Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Fightsport Asia


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Infinite MMA


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuBox


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Ult MMA


Fighters


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


MMA Chronicle


David Williams


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Joe Ferraro


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

UFC’s latest targets for sponsorship bans

By Zach Arnold | June 24, 2009

Print Friendly and PDF

UFC is now reportedly asking for $100,000 rights fees just for a company to even be ‘eligible’ to sponsor fighters. A company generating strong PPV revenue is this hard up for cash? Hardly. This comes off, in my opinion, more like petty politics every day in terms of controlling what fighters can make with sponsorships and also going after anyone they don’t have great relations with (think about past dealings with groups like American Kickboxing Academy) by going after their sponsors instead of going after the fighters directly.

One of the companies reportedly on the banned list is One More Round, which happens to the clothing company associated with Jacob “Stitch” Duran. Why is Dana White, Lorenzo Fertitta, and others going after a cut man?

I know and understand that sports leagues like MLB and the NFL have certain sponsorship deals with companies for uniforms and so forth. However, athletes in these sports are paid full time (seasonal), have benefits, insurance, etc. By going after so many sponsors in the manner that UFC is doing, this is pure divide-and-conquer politics at its worst in terms of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Josh Stein further elaborates:

It would be unfair to accuse the UFC of intentionally damaging our access to an improving quality of MMA, but it is not entirely unfair to assert that they are depriving fighters of their right to negotiate personal contracts with sponsoring companies. Whether the fighters choose to address this with open complaints, or whether it is simply fans discussing the issue, it is important to recognize that Zuffa LLC may be toeing the line, if they have not already stepped well over, with respect to their privledge as broadcasters.

The timing of this is interesting, given how much hype and media attention there will be for UFC 100. The company has a patch of red hot shows, from UFC 100 in LV to the Philadelphia event to the upcoming Portland event.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 75 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

75 Responses to “UFC’s latest targets for sponsorship bans”

  1. BoaBoaBoa says:

    It’s a good thing you didn’t overreact.

    Ed. — Sarcasm will get you nowhere, sparky.

  2. Rob Maysey says:

    The other league sports don\’t allow this because the talent receives between 53% and 59% of the revenue generated in licensing. Licensing fees generated are much higher if uniformity and exclusiveness are provided. The players are getting over half of this value.

    The league is controlling visibility to maximize value–but the majority of the revenue generated goes to the players.

  3. Zack says:

    This stuff is all pretty fascinating. 100k is a pretty high bar to set.

  4. Ivan Trembow says:

    53 to 59 percent of gross revenue is what the UFC could pay its talent and still be very comfortably profitable, but the numbers are never going to even be close to that ballpark without a fighters’ union. And what was it that Dana White said about a fighters’ union during the Couture debacle? “Go ahead, somebody ought to start a fighters’ union.” How long would it take for potentially unionized fighters to get the AKA-like treatment of, “Sign away your rights or you’re fired”?

  5. EJ says:

    Like i’ve said before the UFC has made it clear that it’s their way or your screwed. Everytime that they get burned by not following their own rules only re-enforces that fact.

  6. Rob Maysey says:

    There are other models that are not union related, and highly effective.

    EASports, for example, is negotiating deals with fighters not already locked up for inclusion in its video game. Do you think this group of fighters will get anywhere near 17% of gross profits, which is what the UFC’s reported take is with THQ? No even a fraction of 1% is what they will get.

    There are reasons for this–that are very easily addressable.

    As for the firing threat–talent has far more power than they can even imagine. The real untapped power, is with the mega-gyms and instructors. A large majority of top-tier talent is coming from about 10 such gyms.

    Is any organization going to just fire all of these gyms? No chance, no way. If they dared, Coker would swoop in, and overnight become the premier MMA promotion.

    Especially when the fighters, as a group, recognize their own set of official rankings (which would become the only set that matters). Key to this notion–establish yourself as the major league–the public does not accept replacements. Currently, a promotion is doing this exclusively.

    Another question this raises–does this sponsorship ban apply also to brands owned by the fighter? How about charities?

    If so, this may in practice serve to cut out the vast majority of such brands entirely, and serve to prevent a fighter from capitalizing long term on his or her image.

  7. Jason Bennett says:

    I have absolutely no sympathy for these fighters/managers until they get their act together and organize/unionize themselves; if you don’t fight the problem, it will not correct itself. Throughout the history of organized crime, the middle man has always been gouged for exorbitant amounts of money and the more power/leeway they’re afforded, the worse it gets. Personally, I continue to not support the UFC financially due to their shady business practices. I have done this for quite some time and suggest more do the same. I choose not to support organized crime, regardless of what mask it has on.

