News Deadline: Jake Paul reduces amount asked for fighter pay in last ditch offer to get Dana to accept

[Iroh]

I'm sorry man, I'm half trolling you here with the masonry example lol.

I just think if they're not going to pay better they should at least have the best care.

<[analyzed}>

They could at least make some kind of CTE fund for retired fighters, IMO. And also up the minimum pay.

 

[StonedLemur]

<[analyzed}>

They could at least make some kind of CTE fund for retired fighters, IMO. And also up the minimum pay.

Lol I did work masonry for a long time though

I definitely agree with the long term care and upping the base pay...it's the least they can do.
Just look at Spencer Fisher.

 

[bambambigelow]

The UFC paying out about 23% after PPV points is pretty terrible, up from a default rate of 15% before PPV points. Dana is going to be the same cheap ass he's always been. The fighters need to appeal to Endeavor to make changes.

 

[Kryptt]

News Flash Jake Paul Desperate for More Attention!

 

[StonedLemur]

The UFC paying out about 23% after PPV points is pretty terrible, up from a default rate of 15% before PPV points. Dana is going to be the same cheap ass he's always been. The fighters need to appeal to Endeavor to make changes.

No they need to unionize, but lack the backbone and trust of other fights to make it happen.... unfortunately.

 

[JarlSkuld]

Why would Dana accept a lose-lose-lose proposition? Something tells me only gambles when the odds are heavily in his favor, or when he has nothing to lose. As one perceptive Sherdogger said a few months back, J.P. should just walk up and knock Dana the fuck out. Only that kind of public humiliation would ever motivate Dana to box Jake Paul.

Jarl

 

[DebtCollectorMMA]

This is an opportunity not a career ya goofs. They're contractors with a small window to make some noise. Dont want CTE? Dont get hit.

 

[kflo]

And that magically means that such an peculiar contractual clause isn't worth noticing? The one that tends to impact the most lucrative fighters.

We've been over it. The champion's clause in Ennis' contract is different in that he has the right to approve his opponents. UFC and Bellator contracts do not have that for fighters.

I was talking about the ability to compete outside boxing. And ufc fighters obviously have to approve opponents as well. And they don’t have “mandatory” challengers.

The NFL has a monopoly exemption and a collective bargaining agreement if my memory serves. Neither which exists in the UFC or mma. Not to mention, again if my memory of hand egg is right, the franchise tag includes a salary raise.

They get to keep the player they want. Auto extend. What you said doesn’t exist elsewhere.

Blows my mind that fighters think UFC fighters getting a smaller portion of event revenue than Don King headliners, after he stole from them no less, is on the up and up.

What % did don king headliners make? It’s amazing you think that is a comparison point worth noting.

 

[this is my new account]

Im with jake here. If i was a ufc fighter but not high level but fought around 8 fights, say 5-3. I would not have made "i made it money" even tho im in the "BIGS". I would have UFC fighter on my resume but i would still be broke. 50k minimum also seems low. 3 fights = 150k for being in the UFC per year isnt pro athlete money

 

[avenue94]

I was talking about the ability to compete outside boxing. And ufc fighters obviously have to approve opponents as well. And they don’t have “mandatory” challengers.

Yes, but before Ennis gets tolled, he has to be offered a reasonable opponent that he signs off on. That's his contract. Clearly different than a UFC or Bellator fighter.

They get to keep the player they want. Auto extend. What you said doesn’t exist elsewhere.

So you're going to ignore the monopoly exemption. Or employee status. Or CBA. Or that, correct me if I'm, wrong, that there are requirements to a franchise tag in terms of tenure, whereas a champion's clause is purely arbitrary.

What % did don king headliners make? It’s amazing you think that is a comparison point worth noting.

The purses for Holmes-Cooney were about $20 million, off of about somewhere north of $40 million. Holmes was upset that Don King stole about $2 or $3 million from him, which means Holmes was still making more than $10 million after Don King's promotional cut and his stealing.

 

[Morris88]

Remember when Dana plowed that guys wife

 

[fractal]

Dana doesn’t care about Jake or his own fighters…

He loves swords and “fuck it Friday” junk food more lol

Spoiler

Can’t forget the hookers and coke too!

Fuck it friday is still a thing? There are only so many ways you can mix PB and eggs.

 

[kflo]

Yes, but before Ennis gets tolled, he has to be offered a reasonable opponent that he signs off on. That's his contract. Clearly different than a UFC or Bellator fighter.

so you're ignoring the part about competing outside of boxing or with other promotions?

So you're going to ignore the monopoly exemption. Or employee status. Or CBA. Or that, correct me if I'm, wrong, that there are requirements to a franchise tag in terms of tenure, whereas a champion's clause is purely arbitrary.

again, i didn't think you were actually questioning the legality.......really?

how is champions clause arbitrary? it's contractual.....

The purses for Holmes-Cooney were about $20 million, off of about somewhere north of $40 million. Holmes was upset that Don King stole about $2 or $3 million from him, which means Holmes was still making more than $10 million after Don King's promotional cut and his stealing.

and? again, i'm not sure why you think this is a relevant data point for mma or the ufc......weird obsession with don king.......

don king was a scumbag because he stole money unbeknownst to his fighters. he violated the terms of their contracts and stole from them. that he paid out market prices to his fighters isn't really the issue.......

 

[Billthebutcher]

Jake Paul is about to tap out to Dana White.

 

[snaxalotl]

health care but dana will do neither of course

 

[RampageFaction]

You don't have to be employees to unionize, you might lack some legal protections due to not being employees, but unionizing is really just about collective bargaining.

You absolutely DO have to be an employee to unionize. Independent contractors can join unions already established by EMPLOYEES, but they don’t have the same rights.

https://aflcio.org/formaunion/rights-unionize