Matt Lindland Dismisses Chances of a Fighter's Union
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 12:42 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
Zach Arnold has transcribed much of this Eddie Goldman interview with Matt Lindland. For those who haven't been following MMA very long, Eddie Goldman was one of the first people with any professional journalism experience to take the sport seriously.
He gets Lindland to talk about the need for a fighter's union:
"At least in basketball or baseball or football if you don't like [the politics], you go to another team. If you have a players union and in this sport if you don't like what's going on, what's the other team? You know, essentially you're relegated to what is considered by the fans as the minor leagues just because you didn't get along with the management at the time of the one team. So, it's a completely different industry and it's not regulated well, you can't just go to another team, so it's a lot different you know different stuff about just the business side of the sport."
...
"Unless you can get the top athletes and you're not going to do that. I mean the fighters, they're all whores, they just fight for the biggest purse and it's going to be tough unless you could somehow get all the fighters to agree to something like that and you know there's always somebody going to come up underneath who's not willing to do it. Like I said, it doesn't matter who the best guys are, it only matters what the announcers are telling you who the best guys are and the fans are going to believe it."
"There's enough support (for a union) but these guys, outside of the cage or outside of the ropes, these guys are cowards, you know they would not dare stand up to the powers-that-be."
"You only have a finite amount (of years) that you can compete and you want to make as much money as you can in that time and you don't want to mess around with the politics of the sport."
Lindland will be fighting Kevin Casey this Saturday at Strikeforce Challengers 8.
Lindland may well be one of the least liked and most mocked athletes in the sport today. But I think he's dead on about the downside of one promotion essentially having a monopoly on big time MMA. He's also dead on about the need for a fighter's union and why it hasn't and won't happen.
It's easy to hate the messenger here and dismiss what he has to say, just as his book Dirty Boxing was largely ignored despite being one of the best MMA training books ever written, but Lindland is right on these points.
304 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The issue really is that the guys required to get a union going (big names like Randy, GSP, Brock, BJ) are the ones who don’t need it because they’re making huge bank and have celebrity that will live on after their fighting days are over.
I agree. If the big names decide to join in on a union they’re basically taking money out of their pockets to help out the less paid fighters. UFC pays their best fighter like the best. If you want to be paid like the best you have to earn it fighting. Yes some fighters may have less talent and get paid more because they know how to promote but even that only goes so far if they don’t win.
A Union is to promote mediocrecy...
A Union takes away all incentives to achieve a higher goal in the work force…
Its like working for the state/federal government…No incentive to be more productive…
Today, there are several fighters that fight like they ARE in a fighters UNion: James Thompson and Bob Sapp come to mind…
Also, Lindland is Republican…WTF!
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Unions promote accountability
There will always be top tier and low tier employees in every industry. Peyton Manning is a member of a union, what’s he done? Set almost every team and league passing record ever recorded, won a super bowl, 4 MVP awards and changed the culture and image of the Indianapolis Colts organization. Kobe Bryant is a union man too. Should I go on? How bout Derek Jeter? Sidney Crosby? These people are the reason the owners are making billions of dollars off of games. The union helped provide a platform for Manning and Kobe to be able to train year round and perfect their games. A union will help MMA in much the same way. Quit trying to equate UAW with sports. Most people are jealous of the fact that a UAW member isnt forced to scrap by an existence. UAW and all other unions are working on behalf of the employees. Abe Lincoln had a nice quote. “There is no America without labor, to fleece the one is to rob the other.”
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
I don’t think you have to get the big names. I don’t think Nevada is a right to work state so if you got enough votes from the undercard and prelim fighters to approve a union the upper tier fighters would have to join to continue to fight.
One thing to remember is the collective bargaining doesn’t have to be based on pay per fight. It could be for health care, training expenses, rights to likeness etc.
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 5:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
King Fedor your right about Nevada.
Nevada isnt a right to work for less state. You are right about not needing 100% approval to ratify a union contract. I believe it takes 65-75% approval to ratify. The union wouldnt need to be based on a PPV model either, it could be a basic framework. A guide to how much is paid, what conditions are the fighter working under, what fringe benefits are covered, what is punishable conduct for both employee and employer and what is expected from both employee and employer at work. How is any of this harmful to Zuffa or Strikeforce or Bellator?
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Im having a hard time buying anything Lindland has to say about a union. Correct me if I am wrong, but, isnt Lindland running for political office as a republican? Since when has there been a repub that embraces a union? Im a union member, i am part of Sheet Metal Workers Local #20. The union talk I am reading on here is off base. If the union model that, NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB are using, doesnt work. Then, why cant MMA base their union off a skilled trades union model? The union is in place not to punish the top tier, it is designed to protect the bottom tier and middle tier. All that is really proposed, is a set of standards to which Zuffa or anyone else has to follow. For instance, Todd Duffee is contracted by Zuffa to fight Mike Russow. The minimum contract Zuffa can offer either fighter is $5,000.(just an example) and Zuffa would be required to pay for any incured medical expenses as a result of the bout. Additionally, Zuffa would agree to pay 25% over the perse to each fighters pension or annuity. I am faced with short term (1 fight deal) and long term ( 5 fight deals, or multiyear deals) all the time. The basis for a union, would make Zuffa’s job much easier. They would be able to figure costs well in advance of an event. Plus, the guidelines collectively bargained for would give Dana and company a frame work or set of standards of how they treat their employees. The top tier fighters would still be cut into the PPV buys, they wouldnt see any decrease in their take home pay and would actually see more benefits as a result.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Exactly.
As long as the big name stars get paid, there will be enough revenue to pay the mid level guys 30 to 50k a fight and that X 3 or 4 fights a year will get you more than most Family Care Physicians are making in a year without going to college for 8 years. So OF COURSE these “Whores” are going to go for a deal like that.
Just because the UFC has pissed off a select few fighters doesn’t mean they are bad. They have the power to black ball guys, and that’s really wrong, but overall, there isn’t a huge problem.
Why dont the just invest their money wisely
when the ARE young and competetive this way they are just grosing a LOT more than the average citizen as opposed to making a HELL of a LOT more then the average person…
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You need to look in to these huge salaries you speak of. The majority of fighters are bringing in under 100k and that’s before training expenses
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 5:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
there is really no reason for a fighters union. If you don’t like what you’re getting paid, don’t accept the details of the contract. Its that simple. Lindland sounds more upset that he’s a very well credentialed fighter but no one cares about him since he got Vitor’d. Calling other fighters “whores” for trying to support their family? That’s ridiculous.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
very enlightened
I assume you also work in a sector in which there is only one major employer and if you buck them then you never work at the top of your field again?
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
i also didn’t choose to follow my dreams and live or die by that dream. i chose the path of least resistance. if these guys are all following their dreams like they say, then be willing to deal with the fact that your dream doesnt pay if you arent good enough.
In general, Unions are leaches on the economy. I’ve seen this firsthand. I wouldn’t support any union, under any circumstance.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree that Lindland calling other fighters “whores” for supporing their families is ridiculous. Sounds more like sour grapes to me. I am also not a huge fan of how powerful unions can get where they become more harmful than helpful, but there is a place for unions and if it weren’t for unions, many workers in other sectors would not have received health care benefits, etc. There are other things that matter other than better pay. There’s a balance that needs to be struck between unions and businesses. The hard part is finding that balance. For example, do I think someone working on a car assembly line should get 20 something dollars an hour? Heck no. But does someone working for minimum wage need health care coverage, basic quality of work environment, the protection from exploitation, etc? Heck yes.
Now, does MMA need a fighter’s union? You could argue that it’s a choice, they can go get a regular job. This is true. But I think there needs to be base coverage for health, insurance, costs of training camps, etc. This does’t mean you have to pay someone a high wage just because he’s in a union, but you need some basics for overal care and quality of work life.
there is no relativity between being a auto line worker and a fighter. one, you work probably 300 days a year, and the other MAYBE 4. the rest of the time you’re training. so basically you’d be saying to an auto worker, how about you spend 9 months at home practicing how to put together a car, and hopefully you’ll come up big 4 times we really need you. If you go 2 and 2 in putting together good cars, we might fire you.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I wasn’t trying to link auto workers with fighters and what they do; What I was pointing out was how some unions can be good, and how some can be bad.
i agree that in theory, it may not be bad. but the same can be said for communism. I’ve see unions in practice, and as a tax payer it just makes me angry.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve see unions in practice, and as a tax payer it just makes me angry.
This part, I think we can agree on. Sometimes unions demand the stupidest things at the expense of tax payers. For example, at one point unions were asking the Canadian government to foot the bill to protect their pension plans, effectively asking canadian tax payers to cover their retirement, when almost 80% of Canadians don’t have the luxury of being provided a defined benefits pension plan to begin with.
Matt Lindland is bitter and outspoken about it not just because he had a falling out with Dana/UFC
but mainly because he did not market/promote himself well in a similar fashion to his teammate Dan Henderson…Even though Dan had the success in the cage, Dan was able to lobby for the big fights and lose all the big fights the same way that Lindland did…
On the other hand, their other teammate Randy Couture has marketed himself really well, Not so much overall success in the cage, but Randy did win mostly all of the BIG fights…
Randy is marketable, Dan isnt, and Mat isnt…
Miller is, but not big time marketable…kind of on the MTV2 level, but not the MTV level if you know what i am saying…
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Henderson has won the big one a few trimes. The guy was the only guy to hold two title belts at one time in a promotion. Dan Henderson has been plagued by his style if anything. His grinding style just does not sit well with casuals. The guy is one of the most acomplished mixed martial artists in the game today.
