UFC Strikeforce Merger Aftermath: No Union, No Competition, No Monopoly?
The business thinkers of the MMA world, such as it is, are continuing to analyze the ramifications and implications and possible defenestrations coming out of the UFC's purchase of Strikeforce. In the United States we have a vestigial memory (and a lot of still nominally enforced laws) of once having attempted to restrain corporate monopoly power so there has been a lot of concern over whether or not Zuffa, the corporate parent, will run afoul of the feds over all this.
Dave Meltzer, the sage of the business has some very salient points in the Wrestling Observer (subscription required):
Two days later, when White was joined by UFC Chairman and CEO Lorenzo Fertitta and Scott Coker, who will remain in charge of the Strikeforce division, the theme seemed twofold.
The first was that the deal, which had been in negotiations since early December and was finalized on 3/11, is right now a work in progress. The second was pushing that the new deal does not create a monopoly in the sport.
But the reality is different, at least at the present time. Every major star and potential legitimate championship level fighter in the sport is now locked up and under contract with Zuffa, aside from a few with Bellator. The only exceptions are featherweights Bibiano Fernandes and Hatsu Hioki, both of whom have no name value outside of Japan, where the sport is struggling for survival past the grassroots level.
"There is no getting in," said one person who in the past had interest of getting into MMA in a big way. "One of the networks will have to say, `let's teach `em a lesson,' but that was (Doug) Herzog's mentality in taking TNA in 2005. Even though Spike didn't own TNA, he went with them in order to build someone up against Vince."
This next point from Meltzer is very very important:
For a top fighter, there is nobody out there who can afford the kind of money the elite fighters can get. Putting the two leading companies that were competing under the same umbrella removes any leverage fighters had when it came to getting better deals.
That's called a monopsony and it was once frowned upon both as a matter of practice, a matter of preference, a manner of custom and a matter of law rather than being part of a window-dressing of rarely enforced laws.
MMA Junkie legal counselor David Nelmark answers the monopoly question:
If the market is "entertainment," Zuffa definitely is not a monopoly due to other entertainment options such as video games and movies. If it's narrowed to "sports entertainment," Zuffa still competes with other big-time professional sports such the NFL.
Even if it's narrowed to "combat-sports entertainment," there are lots of other options out there, especially boxing.
If the market is defined as "mixed martial arts," it starts to become a closer question. But Zuffa still can point to the hundreds of regional MMA promotions around the country. Restricting the market even further to "televised MMA" still would include Bellator Fighting Championships, MFC and others.
Thus, for Zuffa clearly to have a monopoly, the market probably has to be defined as "pay-per-view MMA." In that arena, Zuffa does have a truly dominant market share, notwithstanding the internet PPV offerings of companies such as Shark Fights and the occasional televised PPV from companies such as Shine Fights.
Zach Arnold answers Nelmark's open question, what is the market?
UFC is in the PPV business and a heavy portion of their viewer demographics crosses over from the pro-wrestling field. They know what the formula is to make money. For an outsider wanting to get in, the barriers are now extremely high. A lot of money, a lot of resources, and a need for office talent that understands the business. It's not something you learn in a textbook. And yet, in many situations when new money marks come into the fold, it's always the sleazy retreads who should never have gainful employment who somehow attract the marks in order to draw a few paychecks before the next failure happens.
And that's just the climate in the States. Try Japan. Sumo's falling apart. The wrestling scene has limited power now. K-1 has had financial difficulties. The yakuza problems still exist. Now, the big Tohoku earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear problems. Want to be a promoter in Japan and spend a lot of money only to have to cancel a show? Several promoters have had to deal with that fate this week, including Dragon Gate which announced a cancellation of their big March 20th event in Tokyo at Ryogoku Kokugikan. All Japan has a show scheduled for the 21st at the same building. Their show may get postponed as well. Between the politics, resources, and crime, how will the Japanese scene look in the future?
MMA Payout looked at the situation from the perspective of a would be investor in a competing MMA promotion and where some opportunities may be:
If we look back at some of those figures, it took an investment of $3 million dollars from SVSE and Explosion entertainment back in February of 2009 to cash out on March of 2011, span of 2 years, to be bought by Zuffa for above $40 million dollars. Being the #2 promotion or the "next competitor to the UFC" paid off for Strikeforce, and I think many other promotion are looking at their model to try and accomplish the same.
...If Zuffa ends up deciding that they do not want female MMA in the UFC, another promotion could build a solid stable of female fighters and scoop whatever talent is left out there not under the UFC umbrella (see Bellator) to start the process all over again. FX, Fuel TV, G4, FSN, and other networks have shown recent interest in MMA programming, and all it takes is the right deal to present itself to a promotion for a shot at the #2 spot. With that being said, the risk in the market has grown exponentially high this time around, as UFC has taken a dominant share of the market and has the majority of the top fighters in MMA.
Strikeforce is said to have roughly 140 fighters under contract in addition to UFC's current 260 fighters, which is a whopping 400 fighters under the Zuffa banner at the moment. It is expected that a good portion of those fighters will be cut and out of the UFC by 2012, since Zuffa has said before that they feel comfortable with a roster of around 200-220 fighters. The UFC will also have to sign many foreign fighters as they keep reaching new international markets (trying to find the GSP of each country they visit), which only guarantees that many domestic fighters will be getting cut in the next 12 months. This bodes well for the promotions such as Bellator, MFC, Shark Fights, Titan FC, & Tachi Palace Fights in the States, BAMMA, and Cage Warriors in the UK, and KSW in Poland to name a few. It also bodes well for a station like HDNet who has TV contracts with MFC, Shark Fights, and Titan FC. These promotions have shown a great deal of potential in the last couple of years and the talent pool quality of MMA fighters should be increasing in the next year. One of those could make the next step up or it could be an investment group, like the ones behind ProElite to assume the #2 spot in the market. It will definitely be a risk for any investor to jump into the current state of the market, but fans and investors seem eager to give it another go.