  8. 2short says:

    Only one correction to this post. Pro athletes in the big 4 leagues are not “full time” workers paid year round. They are paid in season. NFL players are not even paid for pre-season games.

  9. Rob Maysey says:

    Other questions raised by these actions.

    Isn’t the job of the promoter to promote fighters, not simply to provide a “platform” that is used to build its own brand, and those brands that pay in essence licensing fees to the promoter?

    Isn’t this one more step along the lines of saying, in essence, your privilege is to be part of our organization and your role is to build the promotional brand and its licensing partners–not any other, and to relinquish the promotional duties to the fighter?

    If money provides privilege, and that is its role, what stops a promoter from simply selling slots on its show? Afterall, the “exposure’ provided is without parallel. Certainly, there would be takers for those slots. Would this be acceptable?

    Shouldn’t we now be asking questions as to whether the “promoter” is in essence, taking on management functions (this is just yet another example), and shouldn’t athletic commissions begin to look into this?

    If MMA is governed, often times by the exact same statutes as boxing (with MMA additions in terms of gloves, weights, rules of participation), why do these same athletic commissions draw distinctions as to what is allowable and not allowable between MMA and boxing (and they do)?

  10. Alan Conceicao says:

    As long as the gravitational pull of the UFC is such that fighters almost instinctively want to go there, they have a good chance at being successful doing forcing the hands of fighters, trainers, and sponsors. Until we arrive at a spot where that is not true, this will continue. Its pretty simple. Strikeforce and DREAM both have very solid opportunities over the next few months as establishing themselves as alternatives for up and coming fighters. If they continue to develop in that direction, then maybe. There’s always the possibility that many of these younger kids are of the “UFC RULZ~!” mindset and would be willing to take an extended pay cut with few guarantees to try and push their way into contention.

  11. 45 Huddle says:

    Just want to say again that the UFC Fighters need a union.

    Now, a few comments…

    Ivan…. Did you pull that 53% to 59% number out of your behind?

    As to the issue… I can see what the UFC is trying to do. In the short run, it will likely hurt fighters. In the long run, it could potentially help them.

    Let me use the IFL and EliteXC as an example. The IFl has some big named sponsors on their mat, including Microsoft. However, they basically gave away the mat space for free. Once a company does this, it is very hard to then ask for money for that same spot. EliteXC basically signed their life away when they signed on with Showtime & CBS. They weren’t really getting much money from these TV Shows. Which means when it is time to then need money, it is hard to demand it.

    Zuffa, and I assume this is Fertitta behind this…. Has been extremely careful to not give away anything for free. They pushed real hard until they got sponsors like Budweiser and Harley Davidson. They likely didn’t sign a Network Deal because they weren’t willing to give away their shows for $250,000 (when they can make $5 Million + for the same show on PPV). This is all EXTREMELY smart business. They are putting themselves into a position as a premium brand that forces anybody to work with them to bring substantial money to the table.

    From a business prospective, this is brilliant. I know people will bash it, but for LONG TERM growth, Fertitta is a complete master at what he does.

    Now how it relates to the sponsors. By putting in that $100,000 amount, they are doing two things:

    1) Weeding out the small sponsors.
    2) Sending a message that to be on a UFC Telecast, you must have substantial market value.

    I know fighters will just say they are being hurt by this. And yes this is true for the short run. However, imagine the NFL had sponsors like “Mike’s Tire Barn”. It automatically makes the game feel second rate. By only allowing higher priced sponsors, it gives the casual viewer then sense that it is even more important. Most people don’t even realize this while watching a telecast, but that’s how the advertising mind works.

    In the long run, fighters will only see better returns for this. The current fighters are getting screwed over, but so was the same for MLB, NBA, & NFL players compared to their current day counterparts. Just the way sorts works.

  12. jr says:

    Dana sees fighters as circus animals. Vince McMahon would be proud “

  13. 45 Huddle says:

    I should also add…. Getting rid of the smaller sponsors will only help attract bigger ones. Companies like Budweiser probably don’t want to be advertising in the same location as some local auto shop. So when a new potential sponsor checks out the UFC, and only see higher end sponsors, it will make it much more attractive to sponsor these fighters.

    In the short run, this still screws over fighters. But in the long run, it could lead to much larger sponsorship deals. And in the world of advertising, $100,000 is really basically nothing. All it is doing is weeding out the small guys who really shouldn’t even be on a UFC Telecast to begin with.

