragon on Sep 11, 2009 4:01 AM EDT up reply actions
as a fan
I wouldn’t be upset with a new clause like that. it’s their job, most people don’t have near as much freedom as fighters at their jobs.
by cagefightonacid on Sep 10, 2009 3:47 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The clause is useless. Say the UFC denied Rampage his shot at the movie.
What is to stop Page from developing some mysterious shoulder problem that prevents him from fighting. While he heals up, he might as well do this movie over here…
By the time they are getting movie deals, the UFC can’t just fire them.
good point…. I mean who hasn’t called in sick to get a day off, not that it’s the same but you know what I’m saying
by cagefightonacid on Sep 10, 2009 4:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
independent contractors still have obligations to their employer, and foremost they are athletes who could fail to meet those obligations if injured. that’s all i’m saying, people are so touchy about fighters rights.
by cagefightonacid on Sep 11, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
i don’t think they should have total veto power, and there are always special circumstances, but I don’t think that people should be taking movie roles/outside stuff when they have a fight scheduled and it has been promoted, or will be heavily promoted by something like TUF.
That said, I think the A-team movie is a completely different. This isn’t a cameo in a major movie or some B-movie or a direct to dvd action flick. This is going to be a huge movie, and the positives will definitely outweigh the negatives.
Even as contractors, outside activities that interfere with an already-signed obligation are no-no’s. It’s not like Rampage and the UFC were casually considering the bout – wasn’t it already signed and scheduled?
If the A-Team opportunity came up after the fact, the UFC committment should be honored first, or at least, the UFC should be given first consideration. If Dana and co. decide to flex around the movie, that’s their perrogative.
In this case, given Rampage’s relationship with Dana and the blockbuster potential for the movie, I’m pretty sure this is how it went down.
Also
Would they use this clause if they could?
Rampage in a big movie is good for the UFC. Good enough to postpone a fight.
(unless it bombs horribly)
not taking any sides yet...
but for comparison’s sake, could you imagine if Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, or Derek Jeter were to skip part of their season to film a movie?
it would be ridiculous and unheard of.
clearly MMA is different, because it’s neither ridiculous nor unheard of.
I think it’s not a good comparison.
First, the NBA pays players enough so they’d never think about it.
Second, these guys even when they’re active fight 2-3 times a year with long breaks inbetween. This is completely different than an 82 game season.
There is no regular season here. The UFC booked Rampage’s fight 9 months apart, he’s basically taking another opportunity and moving it to 11.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Why aren’t UFC fighters allowed to fight in sambo or K1 fights? Aside from the obvious, I thought they want the fighters to remain focused on fighting….not sambo, not K1 etc etc etc. I know they changed their mind for Fedor in the last set of negotiations….but what is the difference between doing movie roles and engaging in another type of fighting?
I know the UFC will get a shit ton of publicity out of this, and might end up being something of a cash cow….but us as fans have to wait to see a good grudge match.
Because if they get hurt in those competitions, it eliminates them as a fighter on a UFC card that would make the UFC money.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s probably different, but the quesiton was regarding Sambo/K-1
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Doubt it - they use stunt doubles.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Sep 10, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the A-Team movie will garner the UFC a lot of attention from the media that otherwise wouldn’t cover it (press junkets, late night talk shows, Entertainment Tonight, etc.), but I also think that putting off Rampage/Rashad for a few months is unacceptable. Rampage complained about his huge layoff after his loss to Forrest, then he lobbied to fight Rashad and coach TUF instead of getting a title shot against Machida, now he is having his fight postponed another 2 months minimum to shoot this movie.
I would have taken Rampage as a pretty solid favorite if he had fought Rashad on their originally scheduled date, now, I see him losing focus and not training at even of 80% of what he needs to. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rashad outpoints Quinton in their fight and cruises to a UD.
Veto a project? No
But I do think that they should be able to hold fighters accountable for breaching a contract. Maybe losing a percentage of their purse or something of that nature might work.
"I would say that he’s a little donkey that, he’s on steroids, he thinks he’s a running horse. But, he’s more like a little pony." - Gegard Mousasi on Paulo Filho
How about when the UFC breaches a contract?
This is the other side of the coin, and it happens ALL THE TIME. First, they routinely breach oral contracts to fighters by promising them title shots and then going back on it. And yes, oral contracts are enforceable. Second, how about signing Cain to a big fight with Carwin and then changing it so their November show would have big commercial appeal. Should the UFC have to make it up to Cain?