In sum, I'd say there is no current competition for the UFC as a buyer in the market for top end male MMA fighters, for fans willing to buy MMA PPVs there is no competition in the PPV but there may be opportunities to compete financially for live gates and cable TV for competitors.
117 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
bellator. besides, fans should want to see the best fight the best. i am glad we don’t have to worry about whose the best basketball team or player, for example, because they are all in one place.
we mutha fuckin thug life riders westsiiiide till we die
by cosmic fist technique on Mar 17, 2011 7:10 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
The way I have heard it explained, legally speaking, they are not afoul of antitrust legislation just yet as one could point to the many smaller mma promotions as competition in general and Bellator as competition on television. PPV may be a different story. Basically what the legal counsel from Junkie said. This is of course in the legal sense. We can all agree they really don’t have legitamate competition whatsoever.
We’ll see how this shakes out, but in the meantime I thinks this is a good thing for fans.
The PPV Argument is Silly
The UFC has always had, essentially, a monopoly in the ‘MMA PPV Market’. They just bought Strikeforce, a company that DOESN’T DO MMA PPVS. They’ve never done one. It has no impact on the current MMA PPV market.
I know we’re obligated to lob anti-Zuffa grenades here at BE, but this one doesn’t even make sense.
by flingom on Mar 17, 2011 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I wasn't lobbing any grenades
I was acknowledging that if there is any validity to the statement that they have virtually no competition, it would be in the PPV market. Your assertion that they have always had a monopoly on MMA PPV has been true since Pride went away, and really doesn’t change any with the acquisition of SF.
by Anton Chigurh on Mar 17, 2011 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
No not you with the 'grenade' thing
Just the article in general. No issues with your post, just commenting on your PPV comment…
They just bought Strikeforce, a company that DOESN’T DO MMA PPVS. They’ve never done one. It has no impact on the current MMA PPV market.
True, they have never had one, but their desire and intentions to do so have been public knowledge for some time.
Why do you think Dana was so careful when Ariel asked him (twice iirc) if “eliminating a competitor” or something similar was the reason for the purchase.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 17, 2011 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Major League Soccer and U.S. Soccer were sued, in part, because players contended they conspired to limit the market for soccer players in the USA by creating one league sanctioned as “first division.”
Part of the verdict in MLS’s favor was that no “first division” market existed and one could not be assumed to come into existence without MLS filling the void.
I wonder if that could be the UFC’s contention as well. MMA in 2001 was hardly major league. The UFC, whether you buy the Zuffa myth or contend that the regulation push started with SEG, paved the way for MMA to exist.
In any case, I don’t think they can run afoul of antitrust suits simply for being miles ahead of the competition. The question Zuffa would be more likely to answer in court: Are they engaging in “predatory practices”?
The UFC, whether you buy the Zuffa myth or contend that the regulation push started with SEG, paved the way for MMA to exist.
…not REALLY up for debate in the slightest.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2011 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. This isn’t cable news and everything isn’t gray. The Zuffa Myth is wrong..
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 17, 2011 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, that was a weak off-handed joke about Web debating. The point was the UFC, starting under SEG and continuing under Zuffa, led the regulation push and basically established the market for top-flight MMA in this country.
There is always the chance that the Strikeforce purchase comes back to haunt them. If ever an anti-trust case was to be brought against them I imagine it would be for purchasing their only real competitor. Especially if it could be shown that the company was viable and that the Zuffa outbid other reasonable offers.
Are they engaging in "predatory practices"?
Yep that would be the big legal question. They aren’t a true monopoly but many of their business moves could be argued as predatory practices if they were ever legally called to the floor (the kinds of things that got Microsoft in trouble).
Rumors of them pulling strings with casinos in Vegas to keep other companies from doing shows there, the way they dicked Fedor over with his TapOut sponsorship, etc……. They have a long history of playing hardball and some of the things they do are a bit fishy legally.
by who me on Mar 18, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If Zuffa can be sued under anti-trust laws, then what is to stop someone from suing the NCAA, PGA, MLB, and every other organization that has a monopoly (not just a monosopony) over their respective professional sport?
Nothing. Which is why it will never happen. It’s been a while since anti-trust, but I’m pretty sure that professional sports organizations pretty much are exempt from anti-trust laws.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
Don’t forget — the NFL was indeed sued. And lost. The damages they were asked to pay, though, weren’t exactly sufficient to keep the competition in business.
Hard to call getting $3 a win.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2011 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus 76 cents in interest and about $6 million in legal fees, but yeah, not enough:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2006-08-07-usfl-retrospective_x.htm
Found that story in a post I’d forgotten — are monopolies necessary?
http://www.sportsmyriad.com/2010/09/are-sports-monopolies-necessary/
MLB has an exemption, so they are out. the NFL was sued when they conspired to keep the USFL off TV and out of stadiums, the USFL won 3 dollars. They are getting sued again by the players because the teams are conspiring against them while there is no union, who knows what will actually happen.
Buying SF doesn’t violate anti-trust laws, they’re going to have to do something beyond that to get sued, and lose.
Suing them for it is easy, winning the suit is the hard part. Heck there is a long history of anti-trust lawsuits and sports, most all of them have failed.
Heck there is a long history of anti-trust lawsuits and sports, most all of them have failed.
What do you mean “most all of them have failed”? All of the major sports are in violation of anti-trust laws, and those rare times when the issue is properly pushed has resulted in either a loss by ownership or, more often, a settlement that greatly benefits the players/athletes in question.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Failed to change things
The major sports have been in violation of anti-trust laws for as long as their have been anti-trust laws. Heck the NFL was threatened with an anti-trust suit from Oakland when the Raiders moved to LA and they were also defending an anti-trust suit from LA when the NFL tried to stop the move, these cases happen all the damn time but the major sports leagues just keep on going (there have been hundreds of anti-trust sports cases). You get lots of small victories and incremental changes but you also have plenty of pyrrhic victories and down right losses too. In the end it’s business as usual time and time again.
