Are UFC's Practices Anti-Competitive?

[eiyuu]

UFC is already a monopoly. Anyone that claims different is just making up excuses

If it was a monopoly, it would have been broken up by the Gov't when they did their anti-trust investigation, or at least brought charges against them.

They didn't.

That's not an "excuse." It's a fact.

 

[Blackjack]

alvarez might be worth more than Bendo if getting him means Bellator closes its doors in a year or two.

The point is that the UFC and definitely we fans should not want Bellator to close its doors in a year or two. Businesses provide their best product when there is competition; that is the basis of capitalism. Without Bellator and other MMA promotions to compete with, the UFC will lose its incentive to put on the best cards possible because they don't have to outdo anyone else's shows. The UFC will basically say to the fans at that point: "Take what we're offering you or starve. If you don't like that there's only one fight with any big names on our $70 PPV, too bad."

Also keep in mind that the less breeding grounds there are for young fighters, the less places The UFC will have to find fighters. That means eventually there will be a shortage of talent because they won't be able to sign people from Pride, Strikeforce, Bellator and other promotions they have gotten talent from in the past.

 

[Shaddows]

If it was a monopoly, it would have been broken up by the Gov't when they did their anti-trust investigation, or at least brought charges against them.

They didn't.

That's not an "excuse." It's a fact.

As I noted, retards will use subterfuges to claim it is not.
We both know that anti-trust investigation is not always correct and that there are ways around it.

I care not for how you call it. I care for what it is.
Any promotion that grows to be a threat is bought out.
Any fighter that makes his name in the lesser promotions will be brought in, even if they have to pay more for that (unproven) talent than they would pay their own champions.

fact is, UFC is big enough and have clout enough to find a way to make their "legal status" as not a monopoly.
But that doesn't mean they aren't.

If you do think so, you are too naive to understand the difference...

 

[kmasonbx]

It's totally different.

The UFC pay their fighters directly - the NFL et al. do not - it is the teams within the NFL that each pay their own respective players.

With regards the OP it is fairly clear that is what the UFC is trying (and succeeding) to achieve. Interesting to see how things develop in the coming years.

It is not. These are sport leagues who have the face competition from other sport leagues and in the end want those leagues to not exist. It doesn't matter the semantics of who pays who because in the NFL every team operates in the best interest of the NFL or at the very least is expected to.

The ABA was a threat to the NBA, the AFL was a threat to the NFL. The NBA acquired the ABA and the NFL acquired the AFL, were they violating anti-trust laws? When players were free agents in the ABA and AFL and were good enough to go the bigger leagues was it anti-competitive for the NBA or NFL to offer those players bigger contracts?

 

[eiyuu]

As I noted, retards will use subterfuges to claim it is not.
We both know that anti-trust investigation is not always correct and that there are ways around it.

So you're saying the Gov't was wrong in the investigation of the laws they are trying to uphold?

Hmmmm . . . so we have to take your word for it that the UFC is a monopoly, and ignore the fact that the Gov't didn't bring the UFC up on anti-trust charges--because the Gov't was wrong according to you.

 

[Shaddows]

So you're saying the Gov't was wrong in the investigation of the laws they are trying to uphold?

Hmmmm . . . so we have to take your word for it that the UFC is a monopoly, and ignore the fact that the Gov't didn't bring the UFC up on anti-trust charges--because the Gov't was wrong according to you.

Nope.
I am stating that, as with anything else, a definition can have many ways to maintain.,

If you heard the presidential debates, you'd see that they think the average american makes between 200k to 400k per year.
Do you think they are correct???

It amazes me how naive you are.

 

[eiyuu]

Nope.
I am stating that, as with anything else, a definition can have many ways to maintain.,

If you heard the presidential debates, you'd see that they think the average american makes between 200k to 400k per year.
Do you think they are correct???

It amazes me how naive you are.

You're asking me if I believe politicians? I believe them as much as I believe you.

And I believe an investigation's results by the people who are charged to uphold the law, a HELL OF A LOT MORE than I believe you.

Why? Because the Gov't officials would have gotten a TON of money if they could go forward with charges against the UFC. And what Gov't doesn't want more revenue (especially the current administration)?

But they couldn't. Because the UFC doesn't violate any laws.

Sorry you can't accept that. But it's no skin off my back if you can't. You can just simmer in your hate for all I care.

 

[roggg]

I'm confused...why does anyone think 70k/70k plus PPV bonus is so ridiculously high for a top ten veteran with a 24-3 record that it looks like predatory bidding? This looks like modest natural salary inflation, and a competitive bid to get a highly regarded free agent on board. It's competitions for guys like Alvarez that drive the standard payout up for everyone.

 

[PabloZed]

Hey PabloZed I really like this thread, thanks for posting. I'd also like to point out something here.

The title of the thread, "are the UFC's practices anti-competitive?" asks a somewhat different question from what the other poster named john (who seems to know antitrust law at least somewhat well) is answering. He's assessing whether the Alvarez dealings violate the antitrust laws. You seem to sort of be thinking about the UFC's motives underlying the Alvarez deal. Both are interesting considerations; if the other john is to be believed, though, this deal probably doesn't amount to a violation. If, as he says, the antitrust authorities would have to "prove that the signing of Eddie Alvarez had nothing to do with his in cage talent," that's obviously very hard to do. Clearly, the signing has at least SOMETHING to do with Alvarez' talent.

I don't think John meant that. To answer your question, no, it is not necessary to prove the signing of Alvarez has nothing to do with his talent. Indeed, it can be assumed that the commodity at issue has value to both parties because an element of a predatory bidding claim is that the commodity has significance to the ability of business to succeed. If the commodity were fungible there would not be an issue.

