Collective bargaining would be untenable in the UFC

[Alpha_T83]

they bought competition that was looking to sell and / or about to go bankrupt.

they don’t meet the legal requirements.

This is one of those things like the definition of "independent contractor". Some argue UFC fighters are independent contractors, others disagree. People pick a side and refuse to budge. I guess we'll just agree to disagree, and see what happens if it ever goes to court.

gsp is under contract because he didn’t fulfill his end of the contract yet, not because he’s obligated in perpetuity.

It's basically the same thing. The law recognizes "essentially". The UFC "essentially" make their contracts so rigorous and difficult to fully complete, that many fighters never "fight out their contract" fully. They either accept it, get cut, or negotiate with the UFC to "re-up" in a new contract.

If the UFC are allowed to hold a fighters rights indefinitely, for whatever reason, then they're doing this very similar to Don King's lifetime contracts. This is comparing Red Delicious to Granny Smith. They're both apples.

 

[Threetrees]

The whole theme of this threat is how management must preemptively give in to labor.

yes I agree

 

[PalmStrike]

With the recent thread(s) about the UFC's negotiation tactics with fighters, I once again see people suggesting that fighters should unionize. There are a litany of reasons why this wouldn't work, but the biggest reason is as follows:

Any UFC union would require the biggest PPV stars to sign on. Although a union would absolutely increase fighter pay overall -- earning fighters 50% revenue sharing -- the highest paid athletes would likely lose money from unionization.

But why would unionization cost PPV stars money? When you look at leagues like the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB, basketball has the largest ratio of highest to lowest paid athletes at roughly 100-fold. Any UFC union would almost certainly not exceed this ratio.

In short, there would be a maximum athlete salary.

This means that guys like Conor McGregor would legally not be allowed to earn more than $10 million per fight if the lowest paid UFC athlete was making $100k per fight. Even if you do revenue sharing per event, the UFC would have to pay the lowest paid athlete on the PPV card $500k for Conor to make $50 million. That's never going to work.

The best hope for MMA athletes to earn more money is to extend Boxing's Ali Act to MMA, which creates a maximum contract length of 1 year. This gives athletes more freedom to work with other organizations, fostering competition.

Its the major reason UFC signed a Reebok deal which stopped fighters from getting good money from sponsorships.

Anyway, unionize and then the best fighters can hold out of fights if they are unhappy or the best fighters can start a union within the union and start a rival org.

Lets be honest, putting on UFC 1 didn't cost that much.

 

[Timurd123]

I agree with just about everything there. The allure of a big payday far outweighs the safety of a few small ones.

Yep, it’s a dog eat dog world and especially in this business

Very few fighters, in fact possibly none will stand up for others at a cost to themselves

 

[snackgod]

With the recent thread(s) about the UFC's negotiation tactics with fighters, I once again see people suggesting that fighters should unionize. There are a litany of reasons why this wouldn't work, but the biggest reason is as follows:

Any UFC union would require the biggest PPV stars to sign on. Although a union would absolutely increase fighter pay overall -- earning fighters 50% revenue sharing -- the highest paid athletes would likely lose money from unionization.

But why would unionization cost PPV stars money? When you look at leagues like the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB, basketball has the largest ratio of highest to lowest paid athletes at roughly 100-fold. Any UFC union would almost certainly not exceed this ratio.

In short, there would be a maximum athlete salary.

This means that guys like Conor McGregor would legally not be allowed to earn more than $10 million per fight if the lowest paid UFC athlete was making $100k per fight. Even if you do revenue sharing per event, the UFC would have to pay the lowest paid athlete on the PPV card $500k for Conor to make $50 million. That's never going to work.

The best hope for MMA athletes to earn more money is to extend Boxing's Ali Act to MMA, which creates a maximum contract length of 1 year. This gives athletes more freedom to work with other organizations, fostering competition.

rememeber when gsp started the union and it failed, he only came crawling back to the ufc for a big pay day

 

[TheOneAboveAll3]

I think you are oversimplifying the concept. It doesn't have to be a union where all are paid the same. A Professional Fighters Association could collectively negotiate things like minimum number of fights ( for example 3 fights) without the right to cut at anytime. All fighters paid their "Show Money" even if their opponent pulls out so long as they make weight. Retirement benefits, Health Insurance, and so on. Level of pay per fight and PPV bonuses can be something negotiated as they are now with a Min salary per fight.

Yeah this was what I was thinking. Pretty sure they can have a minimum salary instead of the 1 to 100 ratio TS is using with his 100K minimum for low tier fighters and 10 million for guys like conor. How about just a min salary of 30-50K for low tier fighters and the stars and mid level fighters can negotiate their contract.

 

[PalmStrike]

Also, NFL players get all types of performance bonuses...this isn't really difficult.