I am speaking primarily in terms of the players, as I alluded to (“a settlement that greatly benefits the players/athletes in question”).
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
“those rare times when the issue is properly pushed has resulted in either a loss by ownership.”
What are some of those? I know that this has not been the case with the NFL (see data from University of Baltimore School of Law Dean Phillip Closius).
That is exactly the case with the NFL
Those involving the players as a whole have never been allowed to go to a decision in court, the owners always have given in to most of the demands because they know they have no ground (legally) for their position, and face the risk of triple damages.
Are you not familiar with the Reggie White case? That is what ultimately lead to the version of free agency contained in the subsequent CBAs. The current suit will result in the players again getting essentially what they want, even if in this case what they want is simply a continuation of the deal already in place.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't like this
You’ve set up a scenario where you can not possibly be wrong, where anything the owners do means a player victory. It’s no correct, the owners might give concessions here and there and still might come out the winners in the discussion. It’s absolutely not how you explain it, where the players will simply get whatever they want no matter what.
In addition, the major motivating factor for the owners to deal with the players isn’t the threat of anti-trust legislation. It’s making money in 2011.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
In addition, the major motivating factor for the owners to deal with the players isn’t the threat of anti-trust legislation (emphasis added). It’s making money in 2011.
You are right, and I have never claimed otherwise. What the owners fear and will ultimately be motivated to settle by is antitrust litigation. Billionaire owners don’t get that way by taking foolish risks that are both likely to fail and potentially catastrophic if they do, and that is what battling antitrust legislation would be for them, with the potential for triple damages.
Of course, the players also will likely not push litigation to completion because even though they should prevail, there is no guarantee. They are simply using their best weapon (decertification and litigation) to force the owners hand into a settlement that favors the players – the owners will never, ever concede to submitting detailed, audited books on the individual teams as the results would be an embarrassment and a PR disaster.
Under the NFLPA’s last, best offer, they were said to be willing to concede $137.5 million per year as an annual offset for the owners (on top of the billion they already receive), which would represent a better deal (percentage wise) than the one they signed in 2006 (the one that the owners opted out of in 2008).
Mark my words, when the dust settles, the players will have given up essentially nothing from the previous CBA. They have long been willing to sacrifice the top rookies (by agreeing to a rookie cap or scale of some sort), so long as they directed where the saved funds went. Aside from that, there will be no 18 game schedule (without huge, unprecedented health-related concession, which are highly unlikely), and little if any additional offset to the owners – even though the owners last offer of an additional $250 million or so would have left the offset substantially lower (as a percentage of total football revenues) than the $1 billion represented in 2006.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You are right, and I have never claimed otherwise. What the owners fear and will ultimately be motivated to settle by is antitrust litigation.
I don’t buy that either. I don’t think the threat of litigation has anything to do with it. At all. The owners want to keep making the most money possible, that’s the only motivation they have. Same motivation the players have. They’ll meet in the middle somewhere and both parties will be happy and pissed about it.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s absolutely not how you explain it, where the players will simply get whatever they want no matter what.
This is not in the slightest what I said. I simply said that:
The current suit will result in the players again getting essentially what they want, even if in this case what they want is simply a continuation of the deal already in place.Which is what will happen – the player’s last, best offer prior to decertification is the best the owners can hope for now.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Ummmm, you just re-stated exactly what I was getting at. You’ve set the plate as a no lose situation for the players. Which it is in a sense, since they will gain something. However, if they don’t actually gain what they really want it’s not really a “win”.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
For a top fighter, there is nobody out there who can afford the kind of money the elite fighters can get. Putting the two leading companies that were competing under the same umbrella removes any leverage fighters had when it came to getting better deals.
THAT is the most important sentence. That is the real problem for the fighters.
The best, most realistic way to remedy this issue in the current landscape of the sport is to make MMA a more viable product. Superficial competition between shitty MMA promotions offering a watered down product is not how you make MMA a more viable business investment. You consolidate the talent pool, put fourth the best possible product which then leads to as much money as possible getting into/behind the sport. Putting on the best shows possible is what Zuffa intends to do, and once they succeed in that, they will have at the same time made MMA a more viable and recognized product. At that point they won’t be able to piss that product off. If they do, someone else will come along and be happy to sell what Zuffa has established.
If Dana and Zuffa are as evil as some people here are so sure they are, treating the fighters unfairly will be their downfall.
"Who are you and how the hell did you get in here?"
"I'm a locksmith... and i'm a locksmith."
by Goonisis on Mar 17, 2011 7:22 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
great post Goonisis
I couldnt have said it better myself.
I believe this will help create mega fight cards. The emergence of Zuffa as a clear #1 will help future fans associate MMA with UFC, thus increasing the chance they become hooked. Right now, you have MMA on HD Net, Spike TV, Versus, Showtime, MTV2, Fox Sports Net etc, etc, etc. When consumers have that many options its hard for anyone to gain real traction. The lack of competition hasnt killed WWE, K-1, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB etc. Moreover, look no further then soccer, there are so many choices to pick from, you have so many different leagues it’s impossible to have a rooting interest in any team not in your immediate proximity. This will help UFC become a legit sport. UFC will be covered along with NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR etc.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Good post
The only way we were ever going to see the possibility of virtually allthe top fighters matched together was through co-promotion or the UFC becoming the true NFL of MMA. The latter is what we will get eventually now that the UFC has purchased SF. There are many issues to be resolved, fair compensation of fighters chief among them, but this should be a good deal all around in the long run.
It seems to me fighter pay has steadily risen in the last few years and most UFC level fighters are making a living doing what they love to do. Hopefully the sport and subsequently fighter compensation continues to grow.
by Anton Chigurh on Mar 17, 2011 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Very interesting post.
