Rumored UFC Has Changed Some of Its Contract Practices

[Kryptt]

Sounds good, any evolution in favor of the fighters is generally good imo.

 

[RiotWyatt]

This is why fighters should fight for better contracts, even if they already signed a bad one. It puts the pressure on the UFC to give better contracts to the next generation.

And all you UFC shills can stfu.

 

[avenue94]

Don't know for sure but we've seen things like Jones saying he earns '$5mil a fight give or take' and GSP saying he earned less than $100k up to the Fitch fight so they're allowed to speak about the topic. Don't see how they could stop someone revealing their pay to banks, family, financial advisors, etc.

Little out of my knowledge, but to my knowledge I'm not aware of confidentiality agreements being illegal in terms of compensation.

Every UFC contract we've seen has the same language on that. To be clear, you are allowed to share with advisors (I forget the exact language), but it's essentially need to know.

Sharing contracts with the media is "illegal"? LOL! Good lord, the nonsense you read from people on the internet.

Read it and weep, buddy.

"22.1 Fighter shall not disclose to any third party (other than his agents and professional advisers, in their capacity as such, on a need-to-know basis), any information with respect to the terms and provisions of this Agreement or any Bout Agreement except: (i) to the extent necessary to comply with law or the valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction, in which event Fighter shall notify ZUFFA as promptly as practicable (if possible, prior to making such disclosure) and shall seek confidential treatment of such information, (ii) as part of normal reporting or review procedure to Fighter's lenders, auditors, attorneys and similar professionals, provided that such lenders, auditors and attorneys and similar professionals agree to be bound by the provisions of this section; and (iii) in order to enforce Fighter's rights pursuant to this Agreement or any Bout Agreement, in which case Fighter agrees to enter into a confidentiality agreement for all such proceedings.

I mean Jon Jones revealed how much he was paid. As far as I know he wasn’t sued. It seems that fighters are allowed to reveal their pay

The UFC obviously isn't going to sue every fighter who mentions what they make. That's never been the purpose of it, the purpose is to chill speech and scare fighters into not talking about pay, because again, in a labor market, keeping that information private helps keep wages down. Basic economics.

You are talking about the whole contract, the verbiage was there is not gag order for fighters to talk about their pay.

IT pretty clearly is, bout agreements are what disclose pay. Ergo, you aren't supposed to talk about your agreement...aka what you're making.

hat would've never happened if there was a gag order about their pay.

Again, the point isn't to sue every fighter who talks, it's to send the message to keep contracts and pay hush hush. And it's been effective in that.

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

@avenue94

I have heard lots of guy reveal their pay on podcasts and YouTube video like Myles Jury for example. I assume at least some of the fighters are able to reveal pay without consequence

 

[CerebralKnievel]

Read it and weep, buddy.

"22.1 Fighter shall not disclose to any third party (other than his agents and professional advisers, in their capacity as such, on a need-to-know basis), any information with respect to the terms and provisions of this Agreement or any Bout Agreement except: (i) to the extent necessary to comply with law or the valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction, in which event Fighter shall notify ZUFFA as promptly as practicable (if possible, prior to making such disclosure) and shall seek confidential treatment of such information, (ii) as part of normal reporting or review procedure to Fighter's lenders, auditors, attorneys and similar professionals, provided that such lenders, auditors and attorneys and similar professionals agree to be bound by the provisions of this section; and (iii) in order to enforce Fighter's rights pursuant to this Agreement or any Bout Agreement, in which case Fighter agrees to enter into a confidentiality agreement for all such proceedings.

The UFC obviously isn't going to sue every fighter who mentions what they make. That's never been the purpose of it, the purpose is to chill speech and scare fighters into not talking about pay, because again, in a labor market, keeping that information private helps keep wages down. Basic economics.

LOL! Bud, that's wording from a contract, not state or federal law. Pretty sure you don't understand what the word illegal means, which places you right at home with the rest of the mental dunces of this forum.

 

[avenue94]

@avenue94

I have heard lots of guy reveal their pay on podcasts and YouTube video like Myles Jury for example. I assume at least some of the fighters are able to reveal pay without consequence

Like I said, it's meant to have a chilling effect. Not literally sue everyone who blabs.

LOL! Bud, that's wording from a contract, not state or federal law. Pretty sure you don't understand what the word illegal means, which places you right at home with the rest of the mental dunces of this forum.

And in your mind, such a clause is unenforceable?

 

[kflo]

weird. @avenue94 has consistently argued there is no evidence the ufc has changed their business practices since joe siva left......

 

[avenue94]

weird. @avenue94 has consistently argued there is no evidence the ufc has changed their business practices since joe siva left......

Yeah, hard to say there is evidence of changes when there isn't any. And when some arises, it's acknowledged. Odd how that works.

 

[kflo]

Yeah, hard to say there is evidence of changes when there isn't any. And when some arises, it's acknowledged. Odd how that works.

except you've literally insisted nothing has changed and it has been the basis for many of your posts and the rationale for your stances. you've referenced silva consistently stating nothing has changed (despite the obvious likelihood of change given silva is gone and they have a class action suit that references silva frequently).

i've repeatedly noted you should stop referencing silva since he's gone and they likely changed and your response is always nothing has changed.