UFC breaches obligations to fighters far more than vice versa.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I do think the Carwin/Velasquez cancellation was a dick move… especially if it signals that this will become standard operating procedure for the UFC’s matchmaking.
BUT… this is not necessarily a breach of contract. What if the contract with the fighter says that they can cancel or change any matchup at any time?
I might agree with you that the UFC takes advantage of fighters and does what’s in their own best interest rather than the fighter’s best interest. I don’t like this one bit. But I need to see some more evidence before I agree to call it breaching of contracts…. maybe you have seen some of these contracts?
It’s far too complicated to discuss here, but contracts that give one side the right to cancel while the other side cannot are generally unenforceable as a result of lack of mutuality.
Bout agreements aside, they breach verbal contracts probably once a month at this rate.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Saying it’s unenforceable is one thing… but actually going through with legal proceedings is another.
The non-compete clauses in all UFC contracts are unenforceable, yet nobody fights them.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, the clauses that tie up fighters indefinitely if they retire, etc… those are completely unenforceable as well in any court.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I doubt it. Don’t bout agreements have some sort of wording like… Zuffa, Inc. has the ability to change the circumstances of the bout without repercussions"… something to that effect.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
They’re bogus contracts by their nature, one-sided and voidable in court, which is why the UFC never goes there.
The following verbal contract is enforceable: UFC president says “if you beat X, you get a title shot.” Fighter beats X.
That is an enforceable contract, the kind that Dana breaks all the time. Nobody whines about it either.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody would. They’d probably get shit-canned for going to court, and that’s not good for their income.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the whole point here. For all this whining about the “poor UFC” that had all these perfect plans and they got ruined (read: delayed by a couple months), they do this stuff all the time to the fighters. Any obligation added into fighter contracts should come with an obligation on Zuffa’s side not to change dates once they’re signed, and to give fighters title shots they’re promised.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it’s interesting, but I wonder about situations like the one currently taking place. If those obligations were in place legally, and then a bunch of injuries, guys doing movies, circumstances involving low ticket sales or something causing a card to move… then what?
Do they simply re-draft a new agreement with new circumstances? Can the UFC go to a fighter and say “Listen… the promotion will make more money if we do this now, and then do your fight later.” Because in the end, the fighters also want the UFC to succeed as well. Changing bout agreements and doing specific things can generate more revenue for the UFC.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course it can. Changing dates is going to generate more revenue for Quinton Jackson too.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, but I’d almost like to have the UFC in charge of those things and simply move bouts when they want. I could see a totally stubborn fighter saying “Fuck that, I want to fight such and such at the date I signed” even though it’s completely crappy for the UFC.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree (I think) with this last comment here Michael. There should be rights that the fighters get to protect them from certain moves by the UFC.
But if a bout agreement explicitly states “we can cancel this bout on you” … and the fighter signs that agreement without getting any protections inserted for himself… well I don’t know that the UFC is breaking or breaching any laws or contracts.
There are certain unwaiveable rights in contract law. Contracts are voidable even if signed for all kinds of legal reasons, the analysis is much more complicated than “well he signed it.”
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
The provisions in the contracts also go to determining whether the fighter is an employee or an independent contractor. If the UFC could veto outside projects, it would be a huge point in favor of arguing the fighters are really employees, a classification the UFC does not want.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, normally employee contracts state YOU can terminate the agreement or the EMPLOYER can terminate the agreement as well. It’s two ways.
The UFC would probably tell you to shut your face and keep you in the dungeon if you said you wanted to leave and you were a very popular PPV draw.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
“There are certain unwaiveable rights in contract law.” For instance, neglect. :)
by Screwface on Sep 10, 2009 5:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also...
He’d have to say this on camera likely otherwise it would be next to impossible to enforce it unless there were a lot of people around. If he says something at a press conference, I wonder if that’s legally a contract.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
yo michael -- curious would you consider it to be an oral contract if, say, dana white said that X would get a title shot if he beat Y….
… but he said it in a press conference in response to a reporter’s question, rather than communicating it directly to a fighter?
and, underneath this question is a bigger one: do you think the UFC has proactively had its legal team look into all of these issues and green light its current behavior? or do you think they are just flying by the seat of their pants and let Dana & Co say whatever they want, and just clean up the mess later?
I mean, they’re pretty confident no fighter in their right mind is going to sue them over this. There’s just no way, they’d be shooting their career in the foot and it would be idiotic to do for such small damages and huge expenses.
In terms of cleaning up the mess….that’s what the UFC legal team does. They let the people in charge start fires and then they try to put them out, the concept of being proactive isn’t really in the Zuffa dictionary.