I believe a #2 will emerge sooner or later. Bellator will gain big time from cut UFC fighters. So, the buyout will solidify Bellator and UFC. The MMA market has become over saturated with programming, it is wise to consolidate the programming and make a viable #1 and viable #2. How many people complaining about a monopoly were also complaining about the weak PPV cards? This is gonna help solve that problem. In the meantime, Bellator will be able to sign very marketable fighters, gain traction with UFC fans and give the fighters another option. If the PPV model is too be continued, this had to happen sooner or later. If we had a Pride vs UFC rivalry ongoing, PPV cards would be top heavy and lack interest. Now, if the UFC is able to have consistent top 10 fights, it will be able to market the sport mainstream and all the attention can be focused on the fighters and the UFC. Right now, one of the reasons MMA isn’t covered as heavily as it could be is the number of orgs. Now, that Zuffa is the main player, it will be easier for fans, journalists and potential new eyeballs to locate MMA.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Does it mean anything if Zuffa is a monopsony or not? Knowing how little interest the general public, or even fans have, in the working conditions of the fighters I would say no. But still there are is legislation such as the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 that forbids a company from so dominating an industry as to prevent competition from suppliers (in this case it would be fighters supplying their talents). So if Zuffa was exhibiting monopsonistic behavior they would be open to anti-trust actions.
OK, so are they? I’ve used this example before but imagine you’re Josh Koscheck and you are negotiating your next contract. You could easily claim you’re are one of the most popular (or unpopular as it would be) welterweights in the world, perhaps behind only GSP himself. You could also point out how you have headlined or co-headlined several big selling payperview cards and Zuffa could easily expect to do the same in the future. Imagine how well a Diaz/Koscheck match would help a card? Add perhaps 100,0000 buys to the show and $3 million to Zuffa’s coffers. So you ask for what you think is a fair amount, $150,000 to show and $100,000 if you win. About 5% what you will bring in. And what happens next? They laugh at you and offer half. Now what are your options besides grin and bear it?
A great example of such a monopsony in a profession sports labor market was baseball, where until 1976, the "reserve clause" in player contracts bound each player to a single team. This is was an extreme form of collusion by the league which is pretty much identical to having one owner as in Zuffa. As a result, teams did not compete for players. But if you looked at their wages you might think they had nothing to complain about. In 1970 the average baseball player made $29,303. In 1975 they were making $44,839. This was over four times what the median household in the US made. But not so fast, according to Gerald W. Scully in Pay and Performance in Major League Baseball and Andrew Zimbalist in Salaries and Performance: Beyond the Scully Model the the rate of monopsonistic exploitation was so high during this time that players were paid less than half of the value of their contribution to output, and possibly as little as one-seventh. After the reserve clause was eliminated in 1976, thus eliminating the monopsonistic collusion of the owner, players’ salaries subsequently soared. They may have been well paid, but that doesn’t the owners weren’t also taking advantage of them. It also doesn’t mean that just because they made more than me or you they couldn’t and shouldn’t be able to ask for as much as they could.
i think it’s fairly obvious that the UFC is a monopsony. What’s not clear is if anything can or will be done about it.
by John Nash on Mar 17, 2011 7:28 PM EDT reply actions 11 recs
This is a really interesting point, which is why I rec’d it, but I think the difference here is that if the UFC stiffed enough fighters, then Shark Fights or someone could suddenly swoop them all up. With baseball, that wasn’t a reasonable option — creating a bunch of teams from disaffected major leagues would be a logistical nightmare, certainly a giant barrier to entry.
So I’d still think the UFC will have pressure to treat its fighters well, both to keep fighters in the fold and keep the fans’ goodwill, both essential to remaining No. 1. On the legal front, I think they might need to be very careful on the broadcasting and sponsorship fronts. If someone can claim that the UFC scuttled a deal that would’ve brought in revenue for a potential competitor, THEN we might see something.
by Beau Dure on Mar 17, 2011 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
I think that if you were a Mark Cuban (god..I keep using him) and really wanted to get into the business, you’d make it clear once you heard rumblings of guys being unhappy that you’d be happy to start a promotion where guys will get paid $XXXX if they were around to be signed. Then you wait for guys to leave and start signing them up.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2011 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
It's in Mark Cuban's interest that Zuffa does well
He bought Zuffa bonds back in 2009
http://unintelligentdefense.blogspot.com
by MattParker117 on Mar 17, 2011 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m of the opinion that nothing can be done about it as things are currently.
“Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions.”
I’m not sure what behavior would even come close to applying to the criteria above. I’m no Zuffa shill but they’re smart businessmen. I could just as easily see almost any major American sports league being dinged for anti-trust violations as Zuffa. I know that’s not what most folks want to here. Tis true, though.
to me the only real alarming thing is zuffa's restricting of fighter likenesses
the ufc provides an extremely valuable service to fighters in terms of platform and everything that goes into it (promotion, media dealmaking, political wrangling, etc.), so I personally don’t think it too unreasonable at this phase of the sport’s development for fighters to make less in salary than what their raw contribution implies. but when athletes can’t collect on most of on their own ancilliary rights, are limited in their endorsements, presumably get little to no stake in residuals from dvd sales and tv replays, then you really are unfairly restricting them.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Mar 18, 2011 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions
That is a concern
Sounds like Springfield's got a discipline problem.
- Maybe that's why we beat them at football nearly half the time.
Athlete likenesses tend to be restricted in a lot of ways in a lot of sports. I don’t like that the fighters don’t get paid for video game rights but things like dvd sales and tv replays are a more complicated issue.
In most sports likeness issues are negotiated by the players unions
In general, the understanding in most sports seems to be that the league and teams own the team logos, names, and things like that, but the players own their own images. This is why you often see football players in commercials wearing generic workout gear or lookalike jerseys. They can make whatever deals they want, they just can’t use the league-owned images unless it’s approved, and definitely can’t put anything on their league-owned jerseys. So, in this way I can respect the UFC’s decision to only allow UFC-approved sponsors on fighter apparel at UFC events, but a lot of this other stuff is to me a clear misuse of the UFC’s market domination.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Mar 18, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
As far as comparing that to the UFC who ever said a fighter couldn’t make a deal to do a tv commercial or magazine ad outside of the UFC and use their own likeness? Rashad Evans was in a freaking Microsoft commercial, GSP does under-armor commercials too. The UFC doesn’t exclusively own their likenesses they just own their video game rights(which is an issue in and of itself). I think people confuse the video game issue with the UFC owning every aspect of a fighter’s likeness.
