Pettis-Aldo: One More Reason for Fighter Union

[kflo]

A players association is coming. Nothing anyone can do to stop it.

haven't heard anything about it. you in the in?

 

[ISWThunder]

should chico camus have union benefits but not eddie alvarez?

That's not an argument. We all know that Alvarez is better than Camus and should be compensated accordingly. It's already true and a fighter's union wouldn't stop that from happening.

 

[WanderLogun]

The UFC can announce a Jones v Sonnen title fight and now an Aldo v Pettis fight without much pushback because there is no organization representing the fighters. LHW contenders like Hendo voiced their opposition to Sonnen getting an undeserved shot and now Lamas and KZ are objecting to Pettis being able to pick and choose where to fight. But Hendo, Lamas and KZ, as well as other fighters, have no real voice in the UFC as individuals. Indeed, they are mostly ignored. That would also be the case in the NFL, for example, if the players did not have the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), which acts on their behalf. The NFLPA can file grievances and go to court on behalf of the players when the NFL takes actions that the players believe are unfair or detrimental. The burden is therefore not on individual players.

UFC fighters - if not all mma fighters - need their own fighters association. They need an association to address training injuries, compensation and, if necessary, to oppose unfair fight arrangements. Lamas and KZ and even Poirier and Swanson have a legitimate objection to LW's being able to drop down and get an immediate title shot. In a very real way, Pettis is taking money out of Lamas' pocket because, without a doubt, Lamas is the #1 contender. I know he won't, but Lamas should sue to block the Aldo-Pettis fight. Bring it into federal court so that the UFC is forced to explain its shenanigans. And let me pre-empt those who say the UFC can do what it wants. It can't, just as the NFL can't just suspend or fine players.

Edit: A title fight is akin to a promotion and an employee who is passed over for a promotion, where the employer acted arbitrarily and unfairly, can sue. Obviously, the facts are more complicated here, but there is enough overlap to make me think Lamas can go to court.

Hahahahahahahaha...

But seriously... hahahahaHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

No wait... Ha.. Hang on...

Hahaha

Let me calm dow... hahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[aker2703]

And?

Fighters have the right to unionize if they want, but that says nothing about whether or not it's a good idea.

they sure do, and to be honest i really don't care one way or the other. But TS is fucking on drugs if he thinks a Union would make the calls on who fights for the UFC title...

i mean WTF TS.

 

[aker2703]

Hahahahahahahaha...

But seriously... hahahahaHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

No wait... Ha.. Hang on...

Hahaha

Let me calm dow... hahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

thanks for the laugh, TS is fucking kidding himself.

 

[Face Stab]

Every time I think I've read the dumbest thing ever posted on Sherdog, somebody else throws their name into consideration.

 

[Unbreakabull]

A fighter's union is a good idea you need big named fighters to agree to a pay cut try to convince them that the total share of the pie will be larger, but you can't guarantee that

So you're idea of how to form a fighters union is to lie? Or imply that lying is necessary for one? Interesting how unions form.

 

[weaselGRM]

The only fighter that could seriously pose a threat to Jose is KZ and he had a shoulder surgery six months ago. You would really put him up there now?
I would put my money on Pettis any time!

 

[ISWThunder]

So you're idea of how to form a fighters union is to lie? Or imply that lying is necessary for one? Interesting how unions form.

No, that's not what I said at all.

The fighters would form a union without directly knowing what the outcome would be. It is likely that stars like Silva would have to take a pay cut.

It's also possible that they could negotiate a contract that benefits Silva more than his current one.

How is explaining that to a fighter lying to them?

 

[kflo]

That's not an argument. We all know that Alvarez is better than Camus and should be compensated accordingly. It's already true and a fighter's union wouldn't stop that from happening.

it's not an argument, it's a question. do you have an answer?

 

[ISWThunder]

i'm not comparing them. i'm asking you to look at what the impact of the costs of those programs did.

fighting is optional. and people do it for alot less. it has risk. don't be a fighter if you aren't prepared to deal with the financial (and health) consequences of not making it to the top.

the fighters absolutely should make what they can while they can. saddling the ufc alone with a pension costs, which you seem to think would be intended to deal with the longer term health consequences of fighting, is not a real solution. fighters may fight once in the ufc. or a fraction of their career.

And look what the impact of those costs did to the NFL. It has grown exponentially since that date. You are clearly making comparisons between the two, but we don't know what the outcome would be. There are examples on completely opposite sides and you are saying that only one is possible.

