UFC fighters not alone - USATF leaves 800m champ off team because of Nike

Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by SandWedge, Aug 10, 2015.

  1. SandWedge

    SandWedge White Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    27
    Hopefully the UFC fighters begin to stand up for their rights, but they should also note they aren't alone. Tell me if any of these seems familiar

    USA Track and Field leaves 800m US champ Nick Symmonds off the roster for 2015 World Championship

    Cliffs notes:

    • USATF signs a 23 year sponsorship with Nike, all athletes must wear Nike
    • Nike paying USATF $20 million per year; 8% or less makes it to the athletes
    • "Runners are independent contractors and do not have their own union, making it hard to get similar equality that athletes in other pro team sports have."
    • Symmonds is our 800m champ, and won silver in Worlds, yet says he will get less than $13k from USATF, not a living salary
    • Symmonds is sponsored by Brooks
    • USATF athlete agreement says they must wear Nike, even when not competing "at official events," Symmonds admits he understands wearing Nike while competing because its team uniform, but won't sign agreement because being forced to wear it out of competition puts him in breach of his Brooks contract
    • USATF pull the "without us you wouldn't be here" line: "USATF pays the broadcasting bill for the athletes to wear their sponsors in USATF Championship Series meets on TV, including national championships," Geer said. "Athletes and their personal sponsors don't have to pay for that national exposure. USATF pays for it."
    • USATF claims athletes still free to get sponsor and wear them at non USATF events
    • which led to this great line from Symmonds: "Yeah, a lot of value they're giving non-Nike sponsors by letting runners wear what they want at the Hoka One One Middle Distance Classic"
    • Nike scrwed up with the kits, didn't even supply the girls with sports bra or shorts options
    • USATF tried to cite NBA players "getting in line" wearing Adidas, but legal team called b.s. because basketball players got it worked in that they get paid by Adidas, basically showing that athletes with proper union/representation get treated fairly.
    • Symmonds intending to bring legal action because he is our champ, he should get to represent the country

    At this point I think the big difference is Symmonds is taking a stand and many popular athletes/champs are backing him publicly (Lolo Jones, Jeremy Wairner etc.). this is what the UFC is really needing is current fighter to take a stand.

    My guess is this becomes a mess pretty quickly for USATF because the public will simply not accept us leaving our best athletes off the team (especially ones who can win Olympics medals) because they won't wear a Nike logo when hanging around outside of competition.
     
  2. Xaa

    Xaa Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,882
    Likes Received:
    5
    The existing thread was in the top 5 on this very page the moment you decided to post this. Why not at least take a look?

    http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/track-field-getting-ufcd-nike-3048153/
     
  3. ALAN PARTRIDGE

    ALAN PARTRIDGE NO LONGER REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    32,042
    Likes Received:
    25,571
    Location:
    NO LONGER REGISTERED
    not to mention the fact that no one cares!!!
     
  4. Malthian

    Malthian Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's a lot easier for Symmonds to take a stand as he already has a significant endorsement deal with Brooks. He's trying to preserve his Brooks deal or receive compensation for wearing Nike.

    The top UFC fighters did not have major apparel sponsors prior to Reebok except for Jones, who managed to deep six his own deal with his DUI's and drug use.

    So the situation for the top UFC talent is that Reebok has signed them as Reebok athletes AND as a general UFC sponsor so that there is no conflict. There is no Nike, Converse or Brooks competing for sponsorship and there is no existing major apparel contracts to force a conflict.

    Unless someone like Rousey finishes out her deal and gets offered a major Nike deal or something similar, there is no incentive to do anything but play along and collect the Reebok checks.
     
  5. method115

    method115 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    36,136
    Likes Received:
    15,049
    Your wrong their are other apparel companies that were sponsoring UFC fighters who had to stop because of the rebook deal. They aren't big companies but they were paying more then what fighters are getting from rebook. Some of them anyways.
     
  6. Malthian

    Malthian Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    4
    I said MAJOR sponsors. And I doubt any of them were offering to pay Rousey what she's making from Reebok.

    This isn't about mid card guys, this is about whether someone like Rousey or Conor would take a stand.
     
  7. Spearfish CA

    Spearfish CA Silver Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,362
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Location:
    Snorkilling
    No, *you're wrong, no other apparel company had to stop sponsoring fighters because of the Reebok deal. The terms of the Reebok deal specifically allow fighters to have other sponsors, including apparel sponsors.
     
  8. cooks1

    cooks1 No matter where you go-there you are Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    14,453
    Likes Received:
    5,241
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    If you were a fighter, which would you consider a MAJOR sponsor?