  14. Rob Maysey says:

    The percentages are in the CBAs. Not pulled from any behind. They are for public consumption, and they are accurate.

  15. 45 Huddle says:

    I wasn’t doubting the source of the 53% to 59%. I was doubting how Ivan knew that those numbers that you gave also translated to the UFC’s financial situation. Which Ivan likely has zero proof of.

  16. Rob Maysey says:

    45 Huddle–if the only goal was to weed out small sponsors, they could accomplish the same thing by requiring certain rates for certain placements on the fighter–and this way, the fighters get the payments.

    Again, I ask, is this the role of the promoter?

    This action certainly doesn’t appear to be solely about protecting the premium brand.

  17. 45 Huddle says:

    Rob Maysey,

    From an administrative viewpoint, that is way too much hassle. They would have to verify the transactions for each sponsor. The way they are doing it is much easier. The company pays the fee to them, and then they would have a master list. From there, fighters can use anybody on that master list to get to sponsor them. It’s a centralized way of doing things, and much more cost and time effective then what you are saying they should do instead.

    As for the promoter role… I don’t think there is any denying that they are much more then that. They won’t admit to it for legal purposes, but they are the promoter, defacto sanctioning body, and basically everything else.

  18. Rob Maysey says:

    Thank you for the reply 45.

    Not much of a hassle at all–no more than what currently exists. They already vet sponsors ahead of time anyway–wouldn’t add more than 10 seconds to the process.

    It appears they want to control access, and control who has access to that access.

    Agreed with your last comments entirely–you are correct. They are wearing numerous hats, but won’t actually say so.

  19. Alan Conceicao says:

    Its cost effective only from the standpoint of the promoter, who really shouldn’t be involved in the process of sponsoring fighters. That should be the job of the manager and the fighter. So its not really to anyone’s benefit but the UFC’s, which I think is MMAPayout Guy’s point.

  20. Ultimo Santa says:

    This is greed, pure and simple.

    It’s Gordon Gecko, Ronald Regan-style capitalism where the top 1% gets richer and richer while everyone else makes the same (or less) in the process.

    UFCs monopoly, as we’ve all discussed before, puts them in the same situation as the WWE where they can basically treat all but their top-tier employees like dirt.

    It’s unfortunate that for the most part, the US views this type of cruelty as “business as usual”, and not what it really is.

  21. The Gaijin says:

    Just another chink in the armor of the “well the fighters make $X/year off sponsorship alone” argument. When you start cutting the fighters off from being able to go out and get sponsors on their shorts, corner banners, t-shirts, hats, etc. you’re taking directly from the fighters’ pockets…and apparently lining your own in the process.

  22. [...] Zack Arnold over at FightOpinion.com makes a good point about limiting a fighters access to Sponsors. I know and understand that sports leagues like MLB and the NFL have certain sponsorship deals with companies for uniforms and so forth. However, athletes in these sports are paid full time (seasonal), have benefits, insurance, etc. By going after so many sponsors in the manner that UFC is doing, this is pure divide-and-conquer politics at its worst in terms of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.[FightOpinion] [...]

  23. Mark says:

    This is stupid. Who even remembers (or cares) what endorsements fighters have? The only ones that stick out are things like laughing about how gay it looks for a man to have “Condom Depot” written on his ass. I guarantee nobody can name what sponsors Diego and Clay had last week without re-watching the fight.

    This is going to suck for the up and coming guys. Who is going to want to spend 100K on some prelim fighter?

    It’s not like with NASCAR where the sponsors are going to be tied in to the official merchandise so you want high-end sponsors. The sponsors clearly reflect on the fighter, not the company. And this same company not too long ago was proud to have Mickey’s Fine Malt Liquor as their #1 corporate sponsor, which was far more embarrassing than anything a fighter can wear on his t-shirt.

  24. 45 Huddle says:

    Speaking of NASCAR, there is nothing more white trash then seeing cars racing around in a circle with 100 different sponsors on it.

    I don’t mind seeing a fighter with one big sponsor and maybe two secondary ones. But when a fighter has like 15 sponsors on his little sheet behind him, it does come across as trashy.

    Keep in mind, everything that happens inside the cage makes people perceive the UFC in a specific manner. This is likely why they are trying to get control on this. The $100,000 amount just wrecks the local advertisers.

  25. Mark says:

    Then name me what Diego and Clay had without re-watching if it is so noticeable. Nobody gives a shit, they just want to watch the sport. Most people can’t even tell you what was on the mat after its over.

