- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
- Messages
- 35,168
- Reaction score
- 37,314
Dana hates managers because they interfere with his domineering of fighters.
Even then, but that's maybe, what, 50 guys to take your pick of? I'm not seeing it as a huge market, especially since a lot of the appeal with repping people is finding people you can bundle or cross over into other industries. Which isn't most fighters, for various reasons.
And yes, CAA has been in the game for while, they used to rep some of the Scrap Pack guys back in the day. They got a pretty good stable these days as well.
I don't see why they wouldn't if they really wanted to. They told Ngannou to fire his agent (which he didn't to my knowledge), which is the equivalent of a prosecutor telling the defendant to fire his defense attorney for being good at his job lol. The UFC has blackballed media, fighters, plenty of people over the years. What would a fighter do if the UFC said, fire your agent or we will cut you? I don't imagine most fighters would throw away their UFC career like that. They can't make a fighter fire his agent, but they can strongly incentivize/disincentive it. Obviously, within bounds of tortuous interference and all that I imagine.
It's legal and not uncommon. Michelle Waterson, Cody Garbrandt, Ronda were all repped by WME off the top of my head. So if anyone is wondering why Garbrandt and his utter lack of charisma of all people got an instant rematch after getting deaded instead of time to develop his game, now you now.
Ideally 1 company representing a majority of fighters would work similarly to a union
If the company chose to, it could refuse to work with the UFC unless they offered a better base pay for prelim fighters. The supply in MMA is the fighters themselves so whomever controls that supply can adjust the price since the UFC needs those fighters to do any businessWould it? A company isn't a union, is it? The good thing about unions is they're not for profit companies and get the same quota from everyone. A company representing everyone would just benefit the top talent as they get the real money.
Ideally 1 company representing a majority of fighters would work similarly to a union
Would it? A company isn't a union, is it? The good thing about unions is they're not for profit companies and get the same quota from everyone. A company representing everyone would just benefit the top talent as they get the real money.
If the company chose to, it could refuse to work with the UFC unless they offered a better base pay for prelim fighters. The supply in MMA is the fighters themselves so whomever controls that supply can adjust the price since the UFC needs those fighters to do any business
Even then, but that's maybe, what, 50 guys to take your pick of? I'm not seeing it as a huge market, especially since a lot of the appeal with repping people is finding people you can bundle or cross over into other industries. Which isn't most fighters, for various reasons.
And yes, CAA has been in the game for while, they used to rep some of the Scrap Pack guys back in the day. They got a pretty good stable these days as well.
I don't see why they wouldn't if they really wanted to. They told Ngannou to fire his agent (which he didn't to my knowledge), which is the equivalent of a prosecutor telling the defendant to fire his defense attorney for being good at his job lol. The UFC has blackballed media, fighters, plenty of people over the years. What would a fighter do if the UFC said, fire your agent or we will cut you? I don't imagine most fighters would throw away their UFC career like that. They can't make a fighter fire his agent, but they can strongly incentivize/disincentive it. Obviously, within bounds of tortuous interference and all that I imagine.
You said why yourself. If agents get a percentage of what a fighter makes, it's in their best interest to raise the amount of money that all fighters get. If having an agent from your company guaranteed you make 20/20 instead of 15/15 then every new guy would want to use your company and your company would be getting a percentage of that extra 5-10k from every 1 and done fighter. If your agent also got a percentage of your sponsorships, then it would also benefit them to pressure the UFC to allow fighter sponsorships again which, according to some, paid out much more than the actual fight purses.I mean it IS theoretically possible but why? Agent companies get cuts off salaries, so their best interest is to make sure top-end talent is paid their weight in gold, unions get the same quota from everyone, so their interest aligns more with all the workers they represent equally. Top talent already get money in the UFC, it's everyone else that's struggling. So what they need is a union, not different agents.
You said why yourself. If agents get a percentage of what a fighter makes, it's in their best interest to raise the amount of money that all fighters get. If having an agent from your company guaranteed you make 20/20 instead of 15/15 then every new guy would want to use your company and your company would be getting a percentage of that extra 5-10k from every 1 and done fighter
They wouldn't have to focus on individuals if they had a large amount of fighters. It's just theoretical, yeah, but it's still possible that it would benefit the fighters for a company like that to put pressure on the UFC. The NBA and soccer (MLS at least, dunno about Euros) have player unionsAgain it is theoretically possible but agents don't behave this way. They focus on the clients that make them real money because it's not cost-effective to use manpower and resources for clients who'll make you peanuts. Look at the recent news about Klutch Sports in the NBA, and I see the same happen ALL THE TIME in football (soccer).
They wouldn't have to focus on individuals if they had a large amount of fighters. It's just theoretical, yeah, but it's still possible that it would benefit the fighters for a company like that to put pressure on the UFC. The NBA and soccer (MLS at least, dunno about Euros) have player unions
I don't think active fighters will manage to bring themselves together without some outside forceYeah we have unions in Europe both at national and international level.
