Rumored UFC Has Changed Some of Its Contract Practices

[Dreyga_King of Sherbums]

Yeah. Word trickles out of the mma grapevine slowly, not to mention sharing contracts with media is still illegal. There's a reason the UFC has that clause in it and why Izzy in his video on how he spent his first million said "I allegedly made ___ dollars for this fight." Legal or not, that kind of language has a chilling effect.

Makes you wonder what other changes they have made that no one knows about.

It seems that UFC is being cautious to not cross any legal lines while still making sure that contracts have as much power as they possibly can.

This is a good and bad thing. Good because it means that there are more limitations in them for fighters.

Bad because it's going to make incredibly difficult to prove in a court that these contracts are in restraint of trade if they keep making changes like this. Doesn't bode well any lawsuits against the company

 

[Marko Polo]

Based on John Nash's reporting, the UFC has made one significant and one less significant contract change since 2017. It's unclear if these were piecemeal changes or across the board, but if something came of the antitrust lawsuit, it's this.

Cliffs: UFC contracts appear to have 5-year maximum lengths now and also fighters can have 1 min of their fight footage for the gram. You'll have your first group of fighters automatically becoming free agents next year, likely including GSP.

1. The big one is that some UFC contracts since the July 1, 2017 have a 5-year maximum, compared to prior when contracts could be frozen in perpetuity when a fighter sits out or retires. There are a few important reasons the UFC would do that when they did
-The class period for the antitrust lawsuit goes through June 2017, this change would make it harder for someone to expand the class period (and thus WME's exposure to litigation and damages), which is what CB Dolloway and Kajan Johnson are doing now.
-It's arguably a tacit admission from WME that the perpetual nature of UFC contracts combined with how broad they are wouldn't survive a court challenge and would probably be deemed illegal.
-Why a 5-year maximum? This is the limit several states put on contracts between boxers and managers/promoters (NJ and California, 4 years in Nevada). That's in addition to several states having mandatory sunset provisions on nearly all contracts (California's is 7 years, for example).

2. The more minor one is fighters now can be given 3 20 second clips of fight footage for them to promote themselves on social media. It has to be non-commercial, however, so other promotions or advertisers/sponsors can't use the footage. Part of the UFC's reason for hoarding all fight footage and purchasing Pride's library was to make it harder for other promotions to compete; sure, you can sign former UFC fighters, but you won't have any good promo footage to use of their career when you do.

Damn, I never realised that about the promo footage. Would make sense that orgs like Bellator are reluctant to go in for wantaway fighters when they would have to basically build them up from scratch for the casual, unless they have big name value.

 

[greatsantini]

So GSP could have been a free agent already of he didnt cherry-pick Bisping? Interesting.

Reading the thread it sounds like he got the 5 year contract maximum because he signed a new contract in 2017. Contracts before that allowed the UFC to freeze them forever when you retired.

 

[IneedSometop]

Hmmm very interesting the contracts having an expiration date.

Kind off topic how do California’s sunset contracts work? For example Fernando tatis of the San Diego Padres recently signed a 14 year 330 million dollar contract is that contract not legally enforceable after the 7 year mark?


Edit: Great thread TS!

 

[avenue94]

Not GSP's thing. He fights for legacy.. Not just for the hell of it..

Well same thing. He apparently wanted/wants to box for shits and giggles, UFC contract means he can't so far.

Makes you wonder what other changes they have made that no one knows about.

I wouldn't wager on anything groundbreaking. The one I'd be most interested in is whether or not the UFC took out the legally dicey clause about having the exclusive right to promote a UFC fighter's boxing matches.

It seems that UFC is being cautious to not cross any legal lines while still making sure that contracts have as much power as they possibly can.

Little bit of semantics, but I think it's important. They already crossed lines, this is them walking it back some.

Bad because it's going to make incredibly difficult to prove in a court that these contracts are in restraint of trade if they keep making changes like this. Doesn't bode well any lawsuits against the company

I don't think the world/fighters have another antitrust lawsuit in them at any rate. For better or worse. And I do think there would still be parts of the contract that could be litigated if a fighter was willing. The non-compete language, for example, is likely to broad to hold up in court, as is the entire contractor vs employee part. The UFC is one of the most aggressive in stretching the definition of what an independent contractor is.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

Sounds great excited for GSP vs Oscar in late 2022 while gsp tells dana to go fuck himself. Maybe he will fight jake paul too.

 

[avenue94]

Contracts before that allowed the UFC to freeze them forever when you retired.

I assume those previous contracts would be grandfathered in at some point.

Kind off topic how do California’s sunset contracts work? For example Fernando tatis of the San Diego Padres recently signed a 14 year 330 million dollar contract is that contract not legally enforceable after the 7 year mark?

