Are UFC's Practices Anti-Competitive?

[Shaddows]

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.)

I respond because I have the time to spare.
But that does not mean I care about YOUR opinion however stupid it is.

And no, As I noted 2 post above yours (that you dutifully ignored), it is common sense.

You obviously use the "i believe the politicians more than I trust you" line because it serves your purpose.

It is as dumb and stupid as the people who claim Machida won the first fight against Rua because "the judges voted this way and I trust the judges more than I trust the fans"... even though 99% of the fans do agree Machida lost that fight.
And I use that fight not because of any particular reason... i could have used any of the multiple dumb decisions by the judges...
And all proves one thing: You have no argument but to hide behind what the politicians said. And that alone proves who is the one who has no argument...

 

[johnsq316]

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.

Where do the best European basketball players play? The NBA. I can't off the top of my head think of a single player that the NBA wants to have who isn't in the association. The best players in every European league come to the NBA the moment they are contractually able to do so. The only players who could play in the NBA and do not are those who choose to play closer to home for less money.

In any case, your own argument refutes your point: if the UFC was a monopoly, there wouldn't be other organizations to have an opinion about what the UFC is.

Also, the NSAC has absolutely zero to do with getting a company deemed a monopoly (further demonstrating your ignorance of this subject). Microsoft has some damn fine lawyers. That didn't seem to help them avoid millions of dollars in fines and court judgments in both the US and EU for monopolistic trade practices.

You can say that UFC is the dominant MMA organization. You can argue that this is bad for the sport (once again, you'd be wrong, having one dominant organization is good for most sports). But they are not a monopoly, either by law or by fact.

 

[Jason AG]

shouldn't the fighters get to choose what company they wish to work for?

 

[Shaddows]

Where do the best European basketball players play? The NBA. I can't off the top of my head think of a single player that the NBA wants to have who isn't in the association. The best players in every European league come to the NBA the moment they are contractually able to do so. The only players who could play in the NBA and do not are those who choose to play closer to home for less money.

In any case, your own argument refutes your point: if the UFC was a monopoly, there wouldn't be other organizations to have an opinion about what the UFC is.

Also, the NSAC has absolutely zero to do with getting a company deemed a monopoly (further demonstrating your ignorance of this subject). Microsoft has some damn fine lawyers. That didn't seem to help them avoid millions of dollars in fines and court judgments in both the US and EU for monopolistic trade practices.

You can say that UFC is the dominant MMA organization. You can argue that this is bad for the sport (once again, you'd be wrong, having one dominant organization is good for most sports). But they are not a monopoly, either by law or by fact.

it amazes me the fact my argument went way over your head, yet you claim I am the ignorant one.

A) basic distinction between UFC and NBA is that NBA is American-centric. If you ask me about basketball in the states only, it is damn sure a monopoly. Or do you see any other league competing against them in US? Didn't think so.

But it seems it's YOUR ignorance on any subject what makes you a perfect "zuffa Zombie" that only say what you heard somewhere as long as it fits your agenda.

Microsoft owns 90% of the global market. Their strategy was way too aggressive to be "forgiven".
They BROKE many companies in their path and were well on their way to break more.
They allowed it to go on as far as OS was concerned. but when they started trying to monopolize the Internet (explorer) and Office programs and even Hardware, something had to stop them.

Allas though, this has nothing to do with MMA.

And no. You are blatantly wrong.

A League might be good for a sport.
A business ?? no. never!

You can see the reflection of it on so many undeserving fighters getting title shots just because "they sell ".
This is an obvious conflict of interest that takes away all the credibility of the sport.
In your own example, if NBA was doing what UFC does, the Spurs would have never made the finals (too boring), and we would have Lakers & Heat (or Lakers & Celtics) every year for the championship... because "it's what the fan wants"... right?

But you obvious have no idea what I am talking about.

After all, Dana said it's good so it must be, right?