  26. 45 Huddle says:

    I don’t have to know which fighter had Condom Depot on his shorts for it to have a negative impact on the UFC’s image.

    An advertiser is to a certain extent a status symbol for what they are advertising to. Even specific cars are marketed to different shows and programing due to this perception.

    Having a bunch of local advertisers, to a real casual viewer, does not help the UFC, no matter who is wearing it.

    This is a direct way to get rid of those lesser advertisers. They want more Bud Lights and Harley Davidson’s. And it doesn’t matter if it is on the mat being paid to the UFC or on GSP’s behind being paid to GSP himself.

  27. Alan Conceicao says:

    They might want more Bud Lights and Harley Davidsons, but they’re not going to get them by demanding $100,000 up front to sponsor. Why would advertisers line up for something that cost only what space on a fighters shorts was worth weeks prior when it now costs 6 figures to even get a sniff?

  28. Body_Shots says:

    I wonder if this $100,000 license fee is only for this upcoming event? (UFC 100) I mean they’re already trying to milk every penny they can out of it already…it actually kind of makes sense to charge more for an event this huge in their company.

    Ads definitely aren’t charged the same rate for a regular season game compared to the Superbowl.

    If it’s just for this event I have no problem with it whatsoever. They have 2 PPV kings on their card already, one that they’re grooming for the future (in Bisping)and a whole show (TUF) dedicated to this one event. The overhead must be higher for this fight than it’s been for any other. It’s actually quite smart (imo).

    To be honest, I can’t see them continuing with the policy though, even if they wanted to. I just don’t think they’re big enough to get sponsors to pay them that much.

  29. [...] the start of that stuff MMA Junkie was talking about a while back. Everyone over at FightOpinion is flipping the fuck out. Personally, I think it’s too early to jump onto the “UFC is fucking over [...]

  30. Jesse says:

    This reminds me of the fight Jim McMahon had with the NFL back in the day — he wanted to wear the headband of a company that was not an official sponsor of the NFL and the Commish either threatened to fine him or actually fined him over it.

    The bigger issue for fighters in my opinion are the purses. They need to get a critical mass and force the UFC’s hand. Of course, fighters are fighters — many of them are not exactly collective-minded, so it is debateable whether this will actually ever happen.

  31. IceMuncher says:

    “Why would advertisers line up for something that cost only what space on a fighters shorts was worth weeks prior when it now costs 6 figures to even get a sniff?”

    Because it’s worth it.

  32. Alan Conceicao says:

    Then why aren’t they there now? The UFC just held an event, what, 5 days ago? I’m pretty sure if these companies existed they’d be on board already beyond Bud and Harley, who I strangely have doubts about wanting to sponsor Stefan Struve.

  33. 45 Huddle says:

    Budweiser, Harley Davidson, DirecTV, EA Sports, Budger King, and major blockbuster movies. I would say that is a very good list.

    They are missing a major car sponsor, but there was just an article on ESPN about how NASCAR Drivers are losing their car sponsorships because of the financial issues.

    To get more sponsors, they need to pave the way for it to happen. By not allowing the smaller advertisers on the same program, it makes it much more likely.

  34. Croatian Strength says:

    This seems like it would really hurt the quality of up and coming fighters the UFC attracts – if people are being paid $7000 and $7000 and then lose out on a few thousand in sponsorship, they’ll need full time jobs to support themselves (or be at the mercy of the unreliable locker room bonuses).

    I can see them wanting to squeeze out the clothing companies due to their links with Tapout, and what happened with Affliction.

  35. Alan Conceicao says:

    I haven’t seen BK or DirecTV sponsor fighters yet though. I doubt its because they were getting locked out by Condom Depot.

  36. IceMuncher says:

    “Then why aren’t they there now? The UFC just held an event, what, 5 days ago? I’m pretty sure if these companies existed they’d be on board already beyond Bud and Harley, who I strangely have doubts about wanting to sponsor Stefan Struve.”

    I saw lots of companies 5 days ago, and we’ll still see several companies at UFC 100. That 100k lets a company sponsor as many fighters as they want for an entire year. For you or me that seems like a lot of money, but for a company that’s not much, given the exposure the UFC provides. For most of these companies, advertising during the UFC broadcast is what gets them a lion’s share of their business. They’ll happily pay the $100k, because they’ll make more money then they would if they didn’t pay it.

