Dana is a scumbag who does everything he can to harm the fighters financially

[El Panteron]

I don't think the poster who brought up Dana's perspective was trying to say it's because Dana doesn't want to see himself as a scumbag, but just that his motivation isn't to harm fighters financially as much as he can.

First off, I, personally, don't think he generally is trying to harm them financially, as much as he tries to limit and control them. There is a significant difference, though scummy either way.

What the poster you quoted likely meant is that he tries to enrich himself as much as possible and doesn't care if it means others don't get their fair share, instead of that his actual goal is to hurt fighters financially. It has nothing to do with how Dana sees himself.

I personally think there is some truth in that, though it's more complicated than that, because Dana is far from the only guy making the decisions, nor does he always have the final say. However, he does definitely have a big share in the responsibility of a lot of shady business practices that concern fighters' finances.

The way you are bringing it, though, comes across like Dana is some Disney villain and just does evil things for the sake of it.

People who are a bit less emotional labout this subject (possibly because they have seen a million and one similar threads/discussions like these before), but do take this subject seriously, they will value the nuances of business as they want to really understand why things happen and possibly think of a solution, if they have a firm answer to why it is happening. Which takes a level-headed approach and not an approach where you instantly see everything as a defense for Dana if it's somewhat critical of your approach

Don't know man, understanding how and why something happens doesn't really change its consequences.
Put it this way: for my work sometimes I had to go to local politicians to request funding. It is godawful. There are many reasons they didn't want to allocate resources to our projects, but at the end of the day it didn't change anything, the result was still the same: no money to solve the issue they hired us to solve. And the solution is still the same: band together and lobby hard. Or behead them I guess.

This the situation with fighter pay is similar. You can be a level headed fighter and understand why you're getting the short stick, but at the end of the day it's still your life and you're supposed to take action.

 

[don't ask]

I don't think the poster who brought up Dana's perspective was trying to say it's because Dana doesn't want to see himself as a scumbag, but just that his motivation isn't to harm fighters financially as much as he can.

First off, I, personally, don't think he generally is trying to harm them financially, as much as he tries to limit and control them. There is a significant difference, though scummy either way.

What the poster you quoted likely meant is that he tries to enrich himself as much as possible and doesn't care if it means others don't get their fair share, instead of that his actual goal is to hurt fighters financially. It has nothing to do with how Dana sees himself.

I personally think there is some truth in that, though it's more complicated than that, because Dana is far from the only guy making the decisions, nor does he always have the final say. However, he does definitely have a big share in the responsibility of a lot of shady business practices that concern fighters' finances.

The way you are bringing it, though, comes across like Dana is some Disney villain and just does evil things for the sake of it.

People who are a bit less emotional labout this subject (possibly because they have seen a million and one similar threads/discussions like these before), but do take this subject seriously, they will value the nuances of business as they want to really understand why things happen and possibly think of a solution, if they have a firm answer to why it is happening. Which takes a level-headed approach and not an approach where you instantly see everything as a defense for Dana if it's somewhat critical of your approach

You're splitting a hair that doesn't need to be split and is entirely a matter of perspective. It's like saying a molester isn't trying to hurt anyone, they're just trying to pleasure themselves. Dana is at the head of an exploitative business model that is significantly based on keeping the fighters in financial insecurity. Low wages is just a part of it, as indicated by the lop-sided leverage baked into their contracts.

 

[Iroh]

Don't know man, understanding how and why something happens doesn't really change its consequences.

Depends on what consequences you're talking about. One of the consequnces of getting the short end of the stick could be that you want to do something about it. Then it can definitely change that consequence. Or at least it could change what you are going to do about it. The strategy you will take.

Put it this way: for my work sometimes I had to go to local politicians to request funding. It is godawful. There are many reasons they didn't want to allocate resources to our projects, but at the end of the day it didn't change anything, the result was still the same: no money to solve the issue they hired us to solve

And the solution is still the same: band together and lobby hard. Or behead them I guess.

Bruh, this is too vague of a description for me to really see the value in the comparison. I can't say anything about the possible solution to your example if I basically have no details at all.

This the situation with fighter pay is similar. You can be a level headed fighter and understand why you're getting the short stick, but at the end of the day it's still your life and you're supposed to take action.

Yes? Never said they didn't need to take action. Not sure what your point is here.

 

[orca]

thats life
theres no such thing as easy life
you have to work for it

not just in MMA
but in our daily lives

you should understand this by now if your a full grown man
maybe you should be the next CEO of the ufc
because you make it sound so easy

 

[Iroh]

You're splitting a hair that doesn't need to be split

It needed splitting because you misinterpreted what the poster said and acted unnecessarily defensive in your response.

and is entirely a matter of perspective. It's like saying a molester isn't trying to hurt anyone, they're just trying to pleasure themselves.

Dana's motivation is indeed a matter of perspective... his own perspective, not the perspective of the spectator/3rd person.

Dana is at the head of an exploitative business model that is significantly based on keeping the fighters in financial insecurity. Low wages is just a part of it, as indicated by the lop-sided leverage baked into their contracts.

Well at least this ^ is more accurately descriptive and nuanced , than

"does everything he can to harm the fighters financially '​

That's much better and more inviting of serious discussion, IMO.

 

[moreorless87]

Dana White and the UFC brass have a slave owner mentality.
The low pay is not just for profit, they believe you have to keep the fighters desperate for money to ensure they are ready to kill themselves on the job.

