How the NFL Players Association was started, could the UFC be next?

RankingMMA

Green Belt
@Green
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
0
With Nate Quarry's most recent statements, a lot of people are talking about other sports' unions. I just read the story of how the NFL's Player Association started up, and it seems somewhat applicable to what's going on right now with the UFC and its fighters. If you're willing to read a FRAT, see below...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association

The establishment of the National Football League in 1920 featured early franchises haphazardly formed and often saddled with financial difficulties, poor player talent and attendance rates. As the league expanded through the years, players were provided with no formal representation and received few, if any, benefits. In 1943, Roy Zimmerman's refusal to play an exhibition game without compensation resulted in his trade from the Washington Redskins to the Philadelphia Eagles. With the formation of the competing All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in 1946, NFL owners instituted a rule which banned a player for five years from NFL-associated employment if he left the league to join the AAFC.

Bill Radovich, an offensive lineman, was one player who "jumped" leagues; he played for the Detroit Lions in 1945 and then joined the Los Angeles Dons of the AAFC after the team offered him a greater salary. Subsequently, Radovich was blacklisted by the NFL and was denied a tryout with the NFL-affiliated San Francisco Seals baseball team of the Pacific Coast League. Unable to attain a job in either league, Radovich filed a lawsuit against the NFL in 1957. In 1964, Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl and All-Pro center Jim Ringo approached head coach Vince Lombardi to negotiate a raise. Lombardi was angered by the presence of Ringo's agent, and excused himself; five minutes later he returned to inform the two that Ringo had been traded to the Philadelphia Eagles. The players grew tired of incidents such as these and complained to one another. One sore point was playing in training camp and preseason exhibition games without pay; no contract payment was made until a player made a regular season roster.

The NFLPA began when two players from the Cleveland Browns, Abe Gibron and Dante Lavelli, approached a lawyer and former Notre Dame football player, Creighton Miller, to help form an association to advocate for the players. Miller was initially reluctant but accepted in 1956. He contacted Don Shula (a Baltimore Colts player at the time), John Gordy of the Detroit Lions, Frank Gifford and Sam Huff of the New York Giants, and Norm Van Brocklin of the Los Angeles Rams to aid in the development of the association. Representatives of 11 of the 12 teams in the league at the time joined the association; the Chicago Bears were the sole dissenter; by November 1956 a majority of the players signed cards allowing the NFLPA to represent them. The first meeting took place at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in November where players decided on demands to be submitted to league commissioner Bert Bell. The new association's initial agenda included a league-wide minimum salary, plus a per diem when teams were on the road, that uniforms and equipment be paid for and maintained at the clubs' expense, and continued payment of salaries when players were injured. The NFLPA hoped to meet with Bell during the owners' meeting in January 1957 to discuss the demands; however, no meeting took place. The owners, for their part, were not enthused by the concept of a player's union and this sentiment was reflected when Miller, who served as an assistant coach with the Cleveland Browns, was removed from the team photo at the request of Paul Brown. Gibron, Lavelli, and Miller were instrumental in the founding of the union as they had become chagrined by Paul Brown's staunch view that "it was both just and necessary that management could cut, trade, bench, blackball and own in perpetuity anyone and everyone that it wanted".

Miller continued to represent the NFLPA in their early days. Unable to win the owners' attention by forming the union, the NFLPA threatened to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the league. The antitrust laws are meant to protect "free and fair competition in the marketplace" and prohibit practices that may give industries or businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. That threat became much more credible when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957), that the NFL did not enjoy the same antitrust immunity that Major League Baseball did, meaning that players like Radovich had been wrongfully barred from finding new employment. Jarett Bell of USA Today noted in 2011, the Radovich ruling "set the foundation for a series of court battles that have continued to present times" largely over disagreements in compensation. Rather than face another lawsuit, the owners agreed to a league minimum salary of $5,000, $50 for each exhibition game played, and medical and hospital coverage. Although most of the NFLPA's requests were met, the owners did not enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the association or formally recognize it as the players' exclusive bargaining representative, instead agreeing to change the standard player contract and alter governing documents to reflect the deal.

From the inception of the NFLPA, its members were divided over whether it should act as a professional association or a union. Against the wishes of NFLPA presidents Pete Retzlaff and Bernie Parrish, Miller ran the association as a "'grievance committee'" rather than engaging in collective bargaining. The standard collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a contract between organized workers and management that determines the wages and hours worked by employees and can also determine the scope of one's work and what benefits employees receive. The association continued to use the threat of antitrust litigation over the next few years as a lever to gain better benefits, including a pension plan and health insurance. In the 1960s the NFL also faced competition from the new American Football League (AFL). NFL players viewed the new league as potential leverage for them to improve their contracts. The NFL tried to discourage this idea by changing the owner-controlled pension plan to add a provision saying that a player would lose his pension if he went to another league.

On January 14, 1964, players in the newer league formed the AFL Players Association, and elected linebacker Tom Addison of the Boston Patriots as president. Rather than working with the AFLPA, the NFLPA chose to remain apart and tried to block the merger between the two leagues in 1966, though lack of funding prevented it from mounting a formal challenge. With the merger complete, the players could no longer use the leverage of being able to sign with an AFL team to attain more money.
 
It damn well should be. The only people who would lose anything by it would be Dana and the Fertittas, and let's be honest, they have enough money as it is.
 