Dan is one of my favorite fighters...
He doesnt have that charisma that Randy and Chael have…
Randy marketed Extreme Couture…Dan got Clinch Gear banned in the UFC…
Look at what Chael is doing now for himself….Politically and in the the cage…
If Chael comes out with his own line and markets it properly, people will scoop it up…
I like Dan…and Randy and Chael…But Matt Lindland had NO personality…
The bottom line is that he just doesnt have a marketable personality…and due to his bitter personality, he has no market in mainstream MMA AFTER his body is too old to compete at the top level.
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Pud333
Do you even realize how silly that statement was Pud333? Do you realize how much money is at stake? Pensions are a major part of the economy. Billions of dollars are invested thru pensions every year. If the pensions werent protected, it could cause a major burden on the tax payers. What have you seen in practice? Why are unions bad? Unions are a major victory for the middle and lower classes. The laws passed as a result of unions and common people have changed American society for the better. Child Labor, 40 hour work week, workers compensation and OSHA are all a by product of holding companies accountable for their actions. Im sorry if its against the law for a company to force someone to work in unsafe conditions. Where are you coming from with your anti union stance?
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
The right wing lunatic fringe
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Angry how?
Does it anger you when a worker tries to get his fair share from a company that pays it’s CEO millions of dollars? Yeah that angers me too.
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 12:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
let me just say i worked for a facility company where the guys were pretty much paid to show up, drive an unnecessarily large f350 that got 4 MPG of diesel around for 8 hours, and waste all that gas, all that money, all that manpower daily, hourly, yearly all at the expense of taxpayers because these people weren’t going to get fired and had no reason to leave their cushy job. it teaches people complacency, and if you have a union to back the bad job you do, you wont get fired.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Not all unions are like that...
Do you think a “Fighters Union” would make fighter’s complacent? I think there’s a place and time for a Fighter’s Union. The UFC doesn’t pay their fighters well enough.
by Colorado Fan on May 19, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m not paid well enough either. i dont need a union, i need to bust my ass getting enough training/ education to get a better job, and find one. i dont need to rely on a union to start, get me a slightly better wage, and then tax me for their help, then allow people around me to shirk because they wont get fired, and make it incapable for someone to move up based on performance and not seniority.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
then allow people around me to shirk because they wont get fired, and make it incapable for someone to move up based on performance and not seniority
But these things you mention – and I take these to be your major objections to a union – don’t apply to a Fighter’s Union at all. The Fighter’s Union would have to be completely unlike the other unions of professional athletes we’ve seen for these objections to be true.
If what you say is true, then it seems like you have pretty valid objections to a union at your workplace. But your workplace isn’t similar to the MMA fighter’s ‘workplace.’
A program. And rifles.
a fighter’s union MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. that’s all i’m going to say. In no feasible way doesnt it make any sense whatsoever.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? Heathcare for fighters makes no sense? Minimum wages? Ancillary rights? A fighters union does make sense in a lot of ways.
The point Lindland, and many of us, are making is that it’s not going to happen because of the variables involved. In theory, a union DOES make sense. It’s just extremely unlikely.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
1. how can you impose minimum wages on something that can go as little as 7 seconds.
2. health care is just ridiculous. its not real health care, people just want to cover the cost of being injured.
3. this is all coming from people who think that fighting should be a full time job. i’ve read multiple interviews from guys at the top (Chael, Carwin) that have other jobs and a source for health care and benefits. why can’t everyone do that? because maybe theyre lazy and want to follow their dream and live off earnings from fighting. doesnt mean that a union should be formed. its a completely unrealistic thing.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
1. You think every unionized employee punches a clock? A minimum salary, even for a job with a variable timeline, isn’t exactly hard to nail down.
2. There’s a lot more to it than that. It’s not just about the cost of being injured. It’s a real profession that people train full time for. Having healthcare to cover the fighter and their families, again, isn’t hard to figure out.
3. Carwin and Chael are the exceptions to the rule with fighters. And calling any fighter lazy in any context is ridiculous. You keep calling fighting “a dream”. Some people dream of being an astronaut, a baseball player, a lawyer, etc. Why is this any different? Because the path to the top doesn’t go in society’s accepted view of “the ladder to success?”
I’m not even that pro-union, per se…but your arguments against come across as pretty thin.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
This
is a better version of what I was just typing up.
I’d just like to re-emphasize that using Carwin as a metric for laziness makes 99% of people lazy. Between training an hour away from where he lives and holding down a full time job, I bet the guy works 80 hour weeks easy.
On the other hand, Chael owns a gym. And owning a small business can mean that he works anywhere in the range from little at all to insane hours, so I’m not so sure about him.
And yeah, check out BM’s post down thread about problems/alternatives to a union. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but it’s pretty darn good.
A program. And rifles.
Do you not include the year around training as work?
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 5:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Are you at work right now?
Hanging out on bloodyelbow “busting your ass” while others are shirking responsibilities?
"All I guarantee is violence" - Wand
by rockied on May 19, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why do people keep saying that the UFC doesnt pay their fighters well enough? What should they be paying them and why do you think this?
by Darren Watkins on May 19, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
based on the % of the revenue that goes to the fighters
MMA fighters are doing much much worse than boxers.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
From what I have read the fighters report salires are way less than top level boxing, but that has hurt boxing not helped them from what I have seen.
The ufc model is to reinvest all of the money the get by expanding into outher countries. Exansion of any company cost money. That money has to come from some where.
Also fighers are perfectly able to negotiate their contracts and get paid what they are willing to fight for, I do not understand why people complain about fighter pay when the fighters chose to fight for that amount. Half the time the people that complain are the ones who pirate ppv and that is not going to help the fighters.
What about the fighters to earn % of ppv money? This goes unreported but is know by many to be true.
So how much money should go to the fighters that are up and comers?
by Darren Watkins on May 19, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Could that example get any more vague?
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 1:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't have a problem with a CEO making millions
If the workers are fairly compinsated. If being a CEO and creating a huge company is not something special then the pissed off workers should all go start their own comapanies.
CEOs usually don't start companies
there’s a difference between people who are entrepreneurs and those who run a company for a few years and makes tons of money regardless of how well they do it. It’s almost like having an MBA or CEO experience is an ultra-union card.
Use all ten points.
This is too general of an argument. For example I could also say:
i agree that in theory, it may not be bad. but the same can be said for unfettered capitalism. I’ve see multi-national corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs in practice, and as a tax payer it just makes me angry.
I understand that your experiences with unions might be negative, but anecdotes aren’t a great basis for making broad claims :)
A program. And rifles.
and comparing apples to oranges means nothing. your argument makes no sense. I don’t agree with these financial companies ripping people off and getting away with it, and i don’t agree with unions. its not mutually exclusive.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Guess I didn’t make my point clear.
You’re absolutely right they’re not mutually exclusive, but I’m not trying to compare the two. My point was that anecdotes aren’t a good basis for making sweeping claims.
So I hate BP (an oil/energy company) and Goldman Sachs (a financial corporation), right? They’re big assholes. However, that doesn’t mean that all energy companies (I like having electricity) and all financial institutions (I like being able to get a loan for a car) are bad.
Likewise, I hate corrupt unions – sorry I can’t think of any current examples off the top of my head – but that doesn’t mean all unions are bad. I sure as hell enjoy my union-negotiated benefits, weekends and vacation time (although not the low-ass pay).
A program. And rifles.
by Sabate on May 19, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Unions do have a place in the work place when no other governing body will take care of the people. it is sad that people have to form a union just to be able to get basic needs meet. Unions give indviduals power as a whole group instead of each person negotiating a contract. I dont think a sport with individuals fighting can really get a union to work. One fighters needs are not the same as the other fighters.
What benefit would an Union add to MMA?
by Darren Watkins on May 19, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree that a unio in MMA probably won’t ever work. It’s just not something that seems possible considerig the potentially dramatic differences between one fighter and another. Where a union may benefit MMA is in the requirements to provide basic health insurance for example. You hear stories stories of fighters not getting compensated for surgeries, etc. all the time.
I think the whole health care issue has more to do with our health care system than for getting insurance coverage for fighters. From what I know a fighter can get things taken care of by the UFC up to a month after they fight for them.
That is good for after a fight, but what does an up and coming fighter do for insurance while training? I am not sure a union would be able to solve that problem unless the fighters joined a group health care plan that everybody paid into the same pool.
beyond health care what else would a union do to help MMA?
by Darren Watkins on May 19, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
it could help protect
fighters from being forced to sign away their video game likeness rights for zero compensation.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
This is just Zuffa being greedy though. Even Vince McMahon pays royalties on things like that (video games, DVD’s, etc). Once MMA becomes more established, Zuffa will likely lose the ability to strongarm fighters into giving up THAT much.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Zuffa has done a great job funneling fighters into Zuffa contracts. There will need to be a huge lawsuit to break them out of this. Zuffa is unlikely to change just because MMA is more established (i.e. Zuffa is more successful and has more to lose).
Use all ten points.
This isn’t just a Zuffa problem. Bellator has a clause in their contract that gives them the right to trademark a fighter’s name. Now to be fair the breakdown on MMA Payout of the Bellator contract was over a year ago. They might have removed it but not that I know of because no one including MMA Payout has reported on them taking the trademark clause out.
Wanting the right to trademark a fighter’s name is far worse than the video game likeness issue in my opinion. Especially since with Zuffa I think on all other likeness rights matters like the action figures the fighter’s get a piece of the revenue. Someone please correct me on this if it’s wrong.
Just BE.