 

[don't ask]

It needed splitting because you misinterpreted what the poster said and acted unnecessarily defensive in your response.



Dana's motivation is indeed a matter of perspective... his own perspective, not the perspective of the spectator/3rd person.



Well at least this ^ is more accurately descriptive and nuanced , than

"does everything he can to harm the fighters financially '​

That's much better and more inviting of serious discussion, IMO.

I don't see any real difference between intentionally harming fighters and intentionally putting fighters in a place of harm. Pushback on it seems like a reluctance to fully acknowledge what Dana and co. are doing.

 

[Tyler Durden]

It's almost like fighters can sign somewhere else if they wish, but most don't. Yeah, Dana has a gun to these guys head.

Seriously. What’s up with sherdoggies always white knighting for these grown men?
And don’t they realize that if the UFC overpaid these guys, they’d never fight.

 

[squatchi26]

don't fight

 

[Tyler Durden]

It’s amazing that any MMA fan would defend Dana ripping off the fighters.

He exploits the fact that these guys have a dream and want to get to the top. People then blame the fighters just for having a dream in the first place and signing a contract.

It’s a pathetic slave mentality.

Bare minimum fighters should be able to unionize and get their own sponsors.

Umm, I don’t think you know what slavery is. Lemme guess, you’re a white dude?

 

[Clark Rogers]

I don't agree with a lot of their financial practices, but the inflation focus I think is misguided. They're dealing with that just like the rest of us in the US. Companies handing out inflation related cost of living increases are few and far between.

 

[don't ask]

I don't agree with a lot of their financial practices, but the inflation focus I think is misguided. They're dealing with that just like the rest of us in the US. Companies handing out inflation related cost of living increases are few and far between.

Yeah, and that's absolutely not okay. It should be talked about everywhere, not just MMA, but people on a MMA forum are even resisting talking about it here.

 

[don't ask]

Seriously. What’s up with sherdoggies always white knighting for these grown men?

"Why do MMA fans always care about the fighters that are the entire reason the sport exists and makes money?" Yeah, that's a real mystery, Sherlock. I can't wait until you pair it with your usually great economic insights.

And don’t they realize that if the UFC overpaid these guys, they’d never fight.

This is the most mindless repetition of an idiotic Dana White talking point on this thread yet. Good job.

 

[Clark Rogers]

Yeah, and that's absolutely not okay. It should be talked about everywhere, not just MMA, put people on a MMA forum are even resisting talking about it here.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just don't think it's a point that should be viewed so heavily thru the UFC lens. It's so much bigger than Dana White and UFC contracting.

 

[don't ask]

I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just don't think it's a point that should be viewed so heavily thru the UFC lens. It's so much bigger than Dana White and UFC contracting.

That logic makes sense for small operations, but when a multi-billion dollar company has a stranglehold over the entire industry there's no reason to expand your lens further because that just allows the company to escape criticism for their business practices. This isn't a discussion about exploitative practices of capitalism harming fighters, it's a discussion of how the exploitative practices of the UFC harm fighters. The solution isn't going to be to change capitalism, the solution will be to change the UFC.

 

[Clark Rogers]

That logic makes sense for small operations, but when a multi-billion dollar company has a stranglehold over the entire industry there's no reason to expand your lens further because that just allows the company to escape criticism for their business practices. This isn't a discussion about exploitative practices of capitalism harming fighters, it's a discussion of how the exploitative practices of the UFC harm fighters. The solution isn't going to be to change capitalism, the solution will be to change the UFC.

I'm not suggesting the solution is to change capitalism. That's frankly asinine.

What I am suggesting is that as long as EVERY OTHER CORPORATION is not adjusting wages for inflation, UFC has a lot of reasons to ignore whatever perceived whining they see about it.

 

[duke_droese]

Imagine a kid had elite athletic genes and his parents put him into MMA from a young age with a dream to reach the pinnacle, a UFC contract.

Then after 15 years of sweating on the mats, he gets the contract and it's 5k/5k

MMA won't attract elite talent until the pay for world class level fighters (top 15-20) gets sorted out.

There's an average domestic level boxer in the UK called Anthony Fowler. He retired at around 30 because he got multiple good 6 figure (GBP) paydays. The equivalent guy in MMA is getting £2000 a fight despite them drawing bigger crowds.

 

[don't ask]

I'm not suggesting the solution is to change capitalism. That's frankly asinine.

What I am suggesting is that as long as EVERY OTHER CORPORATION is not adjusting wages for inflation, UFC has a lot of reasons to ignore whatever perceived whining they see about it.

It's sensible for politicians to look at the issue more globally than through a UFC lens while it's sensible for fans to wield the little influence they have directly at the UFC. Your advice would be great for a politician.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Going out of their way to artificially limit fighters' earning potential is known as monopsony, which is the crux of that class-action lawsuit.

 

[BigNick100]

Can you give some examples?



It sounds like you literally know nothing about exploitation.



Yeah, that's what happens when you're a fan of a sport that literally only makes money because of the fighters, but the fighters aren't getting that money.



"You should employ yourself in a system that exploits you instead of talking about the harm exploitation causes."

who the heck are you talking like you know everything and sitting in the room with fighters and dana when they sign the contracts. You sherdoggers are dumb as fuck