 

[TheOneAboveAll3]

The thing is, unions in the United States have very specific rules. With 50% revenue sharing, a Union would eliminate private backroom bonuses. All fighter bonuses would be legally required to be publicly disclosed and counted towards the revenue sharing. If the UFC gave Jon Jones a $500k car, that would have to count towards revenue sharing.

And the UFC would have the power (and in fact be legally obligated) to hold certain fighter pay in escrow. If they then decided to pay Conor McGregor $100 million and the UFC's revenue share went under 50% revenue sharing, all of the other fighters would end up paying for Conor's bonus pay.

This may sound crazy, but this is actually how the system would work according to the law. As a result, the fighters would demand 1) minimum salaries for low and mid tier fighters, and 2) maximum salaries relative to the lowest paid fighters. If the UFC fighters actually formed a union, every fighter gets an equal "vote" in the union. There's no way the average fighter is going to vote to allow guys like Conor to make $50 million, while their minimum salaries are only 25k.

Conor doesnt even make 50 million right now so whats your point? The most he has made is about 10 million for the diaz fight so 50 million is just a dream and wont happen ever, with or without a union. A minimum salary would still be good and wont effect big stars since the UFC are making insane profits.

 

[kflo]

This is one of those things like the definition of "independent contractor". Some argue UFC fighters are independent contractors, others disagree. People pick a side and refuse to budge. I guess we'll just agree to disagree, and see what happens if it ever goes to court.


It's basically the same thing. The law recognizes "essentially". The UFC "essentially" make their contracts so rigorous and difficult to fully complete, that many fighters never "fight out their contract" fully. They either accept it, get cut, or negotiate with the UFC to "re-up" in a new contract.

If the UFC are allowed to hold a fighters rights indefinitely, for whatever reason, then they're doing this very similar to Don King's lifetime contracts. This is comparing Red Delicious to Granny Smith. They're both apples.

What is the rigorous part preventing him from fighting?

There’s really no good comparison to a perpetual contract. He doesn’t want to fight other than one fight for a title he didn’t earn.

 

[linch]

Firstly, you can absolutely invest in the NFL. It's called buying a franchise, genius. You can buy an existing team or make a bid on an expansion franchise.

Did you read my post?
I told you that you cannot invest in the NFL directly because it's an association of clubs, you cannot for example buy 10% of NFL.
YOU CAN INVEST IN OR BUY A TEAM/CLUB.
That's what "buying a franchise" means.
You should read before you reply.
On the other hand, the ufc is neither a trade association nor a sports league.
It's a PRIVATE SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY.
I actually agree with you that top ufc stars would not support and not benefit from a union.
And the idea that a union would be able to force a private company to share 50% of it's revenue (or profit) with employees is ridiculous, it's a sherdog myth.

 

[linch]

That is going to be the future my friend. We are moving towards a type of socialism in which the employees are the company.

You gotta be kidding me.
How are moving towards socialism? Where?
In which countries?
Maybe in Venezuela.

 

[Alpha_T83]

You gotta be kidding me.
How are moving towards socialism? Where?
In which countries?
Maybe in Venezuela.

I don't expect you to be able to see too far into the future. This stuff is going to happen over the next 50-100 years.

It's very clear that automation and AI is going to replace millions of jobs. And the new jobs that are created will be in high tech industries that require advanced training. When self-driving cars put millions of drivers out of work, where will they go? More and more "good jobs" will be lost, and all that will remain are endless amounts of service industry jobs that have crap salaries.

You can't have companies making $500 billion dollars off of automation and only paying out $1-2 billion in salaries. At some point wealth re-distribution from mega corporations to the greater population will be necessary. Some of this will be accomplished by greatly boosting the pay of low grade service jobs via employees of companies getting 50% of the profits via bonus pay.

The alternative will be the collapse of society as we know and a transition to puppet governments and global corporate oligarchy. I can pretty much tell you that people won't just stand by and let that happen.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

I mean, employee unions and athlete unions are slightly different. One major difference is that virtually all major sports unions end up with a 50/50 split of profits with the owners -- employees of a company don't end up in the same situation.

Because of the 50/50 split, part of athletes salary is put into Escrow. If the athletes make $500 million, but profits were only $800 million, then $100 million is paid from the athlete salaries to the league owner. In that case, all of the athletes end up with a 20% pay cut.

So if the UFC are set to make $500 million profit, and pay the athletes $250 million, but then they decide to pay Conor McGregor $100 million for a PPV that bombs, the profits might only be $550 million. Now the athletes are getting $275 million with Conor taking up over 30% of that number. They end up taking a massive paycut because the UFC overpaid another fighter.

This is why maximum salaries are so important for athlete unions in leauges with revenue sharing.