As far as the press conference thing…it would be a complicated legal issue, but like I said above, it will never go to court.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Im tired of hearing how this movie will get mma a bunch of attention.
First I doubt it. Normally even if Jackson does do a presser like The Tonight Show etc.. they are only gonna talk about the movie and not mma.
Two anyone who thinks this movie has a chance of being decent is folling themselves.
Three as an mma fan I want the fights and not some bs movies.
Finally did Never Surrender help “the industry” you had BJ, A. Silva, GSP, Rampage etc.. all in that movie yet last I checked it didnt get “the industry” a whole lot more attention.
You people are fooling yourselves if you think this is a good idea.
Listen, if you’re comparing never surrender to the A-Team it’s not even worth having a discussion with you about this.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok but Michael look at it this way
Everyone is thinking that new fans are gonna see Rampage in The A-Team love it and so want to check him out in mma and love that too. It doesnt work like that.
I know a lot of people that love Will Smith movies but guess what they hate his music.
There are a lot of people that love Family Guy but hate American Dad even though they are created by the same guy.
Just because someone sees something or someone they like doesnt mean they are gonna like everything that they are in or doing.
Finally ok dont compare it Never Surrender compare it to another tv remake. Can you name a film remake based on a tv show you loved. The Dukes of Hazzard? Dudley do Right? S.W.AT.? Wild Wild West?
Almost every film that they base off an old tv show turns out to be terrible.
The fact is when this movie doesnt bring the thousands of new mma fans you guys are expecting your not gonna do another post saying you were wrong.
LIES!
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not that it will bring in thousands of MMA fans. It’s just that it’s further penetration of the sport into the mainstream, and it will make Jackson’s fights a bigger draw when media outlets decide to cover his fights in the future.
Internally they are thrilled about the international opportunities through this, the A-Team was syndicated all over the world and is extremely well known in a lot of countries they are hoping to get into.
by Michael Rome on Sep 10, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
But seriously…
Batman was good. Who didn’t like Dragnet!
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Batman doesn’t really count in my opinion it’s strength was comic books. On the other hand I’ll throw out Charlies Angels. The thing with these movies is if they do take off. They take off!!!
And not Seriously George of the Jungle did pretty good and Pink Panthers.
FROM WIKI: Dukes of Hazzard was #1 at the box office its opening weekend and grossed $30.7 million on 3,785 screens. It also had an adjusted-dollar rank of #14 all-time for August releases. The film eventually collected $110.5 million worldwide, although it was much less successful financially in the US.
when’s the release date for this A-Team movie? that will tell alot on how big, or how well this movie is going to be or do. i would think it certainly wont be released until quite awhile after rashad and rampage fight, so it’s not gonna do anything for rampage or the ufc right away. now if quinton goes on to win his fight with rashad and this movie does big #s, it would definetly have a positive effect on the ufc, rampage and his eventual title shot. now, if he loses. alot will say that was pre-occupied (and that may very well be the case) and the movie cost him a title shot and a chance at another big payday. then if the movie is a dud, which has about a 50/50 of happening. i do like liam neeson and bradley cooper alot, so i think it has a chance, but who knows, everything depends on the script imo. if rampage loses and the movie bombs, this will affect the ufc and rampge very negatively. it really could go either way, it’s pretty much a crapshoot and a big gamble. thats looking at it from both side realisticly to me. only time will tell.
People keep acting like this is Never Surrender. And I’m completely shocked that the people talking about it have no idea what is going on in the real world.
This isn’t a straight to skinemax bad action movie with a bunch of naked chicks running around.
This is the A-team. A brand that everyone knows. It’s a summer release. It has a serious star in it (Bradley Cooper, who is on fire right now) and it’s being produced by Ridley Scott (who has 9 oscars).
This is going to be a big time movie.
I don’t know Brad Cooper, but I sure as hell know Liam Neeson! He is a huge star.
'He built his whole reputation as a waffle house chef. They’ve been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes' - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 11, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Depends. How bad will it be? That’s really what it comes down to. A-Team is something most people know about, and if a major studio is behind it instead of some B-name studio like LionsGate… then it could get legs.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Sep 10, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I think a veto would be
exercised if the title were at stake. Similar to boxing, if a title is not defended in a certain amount of time, it is simply striped from the holder and another bout is held to award the title. Jackson is not a title holder, so let him risk his own MMA career in pursuit of movie fame.
What if they are contractually obligated to fight and they get injured?
Then they make an exception for injury and all of a sudden everyone starts getting random injuries instead of telling the truth about what they are doing.