True and they need to be, but to play devils advocate
I would think being on a video game could increase the amount of sponsors one would have or help to negotiate a contract with another company due to name recognition. I sure people like and Eddie Sanchez and Justin McCully won’t complain because of that alone. It’s not like being a bench warmer in the major leagues that never gets seen on a game.
It does not help with sponsorships.
Especially since THQ badly botches the branding in game.
And it’s not a five-ten year contract. It’s lifetime image rights with zero compensation, essentially ripping away a fighters ability to live off their image in retirement. It’s fucked up business.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
if it's so great
then people would opt in voluntarily, not be forced in.
Use all ten points.
I dont know anything about this whole video game fiasco. So the fighters are making nothing off of this video game? It is crazy for me to think that they will make nothing off of this game.
by Darren Watkins on May 19, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Simply put: they are not making anything.
There are a select few fighters in the UFC who still own their image rights, and the UFC is trying like hell to get them. It’s only by virtue of having VERY good management that these guys still can make money off their image. I don’t know the specifics of the deals these guys have for video game royalties, but the vast majority of UFC fighters get zilch from it.
And it’s not just video games. Things like Round 5 figures or Fatheads do not pay fighters royalties when Zuffa owns their image. Hence why it’s such a problem. Jon Fitch got cut when he tried to negotiate and only give Zuffa 5-10 years of his image, which would cover his time as a high level athlete. His main goal was to make sure that in the event he got severely injured or died, his family could still make some money off his image after it was no longer of significant value to Zuffa. That wasn’t enough though and it almost got all of AKA cut.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
Do actors get a cut when a poster from a movie gets sold? I’m seriously asking because I have no idea.
I think that maybe some ballsy training camp could become a proto-union if they stood up to Zuffa.
Use all ten points.
I'm not sure, never worked the film industry.
As to the ballsy training camp thing, that already happened. Choice quote below.
"We’re looking for guys who want to work with us and not against us, and frankly I’m just so [expletive] sick of this [expletive] it’s not even funny" -Dana White
Read the whole thing. To me, it’s the most despicable thing Dana White has ever done.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
You just don’t understand how much Dana is trying to do for the sport. It’s more than you’ll ever know. The sport can’t grow if it doesn’t have the lifetime rights to Jon Fitch’s image.
/where is that frickin’ sarcasm doohickey?
Anyway, that’s kind of what I’m talking about. Zuffa has so much control over the industry, from press to contracts, that it’d be hard for a single entity like Fitch to do anything. But if Ed Soares, AKA, and ATT simultaneously sued some changes could happen. Of course it would have to be, well, unified.
Use all ten points.
Zuffa tactics are very mafia like
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 3:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The answer to your query is yes
Actors generally receive fees for all uses of their images. They also receive residuals for any time a program they were on is rebroadcast. And most featured players in a feature are contractually obligated to receive royalties from the sale of DVDs or toys in their likeness.
You sure it wasn't the Film Actors Guild?
Maaaatt Daaaaamooon.
Yeah? Remember last year when Lebron won the MVP? Who took home the real MVP? You know, the one the comes with a damn championship?
by zakkree on May 19, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the fighter’s do get a percentage of the action figure revenue and Fatheads. I thought it was only for the video game that Zuffa wanted exclusive image rights.
Fighters can still make money off their image. They aren’t outright prohibiting fighters from using their own image rights. Fighters can still cut their own deals and market their own image outside of the UFC. Just not with the video game because it’s exclusive.
Just BE.
I assure you
that you are mistaken.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I assure you that I am not because I checked about that action figure deal.
Here is a quote here: http://www.mmamania.com/2009/08/06/jakks-pacific-and-round-5-mma-join-forces-for-new-ufc-action-figure-lines/
“This is truly a match made in heaven and we are excited to enter into this agreement with Round 5,” said Jeremy Padawer, SVP Boys Entertainment Marketing, JAKKS Pacific. “As the master toy licensee for the UFC, JAKKS can now offer MMA fans an entire world of action figures, accessories and other collectibles encompassing the most notable fighters in the fight world. The synergy between JAKKS® and Round 5® will ensure cohesive and comprehensive merchandise offering at retail that will benefit all parties involved, including JAKKS, Round 5 and the UFC, as well as the MMA fighters themselves, and most importantly, MMA fans.”
Look it up there are more stories on the web confirming they get a percentage. I will admit the information is very vague about what percentage the fighters get and in some cases worrisome about the checks and balances on the money coming in. I couldn’t tell you how much they get but they get a piece of the revenue.
Just BE.
It says it will "benefit fighters" in a press release.
Look man, I’ve talked to these guys and dealt with the managers. If you want to look at a press release about a new merger saying it “benefits everybody” then that’s your decision. But I can assure you that fighters who signed their image rights over DO NOT get a percentage on those sales. The few who have strong management and kept their rights do get a royalty check.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
It could help protect
fighters from having to give Bellator the right to trademark their names when they sign with them.
The video game likeness rights issue with the UFC pales in comparison to Bellator putting in their contracts that they can trademark a fighter’s name.
I would post the quote and link to the breakdown of Bellator’s contract on MMA Payout but they are having issues with virus warnings. But for those that want to take the chance and read it go to MMA Payout and search for Bellator contracts and you can find the breakdown.
Just BE.
next time you enjoy a weekend off
or worker’s compensation or an 8 hour day or a safe work environment, thank a union. Goldman Sachs is a leech on the economy. Unions are at best inefficient.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i won’t EVER thank a union. A union had a place during rapid industrial growth when people and children were being exploited and needed better conditions. we live in a modern world, laws can take care of all that now.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
yeah the problems are all solved
LOL.
Almost all of the manufacturing in the world has moved to China where there is a lawless dictatorial regime that has absolute power and zero interest in individual rights and safety.
And what about that mining disaster in W Virginia a few weeks ago? Yeah all our problems are solved.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
unions serve a purpose, but they overstepped it and demanded too much, which is why unskilled jobs went oversees where the people understand they’re unskilled
but they overstepped it and demanded too much
This is my problem with Unions. Sometimes they don’t know when to stop; they go beyond reason at times, and can potentially kill industries. But the fundamental basics of rights still stand, and unfortunately, we still need them, cause some businesses can and will do what they can to get away with whatever they want.
The rank and file ought to rain in the union reps.
They know when the leaders step out of line, yet don’t replace them . Hell, they don’t even vote when given the choice.
by E_liminatorjr on May 19, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
First post on BE whooo! I’ve enjoyed lurking for a long time. Hopefully I will enjoy posting EVAN MOAR!
Your view of unions is a bit simplistic. As an well-supported alternative to your view, it could be said that unions in the United States weren’t strong enough to prevent the flight of manufacturing jobs. In other Western countries that have far, far stronger unions (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Norway), manufacturing jobs haven’t fled.
Without getting into the minutiae of labor markets and international trade, what I’m arguing is that discussion of a fighter’s union needs to stay away from a ‘Grand Theory of Unions.’ In general, Grand Theories of Things are often wrong. Unions can be forces of good that democratize economies while encouraging growth (see Germany). They can also be forces for bad that encourage corruption and stifle growth (see Greece). To say that they’re ‘always good’ or ‘always bad’ is just plain wrong.
What I think we should be discussing is “Will a fighters’ union help fighters have better work conditions and livelihoods?” and “Will a fighters’ union harm the sport in general?”
Given that there exists a near-monopoly dictating salaries and benefits in the sport in the absence a competitive labor market (which is no fault of Zuffa – they’re just that damn good at what they do), to me the answers are that Yes a union will improve fighter’s working and living conditions, and No it will probably not harm the sport in general in a substantive way.
A program. And rifles.
by Sabate on May 19, 2010 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
yes, you’ve thought it out and researched it much more than me. i am a pretty simple guy in terms of opinions and knowledge of unions, becuase I don’t need any damn union to look out for my well-rounded ass. As for a fighters union, just like all unions, they should be about working conditions and worker sfatey, not inflated wages for lazy Americans.
Fair enough. Didn’t mean to insult ya- I just nerd out about things generally.
A program. And rifles.
yea the first time
is usually messy, a bit painful, and more uncomfortable than enjoyable.
I'm like PacMan fightin you silly kids... throw ya Hatton the ring, and get knocked outlike Ricky did.
lol.
it could be said that unions in the United States weren’t strong enough to prevent the flight of manufacturing jobs. In other Western countries that have far, far stronger unions (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Norway), manufacturing jobs haven’t fled.
Having the government prop up failing domestic industries with taxpayer money leads to odious tax burdens and stagnant economic growth. Just look at what is happening in Europe right now for the evidence.
by HarmlessNinja on May 20, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Nate. Come on. those are ridiculous points.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
they are ?
I guess it was ridiculous that the safety standards in the mine disaster were utterly awful and that the management made a consistent series of decisions to risk safety for profits.
Move to China if you think it’s so great.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
i never said i thought it was great, but my point wasnt about china in the first place. China has much, much larger problems.
In terms of WV, how is that a union thing? i think its more than the state govt was more willing to impose fines because they were making money off the mine then shutting it down because of multiple safety infractions. Again, something that can be solved by lawmakers actually doing their jobs.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
my referring to the “modern” world was strictly the US. i forget this is an international site some times.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
unions
act as a balance to management.
Currently in the U.S. the government at all levels is completely owned by the big donors. Looking to the government to regulate worker safety while the workers do nothing to protect their own interests is the definition of willfully naive.
But we’ve talked enough on this topic. We’re not going to settle it here.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
agreed. though theres nothing like a political debate to get you fired up on hump day haha
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Safety is one thing
But what about the other function of unions? To inflate wages beyond what the marketplace says should be paid for a particular job?