You are jumping way to far ahead to decide that a union won't work because of this. Revenue sharing didn't start in any of the leagues when a union started. Max salaries are negotiated by the Union and Owners but also came along with massive TV deals. A union would start with basic fighter rights and minimum conditions.

 

[Alpha_T83]

You are jumping way to far ahead to decide that a union won't work because of this. Revenue sharing didn't start in any of the leagues when a union started. Max salaries are negotiated by the Union and Owners but also came along with massive TV deals. A union would start with basic fighter rights and minimum conditions.

That would be the ideal scenario!

But getting to the point where you actually form a union and sign a CBA with the UFC would be a longass road. I highly doubt fighters would be willing to continue with the status quo pay once they got to that point -- or even take a marginal pay increase. They're only getting 22.5% of the profits right now, according the recently publicly released data.

People tend to have a greedy mob mentality. Once the fighters succeed at forming a union, they've got the UFC by the balls. They won't just let them off easy. We're all fatally flawed humans that can't help but be greedy. The fighters would go straight for 50% of the profits and they'd probably get that or something close.

 

[linch]

People who talk about 50% of ufc profits going to fighters are just envious of rich folk, they don't give a fuck about fighters.
They're just envious that someone is making millions of dollars, banging 10s, and having a great life.
How else would you explain that they don't criticize bellator and others for paying shit to fighters (less than ufc) because they're giving a higher percentage of their profit?
Would you rather work for a guy whose profit is 2000 bucks and gives you 50% of his profit or would you work for a billionaire who pays you way more money but it's 0.001% of his profit?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

With the recent thread(s) about the UFC's negotiation tactics with fighters, I once again see people suggesting that fighters should unionize. There are a litany of reasons why this wouldn't work, but the biggest reason is as follows:

Any UFC union would require the biggest PPV stars to sign on. Although a union would absolutely increase fighter pay overall -- earning fighters 50% revenue sharing -- the highest paid athletes would likely lose money from unionization.

But why would unionization cost PPV stars money? When you look at leagues like the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB, basketball has the largest ratio of highest to lowest paid athletes at roughly 100-fold. Any UFC union would almost certainly not exceed this ratio.

In short, there would be a maximum athlete salary.

This means that guys like Conor McGregor would legally not be allowed to earn more than $10 million per fight if the lowest paid UFC athlete was making $100k per fight. Even if you do revenue sharing per event, the UFC would have to pay the lowest paid athlete on the PPV card $500k for Conor to make $50 million. That's never going to work.

The best hope for MMA athletes to earn more money is to extend Boxing's Ali Act to MMA, which creates a maximum contract length of 1 year. This gives athletes more freedom to work with other organizations, fostering competition.

You gotta think it through a little more.

The NFL has practice squads and used to have a European League
The NBA has a D-League
Baseball has tons of minor league teams

All those guys have no relation to the union or very minimal relationships and vastly smaller contracts than the lowest paid guy in the "main league".

There's no reason undercard fighters would have deals anywhere comparable to main card or main event fighters.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

People who talk about 50% of ufc profits going to fighters are just envious of rich folk, they don't give a fuck about fighters.
They're just envious that someone is making millions of dollars, banging 10s, and having a great life.
How else would you explain that they don't criticize bellator and others for paying shit to fighters (less than ufc) because they're giving a higher percentage of their profit?
Would you rather work for a guy whose profit is 2000 bucks and gives you 50% of his profit or would you work for a billionaire who pays you way more money but it's 0.001% of his profit?

Suppose org X makes 20M per event and org Y makes 200k.
X pays out 600k (3%) to fighters, Y pays out 100k (50%).

Now, according to you, we need to criticize Y, because percentage doesn't matter, only the raw amount matters.
If Y actually did what you claim they should (pay the same as X), they'd be bankrupt and out of business rapidly. Their workers would be scrambling for jobs elsewhere at worse pay.

According to other people, we should criticize X for giving such a poor percentage.
If X actually gave a better percentage...they'd still be massively profitable and their workers wouldn't be impoverished nearly as often as they currently are.

You see how one idea has really beneficial results and the other has really terrible results?

 

[fzoid4454]

That title is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The UFC can call them part-time clowns if they want. The reality is that they are still athletes paid to perform by the organization. If you look at comparable cases, other sports organizations have also tried to claim that their athletes were independent contractors. That argument doesn't work.

That argument doesn't work, but not because "they get paid to perform by the organization." That's true for independent contractors. as well. What is true is that they aren't free to exercise discretion in many areas of how they do their work, they aren't free to ply their profession with others, etc. I think the restrictions on sponsorships fighters can get and being forced to only wear the Rebok equipment would be the biggest arguments that they are actually employees, not contractors.