    To give you some perspective on the money involved, Thiago Alves, who at this point is a top contender and probably not one of the top 10 most popular fighters in the UFC, got a CAR from one of his sponsors, pretty much out of the blue the way he tells it. That company isn’t going to balk at $100k per year. Several sponsors have an entire stable of fighters that they pay $5k or $10k (or higher) per pop, and while the $100k isn’t insignificant, they’ve probably already sent the check in the mail as we speak.

  37. Alan Conceicao says:

    Ice, none of what you said was an actual response to my question: Why would a $100,000 entrance fee get more advertisers to come into the sport than the previous more free market approach was able to manage?

  38. szappan says:

    Simple question, I did a search for it but couldn’t see if it’s been answered already (if so, I’m sorry)… but is this fee PER FIGHTER? or just the right to sponsor fighters overall? Because if it’s per fighter, then even companies like Tapout would be pissed.

    Also, is a one time fee? is this an annual fee? Because it can’t possibly be per event…

  39. The Gaijin says:

    ^ Why would he answer the 800lb gorilla question, when he can asininely banter on about whatever it is that he’s trying to say?

    If they weren’t going to advertise while it was “FREE” – why would they advertise when it costs $100k to come to the table?

    Exactly. These companies are willing to pay a fighter(s) $5-10k + to be on their shorts, shirts, banners. Big companies like Bud, Harley, EA, etc. are quite willing to pay much bigger money to be on the mat or have their name repeated over and over (i.e. the “XYZ replay”). Are these the companies being locked out by the smaller fighting-centric companies appearing on apparel? Hardly.

  40. IceMuncher says:

    ^^^That wasn’t your question.

    “Why would advertisers line up for something that cost only what space on a fighters shorts was worth weeks prior when it now costs 6 figures to even get a sniff?”

    ^^^This was your question. You said nothing about “more” advertisers, you only asked “why” advertisers would agree to this. You should make an effort to clarify your positions, I can only reply to what you write, not what you meant to write.

  41. Body_Shots says:

    [Also, is a one time fee? is this an annual fee? Because it can’t possibly be per event…]

    I’d also like to know the answer to that question, I was assuming that this was a special fee for the UFC 100 event.

    If it’s an annual fee ($100,000 per event is almost too ridiculous to fathom)I don’t really have many qualms with it as long as the fighters are getting a cut.

  42. Joseph says:

    Ivan and Zach, mmalogic strikes again:

    Who? This guy:
    [url]http://www.fightopinion.com/2009/01/29/is-mmalogic-connected-to-zuffa/[/url]

    “WEC will have the best lightweights in the world as they do now. emphasis on LIGHTWEIGHTs.

    UFC is having a problem with too many stars and not enough belts.

    - The 3 round main events will be coming to an end.

    - recycling stars will be easier (see couture losing to chuck twice and reemerging as a bigger star at heavyweight, etc…)

    - more super fights (champions vs champions).

    - Increasing the competitive advantage the UFC and WEC have by many fold.

    - Competition wont be able to keep up.

    - More ROBUST talent pool for increase in shows.”

    “If this goes into effect as anticipated and not delayed BJ’s next fight will be his last at 155.

    There will be a new weight class for the Koscheks, diegos, and BJ’s of the world.

    The welterweight limit will change.

    There will be a new weight class for the Rashads, Franklins, possibly chuck, and hendersons of the world.

    If more heavy, heavyweights come on board the Randy’s of the world will have a new weight class. Forrest Griffin will have another option as well if his next run doesn’t prove fruitful.

    If youre a popular fighter and good enough to beat everyone in the division except the champ then either move up or down a weight class and give new life to your career.

    Eventually the WEC will have the best at 155 – and all this stupid talk of the wec guys wanting to jump to the UFC will stop as the 162 or 165 limit will be too steep.

    At the lower weight classes of 155 and down – maybe a few years from now – There will be a weight class every five bounds because the percentage will warrant it… so theres enough depth and width potential for the WEC.

    - No more 3 round main events…

    - Extend the life span of popular fighters.

    - Diversify so you’re not so dependent on just a handful of champs.

    - Start giving title fights on the overseas shows.

    - add additional barriers to competitors (competing with just a few weight classes is hard enough but now trying to compete will be even harder).

    The UFC is growing much faster than initially anticipated and Zuffas got a massive warchest so expect the guns to come out.”

  43. IceMuncher says:

    To answer your new question, it won’t bring in more advertisers, but the UFC will make more money. Like a wise man once said, if you’re good at something, never do it for free. Those companies were getting relatively cheap advertisement riding on the coattails of the UFC’s popularity, and the UFC has decided to take it’s share of the pie. Free market at it’s finest.