And then factor in the price tag of companies negotiating with unions. It is a huge inefficiency. These costs all get paid by someone, and it’s usually the shareholder and the end consumer.
and yah China is different because if you don’t want your shitty job, 10 other people are in line to take it.
by IpullguardIRL on May 19, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
trickle down economics? ?
What a great idea.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 12:16 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Better than...
trickle up economics, which simply doesn’t happen, whereas trickle down economics does have tangible benefits for people even at the bottom.
Especially consider that when things go to shit economically its the people at the bottom who get laid off in large numbers…
by IpullguardIRL on May 19, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
trickle down economics
is a lie. 100% lie.
The middle class was much larger and better off before Reagan.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Three graphs to illustrate that point
by John Nash on May 19, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
one's broken
but these are good.
Use all ten points.
getting off topic but,
whether the middle class is better off or not is a really complex issue that can’t really be summarized easily.
There are way too many external variables to even attribute changes in living standards of the middle class to any factor in particular. For example your productivity chart, productivity is a technology story. Computers vs no computers is a huge productivity boost. It would be irrational to argue that people should get a wage increase because a computer made things more efficient.
Has life gotten harder in general? Yah but that’s because of increased competition and limited resources. The world is more globalized etc etc. At the same time colleges cost a ton more, houses cost a ton more, because there’s significantly increased demand for them.
It sucks, but we still shouldn’t have greedy unions pushing up wages because not everyone is meant to have an above average standard of living (simply the definition of average).
by IpullguardIRL on May 19, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
union wages arent just made up. they are reach due to skill level for the job and company profits.
The company paying the wages agrees to them. The company paying the wage is ok with it but you are not? Just because the workers aren’t getting fucked its an unfair wage?
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 3:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
they agree to it because they are often older legacy companies, not because they want to.
It’s unfair because its not comparable to wages in the same industry for non-unionized workers.
It’s one reason legacy airlines have high labor costs and bad employees they can’t fire whereas Southwest has cheaper labor and cheerful people.
GM another legacy company collapses and has trouble with unions whereas new competitors operating plants in the US like Toyota and Honda turn a profit.
by IpullguardIRL on May 19, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
they made those contracts when they couldnt keep a escalade on the lot.
Then the oil markets were manipulated and you couldn’t give a suv away. Then they had a problem with the contracts ,because of their business plan involving gas guzzlers. Gm’s problems were not caused by unions. The problem isn’t that union workers make too much. Its that nonunion workers don’t make enough. Ford is doing just fine with union workers.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 4:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
besides its collective bargaining. if the company doesnt want to pay workers that wage ,they dont have to sign the contract.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 2:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The balance you speak of
has fucked the airline and automotive industries.
i disagree. poor management fucked the auto industry. lack of fore sight.
When everyone was driving a Chevy no one had a problem with the contracts. Lack of Sales ruined GM,Not unions. IMHO
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 7:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The revenue
stream to retired workers is at what percent of total sales now? Yeah the unions are killing the auto industry.
It is a union thing
In the Massey coal mines if you complained about saftey you were basically told to hit the road. In the union mines you report it to your union steward and he adresses the issue with management. Studies have shown much safer conditions exist in union mines
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 3:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You will never meet a union worker with out health care but there is a damn good chance a non union worker in the same trade with out it
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 12:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
and how did those laws get passed?
oh right, by union activism.
Big Picture, dewd, it’s important.
http://fightdrinker.blogspot.com
by some schmuck in texas on May 19, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
you can make $150,000 a year in a non-union mine owned by Massey. But they cut a lot of corners safety-wise. You make less in a union mine, but are much more likely to come home every night. Which is the better system?
Use all ten points.
Which is the better system?
Being able to choose for yourself.
by HarmlessNinja on May 20, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
whether or not they’re leeches on the economy (and yes, crooked bankers are worse than unions), I feel like modern unions are for people/workers who never developed widely-applicable skills and need legal protection to hold on to their myopic jobs since they never developed any other possible way to make money.
For those of us who’ve worked our asses off to get to a point where we’re able to continue to support our families in many ways regardless of if one industry goes to shit, unions are for lazy people.
Really pal? I’m a union chiller mechanic with more hours of school then all of the management above me, I get billed out at anywhere between $130 to 150 an hour. I should probably develop some marketable skills though. That’s a rather insulting attitude you have towards a lot of hardworking Americans
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 3:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
and i bet your engineering skill could be widely applied to other stuff in case chiller mechanics someday become no longer needed. you could be fine without a union. you are, however, in the minority.
I have just as many hours of school as the executives above me, but they’ve been working for way longer, providing a return on investment to people for way longer, which is why they make more money than me. create added value, and you receive added value
i retire from this political discussion and any other on BE. i’m going back full-time to just making fight-related one liners
it's hard to resist commenting on politics, though isn't it!
Use all ten points.
that was to King Fedor
reply fail
Use all ten points.
sir you are able to be on the internet because of union workers.
CWA and the IBEW are the WWW. I am highly skilled and have traveled all around the country as contractor making top dollar before joining a union. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS NOW I DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A PRIME CONTRACTOR NOT PAYING ME THE MONEY I WORKED FOR.
You have blinders on. UNIONS care more about workers, the environment and the customers of corporations than any corporation does. Distribution of power is a very important thing.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 5:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
After a fighters Union...
will managers be obsolete?
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
sports unions usually ensure minimums, retirement , healthcare etc.
Maximum pay is determined by the owners? ?? So agents would still make sense , I think.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 5:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Please, the UFC is growing, and so is MMA as a whole...
Please everyone, sometimes Dana likes to be a heel, but he doesnt make mistakes…and if he does, he fixes them…
He wants people to talk $hit about him…
But, we, as fans of the sport, should let Dana do whatever the hell he damn well pleases…
Not only because he has more than earned the right to, but he is in it for the best interest of the sport, then the UFC, then himself….in which one hand washes the other and then the other and then the other…
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
aka disagrees
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=ki-ufcakafeud111908 pdl posted this. But I thought this would be a good place for this as well.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 7:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
views like this are whats wrong with the world.
That….. and lay ‘n’ pray.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 12:14 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
whats wrong with my view?
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s pretty one-sided and kind of ostrichy (meaning you have your head in the sand and are unwilling to listen to anything else regarding the issue because you’ve made up your mind). Everyone’s allowed to have an opinion of course, but it’s like you’re not acknowledging the benefits of a union at all. They do exist.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
no they don’t. those benefits could exist within the confines of law. we dont need unions anymore. i’ve both seen firsthand how silly they are, and i’m a pretty well educated economics major, so i know that they exist outside of normal economic functioning. you arent going to convert me to your point, because i think youre wrong. there is truly NO purpose for this union, its a bunch of people defending their fav fighters. how are you going to have a union for someone who may work 4x a year? its just stupid. very, very stupid.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
how are you going to have a union for someone who may work 4x a year?
I’m probably just as anti-union as you, but this is non-sense. To be competitive in the sport, you need to be training constantly. To argue that fighters only work for about an hour a year is ridiculous.
by HarmlessNinja on May 20, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Glad to see someone shares my views as well
Unions were worthwhile when you didn’t have a choice of who you worked for. These guys do, it’s not like people are telling them “oh hey train MMA and you’ll make millions” and then get there and find out it’s not true. You can get a pretty realistic view of what you’re going to be making before you get in to it. Don’t like the pay? Go somewhere else.
No one is holding a gun to these guy’s head saying they have to do MMA or sign a contract they aren’t happy with.
One last note but it really puzzles me that of all people Lindland would be the one talking about this now, he ran on a Republican ticket and you’ll be hard pressed to find many conservatives that support unions.
Check out my pic a day for a year project-
Life Through My Lens
good point about Lindland being a Republican
but don’t you see how it’s in the fans interest for MMA to be a more viable career option for athletes? Do you want to see the best compete or just the best rich boys?
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
For me it boils down to who I want to get my money : the promoters or the guys I actually am paying to see fight. The truth is most fans (casuals, not the people on here) are actually paying to see the promotion. They are pro wrestling fans that have migrated from the WWF to the UFC and are much more interested in the spectacle and story line content that the UFC can provide over who is actually fighting,
unfortunately you are right.
I see it on the message boards how often fans really have no clue about the business side of the sport.
People tend to root for easy consumable one stop shopping (UFC) and opposed to actually growing the sport and having many high paying spots for fighters to be able to train full time.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
interesting that Lindland
is for unions when it might benefit him. I don’t know his position on unions in general, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he took th republican line on unions for others.
Use all ten points.
Isn't that how it goes?
Republicans aren’t against health care for themselves. Just against you having it.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Republicans want you to have health care
They just dont want the guvment to take their money to pay for YOUR health care. That is your responsibility
by RoB_ex on May 19, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
what would Jesus do if you needed help going to the Dr.'s?
He would say" Get a job hippy! I ain’t paying for your health care!" Is the feeling I get from “the Christian Right Wing”. I am pretty sure that’s why he quit healing people…. he didn’t wanna mess up free market healthcare. You know helping those in need regardless of their ability to pay is very socialist. And Jesus ain’t no commy bastard! !
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 4:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You've been denied health care?
Who was talking about spiritual healing or faith based healing? If you are in need of care, a doctor is required by law to treat you. There are number of government programs availiable for those without insurance, which, like most government programs, are poorly ran and lacking. Personally, I don’t expect free health care, as much as I desire lower costs….. The last thing I want is a DMV/IRS hybrid running health care
by RoB_ex on May 19, 2010 5:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
No. I receive full medical through my union contract.
