fighters should only sign 1 fight contracts

[zzzdom]

My point is if they want you to fight for them you can fight for them. If they dont you want. Having a contract is not going to change that.

I understand what you mean, but they still have better chances of staying in UFC with multiple fights deal than just 1 fight.

You can argue all you want, but any pro athlete is always looking for a long term contract.

This:

Many fighters like multi-fight contracts cause it's job security. It means if they have a losing streak, they still have a chance to redeem themselves in a certain amount of time. The downside is if they are successful, they have to wait awhile to renegotiate their contract to a higher amount. It's give and take.

Think about Mark Hunt. The guy would be fighting cans in Japan and India right now like Sapp if he didn't have a few fights left over from his Pride contract.

 

[gocubsgo]

I'm sure all the fighters would thank you for limiting their ability to earn income and have any semblance of job security. After all, why would a fighter want to sign a 3-fight deal with a reputable company for 100k per fight, when he can have no guaranteed next fight or money and make him possibly hustle from org to org every 3 months or so and renegotiate new contracts. Not knowing where your next fight and paycheck are coming from is always a good feeling right?

 

[SammyPops]

What a terrible idea.

this

 

[TheProphetAxel]

Guess I'm the only one that likes the sound of this. It benefits fans and fighters, only the individual promotions are losing power.

Without the promotions, the sport wouldn't grow. One thing Dana and Co has right is the fact that the sport itself must take priority over the fighters. It is the only way for the sport to grow. All major sports (outside of soccer/football) have only grown to be as massively popular as they are due to a practical monopoly of the sport in their own country. As an American, when I think of major sports like Hockey, Baseball, etc. there is only one league that pops into mind. When you have multiple leagues that compete and don't share, you end up with all kinds of dream matches that can't occur and no clear #1 player/team. If the UFC is the big dog of the sport, and all of the best fighters are there, then there is a clear consensus on who is the best at each weight class.

 

[Jesus Freak]

Signing a 1 fight contract is not as hard as you are making it out to be.

And you keep pointing out there being more foghters than my favorite is pointless.

Granted, I've never negotiated/completed a fight contract, but something tells me they're not as simple as one might think.

These aren't like WWE contracts, Brah! They don't get signed in the middle of the ring, followed by a scrap to hype up the PPV's main event.

Brah!

 

[MajJ]

goldentoe... go stub your toe.

 

[Mikeyz]

These guys are independent contractors and should only sign contracts per Fight.

I think MMA would be better if these guys didnt belong to one org. fighters could fight in multiple orgs and we we wouldn't be limited to watching only guys within their orgs fighting.

Horrible idea. Dana wouldn't risk losing them to another organization.

 

[goldentoe]

I understand what you mean, but they still have better chances of staying in UFC with multiple fights deal than just 1 fight.

You can argue all you want, but any pro athlete is always looking for a long term contract.

This:

long term guarnteed contracts is what athletes want. Right now signing a multifight deal offers no real benefit to the athlete.

 

[gocubsgo]

Signing a 1 fight contract is not as hard as you are making it out to be.

And you keep pointing out there being more foghters than my favorite is pointless.

Oh yeah, just sign a paper that says, "1 fight, $50,000.00." Boom! Contract. BTW, this answer right here just shows how little you know about contracts and contract negotiation, especially in the sports arena. I honestly understand what your point is and the way you are seeing this happening, but it is not remotely realistic.

 

[goldentoe]

What security does a multifight deal offer when the promotion t can end it at any time for any reason?

 

[goldentoe]

Oh yeah, just sign a paper that says, "1 fight, $50,000.00." Boom! Contract. BTW, this answer right here just shows how little you know about contracts and contract negotiation, especially in the sports arena. I honestly understand what your point is and the way you are seeing this happening, but it is not remotely realistic.

so you have nothing to dispute my post other than unclever banter.

 

[Jesus Freak]

These guys are independent contractors and should only sign contracts per Fight.

I think MMA would be better if these guys didnt belong to one org. fighters could fight in multiple orgs and we we wouldn't be limited to watching only guys within their orgs fighting.

Imagine your job at WacArnold's forced you to go through the entire hiring process every week. It would get pretty old, pretty quick.

 

[goldentoe]

Imagine your job at WacArnold's forced you to go through the entire hiring process every week. It would get pretty old, pretty quick.

So you are comparing an hourly minumum wage job to prizefighter who compete 3 times a year tops?

 

[Jesus Freak]

So you are comparing an hourly minumum wage job to prizefighter who compete 3 times a year tops?

Dude, I know you're clamouring for that Orange Belt, but you're fighting an uphill battle.

Oh, and I'll have fries with that.

 

[zzzdom]

long term guarnteed contracts is what athletes want. Right now signing a multifight deal offers no real benefit to the athlete.

Whoa dude, you are more stubborn than a mule.

Would you rather be a temp or full time employed?

Just because you have a desk job, it doesn't mean you can't lose it the next day, but usually when you lose your job there is a clear reason as to why.

Same thing with UFC, of course they can cut you whenever they want, but no they won't cut you for no reason, because they usually honor their end of the deal.

Your problem is that you are stuck on this little part:

What security does a multifight deal offer when the promotion t can end it at any time for any reason?

You should know that pretty much applies to any kind of job.

 

[gocubsgo]

so you have nothing to dispute my post other than unclever banter.

No, you just have nothing to support your post.

 

[goldentoe]

Dude, I know you're clamouring for that Orange Belt, but you're fighting an uphill battle.

Oh, and I'll have fries with that.

You must have great life, it shows through your posts.

 

[goldentoe]

Whoa dude, you are more stubborn than a mule.

Would you rather be a temp or full time employed?

Just because you have a desk job, it doesn't mean you can't lose it the next day, but usually when you lose your job there is a clear reason as to why.

Same thing with UFC, of course they can cut you whenever they want, but no they won't cut you for no reason, because they usually honor their end of the deal.

Your problem is that you are stuck on this little part:



You should know that pretty much applies to any kind of job.

Fighters are not employees. They are contracors who are contracted to compete 3 times a year tops. Compare it with other contractors not employees who work every day.

 

[TheMMAn]

These guys are independent contractors and should only sign contracts per Fight.

I think MMA would be better if these guys didnt belong to one org. fighters could fight in multiple orgs and we we wouldn't be limited to watching only guys within their orgs fighting.

It's a two-way street. If the org (UFC especially) doesn't go along with a demand for for a single fight contract, what then? These fighters aren't going to refuse a chance to fight in the biggest show. It seems that your premise is based on all promotions being interchangeable. In the real world, this is not the case. Some promoters are MUCH better at promotion, and have MUCH better name recognition. Both of these facets factor heavily in the amount of pay and exposure a fighter receives.

You say (later in the thread) that this would benefit both the fighters and the fans.

The fans: One-and done contracts would UNDOUBTEDLY lead to pissing matches between promoters, creating all sorts of problems getting fights signed. Anyone remember the fun we all had waiting for Chuck vs Wandy back during the Pride days? Also, this would make it exponentially easier for fighters to avoid the matchups that they fear most. Good for the fighter, bad for the fans.

The fighters: Say a good fighter has 2 extremely bad performances in a row? Not only will they be offered less than they would from the org that they lost in (that's IF the org decides to sign them for another fight at all), the other orgs would be compelled to pay them less for their next fight as well, as they know that their value has gone down. This is compared to, say, a 6 fight contract, where more than likely, they will be fighting for the same org, and prolly without a pay cut.

 

[jayBMX]

It really wouldn't give fighters the kind of leverage you think it would.