My point is I don't see why hoping a company will behave just like a union when you can have a union.
Why would they negotiate harder because they have a rivalry? …..they have to, in the end, make deals for their clients. Not sure why you think a union helps them either.I think traditional mma managers like you see with Abdelasleaze, Kawa and smaller talent agencies that traditionally have represented mma guys will fall to wayside or be stuck with the scraps( mid/low level guys)
I think with UFCs growth in popularity, powerful agencies like CAA have started to pay attention. They will start to represent more top UFC talent and hope they find the next Conor money maker.
This is noteworthy because CAA is a powerful talent/sport agency that competes directly with Endeavor for signing talent. And both companies famously hate each other.
So CAA will probably drive harder bargains, wouldn’t surprise me if they try to push there fighters to unionize down the line to. Since that benefits them and screws over UFCs owner Endeavor
Most recently, CAA is main reason Ngannou/Lewis fight fell apart. CAA made a deal for Ngannou with UFC and then pulled it last minute(according to Dana) I can totally see this type of scenario happening again with other fighters.
TLDR: In future CAA, a major talent agency is gonna become a key player in mma and will negotiate harder because of there rivalry with wme. May be a good thing for the fighters represented by them
Why would they negotiate harder because they have a rivalry? …..they have to, in the end, make deals for their clients. Not sure why you think a union helps them either.
Ideally 1 company representing a majority of fighters would work similarly to a union
Rivalry is more the motivation but the actual process would be CAA using a theoretical big stable of top names to jack up the prices on all there guys. Its not exactly a Union more like, A Collective Negotiating tactic. That would benefits CAA, its fighters by getting more money and screwing over the UFC.
This all theoretical of course. Who knows how It would play out
You can get away with it but it's illegal. Given they are independent contractors, you're essentially talking price fixing and collusion within a market. DOJ tends to frown on that, depending on the administration.Having a bunch of top names on your roster gives you alot of negotiating leverage. You can use the bigger names, to prop up the smaller names. Most importantly it can be useful for jacking up the prices on what your guys get paid. Managers like Ali use his strong stable to give him more power to negotiate.
Perhaps fire is a bit extreme. But lean on mid level guys who are signing their second or third contract as they break into the top 10, the guys with potential but without the leverage yet? I don't think it would be ridiculous to picture that kind of scenario.In terms of UFC threatening guys to fire there representation or get cut. I dont think that works with top guys because UFC wouldn’t want to risk cutting there best talent over hating there representation. Imagine them telling that to someone like Adensanya. It would be a mistake, he would be fine with it and run with his representation to Thriller/One/Bellator who pays well too
I agree on the specific pecularity of doing so in court is illegal. But in my mind they are equally unethical, it just happens that without the Ali Act and beefed up protections things like that in mma are often overlooked. Too many fans forget that manager and promoter are adversarial roles. The UFC's favorite managers (I think we can agree they have some) aren't the UFC's favorite because they are getting fighters the most money possible, put it that way.I understand your premise, but with the defense attorney thing that's highly illegal and unethical. Any prosecutor who told a criminal defendant to fire their attorney or else would be committing prosecutorial misconduct and likely be disbarred and could be sued for civil rights violations.
With managers it's unethical for a company to tell their talent to fire their representation and they could end up being sued, but it's not strictly illegall or unheard of. Kinda dumb of Dana to do out loud though since CAA is a big firm with money and teeth of their own. But no one claimed he was a genius.
I'd love to see the judge that rules in favor of the company being sued for being a monopoly over "independent contractors" holding out for a set amount of money. It'd be pretty ironic since price fixing and collusion being illegal are anti-trust measures in the first placeYou can get away with it but it's illegal. Given they are independent contractors, you're essentially talking price fixing and collusion within a market. DOJ tends to frown on that, depending on the administration.
It's also the same reason that unions in sports tend to have antitrust exemptions, you have to do it a certain way to not get knocked for collusion and other market issues.
Perhaps fire is a bit extreme. But lean on mid level guys who are signing their second or third contract as they break into the top 10, the guys with potential but without the leverage yet? I don't think it would be ridiculous to picture that kind of scenario.
I agree on the specific pecularity of doing so in court is illegal. But in my mind they are equally unethical, it just happens that without the Ali Act and beefed up protections things like that in mma are often overlooked. Too many fans forget that manager and promoter are adversarial roles. The UFC's favorite managers (I think we can agree they have some) aren't the UFC's favorite because they are getting fighters the most money possible, put it that way.
Yeah, it would be interesting. But same as any other legal issues with mma contracts. What fighter has the money and wants to throw away their career for the greater good in an individual sport where careers are so short?I'd love to see the judge that rules in favor of the company being sued for being a monopoly over "independent contractors" holding out for a set amount of money. It'd be pretty ironic since price fixing and collusion being illegal are anti-trust measures in the first place