1. "Did you guys help broker that deal?" In response to Reply # 0
if so how do you feel that so many fighters are disappointed by it? I understand it from the UFC perspective but the revenue share is just tough for some fighters. Also don't love the uniformity in combat sports. Short etc have always been another way fighters show their individual personalities.
--- "though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought
2. "I agree with you" In response to Reply # 1 Tue Jun-30-15 12:52 PM by RobOne4
the banners okay get rid of those. But the shorts were definitely a way for fighters to show their personality. These designs are so boring. Maybe they could have made Reebok the mandatory fight gear for press leading up to the fights? During media work outs and stuff like that and still had fighters wear their own stuff for fights? Or made Reebok shorts and gear the mandatory fight gear but still allowing ads on the shorts. Kind of like soccer kits. I just dont like this and the shit pay has nothing to do with it.
November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!
12. "Had nothing to do with that deal" In response to Reply # 1
I think it's actually good for fighters because it evens the playing field for up and coming fighters that have trouble getting sponsor money. Now they have at least some guaranteed sponsor payment from Reebok. And the champions are getting $40K a fight, which is about what they could make in sponsorships for one fight anyway.
And I hated the old logo-soup shorts by the way. Let's be honest, from a sponsor's perspective, there's no real value there. Some branding that you may/may not be able to clearly see?
It's really an opportunity for fighters to take more control of their brand and partnerships that provide them more marketing value rather than just getting $5K here and there for a logo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Green Mile is a movie where the magical black man wrongly dies and the white man who let it happen lives forever.
13. "RE: Had nothing to do with that deal" In response to Reply # 12
> >I think it's actually good for fighters because it evens the >playing field for up and coming fighters that have trouble >getting sponsor money. Now they have at least some guaranteed >sponsor payment from Reebok. And the champions are getting >$40K a fight, which is about what they could make in >sponsorships for one fight anyway.
Several fighters have already come out and said they are losing money because of the new deal. Brendan Schaub is not a champion and was making 6 figures per fight on sponsorship money. Joe Rogan saw the breakdown and confirmed it. But with the new deal he will be making 10k a fight. Donald Cerrone says he will be losing 60k every fight with the new deal. New fighters might like the deal and the older fighters might because their fight pay is so big. But the guys in the middle are the ones really getting screwed. Not to mention the women. Take Rousey for example. She will make 40k this next fight. But if she loses she will be back down to the minimum because of the amount of fights she has.
>And I hated the old logo-soup shorts by the way. Let's be >honest, from a sponsor's perspective, there's no real value >there. Some branding that you may/may not be able to clearly >see?
if there was no value they would have went away.
>It's really an opportunity for fighters to take more control >of their brand and partnerships that provide them more >marketing value rather than just getting $5K here and there >for a logo.
damn you have been drinking the Dana White kool-aid.
November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!
reebok is def a 2nd tier brand (at best) the fighters are getting the shaft financially and it just blankets over so much individuality that the sport has to offer theres a reason these guys (and gals) are doing MMA instead of team sports
they talked a lot about putting the "fighter first" in all of this, but they didn't even get a bunch of their names right on the gear its a pretty pathetic offering if you ask me
9. "Ultra bland interchangeable parts" In response to Reply # 0
I get wanting to be more professional and get away from the skulls/dragons/chains/whatever image (this means they gotta get rid of Face The Pain now right? Please god I hope so), but this is way on the other side of the spectrum.
UFC logos making up the majority of the shirt with little to no personalization other that names in weird font on the back (of which there's a good chance they'll botch the spelling of). Just awful. And they kicked out well made, good looking brands like RVCA and Jaco for this?
22. "its not" In response to Reply # 20 Wed Jul-01-15 02:06 PM by fontgangsta
its suing them for monopoly/monopsony powers and its a pretty weak suit from what I've heard if it doesn't get dismissed they'll settle out of court but it has nothing to do with employee status or unionizing
21. "Very hard to qualify as an employee vs. an independent contractor" In response to Reply # 19
one argument is always 'do I own the product', similar to recording artists fighting for unionization. fighters can say we ultimately do not own rights to the fights they are in, therefore they are employees. but there are too many other areas to factor in as far as how the fighter can own their own brand, make their own schedules, agree or disagree to fight etc.
I don't foresee fighters being able to legally collectively bargain anytime soon
26. "The UFC did get a cut of the sponsor's money though pre-Reebok" In response to Reply # 25
I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I've read that in the past numerous times. I seriously think the lower level guys are going to have to go to Bellator just to make ends meet. The top level fighters will be alright relatively speaking, but the lower tier guys are going to struggle just to pay for their fight camps with the Reebok deal, much less to pay their non-fight related bills.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