This is more or less the relevant legal language, the mentioned exception is for certain record label contracts. As far as legally enforceable, technically it's not, but one party would have to breach it and then supply injury so someone sues. The law doesn't enforce itself, so to speak.
"Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), a contract to render personal service, other than a contract of apprenticeship as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3070), may not be enforced against the employee beyond seven years from the commencement of service under it. Any contract, otherwise valid, to perform or render service of a special, unique, unusual, extraordinary, or intellectual character, which gives it peculiar value and the loss of which cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated in damages in an action at law, may nevertheless be enforced against the person contracting to render the service, for a term not to exceed seven years from the commencement of service under it. If the employee voluntarily continues to serve under it beyond that time, the contract may be referred to as affording a presumptive measure of the compensation."

 

[avenue94]

Damn, I never realised that about the promo footage. Would make sense that orgs like Bellator are reluctant to go in for wantaway fighters when they would have to basically build them up from scratch for the casual, unless they have big name value.

Yeah, that reason is actually cited in an internal UFC memo that was in discovery for the lawsuit.

 

[Cowboy Kurt Angle]

How to fix fighter pay step by step.

Number 1 Drop Venom and allow sponsors on fighter shorts the end:

 

[MMAFAN2]

Does that mean Brock Lesnar’s contract could have expired recently? He signed a new contract before UFC 200 in June 2016

 

[blaseblah]

Yeah. Word trickles out of the mma grapevine slowly, not to mention sharing contracts with media is still illegal. There's a reason the UFC has that clause in it and why Izzy in his video on how he spent his first million said "I allegedly made ___ dollars for this fight." Legal or not, that kind of language has a chilling effect.

I didn't know this was the case. Why does Helwani keep asking how much fighters get paid then?

 

[avenue94]

I didn't know this was the case. Why does Helwani keep asking how much fighters get paid then?

It's useful for journalism and also disclosed wages are one of hte best ways to increase compensation in a labor market. Essentially clearer price signals, that's the main reason employers tend to discourage sharing wages. Or else, in the UFC's instance, a fighter will go, hey, this guy who is of similar tenure and profile to me is getting 5k more per fight, I want that, so on so forth.

 

[MGS]

It took dozens of fighters, former champions voicing their opinions on the UFC's greasy practices to finally move the mountain. For me it shows their aren't untouchable and it's feasible. This is great news.

 

[Sticko]

What? Other way around. It's so fighters can promote themselves on their own social media whybwoukd the UFC extens that to guys in Bellator. It's essentially free PR for the UFC and it's fights with minimal effort. You'll notice the UFC loves to cut corners on production and marketing, this is just a way to outsource some of it for cheap.

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the UFC let active UFC fighters post as much as they want of their highlights?
It was worded like it was a concession to the fighters, and it's the free agents and those signed elsewhere who would benefit the most from being able to post their highlights.

 

[avenue94]

Why wouldn't the UFC let active UFC fighters post as much as they want of their highlights?

Because the UFC values brand over fighter. And if they had their choice, they would rather a fan go to their IG page or twitter instead of a fighter's. It's part of the same reason for fight kits being so generic. Stars come and go, so the UFC wants consumers to tune in for the brand, not to watch Jones or McGregor, etc. It also helps keep fighter pay in check for them.

and it's the free agents and those signed elsewhere who would benefit the most from being able to post their highlights.

Why would the UFC help Bellator, for example, promote Corey Anderson when he posts highlights of him beating their current LHW champ (and their current #1 contender).

 

[Garnet_StrongerThanYou]

Fucking this. UFC doesn’t have to pay fighters more, and all the fighters make more money.

How is this not a win win?

Greedy UFC can take 15% of fighters sponsorships or something if they wanted and fighters would still come out ahead.

They don’t want politically incorrect sponsors like condom depot or Chick a Fil on their shorts. They say it makes the sport look bad.

 

[WHITEBELT JESUS]

They don’t want politically incorrect sponsors like condom depot or Chick a Fil on their shorts. They say it makes the sport look bad.

What’s wrong with wearing condoms and eating a chicken sandwich?

 

[avenue94]

They don’t want politically incorrect sponsors like condom depot or Chick a Fil on their shorts. They say it makes the sport look bad.

I didn't realize Trojan condoms was more politically correct than Condom Depot. Nor did I realize that letting a cornerman corner a fighter while clearly showing a white power tattoo was politically correct lol. The reason you cited is a smokescreen.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

Fucking this. UFC doesn’t have to pay fighters more, and all the fighters make more money.

How is this not a win win?

Greedy UFC can take 15% of fighters sponsorships or something if they wanted and fighters would still come out ahead.

That was a real shit deal for the fighters and people kept saying but but but condom depot! You really want that sponsor on fighters shorts? Well that hasn’t been a sponsor since like 2003. Obviously the sponsors won’t be weird like condom depot or porn hub etc. but just something like Monster energy drink, or a crypto company, etc, but when you look at all the sponsors in the cage, the ufc makes all the money there. Not the fighters. The fighters really got boned on Reebok and venom.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

Does that mean Brock Lesnar’s contract could have expired recently? He signed a new contract before UFC 200 in June 2016

Brock in Bellator now! Lol