If you go to the hospital with out insurance you are treated very different. Medicare seems to have a very high approval rating. That is government run.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 6:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I am tired of the
myth about getting different treatment without medical insurance. It is complete bullshit. I am married to a person in the emergency medical field. She has worked in crime ridden inner cities (St. Louis) to poor rural area (Hannibal MO), and in 22 years she has never seen or heard of anyone being denied medical treatment at any of her facilities.
Gunshot victims, car accidents, industrial accidents all received the same care and time in the ICU.
Want to hear the dirty medical industry secret? People with no medical insurance get about 10% more test done on average. Want to know why? They are a lot more likely to file a lawsuit versus someone with insurance.
i feel like they are more likely to admit you with insurance, but i could be wrong.
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 7:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Never an issue
in the ER, the actually medical information is obtained well after treatment has started.
Missouri must be medical heaven
Because the experience of your family member in the emergency medical field directly contravenes mine.
Mine sees on-call specialists and surgeons fight tooth and nail against coming in to see uninsured emergency cases every week, even though they are required to by federal law. Mine has seen hospital policies reworked over the past twenty years to tacitly ensure that uninsured with emergency issues spend as little time in the hospital as is legally necessary (and sometimes less). And mine has seen hospitals enact new evaluation policies for doctors and nurses that emphasize primarily the amount they bill per patient and their ability to maximize the number of patients seen per hour at the expense of quality care.
Mine has seen a lot of dirt, especially in recent years. It’s amazing how different experiences can be I guess.
A program. And rifles.
Missouri, Maine, Illinois and Texas. She has worked in all 4 states, and it has been the same.
My wife has never asked about medical insurance (when on call) and has never had a specialist ask about a patients insurance status. The most grief come from the operating doctor not having his/hers preferred staff at the time of surgery.
Your family members medical facility must be at the top of many lawsuit lists. People know when they are receiving inadequate or improper care, their next call is to a lawyer.
Urgent care is different than wellness care
A doctor is by law forced to tend to an urgent care situation.
Try making an appointment to see a doctor without insurance.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
so if there was a union, the UFC would be forced to sign Lindland? Matt seems upset that the UFC has passed on him in the past. Certainly the UFC is the main company out there, but there are a number of other options for a fighter.
I get the idea of a union to help with the fight pay, but I don’t see how a union could force somebody to employ a person they don’t want.
Unless he is talking about a union for all fighters in the world and that union would attempt to make all companies more of less equal, which is insane.
Yeah, like Bodog...Doh
or Affliction…Doh…
or Strikeforce…Dohh…
Theres still Strikeforce Challengers for him….
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
So…what you’re saying is that fighters are less important and less deserving of having their well being looked after than baseball/football/basketball players?
It’s not just contractual stuff, a fighter’s union could help in getting health coverage, monitoring the cost of training camps, etc.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on May 19, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
i have no problem with health coverage, but that’s something that could be mandated by law. the thought of this fighter’s union is completely ridiculous and in no way feasible.
i don’t agree with sports unions either, but there is much more a reason for them when you have a league set up with billion dollar teams and the players want to ensure they get their piece of the pie. when your shelflife in mma could be three fights in a row that you’ve lost and youre out of any picture( AA), i think him being in a union would be ridiculous.
The whole concept is too bright eyed.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Brent, the fight business is not the same as the other sports...
Top fighters have a smaller window of success…the younger generation is always going to be better talent wise and physically…
This sport is a baby in relation to the other American Sports…
Now there is a bit of a gray area….like who should get a bigger salary, Jon Jones or Randy Couture? Why should Randy get a title shot before Jones?
The bottom line is that when you are on the top, if you ever get there, you need to create other opportuinties for yourself…
There are good fighters that ARE ambitious and even some good fighters that are NOT ambitious…Randy is Ambitious…so is Chuck…
Neither of them two are world beaters anymore…
There are other good examples…in every sport…
Look at L.T….
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would a fighter’s union be necessary in getting health coverage or monitoring training costs?
These things are personal responsibilities, and personal decisions. Each fighter has different requirements, in these areas, and should plan for them accordingly in their contract discussions.
I have no issue with fighters coming together for the purpose of pooling insurance to get better rates. I do have a problem with businesses which try to masquerade themselves as higher moral institutions. That is what Unions ultimately become. Then, instead of having to work for one company, the union members have to work for two.
A buddy of mine is an actor and a writer. During the Writers’ Guild strike, a few years ago, the upward momentum of his career was almost irreparably damaged because he could not work, even though he had been receiving offers. Of course, if he hadn’t been a Guild member, he wouldn’t be able to work when the strike ended, either. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
by Kung-Fu Joe on May 19, 2010 11:38 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So of those things
could be done right now. Managers and agents could certainly get together and attempt to put together a deal for insurance. They also could look at training camps.
It also doesn’t help that guys who bellyached about fighter pay and treatment shut up as soon as they signed their new deals with the UFC.
Remember when Randy and Tito were renegades?
exactly. It goes like this- top guys complain because they aren’t making enough money, and then if they’re good enough, they renegotiate when they reach their apex and no longer complain about the money they make.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Dana has said he supports the idea of a fighters union. Matt is right that it is a different sport but the politics don’t change drastically from one team to another in MLB, NBA, and the NFL. They can’t just leave the league and make the same money in the CFL.
The union is there to protect the players and in this case the fighters rights. The MLB, NBA, and NFL didn’t always have unions. Once the unions feel that it is worth it to them to get invoved they will get the fighters together to “unite.” The fighters deserve that protection and I think it will come and will work under one promotion.
Lindland sounds scorned. He basically called his current employer second class. I don’t agree with his assessment of whoever the announcers say are the best that is what fans believe. No one believes Hershel is a great striker, no one believes that Houston Alexander is for real. The majority of fans aren’t that clueless IMO.
“Dana has said he supports the idea of a fighters union.”
This kind of indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what a union is.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 19, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
exactly, he is probably saying that because it won’t happen. the structure of the sport makes it impossible.
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
you read BE, and probably a lot of other MMA media, therefore you know who’s the best and who isn’t. People who don’t read this stuff and just watch events from time-to-time do believe the announcers
Dana and ZUFFA...
absolutely DO NOT want a fighter’s union.
Not that there is anything wrong with that from a business perspective. But they very much do not want a fighter’s union.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on May 19, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
no but they have the
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on May 19, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes boxers have a union they may join but as is obvious every time the subject comes up it’s so worthless people don’t even know it exist:
http://www.ringboyz.com/Eddiejab.htm
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/rbf1407.php
I think the fact that there is a union in boxing that even most boxers won’t join tells a lot about how things would work for this in MMA. To have a working fighters union you would have to pretty much get every fighter world wide to join up and force the major organizations to become closed shops (have to be in the union to fight there). You can’t half ass it or start with just some guys or you get the same kind of worthless crap that happened in boxing.
How would a fighter union work
When orgs like kotc, mfc, strikeforce can’t pay the same as zuffa? And union dues which would cover health care would be incredibly high due to the danger of the profession.
Unions work in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL because there are multiple teams under a single league, not multiple leagues under a sport.
This will never work and to call guys whores is an insult, especially when Lindland did the same when signing with affliction. He’s an old fighter who has sour grapes.
Follow me on twitter @thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on May 19, 2010 11:31 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
It would have to be a UFC specific union, just like the MLBPA is MLB specific and the NFLPA is NFL specific.
so the UFC = MMA?
Follow me on twitter @thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on May 19, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this to a degree and that is why a union wouldn’t work. A fighter union couldn’t just exist with only UFC fighters but yet if they allowed fighters outside the UFC in then it falls apart in my opinion. Simply because all the things the union could negotiate to get for UFC fighters would bankrupt another organization if they imposed those same things on them.
For example the fighter union gets the UFC to pay for health care and all of training camp expenses. Those kinds of expenses would then have to also be paid for the other fighters in Strikeforce or Bellator or DREAM or MFC or Shine or any other mid-level to small MMA promotion. The fighter union couldn’t just make the UFC pay for those extra things and not the other organizations. Therefore probably making it unprofitable for those other companies to stay in business. That would all but kill the industry.
Just BE.
The fighter union couldn’t just make the UFC pay for those extra things and not the other organizations.
Sure they could.
Look at professional baseball as an example. Minor league baseball players are not members of the MLBPA and do not have any of the rights or privileges afforded to MLBPA members. However, once they get called up to the big leagues, their union card gets punched and they get all the perks of union membership. If they get sent back to the minors, their membership is suspended until they return to the big leagues. A promotion-based fighter union could work in a similar manner. When you are in the UFC, you get the perks. When you get cut, you lose the perks.
However, the entire point is moot, because it is never going to happen. The UFC treats their marquee fighters well enough that they would not want any part of a union, and without the marquee fighters on board, the union would have leverage.
The MLB farm system does have salary minimums though
I’m looking at this from the most basic stand point of establishing payscale minimums. Unions work in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL/MLS because there are many teams under one league. And the league has to deal with the owners and players. They vote on rule changes and profit sharing and salaries.
In combat sports it won’t work because the promoters don’t establish the rules, the Athletic Commissions do. Now, if the entire sport was under the Zuffa banner then it may work, but does a fighter who is dropped from the UFC due to poor record then have to leave the union when they sign with Strikeforce/MFC/KOTC? Does the union still have their back when establishing their minimum salary?
Follow me on twitter @thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on May 19, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
O.k. sure they could but only if every organization besides the UFC is going to admit to being the minor leagues and accepting that they can’t compete directly with the UFC. The UFC isn’t going to be the only one covering those extra added expenses the union is asking for unless they get the union to assure them some kind of security to stay as the only major league MMA promotion. Otherwise it would make no sense for the UFC to agree to cover those extra expenses that the other promotions don’t have to worry about.
