Initially this was a discussion about whether or not the UFC’s business model was going to be beneficial to the sport in its present form. Its since moved to being a philisophical debate about whether or not holding out on a contract as an athlete is ethical (since its obviously legal). Quite the odd position to take given the stances you’ve given on what ethical standards the UFC must meet (which are slim to none).

Guys should ask for however much they feel they are worth. I’m all for it. That’s capitalism. However, they need to fight out their current contracts rather and then renegotiate.

No, they don’t. They can choose to, ultimately. But they don’t necessarily have to. Its not like this is some new phenomenon. There’s a list of Don King heavyweights (just heavyweights, mind you) that were sat often for over a year until the terms of their contract expired. Is it ethical? No less than almost anything else in the business of fighting. Is it good for the sport? Well, you tell me…

I thought you were a reasonable individual. But I’m not so sure any more. We were talking about CONTRACTS remember? Guys should ask for however much they feel they are worth. I’m all for it. That’s capitalism. However, they need to fight out their current contracts rather and then renegotiate. But let’s throw a straw man out there. You’re good at that.

And none of them have yet been established to have broken the terms of their contract. So, what is your point, exactly? They’re using the freedoms given to them to try and better themselves economically while staying under tabs to the UFC. Are you against people doing such things? Would you prefer forced employment for the UFC’s signed talent?

This is hilarious. Way to take this off in a tangent when the answers didn’t fit your argument. I will say this much: You seem totally for the UFC lowballing guys when they’re young, but why aren’t you okay with those guys asking for more when they’ve built themselves into stars? What, its one way capitalism in your world?

Any word you give is an honorable thing; a contract is your word enforced by law. Breaking a contract is tantamount to breaking your word while flipping off the legal system of our country.

You act as if signing a contract in sports is some sort of incredibly honorable thing. Its an athlete offering his services to some promotional entity to play a game for them, one that can potentially cause life threatening injury. Everyone is in it for themselves, including the athletes. Demanding the athletes cater to organizations, which as cyphron says only after I state it 100 times or so, are ultimately in it for their financial benefit, and not that of their employees, customers, etc. is flat out stupid. Its borderline Randian.

A person’s word is one of the most valuable things he has. Its kind of pathetic you support fighters breaking their word, because that lessens their value as human beings.

As is walking away from the contract demanding more money when in a position of power. Does this not click in?

Of course it’s an attempt to keep him from fighting Fedor and it’s also an attempt to keep Couture to honor his contract.

This assumes they even have a case, which judging by the way Penn and Pulver departed, they might not. And they might even know it.

Zuffa is a corporation and what corporation would allow their employee to walk out on a contract and do whatever the hell they please?

But he isn’t. What part of that don’t you get? Terms of the contract state he can stop fighting and that there’s a termination date to the contract. He’s waiting out said date. UFC doesn’t have to pay him in the meantime.

That’s hilarious. So by th same analogy, when the fighter walking out on a contract, the UFC put the fighters on ice. Isn’t that the “fee” the fighter is paying?

See, an actual fee would be financial compensation for his rights. That would allow someone else to use him or for me to watch him fight. I don’t care how well off the UFC is, because frankly the UFC could be very well off and not be providing me with much that I want. You keep telling me that the increased financial success of the organization is something that should, in some way, make its way into me enjoying the product they offer me for $20 on DVD, $40 (going to $45) live on TV, and a couple hundred in the arena. But I know better than to think that Dana White lining his pockets equates to good fights.

That benefits the fighter but doesn’t benefit the company.

Newsflash: No one here works for Zuffa. We watch people fight as a form of entertainment.

And you obviously don’t understand what I’m trying to say. You expect the UFC to be this benevolent corporation that should do what’s good for MMA.

I don’t expect anything but the worst from people in the fight game, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize it. I could care less about what’s best for the Fertitta’s pocketbook, and unless you’re an employee of them or one of them yourself, what the hell do you care? To start an internet argument?

And yet, you favor fighters doing whatever the hell they please when they feel they’re worth more than the contract that they’ve SIGNED.

I do. I dare to value human beings as such. Its a crazy idea, I know.

Pay is what the market bears. It’s capitalism. Underpayment is not defined by someone with an arbitrary sense of right and wrong. You’re playing the underpayment card with Tito and Couture. I highly doubt that most people would agree with that.

Do you think that the lawsuit by the UFC is anything but an attempt to prevent him from fighting Fedor in the fall? Do you think that the UFC preventing Couture from fighting Fedor is good for MMA?

Of course it’s an attempt to keep him from fighting Fedor and it’s also an attempt to keep Couture to honor his contract. Zuffa is a corporation and what corporation would allow their employee to walk out on a contract and do whatever the hell they please? Which part of a business don’t you understand?

You can walk out on the contract. There’s a fee to be paid to do so though. You’re unwilling to pay the fee and thus do not. Dana White is unwilling to sell contracts out, crosspromote, or anything of that nature. You keep making comparisons that suck. Improve.

That’s hilarious. So by th same analogy, when the fighter walking out on a contract, the UFC put the fighters on ice. Isn’t that the “fee” the fighter is paying? If the fighters walk out on a contract, why is it up to Dana to sell out on the contract? That benefits the fighter but doesn’t benefit the company. That’s as one sided argument as I’ve ever heard. I could say your argument sucks as well.

See, you’re not interested in hearing what I’m saying. I’m not even sure why we’re sitting here doing this because you and I will never agree.

And you obviously don’t understand what I’m trying to say. You expect the UFC to be this benevolent corporation that should do what’s good for MMA. And yet, you favor fighters doing whatever the hell they please when they feel they’re worth more than the contract that they’ve SIGNED.

However, at this juncture we’re beating a dead horse. I’m a pragmatist and you’re a not. We will agree to disagree.