But are they representing the UFC? Wouldn't they need to be UFC employees to represent the UFC? If I outsource a painter to work at IBM are they going to wear IBM shirts or Joe's Painting shirts...
The fighters job is to fight and to show up to promotional events, structured by the UFC, to answer questions about the fight.
If the fighters are not employees they don't represent the UFC they represent themselves.
The only ones who should be able to stipulate attire is the athletic commissions.
I think this comparison TS made is quite intriquing...
And even When the fighters are inside the octagon that is not a promotional time either it is a time controlled by the athletic commission if they are representing anyone they are representing themselves. They should be allowed to wear anything that is allowed by the commission.
It's a bit fuzzy, but it would really come down to whether promotion itself is considered integral to the job. The main difference between the contract painter and the contract fighter is that the promotion of the fight itself is integral to the job of being a fighter, while promotion may or may not be integral to the job of being a painter.
Fighters are public figures. Painters may or may not be private figures. If your job requires interaction with clients, customers, external business relationships or the public then your job has different requirements than jobs where you are let's say locked in a cubicle in the basement. So, painters who are working in an open office where clients are coming in and out may be held to stricter dress code standards than painters who are working in a section of a building that is cordoned off from the public where nobody will ever see them.
I don't think there's a fighter in MMA that wouldn't agree that promotion is an integral part of their job. They are after all trying to "sell" the fight. Since selling the fight effectively requires that they make themselves available to the media and public, then part of that job is that they maintain both their own image and the image of the promotion (UFC).
Would it be reasonable to allow a UFC fighter to wear shorts with the Bellator logo on them in the Octagon? Of course not. Similarly, would it be reasonable to allow a UFC fighter to wear shorts with the Nike swish when the UFC has a Reebok contract? Of course not. Once you accept the logic of control of the image of the fighter in the Octagon and during media events for those scenario's, then you can't just say "Sure, the UFC has the right to stop me from wearing a Bellator logo, but not to wear a Condom Depot logo". The UFC either has image control rights or they don't.
Since part of their job is to uphold the image of the promotion, then requiring that they comply with parts of their contract relevant to the dress code are relevant.