I guess it would end all the arguments about who is on what level though. Because the union would then be elevating the UFC to the only major league status in MMA and everyone else would just be the minor leagues.
Just BE.
we are all whores to sum degree..... its just a word
We do things we would rather not do for money. I am a union whore. So ….. my whoring gives me full medical. Lol
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 12:20 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The only way there can be a workable union is if there is a 1 dominant promotion. Otherwise, the marketplace will dictate fair price.
If the Japanese Organizations, Strikeforce, Bellator, etc. all folded, there could be a chance for a union.
MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. players unions exist because there is only one major organization in all of those sports.
Anyone who doesn't subscribe to his philosophy of complete and utter career mismanagement is a "whore" or a "coward."
Love it.
Lost all sympathy for his career trajectory when I learned he turned down a spot on TUF 4.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 11:34 AM EDT reply actions
Why would he have taken a spot on a reality show in lieu of making hundreds of thousands of dollars
by Jonathan Snowden on May 19, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I have no problem with Matt choosing to take bird in the hand over two in the bush.
I just don’t want to hear him complain when it turns out he got a pigeon while the guy who opted for the bush landed a couple of fat turkeys.
turkeys dont go in bushes so much..... its more of a quail reference.
But I gottcha homie
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on May 19, 2010 12:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Change is good..
in a system that doesnt work…
Change is BAD in a system that DOES work…
The UFCs system is working…Kimbo was making a whole lot more money than people who were much better than him…He lost, and inturn, was not worth the large sum of money he was getting paid…
Is Matt bitching about how much the UFC is paying fighters or how much S cott Coker is paying fighters in Strikeforce Challengers??
by Roll NControl on May 19, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Come on. Only a quarter of the people from TUF 4 are still with Zuffa. Fewer than that have made the money Lindland has in the same time period.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 19, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
The winner of TUF4 got a title shot. If Lindland had won TUF 4, and then beaten Silva, he would be UFC champ. Hard to argue he wouldn’t be better off. Hell, Lutter would probably still be around if he could freakin make weight. Who is in a better position now, Serra, or Lindland? I’d argue Serra, and I think Lindland would have easily won TUF4, so yeah, I agree with the kittias kid that it was stupid for him to turn that down.
by IWillPartyHard on May 19, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Uh, one side is a bunch of “if’s”, the other side made 525k for 2 Affliction fights and kept his ancillary freedom. Seems pretty simple to me.
Besides, the whole idea of Dana inviting him back for TUF 4 was to insult him anyway. He was never seriously going to be on the show. Dana and Matt hate each other.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Well Lindland could go for the money in a doomed promotion, or go for the title shot in the UFC. He chose the former, his choice, now he is all bitchy about it. Funny how one of the most overpayed fighters in MMA history is complaining about wanting a Union.
by IWillPartyHard on May 19, 2010 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
One is a guarantee, the other is three or four fights down the road to an asskicking
"All I guarantee is violence" - Wand
This is hindsight. It wasn’t doomed when he signed that contract. And no matter what your opinion of him is, he is one of the few that has stood up to the UFC.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Lack of foresight is how careers get mismanaged.
Case in point: his.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure how he “mismanaged” his career. He’s 39. He couldn’t win forever. He made a lot of money down the stretch doing what he could. More power to him. I’m not a big Woogie fan or anything, but I don’t think he did that badly for himself.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
He mismanaged it because of all the sponsor money he left on the table. He went for the quick buck. He got the quick buck. Now he’s bitching that he doesn’t have the long-term cash and that anyone who had the foresight to do business with the UFC is a “whore” and a “coward.”
It’s just the sourest kind of grapes, is all.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
What? He was going to get that by winning 4 fights to get back into the UFC? Then what? He was making good sponsorship money anyway.
And where is he bitching about anything to do with his own financial situation? Could you show me that part?
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
He was going to get that by winning 4 fights to get back into the UFC? Then what?
See how Tito takes TUF every time they offer it to him? And makes sure “Punishment Athletics” is plastered all over the place every time he does?
Go the Serra route. Do the show. Build a good relationship with the company. Get a coaching gig. Do that with Clinch Gear. It’s not particularly hard.
And where is he bitching about anything to do with his own financial situation?
Where he’s calling people whores and cowards. If you’re making more than people, you just call them stupid. If they’re making more than you, you impugn their character, because the numbers don’t speak to your intelligence.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
He would have never had that opportunity with the UFC. You’ve already explained why yourself. TUF 4 was never a real option for him, from both sides. The “offer” was a farce.
Where he’s calling people whores and cowards. If you’re making more than people, you just call them stupid. If they’re making more than you, you impugn their character, because the numbers don’t speak to your intelligence.
Maybe that’s what YOU do. But it seems like many people, including yourself, are missing his point here. He’s not talking about money per se, he’s talking about it’s effect on the ability to create a union. How are you missing the bigger issue here?
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
TUF 4 offer was not a farce. I didn’t explain why myself.
Lindland’s views on the sport’s economics and its possibility for unions are flavored by his own experience, which was caused by his own myopia.
He views the entire situation through bitter-colored glasses.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s your opinion of it. One I do not share. So we’ll agree to disagree.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Hm.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Lindland himself says he was offered TUF 4 in "Fighting Politics..."
… and gives his reasons for turning it down.
Now you show me where Dana said the offer wasn’t made in earnest and he was planning to use it as a tool to humiliate Lindland.
Because certainly that couldn’t have been just wild conjecture on your part. You wouldn’t be that irresponsible in your speculation.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I like how you take his words here and make suppositions about them in terms of his business acumen, his financial state, etc…and what do you use as facts? His words.
Anyway, I haven’t seen it, so I will concede the point if he gave his reasons himself. My point originally was that choosing not to do it didn’t exactly work out badly for him.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Yeah, it’s weird how I use what people actually say, instead of just conjuring up their motivations and Machiavellian plots out of thin air, like some people.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Besides, the whole idea of Dana inviting him back for TUF 4 was to insult him anyway. He was never seriously going to be on the show. Dana and Matt hate each other.
Yeah, Dana has never brought back anyone he professed to hate before.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
This is true, but Lindland was a different case. Was he ever going to be a draw in the UFC with his style? No. That’s the reason he got ousted in the first place. Dana used a weak technicality to bounce him.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Was he ever going to be a draw in the UFC with his style? No.
Lindland has the same exact style as Tito. Put them on their backs and smash the shit out of them.
The reason he got cut on a weak technicality is because he has a boring style and he wasn’t easy to do business with because he has no business sense or savvy, which is ironic given he’s one of the few Republicans in the sport. It is this latter shortcoming we’re discussing here.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
In this particular branch of the thread, we’re talking about why he wasn’t on TUF 4. The overall topic is fighter unions. This has absolutely nothing to do with Matt Lindland’s business savvy.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
His refusal to take the spot on TUF 4 shows a complete lack of business savvy.
So there’s the connection more explicitly made for you.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
If you keep repeating it, maybe it will be true!
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Come on. Only a quarter of the people from TUF 4 are still with Zuffa. Fewer than that have made the money Lindland has in the same time period.
Then why is Matt so sour?
The price he paid for those fat Affliction paydays was that he passed up his last opportunity to make it into the UFC. He made his choice. He got his huge paydays. Good for him.
My problem is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
He is pissed off that he isn’t going to get a golden parachute from Zuffa like the one Matt Hughes got. Problem is, Hughes got that golden parachute because he stuck with Zuffa through thick and thin. He could have played hardball and challenged the champions clause in court and reaped a huge windfall as a free agent. But he didn’t. He showed loyalty to the UFC and Zuffa rewarded him with nice, fat contract to cover the twilight of his career.
1) If Lindland is making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 10 weeks they take to film a season, he’s doing pretty ok. If non-ufc fighters make this kind of bank, what are they bitching about?
2) Sometimes you have to take time out, lose some income to do something that will be useful in the future. People who go to school lose quite a bit of immediate income in the hopes that the education will pay off in the end. Same with TUF; you might lose money in the short term, but the payoff even if you don’t win is worth a lot. Most of the dudes on the show get contracts anyway.
Anyways, I think MMA is about as centralized as its going to get. Boxing is like the anti-union; every man for himself. A fighters union would have to exclude some fighters, because that is part of how unions work—- they don’t just take everyone. So there will always be a ready pool of scabs. Starting a new fight promotion is as easy as building a cage and spending $50 bucks to get your business license, so if a fighters union went on strike and could somehow prevent their org from hiring scabs, some new org would pop up, hire the scabs, and make bank.
And really, each fighter is more like a small business; each one needs revenue to pay for overhead, employees, etc. So the idea of fighters going on strike is basically similar to private practice lawyers or dentists or plumbers going on strike. The idea of a small business man cutting off all his revenue to make a point is pretty silly for a lot of reasons, and points to a larger problem for a fighters union concept.
They should look at doing something like the lawyer’s bar association. It’s more suited to the fighters business model, but has some union-y aspects that increase pay.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
by toxic on May 19, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If that was the scenario, then what's he complaining about now?
Sometimes you gotta think long-term. I think how his career played out, versus, say, Matt Serra’s, speaks for itself in terms of which was the wiser move.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
You do realize that Serra was a once in a lifetime success story right?
by Jonathan Snowden on May 19, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
You do realize he's nowhere near as talented nor as skilled as Matt Lindland, right?
Are you suggesting Lindland wouldn’t have won the 185 group? And that he couldn’t have gone on to possibly win the title?
