Reebok deal improvment......main & co main event fighters get more $$

[Paradigm]

The Reebok deal is shit, but what you say is true. Fighters that are hurting need to find do something about their situation themselves. Sure, it's going to take more work than before than just passively wearing logos, but the climate has changed and fighters need to adapt.

this is a very strange way of thinking for me. can you name a major sport, maybe even one that is overtaking soccer worldwide, where the athletes are making less than they were the year before? that is, if the fighters are actually making less sponsorship money than last year...

 

[MuffinGod11]

I find it funny that people are defending the Reebok deal with Ronda having success outside of Reebok now.

Like, no fucking shit Sherlock.

 

[KantoTerror]

I find it funny that people are defending the Reebok deal with Ronda having success outside of Reebok now.

Like, no fucking shit Sherlock.

Exactly. Lol....is this Zuffa's way of defending the reebok deal. Like..."look at Ronda...she's not having problems...".
If every fighter finishes opponents in less than a minute...then I don't think they will have problems too...

 

[Jackonflame]

I like the idea TS. If you main event a fight you should receive more of this Reebok money.

 

[cooks1]

Not to mention that, legally speaking, making people wear your uniform is a sign that you are treating them as employees, not independent contractors. Something FedEx found out the hard way.

So, even if people want to argue that the fighters are supposed to wear uniforms then they need to treat the fighters as employees. And that means the fighters are getting screwed on benefits. No matter how you slice it, this deal screws the fighters over. Either they're screwed out of sponsorship dollars or they're screwed out of federally mandated employee benefits.

100% Agreed. Not only did Fed Ex find out the hard way, DHL did as well, and they got fucked 10x worse.

DHL closed their entire domestic shipping footprint in the US in late 2008/early 2009. When DHL expanded to the US in 2003 by buying Airborne, they set up the vast majority of their delivery drivers under IC contracts. In fact many of their drivers were independent contractors of indepdent contractors. DHL would hire companies as independent contractors to do deliveries to a city. And that company would then hire drivers as independent contractors for them.

DHL then set about dressing, managing, and disciplining both IC companies and their IC drivers as though they were employees. Even most of their sales force was IC.

It ended up being about a $9 billion blood letting. Even though they broke the law in trying mightily, they were never able to get any kind of consistency or quality control, and not once did they ever turn a profit in the US. And lawsuit after lawsuit piled up. In fact 6 years later, there are STILL dozens of DHL lawsuits going on not only over the way they employed and managed people, but the fact that they fled the market so quickly that they breached multi-million dollar re-seller agreements.

 

[panamaican]

100% Agreed. Not only did Fed Ex find out the hard way, DHL did as well, and they got fucked 10x worse.

DHL closed their entire domestic shipping footprint in the US in late 2008/early 2009. When DHL expanded to the US in 2003 by buying Airborne, they set up the vast majority of their delivery drivers under IC contracts. In fact many of their drivers were independent contractors of indepdent contractors. DHL would hire companies as independent contractors to do deliveries to a city. And that company would then hire drivers as independent contractors for them.

DHL then set about dressing, managing, and disciplining both IC companies and their IC drivers as though they were employees. Even most of their sales force was IC.

It ended up being about a $9 billion blood letting. Even though they broke the law in trying mightily, they were never able to get any kind of consistency or quality control, and not once did they ever turn a profit in the US. And lawsuit after lawsuit piled up. In fact 6 years later, there are STILL dozens of DHL lawsuits going on not only over the way they employed and managed people, but the fact that they fled the market so quickly that they breached multi-million dollar re-seller agreements.

Didn't know about DHL. I wondered where they went.

 

[justbetter]

Because until quite recently, it was their right. And UFC fighters are not employees, they are independent contractors that do not get paid to train, and do not get paid when they get injured before a fight.

Find me one other sport on the globe where the athletes are not employees but independent contractors, but do not get to choose the brand of apparel they wear when they perform. It's a huge deal for them.

IPL cricketers, huge contracts for only a few weeks. Must wear all team apparel except for the bats.

 

[runnpray]

I don't need that list...and I don't need to see another fighter gets cut because of bitching about it either...deal is bad but UFC ball-gagged everybody before this deal came down...

so you are upset about something that you don't even really know is true. You are guessing that it's true? Interesting way to go thru life.

 

[Murlik]

so you are upset about something that you don't even really know is true. You are guessing that it's true? Interesting way to go thru life.

So your entire position is based on a assertion that fighters are making more now than they did before? That's a precarious spot to be in.

 

[panamaican]

IPL cricketers, huge contracts for only a few weeks. Must wear all team apparel except for the bats.

India's employment law is very different from ours.

 

[redbrownhaze]

In my world, the way you measure weather a deal is good or not is to look at whether you are better off overall afterwords.

No one, absolutely no one is better off now. Reebok is paying millions for shitty publicity. UFC is getting shitty publicity for very little or no money. And the fighters are getting less total compensation.

This deal is a lose-lose-lose deal. Everyone loses. And everyone loses huge.

Dana did this to '' legitimize " the sport by partnering up with a major sponsor. The problem is there is no fighters union and UFC is just a fight club. They can do what ever they want. As long as people keep sign their contracts they are screwed.

Could the fighters even go on strike with their current contracts? Or would they be sued?

 

[justbetter]

India's employment law is very different from ours.