 

[avenue94]

except you've literally insisted nothing has changed and it has been the basis for many of your posts and the rationale for your stances.

I've said I see no evidence that things have changed. When I see evidence, I take it into consideration.

. you've referenced silva consistently stating nothing has changed (despite the obvious likelihood of change given silva is gone and they have a class action suit that references silva frequently).

Is that why Ngannou is complaining about being dicked about by the UFC? Is it the spirit of Joe Silva possessing Hunter Campbell?

i've repeatedly noted you should stop referencing silva since he's gone and they likely changed and your response is always nothing has changed.

See above. Or JDS...or presumably dozens of fighters who have not spoken up yet. Organizations rarely change in culture overnight or just because one person left.

 

[markys00]

Just drop venom rebook and all other shit.
Let fighters get their own sponsors. EVERYONE wins.

Funny. I remember before the Reebok deal started, everyone loved it.. grass is always greener eh?

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

Looks like the UFC is attempting to make JUST enough contractual concessions/adjustments to avoid a meaningful union push and possible run in with the Ali Act.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Funny. I remember before the Reebok deal started, everyone loved it.. grass is always greener eh?

Everybody loved the Monster Energy sponsorship until they had to start riding on the handlebars of Molenkamp's bicycle.

 

[markys00]

Everybody loved the Monster Energy sponsorship until they had to start riding on the handlebars of Molenkamp's bicycle.

Aww they look so adorable tho

 

[WhosTheBoss]

Funny. I remember before the Reebok deal started, everyone loved it.. grass is always greener eh?

Who? No one liked it except Dana and Co

it doesn’t benefit the fighters one bit.
Own sponsors are way way way better and lucrative for fighters

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

Who? No one liked it except Dana and Co

it doesn’t benefit the fighters one bit.
Own sponsors are way way way better and lucrative for fighters

It was more of mixed bag. Some hated it ...others loved it.

Popular dudes with big fanbases hated it because they were obscene amounts with sponsors

Less popular fighters with a lot of fights liked--Sam Alvey was a big fan--- and it was good deal for international fighters because they didn't really make much in sponsors

 

[RampageFaction]

Funny. I remember before the Reebok deal started, everyone loved it.. grass is always greener eh?

I don’t know about “loved it,” but guys basically went from making nothing to a little pocket change.

 

[cheesus]

Just drop venom rebook and all other shit.
Let fighters get their own sponsors. EVERYONE wins.

Agreed, the uniforms have made the sport more dull. I miss the walk outs with costumes.

 

[FIghtxIQ]

Little out of my knowledge, but to my knowledge I'm not aware of confidentiality agreements being illegal in terms of compensation.

Every UFC contract we've seen has the same language on that. To be clear, you are allowed to share with advisors (I forget the exact language), but it's essentially need to know.

Read it and weep, buddy.

"22.1 Fighter shall not disclose to any third party (other than his agents and professional advisers, in their capacity as such, on a need-to-know basis), any information with respect to the terms and provisions of this Agreement or any Bout Agreement except: (i) to the extent necessary to comply with law or the valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction, in which event Fighter shall notify ZUFFA as promptly as practicable (if possible, prior to making such disclosure) and shall seek confidential treatment of such information, (ii) as part of normal reporting or review procedure to Fighter's lenders, auditors, attorneys and similar professionals, provided that such lenders, auditors and attorneys and similar professionals agree to be bound by the provisions of this section; and (iii) in order to enforce Fighter's rights pursuant to this Agreement or any Bout Agreement, in which case Fighter agrees to enter into a confidentiality agreement for all such proceedings.

The UFC obviously isn't going to sue every fighter who mentions what they make. That's never been the purpose of it, the purpose is to chill speech and scare fighters into not talking about pay, because again, in a labor market, keeping that information private helps keep wages down. Basic economics.

IT pretty clearly is, bout agreements are what disclose pay. Ergo, you aren't supposed to talk about your agreement...aka what you're making.

Again, the point isn't to sue every fighter who talks, it's to send the message to keep contracts and pay hush hush. And it's been effective in that.

You said they aren't supposed to, yet lots of fighters discuss their pay online publicly on social media. Like I said Jones and Dana/UFC was having negotiations publicly online about Jones's pay. Clearly if they weren't legally allowed to do that it would've been stopped right away and UFC send them a cease and desist letter. Yet it continued on for months and still going on currently and both UFC/Jones is openly speaking on it on social media and in interviews.

 

[avenue94]

You said they aren't supposed to, yet lots of fighters discuss their pay online publicly on social media. Like I said Jones and Dana/UFC was having negotiations publicly online about Jones's pay. Clearly if they weren't legally allowed to do that it would've been stopped right away and UFC send them a cease and desist letter. Yet it continued on for months and still going on currently and both UFC/Jones is openly speaking on it on social media and in interviews.

What, maybe a dozen fighters out of the thousands who are UFC vets? I'll point out all contracts have a code of conduct that isn't enforced either. Not all threats have to be carried out to be effective.