  44. IceMuncher says:

    From what I read, it’s an annual fee.

  45. The Gaijin says:

    I didn’t write the question, that was how I understood it and how I think it was meant.

    But you’re right – I can see the ambiguity, so mea culpa on that one. And I can’t really argue with your logic on “why do it for free”. I just think it hurts fighters and takes money out of their pockets – unless of course, this new revenue stream means higher fighter salaries.

  46. Joseph says:

    Controlling like the WWE is what it is. They want to have full control of their product, which now includes fighters. To bad they don’t offer benefits to fighters like all other orgs and employers out there.

  47. Joseph says:

    Ivan and Zach, mmalogic strikes again!

    Who? This guy:
    http://www.fightopinion.com/2009/01/29/is-mmalogic-connected-to-zuffa/

    “WEC will have the best lightweights in the world as they do now. emphasis on LIGHTWEIGHTs.

    UFC is having a problem with too many stars and not enough belts.

    - The 3 round main events will be coming to an end.

    - recycling stars will be easier (see couture losing to chuck twice and reemerging as a bigger star at heavyweight, etc…)

    - more super fights (champions vs champions).

    - Increasing the competitive advantage the UFC and WEC have by many fold.

    - Competition wont be able to keep up.

    - More ROBUST talent pool for increase in shows.”

  48. Joseph says:

    continued…

    “If this goes into effect as anticipated and not delayed BJ’s next fight will be his last at 155.

    There will be a new weight class for the Koscheks, diegos, and BJ’s of the world.

    The welterweight limit will change.

    There will be a new weight class for the Rashads, Franklins, possibly chuck, and hendersons of the world.

    If more heavy, heavyweights come on board the Randy’s of the world will have a new weight class. Forrest Griffin will have another option as well if his next run doesn’t prove fruitful.

    If youre a popular fighter and good enough to beat everyone in the division except the champ then either move up or down a weight class and give new life to your career.

    Eventually the WEC will have the best at 155 – and all this stupid talk of the wec guys wanting to jump to the UFC will stop as the 162 or 165 limit will be too steep.

    At the lower weight classes of 155 and down – maybe a few years from now – There will be a weight class every five bounds because the percentage will warrant it… so theres enough depth and width potential for the WEC.

    - No more 3 round main events…

    - Extend the life span of popular fighters.

    - Diversify so you’re not so dependent on just a handful of champs.

    - Start giving title fights on the overseas shows.

    - add additional barriers to competitors (competing with just a few weight classes is hard enough but now trying to compete will be even harder).

    The UFC is growing much faster than initially anticipated and Zuffas got a massive warchest so expect the guns to come out.”

  49. Joseph says:

    Somebody did post this up as a response:

    “I agree with the benefits outlined above, but do they outweigh negatives.

    By my count that is 13 weight divisions, 7 in the WEC 125 to 155 with 5 pounds between them and 6 in the UFC 165 to 265 with 10 pounds between them. Not as bad as the 17 in boxing but fairly close.

    First question, will it be possible for zuffa to maintain the top fighters in each of those divisions?

    Also, it looks likely that there will always be at least two other organisations outside of zuffa putting on compelling match ups. Right now there are four, Strikeforce, Affliction, DREAM, and Sengoku, but that appears unsustainable. If one is to take WEC and UFC as a whole, with the expansion you are forecasting there would be 13 champions. We could be faced with a situation where in 2 years time we have 39 different world champions from good quality leagues. That is not counting a few interim belts thrown in for good measure. Does this sound like the giant cluster fuck that is boxing right now?

    Am I wrong in saying that short term (1 to 4 years) this strategy will generate a pile of cash for MMA but long term (10 years) it may lead to stagnation as has happened in boxing. Is it a matter of zuffa saying a bird in the hand is better then two in the bush.”

  50. Alan Conceicao says:

    This was your question. You said nothing about “more” advertisers, you only asked “why” advertisers would agree to this. You should make an effort to clarify your positions, I can only reply to what you write, not what you meant to write.

    You’re right. I should have specified it to companies who previously weren’t involved. Not that it wasn’t fairly clear in the context of the discussion, but whatever. You recognize what I do, which is that its going to limit sponsorship opportunities for guys.

    To answer your new question, it won’t bring in more advertisers, but the UFC will make more money.

    I think everyone gets that latter part pretty clearly. The problem is not so much legal as it is moral.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image