In the end, the UFC should embrace alternate projects that their fighters are involved in, they do not really have a way to legally prevent these things from happening.
All it takes
is for one person to see the movie having no idea who he is and find ‘page hilarious. “who is he? what does he do?” is the next obvious question. You’re immediatly directed towards the UFC. I say it only takes one person, i can see ALOT of people being in this situation. He will no doubt be hilarious whether the movie is a good all rounder or not. I dont see how this can be bad for the UFC. Maybe bad for MMA fans who wanted to see Rampage/Rashad on the scheduled date, but very good for the UFC on the whole.
They arelady do, but it's a soft veto.
By doing outside projects, Rampage harms his value as a fighter (hes available less) and his next contract will reflect that.
There’s really no need for a normative question here. Both parties agree to the contracts they’ve signed, so if the UFC wants the power to veto outside projects they’ll have to negotiate for that with every individual fighter. They haven’t.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
One wrestling related tidbit no one mentioned that does work in favor of what others are saying is that after appearing in Rocky III, Hulk Hogan and the WWF exploded in popularity.
So we have two examples in the Rock and Hogan which shows both sides of the coin. Heads, you get a Hogan scenario and UFC gets tons of press. Tails, you get the Rock where no new interest is born in the sport.
We also have to factor in publicity. Will he wear UFC shirts on Letterman? Will he even mention he has a fight with Rashad coming up?
I’ve seen plenty of wrestlers (best comparison) that have outside projects and never mention the big PPV coming up when they make the late night rounds.
How many people do we really think will see Mr. Rampage and go “wow I have to go see this guy fight now?” Probably not nearly as many that will say “hey that guy was funny. What’s for dinner?”
Getting publicity is nice, but getting publicity that leads to new fans is an entirely different battle and i don’t think UFC feels they’ll win that.
There are millions of people out there that go watch a movie and that’s it. No blogging about it on facebook, no checking to see if it made 20.334 million and how it compares to other May 19 releases, no “hey that guy was great I wonder what other non-movie stuff he’s done.”
Maybe some of us just put way too much stock into how we react to certain things. We’re all guilty of it to varying degrees and that’s how the internet has always been.
I wish I had written this later in the day so my thoughts weren’t in such disarray, but I’m not seeing how the UFC benefits from this. Rampage, surely.
UFC was going into a newish market, with a hometown boy, immediately after what looks to be the biggest TUF season yet. That was a license to print money and Rampage was probably going to get Brock Lesnar money for that.
The general viewing public may get to know Rampage better, but will it lead to them actually wanting to see him? How different will his role be than the guy he is in the cage? Will the fact he’s in a cage be a turn off to the people that like A-Team? I’m pretty sure across the country, and the world for that matter, more people would rather pay to see a movie than watch MMA for free, no matter how charismatic Rampage is.
Sorry about the long winded nature of this post. I would delete it, but well, I went through all the trouble of writing it.
I think this is good. If the movie gets some decent steam behind it, who WOULDN’T want to have the ‘New Mr T’ on their TV show?
Guaranteed the UFC will come up in an interview. Hell, Rampage could go on about how he is more of a legit Mr T because he is a real fighter, not a bodybuilder (or whatever Mr T was).
Mr T is so famous all around the world, having a UFC fighter be the new incarnation of this character can only be a positive.
'He built his whole reputation as a waffle house chef. They’ve been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes' - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 11, 2009 8:23 AM EDT reply actions
People who don’t like MMA? People who only want to promote Rampage and dismiss UFC as his side gig?
I’ll see your guarntee and raise you a “does the mere mention of UFC mean anything to Joe Public that has already made up his mind about MMA”
I can see potentially how UFC could piggy back on this. Send video clips to all of Rampage’s televised interviews, that sort of thing. There are positives.
But there are obvious negatives. Having to push the fight back. Losing that initial anticipation of it happening immediately after TUF ends. Will the fans anticipating Rampage’s home coming feel betrayed? How far does this push the match back? He’s got a marquee spot so he’s look at no less than a month of publicity rounds. How does that affect his training? What if he gets knocked out by Rashad, who is smaller and dorkier than him? I don’t want to sound over negatively or ride Dana’s dick or anything like that. I’m just curious as to how anyone can make a guarantee that this movie does any good for UFC.
By the way, Mr. T was a body guard to at least three boxers so I think it makes Mr. T more legit in the sense that away from the ring, fighters trusted him with their lives. Then again, Rampage would get the benefit of the dobut because some people don’t even know that about Mr. T.
by black dragon on Sep 11, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
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.