Now Bellator does have this in their contracts:
One area of the ancillary agreement that is raising the ire of fighter advocates and mangers is a clause that has Bellator reserving the right to register as a trademark the fighter’s name, stage name, or identity for the purposes of Bellator carrying out their promotional duties. This sort of arrangement hearkens almost to the type of deals prevalent in the WWE, where the company holds trademarks over the performers stagenames and likenesses. As jaded as MMA reps are at this point by the contractual grabbiness of Zuffa contracts, this clause is seen in some quarters as being beyond the pale, which takes some doing.
http://mmapayout.com/2009/03/inside-the-bellator-contract/
Now a company trademarking a fighter’s name and identity does seem to be a bit much.
I wouldn’t be surprised if UFC fighters have to get approval for outside endorsements, whether it says so in their contract or not. Either way, as with most sports, there’s only a small percentage of the very top athletes who are going to get big endorsement deals. Some might be able to get a local deal, or get a deal selling supplements or snake oil or whatever, but most get their money out of the residual use of their image in the form of cards, posters, jerseys, action figures, video game appearances, etc.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Mar 19, 2011 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Not the case
Baseball is totally different then an individual sport like MMA. If you are a top fighter like Josh Koscheck the UFC invested time and money to market, have name recognitionand can headline PPV you have much more bargaining power. To build a fighters name takes a long time and money in the end if you’re not happy you can get out of your contract and make money else where. The notion that the UFC is a monopsony is absurd. At any point any promotion can raise the money to pay top dollars to fighters just like Affliction did, this is not as difficult as creating a new baseball or a football legue. The investment is not that high compared to the money that could be made, I’m not saying its easy but it’s not like trying to compete with Microsoft to develop a new operating system. Fighters will have options. Being in the UFC will mean that the fighters will have a stable environment and have to be the best to earn top dollars.
But is it that easy to enter the game?
- 1st you apparently need some sort of tv platform to build up and sell your cards from. That’s not easy or cheap to put together.
- 2nd you can’t just offer the fighters a better deal and sign them. Fighters are under contract and the Zuffa contracts give them almost all the leverage. After every loss they have the option of cutting a fighter and renegotiating (when they now have their least leverage) and if the fighter holds the belt they are susceptible to a champions clause that locks them into future fights thus lowering their leverage when they are at their most valuable. How are you going to get fighters to carry an event if the 90% that are marketable are either going to be locked into contracts or have their marketability sullied by a loss and being cut?
3) I how many times have you heard fans spout the lines “if they want to be considered the best they have to go the UFC”? How many members of BE espouse a philosophy that the UFC is the major leagues and they should have no competition? If the fans attribute a value to fighters because they are in the UFC and refuse to watch anyone outside the UFC it is going to be damn near impossible to set up your own promotion.
And on top of that you have to worry about Zuffa running counter-programming, whisper campaigns, raiding your roster, and, if you prove yourself not to be incompetent like your predecessors and made a viable promotion, finally buying you out from under your feet. None of that makes it sound too easy.
New BE word of the week – Defenestrations
Still a Beer Monster.
http://www.instrength.com
by Tim Burke on Mar 17, 2011 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
it’s one of the best word’s in the english language. I don’t know who decided we needed a word for it, but I thank them.
thank the Germans
and the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
The German language is totally modular so you can build incredible words by adding more and more parts. Fenster = window.
See the Great Defenestration of Prague
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on Mar 17, 2011 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
You're being redundant. Let me help you.
Shit, I learned something new. And here I was thinking I waswasting my timeon Bloody Elbow today.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
rec'd
for image, inclusion of Lobo with the cool haircut, and the funky id.
by Victor Rodriguez on Mar 17, 2011 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Dennis Miller: I don’t want to go on a rant here but America’s foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first Battle of Antietam. I mean, when a neo-conservative defenestrates it’s like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate.
Peter: What the hell does “rant” mean?
http://www.familyguyfun.com/family-guy3-14-peter-griffin-husband-father-brother.html
by Beau Dure on Mar 17, 2011 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
One of my favorite historical events:
@scb0212
The Machiavellian.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Mar 17, 2011 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
If you take Dana at his word, Zuffa bought Strikeforce because:
1. They need more fighters.
2. Everything will be business as usual between the two organizations though, no crossover fights or whatever and when someone’s UFC or Strikeforce contract runs out Scott and Dana can and both bid against each other for said fighter’s services.
If this is the case THEN THE BUYOUT MAKES NO SENSE. Therefore Dana is lying on one of the points.
This probably doesn’t ever get litigated, but there’s some caselaw out there that doesn’t help ZUFFA .
Probably the most relevant is United States v. International Boxing Club of N.Y. There, the court found championship boxing to be a distinct market from nonchampionship fights. I don’t think it’s too much of a logical leap to say that the UFC is similarly distinct from local or regional promotions, with larger audiences, higher revenues and higher participant skill levels. The IBCNY was eventually forced to dissolve, faced with court-imposed divestitures.
Agreed
That, combined with the signing away of the fighter’s likeness or get cut like Fitch did, the restrictions on sponsor’s and the hardball tactics used there are additional areas where Zuffa would be on the wrong side of things.
However, they are smart and well advised, and will likely take the steps needed to prevent any issues (taking care of the top draws mainly).
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Isn't the fighter likeness issue from that only in regards to the video games?
The hardball tactics they pulled with Fitch is a prime example of the kind of practices that could get the UFC into legal trouble, just buying Strikeforce not so much. Heck things like they pulled with Fitch happened when there were other companies out there for Fitch to sign with.
A thought on how unions could form.
