There should be new law specifying the UFC contract

[kflo]

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.

you said they have the option to cripple a fighters market value.

it's just not an accurate portrayal and you don't have any good examples to support the statement. just silva saying they can give tough matchups and low offers.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

This thread is ill-conceived, poorly informed drivel, tbh. Fighters know what they are signing off on, they have managers and lawyers, and to compare these contracts to slavery is so fucking stupid I can't even process it. There is a lot that goes into those contracts you obviously don't know about, and even if you had one of them in front of you, I doubt you would be able to make anything out from the text.

Fighters know what they are signing off on isn't a compelling argument when the negotiation leverage is all on one side. Contracts can be unconscionable. I think Hardy begging the UFC to let him out of exclusive contract nine year after his last UFC fight would be an example of a contract that probably would not hold up well in court.

 

[avenue94]

you said they have the option to cripple a fighters market value.

it's just not an accurate portrayal and you don't have any good examples to support the statement. just silva saying they can give tough matchups and low offers.

So you don't think the UFC has an option to do that or at least try to do that, when the UFC has admitted in court it's done that. And we don't even have the bulk of lawsuit information unsealed yet.

Mkay.

 

[LastingEffect]

It's a hardly a fair playing field, but UFC has all the power here. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. Fighters can fight in other organizations too. UFC actually doesn't need to fighers more...

Ali act or other big fighting organization would be able to bring some fresh air.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

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

No. No it doesn't guarantee them anything. The UFC can cut them whenever they want for whatever reason they want. Fighters get nothing at all out of long term fight contracts, unless a percentage of the total contract value is guaranteed.

 

[snackgod]

This is why I prefer PFL's mma playoff tournament style, I mean no can can held hostage of the belt once the champion is injured.

Take a look how Dominick Cruz on hostaged the bantamweight division.

so being hurt for 4 years is being held hostage now?

 

[BEATDOWNS]

No. No it doesn't guarantee them anything. The UFC can cut them whenever they want for whatever reason they want. Fighters get nothing at all out of long term fight contracts, unless a percentage of the total contract value is guaranteed.

Most fighters get a second chance.

name some that have been cut after one loss?

 

[Candy Routure]

If I had a single fight left on my contract and was extremely disgruntled with the UFC, I take any fight they offered, and scream tap as soon as the starting bell rings. Sign up to fight a teammate and give him the fastest submission in history!

 

[kflo]

So you don't think the UFC has an option to do that or at least try to do that, when the UFC has admitted in court it's done that. And we don't even have the bulk of lawsuit information unsealed yet.

Mkay.

they have the option to not put them on the main card. they have the option to give them a tough matchup. they don't have the option to "cripple market value". not sure why this is so hard to get.

 

[snackgod]

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.

the same gsp and jon jones that are paid millions to fight. fighters sign a contract with a number of fights on them. this isnt breaking news.

maybe the problem is when fighters sign 8 or 10 fight deals like jorge and ronda did.

conor signed a 6 fight deal also.

 

[kflo]

No. No it doesn't guarantee them anything. The UFC can cut them whenever they want for whatever reason they want. Fighters get nothing at all out of long term fight contracts, unless a percentage of the total contract value is guaranteed.

they can't cut them for whatever reason they want. the contract specifies the reasons they can use.

 

[snackgod]

Ali Act needs to apply to MMA...it makes no sense why it doesnt.



We need to pressure the biden administration.

the same ali act that there are thousands of punch drunk boxers who made nothing in there carrers.

 

[kflo]

the same gsp and jon jones that are paid millions to fight. fighters sign a contract with a number of fights on them. this isnt breaking news.

maybe the problem is when fighters sign 8 or 10 fight deals like jorge and ronda did.

conor signed a 6 fight deal also.

the problem is champions clause. that extends the contract.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Most fighters get a second chance.

name some that have been cut after one loss?

They get a second chance because that's what the UFC wants, not because the UFC is contractually obliged to offer another fight.

Having a three fight contract does not guarantee any fighter three fights, but they do guarantee they can't fight anywhere else until they fight three times. So a long exclusive contract benefits the promotion without benefiting the fighter.

