ufc gets $70MM from reebok over 6 yrs... my thoughts on this fiasco...

[dissufc]

If you're a sponsor that doesn't compete with reebok, why the phuck won't ufc allow that for new and mid-career fighters? Why is there exclusivity?

reebok can be the exclusive gear company but why no other logos or sponsorships to augment the shitty salaries?

reebok is not the problem...good for them to get into the ufc as the official gear but it's the ufc who sets the payout structure and denies fighters from hustling and getting their own local or national sponsors.

It is indefensible by the ufc to have done that deal. Also, if it was not exclusive and with a cooler brand like under armor for example, maybe the fans would not boycott it. It's probably the worst sponsorship deal in the history of mma or combat sports.

This argument is best served when you hear it from a potential sponsor who can't support a local fighter...and that's beyond tragic, it's authoritarian/dictatorship/slavery.

""""""""""""""

So, you wanna be a ufc fighter huh?
Get ready to bend over to take one for the team, disguised as building your brand.

 

[neil_totally]

70 Mighty Mouses!? Incredible.

 

[DorianGray]

not to highjack the threaad, but whats the deal with monster? Do they sponsor the ufc? indivudla fighters? Why is that allowed?

 

[myjohnson9]

Yep and supposedly every cent of that 70 million goes to the fighters

 

[dissufc]

not to highjack the threaad, but whats the deal with monster? Do they sponsor the ufc? indivudla fighters? Why is that allowed?

My guess is that Monster may have been "grandfathered" in with a longer relationship with the ufc...so they carved out a deal allowing co-exclusivity on gear. Which I'm sure doesn't make all the other official ufc sponsors happy. Or they made monster pay a hefty premium and told reebok to keep quiet or they cancel their deal. Yes, ufc makes sponsors their bitch.


It's kinda like trump telling Flynn and Comey to stfu or else... Lol

 

[SeattleFightFan]

It is indefensible by the ufc to have done that deal. Also, if it was not exclusive and with a cooler brand like under armor for example, maybe the fans would not boycott it. It's probably the worst sponsorship deal in the history of mma or combat sports.

it's not "indefensible". it's quite easily defensible. they added $10m per year and cut costs. they made a decision that stole money directly from fighters, not for the first time*. OTOH and it was a great business move. so from one perspective it was awful, from another, it was brilliant.

they did it for one reason; to be more attractive to prospective buyers. and it worked. that the fighters got fucked over obviously didn't stop them from signing the deal. fighters should see that and understand the deeper meaning.

*the sponsorship tax and the likeness rights to video games are the other two times. and there were probably others that were less public.

 

[BRaVo cHoKe]

I've never understood why the UFC and Reebok wouldn't just allow fighters to put secondary sponsors onto the gear similar to how some fighters are allowed to have the Monster Energy drink logo on their shorts.

 

[Wariowokecancel]

UFC is about exclusive sponsor deals. So Reebok gets the gear, Monster gets the energy drinks, Miller gets the beer, etc.

UFC WILL NOT allow individual sponsors in their corporate sphere even if they don't compete with the corporate sponsors. The end.

 

[Emjay]

Unless you're a fighter TS, you care too much

 

[MadHouse]

Nike and under armor did themselves a favor by not fully committing
imagine sponsoring these fighters only for them to shit all over your product because the UFC is lowballing

 

[SeattleFightFan]

I've never understood why the UFC and Reebok wouldn't just allow fighters to put secondary sponsors onto the gear similar to how some fighters are allowed to have the Monster Energy drink logo on their shorts.

why would Reebok agree to that?

and if they would for $5m/yr instead of $10m/yr, Zuffa would have chosen the $10m/yr.

 

[ff]

70 Mighty Mouses!? Incredible.

70 Mighty Mouses vs Brock Lesnar .. who win this fight ??

 

[UL]

Ignore your thoughts

Anyone complaining about the deal should go cry to dana and the mafia family

It was them who pocketed all the $ because they were leaving anyway

 

[BRaVo cHoKe]

why would Reebok agree to that?

Money???

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Money

as in, Reebok makes money when fighters put other sponsors on their shorts?

 

[Verace]

70 million is just so fucking lel

what were they thinking?!

 

[dissufc]

it's not "indefensible". it's quite easily defensible. they added $10m per year and cut costs. they made a decision that stole money directly from fighters, not for the first time*. OTOH and it was a great business move. so from one perspective it was awful, from another, it was brilliant.

they did it for one reason; to be more attractive to prospective buyers. and it worked. that the fighters got fucked over obviously didn't stop them from signing the deal. fighters should see that and understand the deeper meaning.

*the sponsorship tax and the likeness rights to video games are the other two times. and there were probably others that were less public.

Do you rly think I started this phukking thread to support the BILLIONAIRES?

GTFO.

 

[BRaVo cHoKe]

as in, Reebok makes money when fighters put other sponsors on their shorts?

So how does the Monster deal work? Does Reebok get a cut of that?

 

[Phisher]

Unless you're a fighter TS, you care too much

If the deal continues to sour fighter opinion of the UFC and increases the likelihood of fragmentation of the elite talent pool due to fighters jumping ship to other promotions, then it's an issue that concerns the fans.

 

[dissufc]

Unless you're a fighter TS, you care too much

As a fan I have a much bigger problem with this phukkin reebok 'steal' than fighters doing PED's... cuz fighters had no say in the deal.