Yes, there are countries outside of USA, some americans find this hard to understand but you will get used to it over time.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, there are countries outside of USA, some americans find this hard to understand but you will get used to it over time.

My original post was a little short. As I understand it, all aspects of employment contracts in India are governed by very specific laws, this eliminates the employee/independent contractor issue that cooks1 was addressing.

He asked for an example where IC's were asked to do something, you referenced a country that doesn't even have that distinction to begin with.

See, there are countries outside of the USA and they have very different employment laws so picking one that isn't a match for the question being asked is something you should stop doing pretty quickly.

 

[justbetter]

My original post was a little short. As I understand it, all aspects of employment contracts in India are governed by very specific laws, this eliminates the employee/independent contractor issue that cooks1 was addressing.

He asked for an example where IC's were asked to do something, you referenced a country that doesn't even have that distinction to begin with.

See, there are countries outside of the USA and they have very different employment laws so picking one that isn't a match for the question being asked is something you should stop doing pretty quickly.

The poster asked for one other sport on globe, I found it. Let me guess, you don't like the answer so you'll have a cry and try to weasel out some meaningless counterargument that has no relevance to the issue.

 

[panamaican]

The poster asked for one other sport on globe, I found it. Let me guess, you don't like the answer so you'll have a cry and try to weasel out some meaningless counterargument that has no relevance to the issue.

You're just embarrassing yourself. He specifically said "...where the athletes are not employees but independent contractors."

Find me one other sport on the globe where the athletes are not employees but independent contractors, but do not get to choose the brand of apparel they wear when they perform. It's a huge deal for them.

You picked a country that doesn't even have independent contractors and you're too embarrassed to concede your mistake or you're too stupid to understand the things you read. Either could be true, I guess. :icon_conf

 

[cooks1]

IPL cricketers, huge contracts for only a few weeks. Must wear all team apparel except for the bats.

Yeah!!!!! Someone brought it up.

First off, IPL contracts are generally 3 way contracts between the IPL, the player, and the team they play for. Those teams play in other contests besides IPL like Champions League 2020. Players are generally employees of the teams. Some are some weird employee/IC hybrid I believe (India's employment law is a bit different) and get a lot more money for giving away certain image rights.

Secondly, cricketers have a players association. They have salaries, insurance, pensions, get paid when they are injured, and guaranteed a fair % of the total revenue output, etc. Which is why loads of cricket players make millions of $.

 

[justbetter]

You picked a country that doesn't even have independent contractors and you're too embarrassed to concede your mistake or you're too stupid to understand the things you read. Either could be true, I guess. :icon_conf

Yet the poster used andy murray as a prime example, a magically non independent contractor whenever they play an event in india I suppose?

 

[skombolis]

Ronda Rousey just sold around 33,500 DNB T-shirts over the last 3 days for $25 a pop: https://represent.com/ronda

33,500 x $25 = $837,500

She never wore it during fight week and it has absolutely nothing to do with Reebok. The UFC doesn't stop fighters from doing appearances, selling T-shirts or representing non-UFC approved sponsors for most of the year. If you're a fighter who can't get sponsor opportunities outside of those 3 days per year the UFC has all their cameras trained on you, guess what, it's YOUR problem, it means you have little to no value outside of the UFC platform, and it's a problem you need to figure out for yourself.

The Reebok deal is a fixed amount, they're not going to magically increase main and co-main event sponsor $$ for no reason.

The most popular figure in WMMA/MMA who has people shelling out $60 just to see one-minute fights and has a large demo (mostly of woman or people with plenty of income) on lock and are getting a kick out of being involved in her run bought a lot of her shirts despite not being able to promote them on TV? Why that is absolutely shocking.

I hate 'fans' like you that act like anyone who hasn't become a champ and a superstar (because one doesn't necessarily mean the other) has somehow dropped the ball and deserves to be fucked. There is only so much room at the top. And bottom line is if you are going to cut people's income in half or worse for the next year or two when they signed a contract under the understanding they could supplement their income by wearing things on tv then that is a huge dick move.

Why aren't you CEO of the McDonald's you work for? They ought to pay you ten cents an hour. If you want to make more, that's YOUR problem. Serious, GFY and find a new sport to pretend to be a fan of.

 

[Baba Ghanoush]

Can improve the reebok deal by giving fighters the option not to use it. Easiest solution IMO.

 

[skombolis]

Dana did this to '' legitimize " the sport by partnering up with a major sponsor. The problem is there is no fighters union and UFC is just a fight club. They can do what ever they want. As long as people keep sign their contracts they are screwed.

Could the fighters even go on strike with their current contracts? Or would they be sued?

They would be sued for breach

Being protected from termination for striking is only protected under national labor boards if you have done all the proper things to unionize and they haven't. And the UFC could still release anybody they wanted in retaliation and claim it was based on their performance in the cage or any number of reasons and most fighters could never afford to sit out or lose their spot in the UFC.

The only way it might work is if every headliner agreed to sit out their event for like a year but those guys worked too hard to reach the top and are not throwing away millions of dollars because of a bunch of guys they don't even know. It is a cut-throat business all around. They may have a bond and some common interests but the fighters are not a fraternity and it will be every man for himself when talking dollars. I would be beyond shocked if we ever see a union before there is legit competition from another promotion. Because as it stands, without the UFC a fighter is pretty much fucked.