 

[snackgod]

the problem is champions clause. that extends the contract.

so what stopping jon jones right now o wait he doesnt want to fight fancis. what stopping gsp o wait he didnt want to fight khabib. what stopping nick diva o wait he retired.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

I'm other sports retiring does not void your contract. Once you come out of retirement you have to finish the balance of your contract, there is no "waiting it out"

 

[avenue94]

they have the option to not put them on the main card. they have the option to give them a tough matchup. they don't have the option to "cripple market value". not sure why this is so hard to get.

I mean, keep disagreeing with Joe Silva, in his own words, describing how he has tried to drive down a fighter's market value when they fight out their contract.
"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.”

In his deposition Silva was asked about this tactic of giving a fighter a “really tough guy” for their final fight, if they have refused to re-up with the UFC. Talking about the Diaz situation, Silva said he would have given Diaz a “tough guy regardless”, but conceded that he was more likely to give a fighter who re-upped a slot on a main card versus a fighter who was fighting out their contract."

the same ali act that there are thousands of punch drunk boxers who made nothing in there carrers.

Uhhh..Ali Act came after most of those guys retired, and it was never meant to prevent brain damage. Nice non-sequitur.

they can't cut them for whatever reason they want. the contract specifies the reasons they can use.

Those reasons are for losing a fight (most fighters lose one at some point) and breaching the Code of Conduct, which the UFC enforces and doesn't enforce at its own whimsy. So the reasons a UFC fighter can be cut are quite broad and more or less whatever the UFC wants.

 

[kflo]

I mean, keep disagreeing with Joe Silva, in his own words, describing how he has tried to drive down a fighter's market value when they fight out their contract.
"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.”

In his deposition Silva was asked about this tactic of giving a fighter a “really tough guy” for their final fight, if they have refused to re-up with the UFC. Talking about the Diaz situation, Silva said he would have given Diaz a “tough guy regardless”, but conceded that he was more likely to give a fighter who re-upped a slot on a main card versus a fighter who was fighting out their contract."

i'm not disagreeing with joe silva. jesus.

this is what i said. they have the option to not put them on the main card. they have the option to give them a tough matchup. they don't have the option to "cripple market value". not sure why this is so hard to get.​

that's a fact. joe silva says NOTHING to the effect that he's "crippling market value". you won't provide any quote close to suggesting "crippling market value". but yeah, as joe said, he's "more likely to give a fighter who re-upped a slot on a main card versus a fighter who was fighting out their contract.". which is what i said.

Those reasons are for losing a fight (most fighters lose one at some point) and breaching the Code of Conduct, which the UFC enforces and doesn't enforce at its own whimsy. So the reasons a UFC fighter can be cut are quite broad and more or less whatever the UFC wants.

??? i don't know what "which the ufc enforces and doesn't enforce at it's own whimsy means" exactly but it doesn't mean "whatever the ufc wants". how many have been cut for "code of conduct"??

they can cut someone after a loss and for code of conduct but it isn't whatever the ufc wants. obviously. why argue that?

 

[avenue94]

this is what i said. they have the option to not put them on the main card. they have the option to give them a tough matchup. they don't have the option to "cripple market value". not sure why this is so hard to get

Yet both of things are very likely to impact market value of a fighter...unless you think Joe Silva did it for shits and giggles.

how many have been cut for "code of conduct"??

Pre code, Miguel Torres, post code, zero to my knowledge. It's there as added leverage for the UFC at this point since dozens of fighters have clearly violated it and the UFC can choose to enforce it if they decide to. Another thing is skipping any media events, which is more standard contractual, not code of conduct. Same deal, it's there if the UFC wants to use it, fighters know that.

 

[kflo]

Yet both of things are very likely to impact market value of a fighter...unless you think Joe Silva did it for shits and giggles.

He didn’t do it to “cripple market value”.

Pre code, Miguel Torres, post code, zero to my knowledge. It's there as added leverage for the UFC at this point since dozens of fighters have clearly violated it and the UFC can choose to enforce it if they decide to. Another thing is skipping any media events, which is more standard contractual, not code of conduct. Same deal, it's there if the UFC wants to use it, fighters know that.

So we agree that they can’t cut fighters for whatever they want. Good.