So you think the UFC is unfair when it comes to sponsors and money?

Brian Urlacher was fined $100k for wearing a Vitamin Water hat to a super bowl media day.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2841997



Found it in this article breaking down fighter uniforms, sponsors, and pay on Bloody Elbow
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/5/1...cs-of-fighter-uniforms-exclusive-sponsorships

 

Damn that's 2 top-3 p4p UFC champ Barao paychecks after fighting in $old out arenas with overpriced tickets on PPV with the prelims costing the fans more money on fight pass. The UFC wold probably just ask the sponsor to give them 100k up front or fuck off.

 

Yes

Compare NFL/UFC wages before you complain about the ticket

 

It's okay because he made way more by not having to have his sponsors pay an absurd amount to the organization just to sponsor him. As in, he actually got money.

 

Yes, totally unfair, we won't pay you a lot but also won't allow you to take extra income from places we don't deal with, sickening. Barao is top 3 p4p but reportedly makes a little over 10k to show.

 

UFC is way worse.

The NFL guy is in the green even with the fine cause he gets the money. And I think his team picks up the tab for him anyways.

 

when a fighter is expected to have sponsors and the company that has this type of culture enforces fines and is unfair to certain sponsor, then there is a problem. the nfl guys are compensated properly in their contracts and can have sponsors as additional income

 

Exactly nothing is in the dark. Players know their bonuses(super secret locker room!!) the % of revenue he gets from tickets, the NFL's sponsors, video games etc.

This all was collective bargained by the players through their union.

 

In b4 they dont have a Union. Its a "Players Association".

But lets be real, they are the same thing basically.

 

You could probably get cut for that in t Danas UFC.
What percentage of urlachers pay is 100k?

 

I have no problem with the uniforms if they start paying more to the fighters. Prelim fighters really need to win their fights just to get by but only 50% of those fighters win, the rest will live with maybe less than minimum wage until next fight, which isnt quaranteed that they will win. So, the only thing that allows them to train and compete without having to worry about the money (which is not what you should be doing fighting anyways) is sponsor money.
But now they are taking that away, and someone like Barao who is a champion in their organization gets paid little over 10k just to show is just ridiculous. I think he gets alot more from his sponsors than from the UFC, and take that away from Barao, its basically nothing for fighting at championship level.

 

"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.

 

Fighters might not get paid enough, but even though the sponcer thing seems unfair on the surface I can't think of a better way. People pay heavily to advertise in the UFC and reach millions of people. If sponcers don't have to pay a premium to sponcer who is going to pay to advertise with them when you can skip the advertising pay and pay your fighter a far smaller amount?

 

It's well within the UFC's right as a business to control the business partners that get to advertise on their broadcasts, just as all the other sports do by having apparel contracts. Where UFC fighters suffer is their inability to sell their own likeness outside of the event without more hefty fees (more detailed info is available if you search the Jon Fitch and Randy Couture cases).

 

So much for being the "premier" mma promotion

 

Biggest show in the industry, makes ship loads of green... - pays fighters low to mediocre salaries to compete, while locking them into contracts, and forcing the fighters to use pretty much all they have on dr bills... Unless you are just in it for fame and don't care on the $$ that is a bad career decision. I can see why some of these meat heads stay in it and then I can also see why the poor country folk are perfectly fine with it.

 

I think what makes the sponsorship tax even more ridiculous is that's it's not even across the board. Some sponsors pay way more than others, while some don't have to pay at all.

There was an article a while back, about a guy who pays to have his siding company logo on fighters shorts, like $5k per fighter per fight. And the UFC doesn't even charge him. Cool guy, too. Sponsors the fighters because he enjoys the sport, not worried if the exposure will get him more business.

 

100k is yearly charge or every event?

 

No, no I don't.