Has Dana or Lorenzo or any UFC mouthpiece every really supported a training camp? Or said anything positive about a team that wasn’t backhanded in some way? Legitimate question, because I can’t think of any and would love to have groupmemory help me out. If you do have examples, can you think of any from 2008 onward?
The closest thing to an association or union fighters have is their training camp. I can’t think of any time Dana (not that he’s always the policy maker, but he’s the public mouthpiece) has supported a camp, and comments on coaches are few and throwaway lines. When it looked like AKA might stand together, Zuffa was about to straight cut all of them after making an example of Fitch. The only exception was Mike “The Scab” Swick. Is this intentional?
All honest questions that I’d love to hear answers to, even if they make this post look stupid. Help me learn, people!
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I think Dana’s always been complimentary of John Hackleman and The Pit. Never heard him talk shit about ATT that I remember. He’s support Matt Serra’s fighters by letting a ton of them on TUF. That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
Still a Beer Monster.
http://www.instrength.com
He was complimentary when he managed Chuck.
Since 2008 he stopped mostly.
Obviously, John Hackleman didn’t pay his house off yet. John Hackleman needs some money, because anybody who claims they care about Chuck Liddell even a little bit would not be making these f–king statements…How many great, talented guys do you see coming out of John Hackleman’s place? He’s no Greg Jackson. He’s no Mark DellaGrotte. He’s no American Top Team. He’s not one of the great camps. Chuck Liddell made him.
http://mmafrenzy.com/10265/dana-white-john-hackleman-needs-some-money/
Dellagrotte is not a top trainer in my mind and I’m lazy, so I’ll let that slide and jump to the Greg Jackson and company turnaround.
I got to be honest; you see this happen now consistently with the Greg Jackson camp. I don’t know if they are told or what their deal is, in their minds they are winning the fight going into the last round and it’s not true. There’s like this avoid the fight because we think we’re winning thing.http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/11/14/1814067/dana-white-talks-ufc-122-and-greg-jacksons-fighters (side note, he also says Okami deserves his title shot)
You can not rub grease on any part of the body besides the face. [The commission] took all our camera work from all the different angles and is looking into it. This is the case of a stupid cornerman. The cornerman did it and he is going to be held accountable for it…. Anything can happen to his cornerman — everything from a fine to never being able to work in the corner again.http://www.themmanews.com/?p=2666 regarding Phil Nurse and the GSP vs. Penn fight.
I’m looking for positive comments about a team. Sure he probably helps out some guys more than others, but I’m trying to find PR/media stuff. Still happy to be proven wrong, this is an insane theory still.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I personally think really went after and goes after the AKA team more than any other for the simple fact that AKA operates as much more than a training team. There the closest thing to an association in MMA. That and the close relationship Javier Mendez has (had) with Scott Coker, who was making his move from regional to national right before the fitch fiasco. Remember the rumors of Mendez or other AKA guys coming over to serve as matchmaker if/when Strikeforce got on NBC.
It just hit me how bad off Gracie and AKA are now that Coker has been bought out.
AKA, "Black House", and the Jackson/Tristar/Grudge Alliance.
Each of them had very strong team loyalty. If the three entities joined together for a strike, they UFC would lose Anderson, Aldo, Lyoto, GSP, Florian, Condit, Jones, Rodrigo, Rogerio, Fitch, Kos, Swick, Sanchez, Cain, Torres, Dos Santos, Stann, Carwin, Cerrone, Marquardt, Schaub, Nunes, Guillard, Guida, Garcia, and Page. That’s off the top of my head who are top 25 including four of the current seven champs. Even if they didn’t go somewhere else but just refused to compete for 6 months, that’s 6 months with only three belts (Bantamweight with Cruz, Lightweight with Edgar, and LHW with Shogun) that can be challenged. And there’s a good chance you’ve lost your top contender anyways and the title is devalued.
Probably would never happen for a lot of reasons, but I can’t help but feel like Zuffa doesn’t explicitly support training camps for a reason.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
On fighter pay.
I’m really tired of people using this as some sort of ammo against Zuffa/UFC/Dana.
Can anyone else name a promotion that pays as well? Even the bottom guys?
Now this promotion would have to be one that actually pays, where the checks don’t bounce and the fighters get the opportunity to fight on a regular basis.
It’s funny though, whenever this point is used, nobody brings up how SF was paying their bottom guys $500/$1000?
Of course, someone will bring up Affliction and, well, where are they now?
by BJJDenver on Mar 17, 2011 10:09 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
The issue isn’t that Zuffa treats fighters worse and that other promoters treat fighters better, it’s that the balance of power is so overwhelming in their favor that it distorts what a competitive market would support. And things like non-competitve markets are kind of a bad thing, At least they’re supposed to be in capitalism as well as in this country.
So comparing any promotion with one that generates 10 to 20 times the revenue seems a little disingenuous. Now if Scott Coker was where Zuffa is now, with the only hyperpower in all MMA, would he suddenly be treating fighters better? Maybe, but I doubt it. I’d assume that he’d be doing the same thing Zuffa is doing now, paying fighters enough to guarantee they’ll fight but not as much as they could get if Zuffa needed to get them to fight. Dana and the Fertittas are doing nothing illegal or immoral – they are businessmen running a business. I know I don’t begrudge them for how they run their company. But just as only the most predisposed will want to blame them exclusively only the most deluded of fan is not going to look at the situation and think that the fighters – the people we are supposedly paying this vast sum of monies to watch fight – aren’t getting the short end of the stick.
by John Nash on Mar 18, 2011 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
This has been said before
but you’re a lot like me but eloquent, polite, and sober. So… not much like me.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
From a capitalist point of view it’s a more complicated question, particularly from a laissez-faire viewpoint. The UFC most definately isn’t a coercive monopoly(anyone who wants to is free to jump on in to the industry). You could open up a huge bag of economic theory worms going down that path. I guess the fun thing to do would be to call you a damn socialist :D

by who me on Mar 18, 2011 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don’t view laissez-faire or “law of the jungle” as true capitalism since it ignores one of the cornerstones of capitalism, competition. Everyone always talks about supply and demand but apparently competition never makes it into the equation.
