Ya that's some serious lawyerese right there. It was much cleaner when they just kept likeness rights in perpetuity (many sources including the infamous Eddie Alvarez contract that was made public).
But it does seem to me - Not A Lawyer - to be limited to Zuffa content, or Zuffa marketing.
So my guess is that O'Malley can open a "O'Malley Cannabis" store just fine, but if he opened a "O'Malley - UFC Champion Cannabis" store, he would have to pay. But I flunked out of pre-law, so....
While this is true not all contracts are equally valid or even legal . Yeah you can sign whatever you want but this seems like it’s “ skirting the line” in legality being they are “ independent contractors .” Nobody’s saying they can’t sign whatever they want and YES the buyer should beware etc etc , not the point . Now whether or not UFC is actually doing this ( taking cuts from fighters side hustles ) is the real question cause based on the language in the contract it appears they could .If a business offers you a contract, and you sign the contract because you want it, the only thing that could be "illegal" in the contract would be a provision requiring either party to violate law.
Fighters are adults. Some of them want to compete in the UFC because it is an opportunity to make money. So they sign a contract offered by the UFC.
I imagine if various uninformed emotionally upset social-justice couch posherbros managed to interfere with a fighter attempting to sign a UFC contract, the fighter would be happy to take those posherbros out back and punch their small penises so hard so many times that the posherbors became transvestites.
Because, like, the fighter doesn't care what the posherbros think and doesn't need or want their opinion or their interference. What the fighter wants is to sign the contract so that he or she can take advantage of the opportunity.
If a business offers you a contract, and you sign the contract because you want it, the only thing that could be "illegal" in the contract would be a provision requiring either party to violate law.
Own nothing....control everythingPut it under the name of your wife, kids, grandmother, mother but hold shares.![]()
There are two ongoing class action lawsuits against the UFC right now. Both contend the contracts were illegal due to the power imbalance ("power imbalance" is an incredibly oversimplistic way of putting it, because I don't feel like explaining what a monopsony is.)If a business offers you a contract, and you sign the contract because you want it, the only thing that could be "illegal" in the contract would be a provision requiring either party to violate law.
It sounds to me like it's anything the fighter makes money on that uses the UFC brand. But it is vague, probably by design.
Here's the actual clause in the contract.:
the even more screwed up part is that aside from Chuck GSP Conor Brock Ronda Jon jones and maybe izzy Nobody gives a dam
bout fighters post MMA career
Watched that episode LAST WEEK with wifey.UFC running the show like a mafia
![]()
What a silly idea. If the language is only in one contract, the UFC know, at this time, exactly who's talking, no matter what else Nash says.Holy shit.
I had time to track down the source (https://bloodyelbowpodcast.substack.com/p/ufc-contract-change-addresses-royalties#details) -I ask if someone else can listen and give cliffs please. Thanks
EDIT: Nash says he's still gathering data from multiple contracts, and will reveal more details soon. That's it. He suggests or basically says he has seen the language in a contract, but doesn't know how boilerplate it is yet, and if it's not, doesn't want to reveal b/c then UFC will know who's talking.
so let me get this straight no sponsors, low pay, no rights, low pay, no sponsors,
they barely cover medical, low pay, no sponsors, low pay and umm LOW PAY.
everybody who sided with dana against francis please run into a tree....
maybe id understand if DANA AND THE UFC paid they're top fighters win lose or draw 10-50 million, mid tier gate keepers1-5 mil,
got their fighters movie AAA or B movie roles and got them in mainstream commercials, A RETIREMENT CHECK, Free job training post MMA,
etc etc. then maybe id say well its ONE HAND WASHES THE OTHER. but no......
the even more screwed up part is that aside from Chuck GSP Conor Brock Ronda Jon jones and maybe izzy Nobody gives a dam
bout fighters post MMA career
Fucks sake.
This is a slick lawyer move, not a mafia move.well it was originally financed by two mafiosos so.. it does make sense.