    A large apparel company paying you $5K-$10 per fight.

    or

    A smaller apparel company paying you $30-$100K per fight? Many fighters, not just champs and contenders but several others not even in the top 10 in their division were getting this much and more from the likes of Tapout, Revgear, Bad Boy, Hayabusa, Venum, Affliction, and others. While those brands still can and do still sponsor figthers, the compensation is now much less because fighters can not bring those brands the high level of exposure by wearing their product in the Octagon.

    If the UFC wanted to go the uniform route, that's fine, but a responsible company would have made sure their fighters were whole financially as a result of their decision. They did terribly in that regard.

    In the end, I think this is probably going to hurt the UFC. They continue to treat fighters more and more like employees, while still having them employed as contractors. Now, the UFC basically has contractors that can not work for anyone else, must wear a designated company uniform, many no longer represent other brands during fight week, likeness rights until the end of time, and the list goes on. Either the fighters will not be contractors much longer, and will have a union, or they will end up with something like the screen actors guild.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2015
  9. Paradigm

    Paradigm Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    17,363
    Likes Received:
    8,670
    Location:
    LA
    just not during fight week...you know, when sponsors get probably the most exposure...
     
  10. method115

    method115 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    36,136
    Likes Received:
    15,049
    Ok I thought it was clear that I was talking about in the cage. During fight week and in the cage/walkout the fighter is not allowed to weak other apparel. Not during open workouts either.
     
  11. Malthian

    Malthian Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    4
    Um, as an existing Champion, Rousey got $40K just out of the standard Reebok deal. And on top of that she has her personal Reebok deal which includes fixed pay outs AND cuts of merchandising personalized Reebok products through Reebok vendors and their online store.

    She's making WAY more than $100K per fight out of the Reebok deal. Way, way, WAY more.

    Dana White said she's clearing $3M/year from sponsorships. That isn't all from Metro PCS, Buffalo and Panda fights.
     
  12. method115

    method115 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    36,136
    Likes Received:
    15,049
    Exactly who cares how big an apparel company is when they are paying shit.
     
  13. cooks1

    cooks1 No matter where you go-there you are Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    14,453
    Likes Received:
    5,241
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    I have no doubt. And I am sure most of the 10 UFC champs are doing just fine. Just as they were before the deal. Do you really think RR would be without a 'Reebok Type' deal if the UFC had not done the deal with them. That's pure ignorance. She'd probably be making even more from Nike. The UFC Reebok deal does not have jackety shit to do with R3's endorsement success. Her badassedness does. That, and WME.

    I find it pretty unlikely though that any of the champs are doing better than they were doing sponsor wise before the deal. And is pretty conclusive that most of the other 490 fighters under contract are worse off. Much worse off in many cases.

    The Reebok Deal was just an awful deal where NO ONE is going to win. Literally no one. Reebok managed to negotiate so well, and fuck the Fertittas so hard at the negotiating table, that they are going to come off like douche bags. They will now pay 70 million over 6 years for a bunch of shitty publicity because they, along with the UFC, are anal prison raping the fighters )sans lube). The UFC will get an equal amount of scorn, for basically $0.00 since presumably all the money from this joke of a deal is going to the fighters. And the fighters of course are getting fucked out of money and are loosing more of their freedoms, even though they are still IC's. But they get slightly below average uniforms out of it. :rolleyes:

    Everyone is losing in this deal. It is just a shitty deal. Epically shittiy. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that in 20 years this will be in college textbooks as a case study in business fuckuppery.
     
  14. runnpray

    runnpray Full Kit Wanker

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    6,151
    Likes Received:
    4,634
    Location:
    The closest one on Grindr
    But but but, all the anti corporate sponsorship noobs will tell you that this isn't possible!
     
  15. cooks1

    cooks1 No matter where you go-there you are Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    14,453
    Likes Received:
    5,241
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    There is a difference between being anti corporate sponsor and anti shitty corporate sponsorship deal.

    The Reebok deal would have been just fine for the fighters if it had paid $250 over 6 years instead of $70 million.
     
  16. SuperNerd

    SuperNerd Season Mode.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    52,453
    Likes Received:
    24,957
    This is the only problem I see. I don't like it..

    But I think this is different. He is joining a team and representing America.

    Try joining any sports club and telling them you don't want to take part in their policies.
     
  17. KeepItRealist

    KeepItRealist Red Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    14,704
    USATF people seem similar to the UFC in how they handle criticism: Shamelessly lying and using their media shills to write one-sided articles on the subject.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.