What was the worse deal, Fox, Reebok, or Flash?

Rockapotomuss

Rockapotomuss

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
1,182
Which was the worse deal the UFC ever made? Fox? Reebok? Or Flash Entertainment?
 
So you're asking, between the three deals, one of which increased exposure and put the UFC on a main network, one that was a 10% sale that seemingly didn't impact the UFC's business in any way other than to have two UFC cards in the UAE, and one that is universally reviled by fighters and fans alike, which one was the worst deal?
 
I know the answer for most will be the reebok deal.But in reality its not that bad.You can still have outside sponsors,Go rep a local paint balling company and post em to ur instagram or something.Or get a podcast and get podcast sponsors if you care that much.But the reality is they get free training gear,+ guaranteed sponsor money.People forget alot of guys would never get there money because companies were shady.Look at Fear the fighter for an example or Pretorian.

And as for reebok its been a success.Ive heard stories of them selling 1m in merchandise at certain ufc events.They pay 11m a year for 50 or so events and 500 fighters.Sounds like a steal to me for them.The hate will die down in time and as long as they dont make fuck ups it generally goes unnoticed.Plus they have the market on a young and expanding sport.
 
The Reebok deal is the biggest fiasco in centuries.
 
Fox probably isn't thrilled, but the deal was great for the UFC. Reebok deal by far has hurt the most fighters and image.
 
The reebok deal is kind of dumb because they dont let fighters even wear the color they want wtf is that all about?
 
jeicex said:
So you're asking, between the three deals, one of which increased exposure and put the UFC on a main network, one that was a 10% sale that seemingly didn't impact the UFC's business in any way other than to have two UFC cards in the UAE, and one that is universally reviled by fighters and fans alike, which one was the worst deal?
Click to expand...


Well when you put it like that..

Reebok
 
ncboy said:
Fox probably isn't thrilled, but the deal was great for the UFC. Reebok deal by far has hurt the most fighters and image.
Click to expand...

Why isn't fox thrilled? The only reason FS1 is relevant is because of the UFC.
 
Reebok. I can't imagine anyone, including Reebok, is happy they made that deal.
 
The only people happy about the Reebok deal are the ones who bought the limited edition "Giblert" fight pack
 
It's tempting to romanticize the past, and yearn for a time that never was. Having 4 cards a year with no televised prelims and only 5 weight classes, wearing "condom depot" and "dude wipes" logos, getting paid nothing and having no health insurance, not being drug tested, not having exposure outside of a few select markets - where's the upside?

As the sport grows and attempts to become more mainstream (or as mainstream as it can be), Zuffa has and will adapt their business practices. Not every business move on their part will reap rewards for everyone (them, fighters, fans), but overall, it's hard to deny that in large part thanks to Zuffa, this fringe sport is now the biggest it has ever been.
 
I think flash deal was the worst. 10% of the company way before peak revenues and what did UFC get in return? Maybe some tax savings? F all else.
 
Reebok. Reebok murdered fighters individual sponsors.
 
Reebok took the individuality away from the fighters and money out of there pockets. Also the black with white vs white with black shorts is the absolute most asinine thing I have ever fucking heard of. Ever.
 
Flash put them in business with incredibly wealthy and connected businessmen on the opposite end of the world. It also put millions directly into their pockets - we know from their credit ratings they are pulling out the maximum disbursement allowable according to their loan terms. Chiseling off 10% for 100m went into their wallets.

Fox paid a reasonable price for their deal - in all likelihood the TV rights go through the roof when its resigned. I cannot think of any angle this was a bad play.

Reebok is bad on the front end and has been a mess with PR, but we have no idea how much Zuffa pocketed. Considering they were commanding a 50-100k+ per year sponsor tax from every single logo you saw fighters wearing, it should be common sense this deal was a windfall. It's likely Zuffa made quite a bit of money.

Of course the Reebok deal has been bad for a large number of their fighters, but since when has Zuffa cared about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,342
Messages
56,641,257
Members
175,323
Latest member
IVO_DALMA

Share this page

Back
Top