The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

by Luke Thomas on Jan 25, 2008 11:31 AM EST in News Comment 13 comments

Isn't the UFC just the best team player or what? Notable quote:

We are still gathering all of the details about this story, but we have been able to confirm it with a couple of people within the MMA community. From what we're being told, the UFC is no longer allowing the clothing line Affliction to sponsor its fighters. For the past year, Affliction has been a big part of the UFC as they have sponsored many of the fighters who have fought in the UFC including current interim UFC Welterweight champion Georges St. Pierre, Heavyweight Champion Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell and current Light Heavyweight Champion Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. It seems as though Affliction wore out its welcome with the UFC as soon as the UFC got wind that Affliction was planning to get into the MMA game themselves.

The word is that the UFC was not happy about Affliction starting their own fighting organization. We currently aren't sure if Affliction is partnering up with anybody or if they are going about it by themselves, but that was what we were able to confirm with our sources. Affliction has been one of the most notable names around the UFC, if you don't believe me go to a UFC event because you'll see every other person wearing an Affliction shirt.

The last fighter to actually wear Affliction during an event was Georges St. Pierre at UFC 79 where he sported Affliction on his tights and gi. If you review UFC 80 and Wednesday's Ultimate Fight Night: Swick vs. Burkman, you'll notice that Affliction was noticeably absent from any fighter's apparel.

Typical UFC protectionist nonsense. Like anyone recognizes anything about Affliction other than their awful, overly produced Gothic shirts. Oh well, this is par for the course with them. You can wear Xyience gear until they file for bankruptcy, but don't be caught dead in anything that may or may not conflict with the UFC brand. God, I cannot wait until competition makes this sort of insider bullying a cause for fighter flight. Faster, please.

On the plus side, though, tears of joy are streaming down my face with the knowledge that 2008's equivalent of trucker hats is no longer going to be forced down my throat during every UFC broadcast. Hallelujah.

HT: Cage Potato

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

I'm sure the Fedor / Randy shoot didn't help.

by Nick Thomas on Jan 25, 2008 12:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

I think you're overreacting a bit Luke. When the XFL was in the process of starting up do you think the NFL would have allowed its players to sport XFL hats and t-shirts at press conferences? The UFC sees a company getting free advertising on their shows, which wouldn't be a big deal except for the fact that this company has plans to get into the same game. So rather than keeping Affliction in the broadcasts where when they put on shows people go "I remember them from the UFC" those memories get a little further into the back of peoples minds.

For what it's worth I work for Information Technology for a worldwide banking group. And I can't exactly go to company functions rocking a Chase t-shirt.

by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 25, 2008 12:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Maybe, but I tend to think it's the UFC that's overreacting here. We don't really know if Affliction is starting their own fight promotion or are involved in some sort of silent business venture with them.

Moreover, Ecko is heavily involved with M-1, so does that mean we are going to see fighters banned from wearing their gear? These are rich sponsors and they are giving fighters a great deal of money. I hate to see those opportunities lost.

I think you're going to see more and more hands in the MMA cookie jar as time passes. While I wouldn't expect the UFC to allow fighters to wear an IFL jersey or EliteXC hat, I also don't expect them to ban any company that has a tangential relationship to a competitor.

by Luke Thomas on Jan 25, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Should have happened sooner. Affliction shirts are a crime against fashion. Everytime I see someone wearing them, I immediately think that they are a giant douche. They're basically the MMA equivalent of a douchebag with a popped collar.

by ilostmydog on Jan 25, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

I don't know. I don't really consider this a big deal. I know how the fighters are sponsored and they make good cash off wearing the clothes but didn't UFC try and ban a fighter from wearing Punishment a long time ago when Tito was on the outs? He was going to pay the dude something like double his purse to wear his shirt and they said no way?

I can understand how the UFC would nix it though, why would they give free advertising to the competition?

I also have to agree with Nick, the Fedor & Randy love shots didn't really do Affliction any favors. They're banned in the province of BC, I would think that's a bit more fucked up then being banned from the UFC's "house". Man, it's a whole freaking province. :P

Besides, after Christmas shopping for all my brothers, Affliction is WAY too overpriced. Hopefully if they don't get the pub, then they can drop their prices by like 20-30$ and be 40$ still. :P

by Gabber on Jan 25, 2008 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Well, we also don't know what else is going on behind the scenes between the two parties either. At a bare minimum, the Fedor photo shoot and the associated fanning on the media flames should be enough to seriously irk the UFC leadership team.

The UFC has choices as to who it wants to partner with and those relationships will always be subject as to how that partner conducts themselves on the public stage.

Tapout and Sprawl for example are focused around marketing and selling their products to fans - not about generating controversy and potentially spinning up competitive enterprises.

by MrEd on Jan 25, 2008 1:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Some 1st amendment issues come to mind...

by MoreThanUFC on Jan 25, 2008 3:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Come on now man. You're smarter than that...

There are restrictions on what most people can wear to their jobs. I can't wear shirts advertising other businesses to my job just because they're paying me to do so. They're not saying fighters can't EVER wear the shirts...just not during the events.

by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 25, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Wait. Is the UFC part of the federal government now?

by Richard Wade on Jan 25, 2008 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

^LOL

by Luke Thomas on Jan 25, 2008 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

What does enforcing your rights have to do with the federal government? Dont see the humor, Thomas. Freedom of speech has little or nothing to do with the government. We the people or something...

UFC fighters are not employees, they are contractors. If they were employees, by federal law since the UFC exceeds 50 employees, they would have medical insurance, civil rights protection, be subject to FMLA, etc. They are not, they are 10-99 contractors.

Any twobit lawyer could get this tossed. Of course the UFC just wouldn't invite them back to work, so they do win in the end. But these heavy handed tactics will not work in the long haul.

by MoreThanUFC on Jan 26, 2008 9:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: The UFC - Allegedly - Bans Affliction

Contractors are expected to adhere to the same rules as employees in most cases. We have contractors working for us and their contracts specify that they will adhere to the same dress code...etc as the rest of our organization. Without knowing the exact wording on the fighter's contracts it is hard to say one way or the other.

But I seriously don't think this falls under the freedom of speech umbrella

by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 26, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs