There should be new law specifying the UFC contract

[kflo]

So if it doesn't inherently cripple market value of fighters, why did the UFC do that in the past? Sure, maybe a fighter turns in a gem of a fight in the prelims and it gets traction, but that's an unlikely outcome.

Here's Joe Silva's actual words: I lowballed them on purpose the first offer knowing they would turn it down,” wrote Silva. “How bout I come back with 29+29, 32+32, 35+35, 38+38. If they turn it down I put him in a prelim against a really tough guy for his last fight.

Odd, that quote sounds very much like an attempt to reduce a fighter's market value before free agency.

what's not odd is that nowhere does it say we are going to cripple their market value. is it a tactic to get them to behave in the interest of the ufc? sure. is it inherently crippling someone's market value? no, you know the answer is no, yet you repeat it all the time.

The UFC has gotten slightly better with optics the past few years (I suspect letting more elite fighters go is tied to the lawsuit and those optics), but that isn't exactly high praise. Come on, Dana White isn't exactly great optics if you're trying to go mainstream in this day and age.

again, it's highly likely the ufc is more sensitive to the tactics they use in negotiating. and silva is gone. again, you know these things yet you try and act as if he's still there and the tactics are exactly the same as they were in 2016.

 

[avenue94]

sure. is it inherently crippling someone's market value? no, you know the answer is no, yet you repeat it all the time.

So you're arguing that giving a high profile fighter a tough matchup on the prelims instead of a matchup on the main card isn't an attempt to diminish the market value of that fighter? It's just a glorious coincidence?

Those are some amazing mental gymnastics there. If you wanna argue that it's within the rights of the UFC to try and diminish a fighter's market value, go for it. But this level of denial is laughable when Joe Silva plainly admitted that he buries fighters on the prelims as punishment for fighting out their contract instead of reupping in advance with the UFC.

again, you know these things yet you try and act as if he's still there and the tactics are exactly the same as they were in 2016.

Rumors about Silva have floated around for years, but it was only because of the lawsuit and its subpoenas that we got confirmation. So it's unlikely we'll get hard confirmation like that about the UFC barring another lawsuit. Like I said, it's entirely possible that the UFC did a 180 in how it treats fighters, but given that Dana still shits on fighters publicly all the time, it's unlikely. Not to mention your argument here is predicated on the assumption that the UFC entirely changed its company culture in a couple years, despite the dearth of evidence of such a paradigm shift.

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

Is it three or 2? And is it one offer at a time or a fighter gets more than one bout offer each period to pick between? Genuinely asking, I've seen more or less all of those claims and I suspect most contracts are standardized in that regard.

I’m sorry to say I don’t know the specifics. Big John and Josh Thompson spoke about several times on the podcasts and I have corroborated on several other podcasts interviews. I wish I could provide more detail.

From what I remember from the weighing podcast Thompson and John spoke of it I wasn’t under the impression that the promotions played any tricks with it but that’s just my impression.

 

[kflo]

So you're arguing that giving a high profile fighter a tough matchup on the prelims instead of a matchup on the main card isn't an attempt to diminish the market value of that fighter? It's just a glorious coincidence?

Those are some amazing mental gymnastics there. If you wanna argue that it's within the rights of the UFC to try and diminish a fighter's market value, go for it. But this level of denial is laughable when Joe Silva plainly admitted that he buries fighters on the prelims as punishment for fighting out their contract instead of reupping in advance with the UFC.

are you acting as if words don't have meaning? again, it's bizarre. you're aware "crippling" has actual meaning, right? you don't even know when these things are occurring yet in your mind they are actually inherently crippling the market value of a fighter. again, it's a bizarre choice of words, yet you use the same word over and over.

whose market value did they cripple?

Rumors about Silva have floated around for years, but it was only because of the lawsuit and its subpoenas that we got confirmation. So it's unlikely we'll get hard confirmation like that about the UFC barring another lawsuit. Like I said, it's entirely possible that the UFC did a 180 in how it treats fighters, but given that Dana still shits on fighters publicly all the time, it's unlikely. Not to mention your argument here is predicated on the assumption that the UFC entirely changed its company culture in a couple years, despite the dearth of evidence of such a paradigm shift.

it's predicated on the assumption that they aren't morons, and have legal advisors who are suggesting changes in practice to protect their assets. it doesn't require a 180.

 

[greenhawk]

Has anyone ever tried to defy his contract ? Has the UFC ever sued someone for doing so?

 

[avenue94]

I’m sorry to say I don’t know the specifics. Big John and Josh Thompson spoke about several times on the podcasts and I have corroborated on several other podcasts interviews. I wish I could provide more detail.

From what I remember from the weighing podcast Thompson and John spoke of it I wasn’t under the impression that the promotions played any tricks with it but that’s just my impression.

Yeah, I've heard 2 fights a year, and given Eddie's contract came out to 1 fight every 5 months, I'm more inclined to think 2 fights a year is the standard offer. Especially since 3 fights a year for 600 fighters during Covid seems nearly impossible without the UFC ending up in breach of contract with at least a few fighters.

Although I'm curious if the UFC would have been ok fulfilling its obligations by offering fights to fighters who couldn't legally travel to the venue because of Covid restrictions. Oh well, won't know as long as contracts are legally prohibited from being shared.

 

[avenue94]

Has anyone ever tried to defy his contract ? Has the UFC ever sued someone for doing so?

Couture sued the UFC to get out of his contract but he tossed in the towel to avoid being bankrupted in court. Very few fighters have the resources to fight the UFC in court, even in a case they could win. Other than that, GSP briefly claimed that he was a free agent (arguing that he didn't technically retire but the UFC stopped offering him fights, thus voiding the contract) when he was negotiating his return.

And I guess Jon Fitch refusing to sign over his image rights for the UFC videogame with THQ, but that was resolved and I'm not sure if it was technically a contract dispute.

 

[avenue94]

are you acting as if words don't have meaning? again, it's bizarre. you're aware "crippling" has actual meaning, right? you don't even know when these things are occurring yet in your mind they are actually inherently crippling the market value of a fighter. again, it's a bizarre choice of words, yet you use the same word over and over.

whose market value did they cripple?

Cripple is just another way of saying to diminish market value. Take your pick, the UFC has clearly done the latter in the past. And again, you just assume that things magically changed when Joe Silva retired. That's a huge assumption to be making. Joe Silva clearly went out of his way to diminish the market value of some fighters who wanted to fight out contracts. That's straight up the bible truth, which he has admitted to in court.

it's predicated on the assumption that they aren't morons, and have legal advisors who are suggesting changes in practice to protect their assets. it doesn't require a 180.

I don't think the UFC necessarily are morons. They just have huge leeway to treat fighters however they want since most fighters are far too weak to fight the UFC or raise much of a stink.

 

[Ardelia13]

UFC makes slaves from their fighters, once they sign contract, they can´t fight anywhere else, until they cut them or contract is finished. There should be also the time expiration, like you can´t sign contract which would have effect longer than 2 years. For example the Jones or GSP thing, they basically have 0 leverage in negotiation with UFC.
In other sports you also sign for seasons/time not for matches..
Commission / law change/ fighter union would fix that.

You and I have very different definitions of slavery.

 

[kflo]

Cripple is just another way of saying to diminish market value. Take your pick, the UFC has clearly done the latter in the past. And again, you just assume that things magically changed when Joe Silva retired. That's a huge assumption to be making. Joe Silva clearly went out of his way to diminish the market value of some fighters who wanted to fight out contracts. That's straight up the bible truth, which he has admitted to in court.

I don't think the UFC necessarily are morons. They just have huge leeway to treat fighters however they want since most fighters are far too weak to fight the UFC or raise much of a stink.

again, the fact is you can't even tell when they are doing it yet you think they have the ability to cripple market value. there's no reason for you to continually say they can cripple market value.

 

[avenue94]

again, the fact is you can't even tell when they are doing it yet you think they have the ability to cripple market value. there's no reason for you to continually say they can cripple market value.

Ok, the UFC has the option to significantly increase the chances of diminishing a fighter's market value who wants to fight out their contract without reupping, thus hurting a fighter's value in free agency. The UFC has also admitted to doing this several times in court.

Is that better?

Also, how am I supposed to tell you when it's happening when negotiations generally happen out of public view and we don't hear confirmation until people speak out in court?

 

[kflo]

Ok, the UFC has the option to significantly increase the chances of diminishing a fighter's market value who wants to fight out their contract without reupping, thus hurting a fighter's value in free agency. The UFC has also admitted to doing this several times in court.

Is that better?

Also, how am I supposed to tell you when it's happening when negotiations generally happen out of public view and we don't hear confirmation until people speak out in court?

Shouldn’t you be able to tell when someone is being buried and crippled in the market? How can it be crippling when you can’t even tell?

and of course, if they value a fighter, they would rather they resign than test free agency. This is true everywhere in sports. And yes, in other sports teams will at times go with players who they know will be with them the next year over players not invested long term. Which you could argue diminishes their value in the market.

 

[Black Paladin]

Has anyone ever tried to defy his contract ? Has the UFC ever sued someone for doing so?

A few calls to the heads of other promotions, threatening a very straight-forward lawsuit against THEM if they do business with the rogue fighter has an effect, as well.

 

[Smegma-Head]

LOL the bigger companies in Murica are exploiting illegal aliens on the regular (instead of hiring citizens who can demand more money). It's their business model to a certain extent. This is the american dream, those that succeed don't look back and just look for them and/or play their part in the big charade...

 

[Ovie]

 

[avenue94]

again, the fact is you can't even tell when they are doing it yet you think they have the ability to cripple market value. there's no reason for you to continually say they can cripple market value.

When did I say it was continuous? I said It's a threat/option promotions have at their disposal that a lot of owners or teams in other sports don't have. We have evidence the UFC did this repeatedly in the past, and I would expect Bellator has probably done it too. The absence of contemporaneous examples doesn't mean much, we usually hear about these cases only years after the fact, once fighters are retired or done fighting for a specific promotion.

Whatever you say is just window dressing when the UFC had to admit in court they do things like we talked about to diminish fighter value and push them toward resigning on the UFC's terms.

 

[Gnome Chumpsky]

So what? Many of us would like to see fighter contracts collectively become more fighter-friendly, and the only way that happens is with a union or legislation.

I definitely understand what you're regarding a more fighter friendly contract in bigger orgs but I don't think a fighters union will ever work.

 

[kflo]

When did I say it was continuous? I said It's a threat/option promotions have at their disposal that a lot of owners or teams in other sports don't have. We have evidence the UFC did this repeatedly in the past, and I would expect Bellator has probably done it too. The absence of contemporaneous examples doesn't mean much, we usually hear about these cases only years after the fact, once fighters are retired or done fighting for a specific promotion.

Whatever you say is just window dressing when the UFC had to admit in court they do things like we talked about to diminish fighter value and push them toward resigning on the UFC's terms.

I said you continuously say they can just cripple someone’s market value. And that’s just not an accurate statement.

i'll even give you an example. roy nelson's last fight of his contract he fought as the headline on the undercard of a UFC on Fox card. he fought volkov, who was a prospect at the time, fighting his 2nd UFC fight after a split decision win in his debut. it was close to a pick 'em fight (nelson was +120). he lost a unanimous decision. contract expires and he signs with bellator. did it cripple him? no. was it a winnable matchup? yes.

guys like moose, benson, thomson all co-mained or headlined their last fights in the ufc.

 

[avenue94]

I said you continuously say they can just cripple someone’s market value. And that’s just not an accurate statement.

Yes, not sure what your issue with "the UFC can hurt a fighter's market value" is. It's a factual statement and something the UFC has tried several times. I didn't say "the UFC always hurts a fighter's market value before free agency"

Not sure who you are quibbling with here, but it's not with me or what I posted. "Can" is a conditional word, and I've never pretended otherwise.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

Fighters should be allowed to sign only 1 fight contract for every fight,

It will give them the ability to continue fighting for the promotion or go elsewhere after each fight without a problem.

Risky business if they lose. A three fight deal secures them a second chance at least.

I agree with @KillaZs idea of a statute of limitations type deal. UFC can't hold these athletes hostage forever.