To respond to the idea that the UFC was investigated before and no violations were found, there is no prohibition against the authorities reviewing additional conduct. It would be like claiming Al Capone was investigated for racketeering and thus forevermore could not be investigated. In fact, the UFC being investigated suggests there was cause to look at their activities. Additional evidence would be reason to reopen the investigation.

 

[tdluxon]

Of course they want to monopolize the sport but Bellator would never win an anti-trust suit against them and would probably go bankrupt paying legal fees if they tried.

 

[LegioTitan]

As long as "locker room bonuses" are real and kept quiet I think this is a hard discussion to have.

Not that I think they're a bad thing, at all. If possible I wouldn't want the tax man knowing I made an extra 10k either.

 

[PabloZed]

As long as "locker room bonuses" are real and kept quiet I think this is a hard discussion to have.

Not that I think they're a bad thing, at all. If possible I wouldn't want the tax man knowing I made an extra 10k either.

Um, locker room bonuses may be kept secret from us, the press and even other fighters, but they are reported to the authorities as income. They are not under the table payments.

 

[Shaddows]

You're asking me if I believe politicians? I believe them as much as I believe you.

And I believe an investigation's results by the people who are charged to uphold the law, a HELL OF A LOT MORE than I believe you.

Why? Because the Gov't officials would have gotten a TON of money if they could go forward with charges against the UFC. And what Gov't doesn't want more revenue (especially the current administration)?

But they couldn't. Because the UFC doesn't violate any laws.

Sorry you can't accept that. But it's no skin off my back if you can't. You can just simmer in your hate for all I care.

LOL you think I care?
You are dumber than I thought...

 

[johnsq316]

problem with your post is that you assume most retards here would understand the issue.

They swear by UFC and WANT UFC to monopolize MMA.
They do not understand the difference of Zuffa and MLB or NBA. They think UFC standing alone will be like those leagues.

Yhey also forget that Zuffa is not = MMA.
Zuffa is a company that only cares about profit, not nescessarily furthering the sport of MMA.

Call me purist, but IMO it is what it is.
UFC is already a monopoly. Anyone that claims different is just making up excuses. They take the best talents of any promotion that dares to hype a fighter, and leaves them with lesser competition.

The only way UFC would not succeed is to have all other promotions merge and help each other (monetarily if need be) and have tournaments among each other as to grow together and have a wider talent pool.

As it is now, no one can compete with UFC.

Based on the statements in this post, I don't think you understand what a monopoly is.

Zuffa is clearly the dominant player in MMA, but they are no more a monopoly than the WWE is in wrestling, the PGA tour is in golf, or the NBA is in basketball.

 

[TicoMMAfan]

Let me, without reading the thread, assume that Sherdoggers are doing the usual:

"There's nothing wrong with the free-market capitalism. UFC is doing nothing wrong." and "Bellator should pay more" and "We don't want talent spread out over leagues."

With sporadic moments of UFC-haters or Bellator fanboys.

 

[johndhi]

Let me, without reading the thread, assume that Sherdoggers are doing the usual:

"There's nothing wrong with the free-market capitalism. UFC is doing nothing wrong." and "Bellator should pay more" and "We don't want talent spread out over leagues."

With sporadic moments of UFC-haters or Bellator fanboys.

actually it's a pretty good thread

 

[Threetrees]

I'm confused...why does anyone think 70k/70k plus PPV bonus is so ridiculously high for a top ten veteran with a 24-3 record that it looks like predatory bidding? This looks like modest natural salary inflation, and a competitive bid to get a highly regarded free agent on board. It's competitions for guys like Alvarez that drive the standard payout up for everyone.

I cosign this comment.
70k/70k isn't uncommon at Eddie Alvarez's level of the sport, I daresay Ben Henderson come renegotiation time will be making at least that much .

 

[Shaddows]

Based on the statements in this post, I don't think you understand what a monopoly is.

Zuffa is clearly the dominant player in MMA, but they are no more a monopoly than the WWE is in wrestling, the PGA tour is in golf, or the NBA is in basketball.

I understand perfectly.
The fact some nuances in law dictates what it is or isn't doesn't change what in fact happens.

Your example would apply if, for instance, the NBA was global (not US centric) and purchased all European talent making offers teams in Europe couldn't match (or buying thoseleagues and absorbing them), I'd say it is the same scenario as UFC right now.
Difference is that in MMA you have less promotions and not one can stand up to UFC or it's buying power.

They make offers that are unrealistic for that fighter and force the lesser promotions to either relinquish their talent or match the offer and go out of business.... which either way will happen if they lose their talent, as they will also lose advertizing, etc.

Bottom line is: UFC has great lawyers and people in the right places. (let us not forget Lorenzo was Commissioner on the Nevada State Athletic Commission) and it surely plays a part on not deeming them a Monopoly.

But I bet every other promotion has a different idea of what Zuffa is.

 

[Godzilla3232]

The UFC has the right to compete for any fighters they want.

Anti-competitive tactics would be the UFC blacklisting fighters or sponsors who associate with Bellator in an attempt to prevent Bellator from being able to operate. Bellator isn't in any way being prevented from competing with the UFC, they're just losing the competition for Alvarez.

 

[eiyuu]

LOL you think I care?
You are dumber than I thought...

You obviously care, since you responded. :icon_chee

But you don't have a true response, so it also tells me you concede my point (because, you know it's true, but you can't accept it.)