All work is optional. Anyone can choose to get another job. That is a poor argument and has nothing to do with the positives/negatives of a fighter union.

So only the fighter should be saddled with the long term costs of fighting? The UFC is making money off of fighters putting their health in jeopardy. Why shouldn't they split some of those costs?

 

[PabloZed]

they sure do, and to be honest i really don't care one way or the other. But TS is fucking on drugs if he thinks a Union would make the calls on who fights for the UFC title...

i mean WTF TS.

The NFL players association doesn't tell the league what games to play, but if the NFL wanted to play a game in Israel, for example, and the players thought it was unsafe, the players association could seek to prevent it. It is not a matter of a players association trying to call the shots. The purpose is to look after the interests of the players or fighters.

 

[ISWThunder]

it's not an argument, it's a question. do you have an answer?

Alvarez deserves to be compensated more than Camus. And?

 

[kflo]

Alvarez deserves to be compensated more than Camus. And?

that's not what i asked.

should chico camus have union benefits but not eddie alvarez?

 

[Unbreakabull]

No, that's not what I said at all.

How is explaining that to a fighter lying to them?

Originally Posted by ISWThunder
A fighter's union is a good idea you need big named fighters to agree to a pay cut try to convince them that the total share of the pie will be larger, but you can't guarantee that

you can also try to convince them of numerous other things that aren't guaranteed. If Silva can't get a bigger share of the pie on his own, how would teaming up with lower level fighters so he can make less earn him MORE in the long run, especially when close to retirement? Derrr....

That's why you need an awesome sounding benefit to Silva, because one doesn't exist and will continue to not exist - That's why you're lying about it.

"Oh Silva, you also get a retirement package with the union that's bad ass..." Tell him that too. Why not? It isn't guaranteed so it means as much as your other guess or promises, right?

 

[ISWThunder]

that's not what i asked.

Neither guy deserves benefits more than the other. One guy deserves more benefits than the other.

 

[Ghost in the Shell]

This has been brought up many times. How would a union prevent Aldo vs Pettis from happening?

The UFC is not going to give up control of matchmaking to a union or some strict guideline.

It wouldn't, but fighters do have claims whenever they get shrugged off due to "PPV draws" and "Marketability". Those are opinion-based reasons that are not credible to get a fight denied.

I'm not trying to say that the match-making should be controlled, but rather how the business side runs.

 

[Unbreakabull]

The NFL players association doesn't tell the league what games to play, but if the NFL wanted to play a game in Israel, for example, and the players thought it was unsafe, the players association could seek to prevent it. It is not a matter of a players association trying to call the shots. The purpose is to look after the interests of the players or fighters.

So paying union representatives to sit in an office is helping the players make tough decisions like "playing football in Israel"? Fascinating! What else do they do?

 

[kflo]

And look what the impact of those costs did to the NFL. It has grown exponentially since that date. You are clearly making comparisons between the two, but we don't know what the outcome would be. There are examples on completely opposite sides and you are saying that only one is possible.

All work is optional. Anyone can choose to get another job. That is a poor argument and has nothing to do with the positives/negatives of a fighter union.

So only the fighter should be saddled with the long term costs of fighting? The UFC is making money off of fighters putting their health in jeopardy. Why shouldn't they split some of those costs?

maybe they can pay less in salary and the fighters can agree to take more in long term benefits.

its up to them to organize.

 

[ISWThunder]

Originally Posted by ISWThunder
A fighter's union is a good idea you need big named fighters to agree to a pay cut try to convince them that the total share of the pie will be larger, but you can't guarantee that

you can also try to convince them of numerous other things that aren't guaranteed. If Silva can't get a bigger share of the pie on his own, how would teaming up with lower level fighters so he can make less earn him MORE in the long run, especially when close to retirement? Derrr....

That's why you need an awesome sounding benefit to Silva, because one doesn't exist and will continue to not exist - That's why you're lying about it.

"Oh Silva, you also get a retirement package with the union that's bad ass..." Tell him that too. Why not? It isn't guaranteed so it means as much as your other guess or promises, right?

You seem to not understand what lying means. Telling Silva that he will likely lose money but it's possible that he will benefit in the long term is not lying.

If the fighter's union helps grow the sport, then Silva's pay will increase. If the union failed to do that, then his pay would decrease.

Who is lying to whom?