Lindland’s gone 3-2 since TUF 4. You don’t think Lindland could have accomplished that over the past few years?
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 19, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
There is almost no chance he would have made as much money fighting for the UFC over that time span.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 19, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Based on what?
If he wins the title in February 2007, which is by no means out of the question, he almost certainly would have made more money.
Not to mention the fact that you’re now changing horses in midstream. Before, there was no way he could have duplicated the success that Serra did. Now, there’s way he could have made as much money as he did using a career path outside of the UFC.
Of course, both of those assertions are wrong. All I want you to do is pick one and stick with it.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 20, 2010 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
How are my two contentions conflicting in any way? It’s not changing horses…life doesn’t follow a rigid path like that, where there is only a single reason to make a decision.
I don’t believe Lindland would have won a fight with Silva, that is assuming he was able to emerge from TUF (and several FREE fights) as the champion. Equally likely was the chance of coming back to the UFC at 15/15 or something crazy or ending up like Shonie Carter: cut.
Only a handful of fighters in the UFC have made “Lindland” money in the time frame we are discussing. There are a number of reasons it is unlikely he would have duplicated that success in the UFC, starting with the fact that most UFC fighters simply aren’t that well compensated.
There is little doubt that if everything had worked out perfectly, if he had become a better fighter somehow at the twilight of his career, if he had inherited Serra’s loudmouth charm, if he had won 8 in row….he could have done well in the UFC. He also could have lost in TUF or to Silva, been cut, and never gotten the big pay day.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 20, 2010 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
The Lindland of February 2007 was less than a year removed from an arguable win against Rampage. The Anderson Silva of that time was just coming off his first win over Franklin. Neither of them were the fighters they are today. Lindland may even have been favored by bookmakers coming into the clash.
It is not “equally likely” that Lindland would have gone the Shonie route, because Lindland was (and is) a much better fighter than Shonie. He’s also a much better fighter than Lutter, who won the 85s, or Serra, whose success you refuse to acknowledge he could have replicated.
It’s true that not many fighters in the UFC made as much as Lindland has over the past few years. The difference is talent. Lindland would have been a highly skilled opponent in a weight class starved for contenders. He would have presupposed Zuffa having to plug in fighters like Leites or Maia for title shots. I think it’s more logical to assume Lindland would have made the elite money, as he is an elite talent. His earnings would definitely have been more comparable to Henderson than Shonie Carter.
Finally, Lindland wasn’t in the twilight of his career in 2007. He entered the twilight of his career in late 2009/early 2010. So that’s another apples/oranges assertion.
Lindland losing TUF would have been unlikely. A loss to Silva isn’t out of the question, but he could have gotten back in line and plied his trade with a higher profile for a couple of years and made sponsor/bonus money that whole time. Seems to have worked out okay for Franklin and Hendo, who both lost to Silva, yet still did pretty well for themselves.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 20, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Serra’s success has been built on a once and a lifetime knockout and a gift of gab. I don’t think Matt could have replicated Serra’s success under any circumstances. He is smart and treated me well when I visited his gym. I’m not disparaging him. But he doesn’t have the force of personality that made Serra a star and kept him in money fights after he lost a step.
Matt was 37 years old in 2007. He did well with Rampage, but it was pretty clear he wasn’t moving like he used to. I’ve talked to Lindland and to people in the UFC about this. He has no friends there. Had he won the show by weathering several fights back to back in his late 30’s, he still wasn’t a guy they would have continued to use as he racked up loss after loss. The idea he would have been “back in line” or is comparable to Franklin (who everyone in Zuffa loves and wants to see succeed) is not reality.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 20, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Way to play the "insider knowledge" card.
I know Lindland has no friends at Zuffa. That’s my point. The guy makes piss-poor business decisions and alienates people. If he would have gotten out of that habit, he could have gone a long way with the TUF 4 opportunity.
Zuffa has made stars out of people who didn’t have the “gift for gab” before. Chuck Liddell jumps to mind.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 20, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t really understand how making a lot of money fighting somewhere else is a “piss poor business decision.” TUF 4 was a place for guys who never really made the most of their opportunities in the UFC. Lindland was 9-3 there. It was an insult to offer him TUF and he was right to decline it.
The idea that Zuffa was going to make a big star out of Matt Lindland is silly. They had him from 2000-2005. It wasn’t going to happen. Comparing him to Liddell is ludicrous.
Sorry to use “insider knowledge.” Is that frowned upon?
by Jonathan Snowden on May 21, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
It was an insult to offer him TUF and he was right to decline it.
This is his problem of perception. It was an opportunity. He viewed it as an insult. Another example of how he lets his ego get in the way of his career.
The idea that Zuffa was going to make a big star out of Matt Lindland is silly. They had him from 2000-2005. It wasn’t going to happen.
And the sport was exactly the same in the latter half of the decade as the first half of the decade. Now who’s being silly?
Sorry to use "insider knowledge." Is that frowned upon?
It’s not frowned upon. There’s just no way to verify what these people said as you never bothered to include it in the robust volumes of journalism that you’ve produced on the sport.
So, in response, Joe Silva told me once that he loved Matt Lindland and would have been glad to push him had Matt only taken the opportunity on TUF 4.
I just never bothered to tell anyone that Joe had said this to me until now.
Sorry to use “insider knowledge.” But now you know. And knowing is half the battle. You’re welcome.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 21, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
It was an “opportunity” that paid less and insulted his status in the sport. If all had gone beyond perfectly, he might have MAYBE done a bit better with the UFC. Why was this bad for his career again?
Of course the second half of the decade would have been different. I mean,barely gave him a hard push when they were desperate for his Olympic credibility to help them get in good with the commissions. Things would have been much worse for him post TUF boom.
I don’t know what to tell you about insider stuff. I mean, I talk with people in the MMA business. It’s one of my jobs. Either that’s valuable or it’s not, but it informs my stance on things like this.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 21, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn't have to go "beyond perfectly."
He just had to get out of his own way. That’s all he’s ever had to do. But thanks for acknowledging the possibility.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 21, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks would have had to fall into place pretty nicely for him to make a run through the TUF house, beat Anderson Silva, and run off a string of successful defenses, all while dealing with diminished physical skills.
But yes, in that world it was probably a mistake not to sign on for a season of TUF. Earth L.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 21, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Did you advise him not to take the shot or something?
I don’t understand how — given what’s happened with EliteXC, Affliction, and now Strikeforce — anyone even remotely familiar with the sport can argue that it wouldn’t have been better to be in the UFC versus those orgs for the past few years.
He made some nice checks from Affliction. Fair enough. But if he’d have fought those dates in the UFC he would have more than made up the cash in sponsor dollars because somebody would have actually seen him. And he’d now have some cachet for his school and career, instead of having documentaries made about how nobody knows who the fuck he is and how sad a fact that is.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 21, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure how much more you think sponsorship dough is for UFC undercarders, vis-a-vis people on television for Showtime or Affliction. I think people would be shocked if they knew how some of these clothing “sponsorships” actually worked.
Besides, I’m fairly sure if Matt had gone with the UFC he’d have been cut in short order and missed collecting some big bucks from Affliction and BoDog.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 22, 2010 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, the insider knowledge.
Keep appealing to this grand pool of infinite wisdom that you’re privy to and I’m not so you don’t have to debate the issue at hand.
It will make things easier. For both of us.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on May 23, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
For those interested: The absence of a fighters union is not for lack of trying.
I’ve been contacted through companies I work for more than once with organizations trying to start a fighters union. I still have some stickers and patches they sent laying around somewhere. Pretty silly.
And anybody who believes Dana when he says he supports a fighter union is fucking ignorant, at best.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
There’s a pretty good comparison to pro wrestling on the union issue here. Pro wrestlers have been trying on and off to form a union for 30+ years, and the same things always stop it from happening – the top guys not wanting to give up a slice of their pie, and a promoter that will do everything he can to fracture the brotherhood enough that it will never get past the planning stages. I see little correlation between an auto workers union and this type of union. Even other sports have little in common with it. But MMA’s structure is built similarly to pro wrestlings (independent contractors, lack of benefits, etc).
The sport will have to grow to a point where there are 5-10 top-level promotions before it ever gets off the ground, IMO. Also known as – never.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
by Tim Burke on May 19, 2010 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
In response to that, I think the sport will eventually need something similar to the Ali Act (as Nate mentioned above) as opposed to a union. It makes more sense. That’s way off too though.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Arguing for something like the Ali act is arguing against a fighters union. That would be the government creating laws to protect the fighters, just like Amadeus was arguing above and everyone was bitching at him about.
by IWillPartyHard on May 19, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I partially agree. I don’t think people are bitching at him for being anti-fighter union, it’s the veracity of his argument that people are bitching about. But you’re right that creating law is the exact opposite of creating a union. I’ve never actually argued either, just pointing out that law might be the way to go since a union will never happen.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
well put. with the exception that pro wrestlers can perform multiple times a week. Fighters cannot (at least safely)
Even when I'm laying on my back I'm never backing down
by Austin Martin on May 19, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Pro wrestlers have been trying on and off to form a union for 30+ years, and the same things always stop it from happening – the top guys not wanting to give up a slice of their pie
Exactly.
Unions always wind up taking money away from the guys at the top of the pay scale. Look at the NBA for proof. Their maximum contract nonsense is costing the leagues stars tens of millions of dollars while artificially raising the league minimum wage for completely replaceable spare parts.
I disagree
the guys at the top are making a ton more than they did 10 years ago, and so are the little guys.