Ufc fighters can't unionize. It's illegal because of their standing as independent contractors.
 
My lack of understanding on this matter would not allow me to make an educated guess on this, but here is my haphazard take;

The NFL is a league that administers the rules, regulations and fundamentals of the game as well as the conduct of the players and franchises. They do influence the long term contracts as far as network deals and the percentage of revenue that gets divided between the franchises. The NFL sponsorship such as jersey and equipment sponsorship and NFL trademark is also managed at this level.

The teams are the organizations who have direct contracts to the players, they also manage team trademark, and some sponsorship to the players as it pertains to the interest of the franchise.

The players through agents and the NFLPA have leverage towards contracts through the franchise and the league in effect for long term revenue generated as far as network contract percentage to players from the franchise , salary minimums/cap ect.

The UFC is more like the franchise model minus a commission (NFL) or a union (NFLPA), so in effect the franchise is executing the network deals and sponsorship without any type of oversight. The way the contracts are for now will not allow for any type of intermediate type of organization intervene due to the ownership of airtime (UFC for PPV and FOX for televised events). While in the NFL there is interest in keeping the NFLPA somewhat happy with the revenue, not so much can be said for the UFC. The way it stands now and for the unforeseeable future there will not be a mechanism is place to change this. That is until enough fighters of interest either leave the UFC or somehow leverage the UFC to deal through an intermediate body for business practices more in favor of the fighters, or a massive law suit.
 
Ufc fighters can't unionize. It's illegal because of their standing as independent contractors.


It is not illegal for independent contractors to form a union, they're just not legally protected from outside interference the way that employees are.
 
Union doesn't work for individual sports.

I'd rather see a fighters union if Fertitta's/Dana continue to be the sole owners of the UFC to give more weight to the competitors as a whole instead of only a few elites at the top having some leverage.

What would be best is that the sport be a regulated league where the the rankings are open which will determine who gets cut or gets offered contracts. And the production side of the business is majority or wholly owned by the fighters and the profits gets shared out.

Right now, contracts are secret, rankings and matchups are arbitrary and the Fertittas and Dana get to take a big chunk of the profits when they do not contribute anything to the sport.
 
1. There aren't enough UFC fighters to begin with to make this even possible. It's a very small group.
2. Mixed Martial Arts is an individualistic sport. There is no team unity. Everyone is solely out for himself/herself.
3. There is no way to collectively bargain because of point 2.
4. How would you organize a strike if in the the near impossibility you got all the union members to walk out? This isn't like football where the season takes place for 5 months or baseball where they play for 3/4 of the year and 162 times. Fighters fight maybe 2-4 times a year with usually only 18-22 fighters on each fight card.
5. Both Basketball and Football were lucky and got their unions organized before the money started to skyrocket. the Pay scale is so out of whack and football contracts are non-guaranteed that I'd bet anything on if a union tried to organize now it wouldn't get past stage 1.
6. baseball is completely different. It's had a defined pay scale for decades and the entire lower-tier player system is owned by MLB clubs. The UFC doesn't own Bellator or WSOF how will those guys unionize?

And I'll pound this home again; MMA is a sport based PURELY on the individual. You're not sharing the riggers of a season with 50+ other guys and competing as a team against a team of other like minded positional players. You are hired solely to fight another fighter 1 on 1. There is no real free agency. MMA organizations don't exist under one regulating body like sports teams. The business and contractual environment in combat sports is different in almost every way from team sports. It's truly apples and oranges.
 
I'd rather see a fighters union if Fertitta's/Dana continue to be the sole owners of the UFC to give more weight to the competitors as a whole instead of only a few elites at the top having some leverage.

What would be best is that the sport be a regulated league where the the rankings are open which will determine who gets cut or gets offered contracts. And the production side of the business is majority or wholly owned by the fighters and the profits gets shared out.

Right now, contracts are secret, rankings and matchups are arbitrary and the Fertittas and Dana get to take a big chunk of the profits when they do not contribute anything to the sport.

Don't contribute anything to the sport? In no way am I some Dana apologist but I think, I don't know, the sport even still existing in the US and becoming as huge as it has around the world is somewhat of a contribution. Just maybe.
 
Can you unionize a sport with individual athletes?
 
Team sport vs individual sport. The problem is that its easier to fight a union when it only takes two top fighters to put on a big ppv. To pull this off you would need almost every top 5 fighter in every division ( willing to not get paid for the greater good ). I dont see that happening any time soon. These guys can't afford to be at odds with the ufc.
 
legally yeah but it doesn't happen precisely because it's an individual sport.

Right. Look how easily the ufc made pat Cummings a legitimate reason to buy a ufc. I'm not saying we think pat is something he's not. But if you didnt know better, if you watched the pre fight videos you would think "oh shit this guys a beast". Imagine if rashad had pulled out of the fight to be a fighter union leader. The ufc just promotes a different fighter and makes him a star. Even though the work conditions are similar. The leverage the NFL players had was far greater than ufc fighters.
 
Maybe if you were able to get the top 10 contenders and champions from each weight division to strike. Im not sure that would even work. It would certainly get everyone's attention, but imagine how hard it would be to pull that off.
 
Maybe if you were able to get the top 10 contenders and champions from each weight division to strike. Im not sure that would even work. It would certainly get everyone's attention, but imagine how hard it would be to pull that off.

Considering that they need to get paid, it's not happening.

The UFC would just bring in scabs.
 
Back
Top