But truthfully what do I know. I’m just spouting shit. The real reason I side with fighters is partly philosophical and partly because I’m probably one of the fews guys on here who earns a living through a similar process of negotiating through an agent and manager. I just know if I didn’t have competition in for my services it would suck and I would be looking at much smaller checks and someone else making a lot of money of my work.
Laissez-faire idealism doesn’t ignore competition is just thinks that the only monopoly that is a problem is a coercive monopoly and that those are normally caused by government regulation/control not prevented by them(think Dutch East India Company). The idea is that if a company with a standard monopoly tries to raise prices they create business opportunities for other companies and that the market itself will erode the monopoly. A lot of view the issue only from a labor standpoint not a market standpoint and that’s fine but it’s really a very complicated issue.
Your one of those Hollywood types…………

The real competition
Looking at the macro the real competition will be with other sports like football, soccer etc. If the UFC wants to grow and have the best athletes it will need to compete with these organizations for athletes that will choose to practice MMA instead of football because they will be compensated more for their efforts. The scenario is very complicated because we are not talking about regular supply and demand like grains of rice or a piece of machinery. The product is very unique and relies on the talent of humans.
The real issue will arise if/when the UFC gets caught using predatory practices to maintain their standing in their field. Yea in the grand sense their competition isn’t other MMA companies it’s everything out there sports and entertainment related but people shouldn’t confuse what they are with what they do. Issues like the purchase of Strikeforce and being the top of the industry don’t really jump up on my radar, issues like them pulling strings behind the scenes to keep other MMA organizations from running events in Vegas do.
Pride held an event in Vegas
Business is tough and any means (within the law) to get an edge of your competitor are fair game, as a dept of labor worker you know that the law can be abused by both employers and employee. As of now I don’t think the UFC is doing anything illegal.
I already named Edward Dmytryk, what more do you want?
And yes, I am conflating free market with laissez-faire with free market, mostly because those that preach either do the same. I’m a capitalist but don’t have much of a stomach for a “law of the jungle” unregulated market.
what more do you want?
….. That’s a tough question, maybe to blow a couple of more hours on the internet……
It’s at these points I normally like to point out that I work in government regulation (my employer is the Department of Labor). I’m probably more pro-labor than you are in the real world (it’s what I do for a living), it’s just that I see a lot of this talk as theoretical talk for internet entertainment.
I guess I am just of the belief, that the worker(fighter, player, etc) gets paid whatever the fair wage is. Just because the company (owner, promoter, league) may be cleaning up, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the worker is entitled to more/better pay. I think in most instances, including the UFC, this ends up happening, but in no way are they entitled to it.
Now, if they were being shortchanged, etc, I would be up in arms, but I just don’t feel that is the case.
As for my comparing Zuffa to old SF, well, that isn’t my choice. When people come on and say they are a fair, more viable choice compared to the UFC, then it is fair game for comparisons. Not saying that is what is being said in this post or comments, just in general in past discussions.
I’m sorry, but we shouldn’t be so focused on the promotion that DOES pay. The one that DOES follow through on fights. That DOES dish out big bonuses. Rather, we should be focused on why regional fighters have such a hard time getting fights, getting paid, getting medical care, on and on.
And
I guess the real argument would be what the “fair wage” is. Imo, it would be what the worker has agreed upon in exchange for their effort. Obviously, if they outperform that agreed upon level and if the company is benefiting from it, a pay raise would be in order. I don’t think there is any argument that when fighters perform, Zuffa takes care of them.
Now, if the government (uggghhh) regulated the sport and required a certain wage, then this would change the definition.
The problem with all the fair wage discussions is that there is no set fair wage to be had in sports, you can set a minimum and a salary cap but no one ever makes exactly the same amount of money. It’s going to be completely different for every single fighter. The government can’t really regulate that.
What the government could regulate is what structure is and isn’t allowed in contracts and what kind of business practices are out of bounds.
What the government could regulate is what structure is and isn’t allowed in contracts and what kind of business practices are out of bounds.
Right, and those things are what are generally challenged as restraint of trade – the higher pay is a corollary, almost a side effect, of the removal of restraints to trade.
An example of the sort of restraint of trade that could apply here would be Dana and Coker colluding on a salary or salary structure. The same would of course be true if they were still competitors.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Salary collusion would be a tough one to prove(particularly now that Dana is Coker’s boss as President of Zuffa). The government can make sure Zuffa follows a pre-set framework but they can’t negotiate for them or force Zuffa to sign a contract with a fighter. Lets face it lowballing a contract offer to a fighter isn’t illegal, forcing them to agree to certain things as part of a contract could be though and forcing them to agree to other things later that weren’t negotiated into the contract most definately should be an issue. I do wonder that no fighter/manager has challenged the video game rights sign over with no royalties attached for example. What they offer to pay in a contract is just what they offer to pay in a contract but what they did to John Fitch that went beyond what was in his contract was pretty damn sketchy (although unless it’s challenged legally it’s going to stand).
Really what MMA needs is something like the Ali act but tailor written specifically for MMA (what I like to call the “Randy Couture Act”), the Ali act just doesn’t apply to MMA in a lot of ways due to the drastically different business models but that doesn’t mean that one couldn’t be put together specifically for MMA (a lot of which could also apply to pro wrestling due to the business simularities) to adress the issues.
