"unfair" is probably not the right word.
in 2007 fighters could go out, get sponsors, wear stuff with the sponsors name on them, get paid. it was like the Wild West. even then it wasn't a free for all though; Ivan Salaverry was told in 2005 that he couldn't wear a Team Punishment shirt to the weigh in - one of the earliest examples of Zuffa limiting sponsors (Tito and Dana were in the midst of one of their many spats). however, Zuffa paid Ivan the $5k he lost. remember, that's PRE-TUF $5k, before money exploded.
then the UFC figured out that they could streamline this Wild West style of sponsorship and turn it into a revenue source of their own. they now charge a "sponsorship tax" to companies; $100k has been bandied about much, but no one but Zuffa knows the exact algorithm. that is before the company pays an actual fighter. so the days of $20k to put a logo on the shorts is over; now it's $100k to the UFC, and maybe $5k to the fighter. post-TUF, $5k. 10 years later, same pay. why? because Zuffa changed the model.
so i ask you, TS....what does the football media day issue have to do with all that?
again, "unfair" is not the right word. "evolution of policy" is probably a better term. "unfair" moralizes the issue.
but Zuffa DID change the model, and that model change directly influenced how much fighters make. they cannot later claim it's out of their hands. and now they're thinking of changing it again, with the whole uniforms thing. will it go down? we shall see.
