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

[tasticles]

With all of the negativity around the deal and let's tell the truth here... Has anyone on Sherdog actually seen anyone (that's not a fighter or part of the Reebok deal) buy/wear a fight kit?

Reebok is a successful business and they won't throw good money after bad.

I'd be really surprised if the deal (as we know it) is still in place, this time next year.

I thought they were contracted for a multi year deal?

 

[KantoTerror]

I thought they were contracted for a multi year deal?

Yes. Zuffa closed the deal expecting the fighters to eat and chew it whether they like it or not. The trend would be fighters riding out contracts and start shopping...we'll see how good/bad the reebok deal everytime a contract expires....

 

[runnpray]

1. And looking at the BS you just stated...do you think the Reebok Deal is warranted?
2. Do they give a shit who fights and who doesn't?
3. Individual fighters can fight from 1 - 8 fights a year....and without the sponsors...what do a fighter get now every time they step inside the octagon?

1. Not BS, fairly practical business advice. Is it warranted? Not sure exactly what you are getting at here. Warranted has two meanings 1. to justify or necessitate a course of action. 2. officially affirm or guarantee. For the first meaning does the deal justify a course of action? Doesn't really make sense, but in essence the UFC is entering into a deal to help bring the sport mainstream and to give the fighters (every fighter) a guaranteed, predictable income stream that they don't have to go find on their own. For the second definition - yes the deal is contractual so it's guaranteed.
2. Does Reebok give a shit who fights and who doesn't? They probably would like Conor and Ronda or whoever else is selling the most merch to fight more. But no they probably don't care who fights. Should they?
3. Without what sponsors? They fighters have two sets of sponsors. The first set is the corporate sponsors - Reebok, Monster, and whoever else the UFC sets up for them. The second set is their individual sponsors. The first one is directly related to number of fights, the second set is more related to how much they can promote themselves. When they step into the octagon they get show + sponsorship. They might get win bonus + performance bonus.

Do you have any fact based, rationale, or logical reasoning to be against the UFC and the Reebok sponsorship deal? It seems like you are just against it to be against it. The key point that you seem to be missing is that the Reebok deal does not preclude fighters from securing any other sponsorship deals. I don't know how else to say that or explain that to you.

 

[runnpray]

Yes. Zuffa closed the deal expecting the fighters to eat and chew it whether they like it or not. The trend would be fighters riding out contracts and start shopping...we'll see how good/bad the reebok deal everytime a contract expires....

Actually we will see how good / bad the deal is once it expires and Reebok decides to renew or not. If the UFC can grow and Reebok can sell some merch it's a good deal. If the UFC contracts and / or Reebok doesn't move the amount of UFC gear that they thought they would then it's a bad deal.

 

[UFC 151]

If you want to help the sport grow you should be supporting the lesser known fighters, not just the top.

 

[runnpray]

and what happens if they do shop and sign on another promo. they get shit on by dana and his shills...fighters should start looking out for themselves and go where they will have better pay to support their lifestyle and their training.

Do you really think that fighters have not been looking out for themselves?

 

[runnpray]

This thread is entertaining in a masochistic sort of way. Do carry on!

It seems to be critical thinking on one side and emotional pleas of "it's not fair!" on the other. If I had to guess political views its conversatives vs. progressives and old folks vs. millennials. :icon_twis

 

[panamaican]

Do you have any fact based, rationale, or logical reasoning to be against the UFC and the Reebok sponsorship deal? It seems like you are just against it to be against it. The key point that you seem to be missing is that the Reebok deal does not preclude fighters from securing any other sponsorship deals. I don't know how else to say that or explain that to you.

I think the primary fact based rationale or reasoning against the deal goes like this:

Sponsorship during the broadcasts are the most lucrative sponsorship opportunities available. Those opportunities have been prohibited to the individual fighters in exchange to prearranged sums negotiated by the UFC. The economic value that the UFC negotiated appears to be lower in value than the amounts that the fighters could have negotiated on their own behalf. This translates to lesser compensation which should concern the fighters, even if it doesn't concern the UFC or Reebok.

Additionally, the fixed nature of the sponsorship compensation prevents fighters from reaping sponsorship compensation in proportion to the appeal of their individual fights. For illustrative purposes - a fighter who is fighting a particularly popular opponent can no longer capitalize on the increased value that this specific fight will create. Instead, he receives the same compensation independent of his personal appeal to fans or the appeal of a particular match.

Third, the application of a uniform combined with a variety of additional contractual requirements brings the relationship of the fighters and the UFC closer to that of employees, rather than independent contractors. Although this is a legal issue that needs to be resolved elsewhere, there are enough parallels to other instances of independent contractor litigation (DHL and FedEx were already mentioned in this thread) to lead to the concern that the fighters' legal rights are being abridged. They are either independent contractors who have had their rights abridged or they are employees who are being denied legally mandated benefits.

I think these are good reasons for someone to be against the Reebok deal, even if they have no other issue with the nature of fighter compensation in the UFC.

 

[Jonesisinnocent]

The deal is fine the way it is. They can always go to Bellator if they don't like it.

 

[tasticles]

It seems to be critical thinking on one side and emotional pleas of "it's not fair!" on the other. If I had to guess political views its conversatives vs. progressives and old folks vs. millennials. :icon_twis

So am I liberal or conservative? I feel its total BS what the fighters are getting raped on money, but at the same time I feel they should just go fight elsewhere if they dont like it.

 

[fightdonttweet]

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.

Ronda, the biggest star in the UFC, coined a meme and sold a lot of t-shirts off it. That's a terrible example, next to no fighters are going to be able to make money like that.

 

[Paul Phoenix]

They need to pay all the fighers more not just main event/co-main, those fighters already still make tons outside the reebok deal. The prelim fighters need it more they get paid jack shit overall and it would help everyone in the end cause they could afford better camps and training.