I think it’s better that those at the top of the pay-scale have a slightly lower ceiling, while the guys at the bottom have a higher floor. $500K a year doesn’t matter to Lebron, but it makes a huge difference to a guy who’s only in the league a couple of years.
Use all ten points.
yeah, but not nearly as much as it means to JJ Hickson. I’d argue that the guys who are barely scraping by in the NBA would still play for $75,000, but because guys like LeBron have a salary cap, the NBA minimum is…almost $500K for a rookie and more than $750K for a vet.
And the more I think about it, the less I think $500K matters to Lebron.
Use all ten points.
You just proved my point.
Nobody comes to a basketball game to watch JJ Hickson. He is an eminently replaceable spare part. Without a minimum salary, the Cavs could fill their bench with a half-dozen guys making $100K, give Lebron another $2MM, and be no worse off. Unfortunately for stars like Lebron and fortunately for scrubs throughout the league, the max contract and salary caps have redistributed the wealth to the scrubs.
Without the artificial impediments to paying stars their market value, guys like Lebron James would be making twice what he is now.
Did a little checking.
In 2004-2005 Shaquille O’Neal was the highest paid player in the NBA at $28MM per year
In 2005-2006, the max contract was implemented and Shaq ended up taking a 28% paycut down to $20MM per year.
That is what I mean by the union hurting the elite players in order to subsidize the guys on the end of the bench.
I agreed
with all you said in terms of what the facts are. Our disagreement is whether the state of how salaries are distributed is good or bad. I think it’s a better thing for the world that the wealth is spread a little bit.
Looking back at what I posted, I did claim that the highest salaries have increased in the past 10 years. They have increased, but only by about 15%. The greater gains are not at the very top (Again, I think this is not a bad thing.). The segment of players between $10M and $20M has more than doubled. Overall, in 99-00, the team cap was $34M. Now it’s $57.7M. The union is good for basketball players in general.
Also, because of the union, players have guaranteed contracts. That is a very good thing for the players (not necessarily for the quality of play).
Use all ten points.
Our disagreement is whether the state of how salaries are distributed is good or bad.
I never took a position on whether it is good or bad.
All I am arguing is that unions decrease the pay of elite players, and therefore elite players have little incentive to unionize.
ah
OK, sorry for the confusion (I responded to your statement of this fact with “that’s not a bad thing” and I thought you were taking the opposite position.). Agreed that they don’t have much incentive.
The only incentive that I can really think of is that guys might possibly band together with the guys they train with who don’t have as much drawing power.
Use all ten points.
UFC contracts
Isn’t the biggest problem that the UFC’s contracts give them all the power? They’ve diligently created a system where anyone that they want to stay has to stay, and anyone they want to ditch, they can ditch with no recourse.
I think the best chance we could ever have to see the top fighters compete against each other as well as see them fairly paid would be something similar to what pro tennis has: tournaments owned by the players.
It would take some serious lawsuits and organization that likely won’t happen, though.
Use all ten points.
There is not a huge difference between Strikeforce contracts and UFC contracts.
Strikeforce can also cut fighters after losses and they also have a championship clause.
In order for real changes to be made, a hell of a lot more money is going to have to be made. Folks want to talk about MLB, NFL and others, look at how many teams get public aid.
Tennis? Sponsors pay a ton of money to sponsor events.
If Bud Light is willing to pay out millions upon millions for an event, it could happen. But it would also need a network willing to pay eight figures to air it.
Oh yeah UNIONS! They always the solution to the evil empire of employers. The great thing about Unions is that they’re so grounded in reality and they ‘get’ the big picture.
The only problem with Unions is that half the time they create backlash problems for most of the people they represent, while also acting as a parasite to the host. But otherwise, unions all the way.
by Dooda on May 19, 2010 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
On the other hand, if the ‘evil empire of the employers’ didn’t go about demanding things that aren’t possible and cared for their employees rather than being all about the bottom line, the unions wouldn’t be necessary.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on May 19, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
If they were going about demanding things that weren’t possible from their employees, they wouldn’t have any employees left because they’d do nothing but fall short.
As for caring about their employees, businesses typically do (and the UFC is included in that) but if they don’t worry about their bottom line they typically suffer death. Caring about the bottom line and caring about your employees are part and parcel, but the employee that isn’t seen as contributing to your bottom line should not be in the business.
I do agree that it would be great if there was decent competition, the only problem is that the market doesn’t seem to agree with that, and the market is reality. Unions, for whatever reason, don’t like factoring in the market (reality).
“There’s enough support (for a union) but these guys, outside of the cage or outside of the ropes, these guys are cowards, you know they would not dare stand up to the powers-that-be.”
Like whoring themselves out for a gambling site?
He’s talking about individual fighters not giving up anything for the greater good. Hence the “standing up to the powers that be” line. A sponsorship deal with a gambling website is whoring himself out for sure, but it has nothing to do with the argument he’s trying to make about creating a fighter union. If he was forced to give up a piece of it, or all of it, in the name of a fighter union, it would make sense. But it’s not.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
for the greater good? do you really believe that he gives two shits about other fighters financial situations? it’s as if mc hammer got upset about file sharing who cares no one is listening to him anyway.
Maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.
He says he does. And unless you have evidence to the contrary – like him screwing over another fighter to get ahead – you’re just making ungrounded assertions.
Unless you’re psychic. Then I apologize.
And no, the fact that Lindland is a die-hard Republican doesn’t count as evidence that “he gives two shits.” :P
A program. And rifles.
Again, you’re missing the point. Whether he gives a shit or not isn’t what he’s talking about. He’s not in that position right now, so we’ll never know for sure. All he’s talking about is what it will take to create a fighters union, and why it won’t happen. Him accepting a gambling sponsorship has sweet fuck all to do with that.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
It has to do with his character and the tendency to be a sell out, you know what it all makes sense why that guy is talking about a fighters union.
OT: Screen Actors Guild?
Anybody know anything about the SAG?
I know jack about it, but it might be a model to look at for a Fighter’s Union. I know it has rules about how much actors have to work to get SAG benefits/coverage. Given that MMA isn’t a league, it might be something similar to what an MMA union could look like.
A program. And rifles.
Good point.....
The big stars get their pay, but the lower guys are still organized. I’m not sure how this could apply to combat sports, but ur onto something.
I bet Lindland doesn’t support unions in his political life
by stearnum on May 19, 2010 1:35 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Unions like pretty much everything else brings a mixed bag of good and bad with them. They aren’t a magic cure all for the woes of MMA, heck there is no guarantee they would help at all. There are plenty of problems with the sport and fighters as is and something will eventually need to be done but unionization just may never even be a viable option for the sport. Lindland was right the reasons it won’t happen. The option I would prefer would be government regulation. The Ali act doesn’t apply to MMA for very good reasons but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be an act written specifically to apply to the needs of the sport of MMA. A regulated government framework could help a lot of these guys without all the crap that comes along with unionization.
People also have to stop trying to compare this to other industries or unions because it’s not at all the same. Auto unions and teamsters and professional athletes are all different entities and just because you don’t care for the auto unions doesn’t mean squat for this. Just like the business model is different for the sport then union model would also be very different.
Same Argument, different players
This goes hand in hand with an idea of having a pro wrestling union. /Thread Jacking
Oh, politics
you’re a divisive prick
"Alas, there is no time-share on my balls." -Luke Thomas
by xAtlasx on May 19, 2010 2:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't think many fighters want a union.
Why would you want to join a union to help the guys that are trying to beat your face in? This isn’t like baseball where you and 30 other guys are happily playing against a team of 30 other guys and you’ll swap teams as you see fit. It’s a 1v1 sport. Of course people aren’t going to want to unionize.
Keeping in mind the fact that more guys than ever are making a living off of this sport, and that while there’s still up and comer types making $3k/3k on the undercard of an UFN, there are a hell of a lot more guys making 25-100k per fight and that’s not including their sponsorships.
I don’t think it would benefit many guys at all, and that’s the reason the idea never gains any traction.
How would it work, anyhow?
I join MMA Fighters Union and I want to fight in the UFC, UFC has to pay me a minimum price? What if I get cut from UFC and go to KOTC, do they have to pay that same price? Am I allowed to work at a show that doesn’t hire all union fighters?
I can see it now, up and comer gets a shot in UFC, joins the fighters union, then he’s stuck with union dues and unable to fight at any of the local shows because then he’s crossing the union line and working a non-union show. Sounds awesome. What if a guy doesn’t want to join the union? Is he then not allowed to fight in union shows? What if he doesn’t agree with the way the union runs things? Tough shit, suck it up and join or don’t fight there? Sounds like what Lindland is complaining about already.
What about fight camps? Are union guys allowed to train with non union guys? Are the camps going to have to pay dues to be part of the union? Trainers? cornermen? Sounds like a lot of bureaucratic nonsense to me.
People are jumping all over the idea of a union as a wonderful fix all, but the fact is they come with good and bad. Someone mentioned SAG, and SAG is a huge dividing line amongst actors who aren’t working on major productions. I don’t think many of the people supporting the union concept have actually thought out the idea of HOW it would work.
Something tells me that Matt Lindland, as a politician, loves the idea of a union because he would conveniently volunteer to be in adminstration for it, and make money off of fighting despite being unable to compete anymore.
Arbitration
If by chance they did form a union the day they go to arbitration and Zuffa has to open their books their is going to be a whole lot of “these bastards have been ripping us off”
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 19, 2010 5:46 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I’m pretty sure an arbitar can request that a private company opens their books for arbitration
Root for the home team jack ass
by KING FEDOR on May 20, 2010 10:45 AM EDT via mobile 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