The only way in my eyes for fighters to have enough leverage to determine a fair wage is thru collective bargaining. If there is no outside market to test the free agent waters on, a fighters union is the only feasible way I can see to gain any wages, working conditions, fringe benefits etc. Now, the mention of a union has been discussed at length on this site. I have not heard a suitable answer as too why a fighters union isn’t a viable option. I have heard about how MMA isn’t a team sport, I have heard that MMA isn’t this or that. Here is what we know. A UFC PPV costs 45 dollars and it’s is easy to track the price and number of tickets sold too an event. There is ample data available to set a fair wage. Unless someone else has another idea how to give fighters a fair wage, I think a fighters union is the best option.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
by whardiek on Mar 18, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really don’t think anyone would ever limit the market to “mixed martial arts”. Ever. Which is why all the monopoly and monopsony talk is off base.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
The Supreme Court has found championship boxing to be a distinct market from regular pro boxing in the past, that’s an even more narrowly defined market.
I'm not sure how
that’s applicable, though
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the championship/nonchampionship distinction the court agreed with is pretty easily analogized to the UFC/non-UFC split in the market for MMA. UFC shows are almost universally more widely seen, produce more revenue and involve the most highly skilled participants. Those are the same distinctions that resulted in the court finding a specific market for title-fight boxing.
What I mean is
I don’t know enough about the previous case to see how it would applicably affect ZUFFA. I see how it could be analogous, but what was the issue behind the previous legislation? I guess I could stop being lazy and look it up.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Stopped being lazy
That is really good case law supporting the anti-trust case that could be brought against ZUFFA.
Ultimately, I think the biggest failing of IBCNY was trying to use the Baseball exemption as their defense. Had they, as I suggest, simply said “we’re not a monopoly because other fights exist/there are other outlets for the athletes/it’s not even commerce to start with” I think they would have had much more success.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
PPV vs non-PPV for starters
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Explain
Why that has anything to do with…. anything?
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
You were wondering why the issue of the SC decision regarding Championship vs. Pro Boxing was applicable, I am simply showing you one of the ways.
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." -Mark Twain
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
by The American Ronin on Mar 18, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm really hope I'm not coming off like a dick
but I just seem to be missing your point.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Mar 18, 2011 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Its a great thing UFC bought SF, all the best under one org, the UFC is the sport of mma, they know what htey are doing, its good to have all the top fighters under Zuffa and let them push mma into the mainstream around the world.
We'll be right back to our scheduled discussion...
after this brief commercial break.
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
Why is no one talking about any of the japanese promotions when looking for orgs that can pay top level talent? Didn’t Dream just put on a show with Overeem, Mousasi, Mayhem, Aoki, Sakuraba and 4-5 other known guys barely 3 months ago? Aren’t those guys considered top talent?
because Dream didn’t pay any of those guys, so they don’t fit your criteria. Plus they aren’t going to run another show until July 2012.
And how is that the UFC’s fault? Why should they be prevented from buying a major competitor because another major (Dream) can’t be bothered to run a good business and pay their guys?
Honestly, this talk of monopoly or monopsony is ridiculous. The UFC drove up the price for top talent with how successful they’ve been in the PPV market, and now they’re being blamed that nobody else can aquire top talent? This is just stupid.
I’m not saying anything your not, I’m just saying that you can’t point to dream as someone that can pay top level talent, because they can’t pay anyone.
How about this scenario then: You’ve got three major orgs, UFC, Strikeforce and Dream. The UFC purchases Strikeforce, essentially only leaving Dream as a major org. Still no ‘monopsony’, right? Then, Dream goes kaput. Because of no fault of their own, the UFC now has become a ‘monopsony’ and is now open to litigation or whatever? It’s not their fault Dream can’t pay for top talent anymore.
And as of right now, Dream still exists. Whether they’re able to actually pay their fighters is immaterial to this discussion… they exist, and they have a long history of hiring top talent, they did so just 3 months ago.
How about this scenario then: You’ve got three major orgs, UFC, Strikeforce and Dream. The UFC purchases Strikeforce, essentially only leaving Dream as a major org. Still no ‘monopsony’, right?
No, because again, Dream cannot pay anyone. They are not a “buyer of talent” and have not been for a while. Market conditions are that there is only one buyer of elite talent now, the UFC. Dream ceased to be able to pay anyone before the StrikeForce merger. It is a monopsony. The UFC would be a monopsony anyway. The only counter argument is Bellator.
And as of right now, Dream still exists. Whether they’re able to actually pay their fighters is immaterial to this discussion…
Actually it is 100% material to the discussion as it is the critical distinction between whether or not they are a buyer of talent. As it is right now Dream has about as much effect on top level free agent fighters as Wild Bill’s Fight Nights. The fact that Dream was one time a major organization that could compete for securing talent with the UFC is what is immaterial to the discussion, as that has not been the case for a bit of time now.
Anyway, being a monopsony generally isn’t illegal, or at the very least it’d be extremely difficult to enforce antitrust laws regarding it, so I do not think it will matter in the end one way or the other.
Alright, that’s fine about Dream. Let’s talk about Bellator then. Doesn’t that org have 4-5 guys who would be considered amongst the Top 10 of their respective division? Surely Askren, Warren, Lombard and Alvarez have to be considered top talent… How is that possible when you say that only the UFC can aquire said top level guys?
To quote myself in the post you were responding to, yes, “the only counter argument is Bellator.” Bellator is the one company that can give fighters negotiating leverage. They cannot do this for really big stars, since Bellator isn’t able to afford really big stars, but they can do this for midcarders and some high caliber Featherweights.
So yes, it is a plausible counter-argument. They hold a handful of stars. Pretty sure you were talking about Dream up until then though.
Regardless, Zuffa’s position of dominance is amazing. They have nearly 90% of guys ranked in the Top 10 in BW-HW, and the majority of the ones they don’t have are going to be free agents over the next few months. I don’t know that having a few guys like Alvarez, Sandro, Warren, and Lombard (calling Askren Top 10 is an extreme stretch) really break Zuffa’s monopsony when I could name 15 Zuffa guys in the same range of talent for each one of those fighters.
No one is saying it's the UFC's 'fault'
but if it happens and they abuse the power of monopoly then THAT is their fault.
Dream still hasn't paid JZ from last July
Contributor at cagepages.com Come check us out.
Head Kick Legend

by 


























