Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


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."

« | Home | »

Friday headlines (1/18/2008)

By Zach Arnold | January 17, 2008

Print Friendly and PDF

First, I wanted to let everyone know about a new site called MMA Memories. Check it out.

Onto today’s headlines:

  1. Yahoo Sports (Dave Meltzer): Gonzaga vs. Werdum a battle for position
  2. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin: UFC is not coming to Hawaii until at least 2009
  3. The Liverpool Echo (UK): Meet Paul Kelly
  4. CBS Sports: UFC 80 predictions
  5. The Telegraph (UK): BJ Penn set for Joe Stevenson UFC showdown
  6. MSNBC: Dana White – ‘I don’t think there is anything profitable about the European market’
  7. Setanta Sports: Network signs long-term deal with UFC
  8. The Republican (MA): Gabriel Gonzaga opening new school in Cambridge
  9. Yahoo Sports (Kevin Iole): Joe Stevenson wants to be daddy of the 155s
  10. The Telegraph (UK): UFCs are here to stay
  11. MMA Junkie: Interview with Brad Imes
  12. Jarry Park: Q & A with Frank Shamrock
  13. MMA Analyst: UFC 80 in-depth show preview
  14. MMA Madness: Interview with Dan Henderson
  15. TKO Xtreme: Pele coming to TKO 32 event
  16. Fightlinker: Zuffa owns the words “Cagefighting” and “World”

Topics: Canada, Media, MMA, UFC, UK, Zach Arnold | 63 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

63 Responses to “Friday headlines (1/18/2008)”

  1. The Gaijin says:

    “This is going to be a little complex, so try to follow along as best you can, ‘k? UFC, at this moment, is the public face of MMA. We all agree, right? Well, they aren’t paying guys like some at the top want, and so some guys are walking out. Basic, entirely obvious and defendable position based on their own statements, and I think we can agree on that also.

    Now, where the UFC can cripple the sport is by attempting to force their monopoly to such a point they impair competitor’s careers while alternately taking steps to increase their profit margin at the expense of making fights interesting to the mainstream audience. Randy and Tito want more than Dana is willing to pay, so he puts them on ice with his lawyers for as long as he can (possibly years, as it may be), preventing them to go to other promoters or promote themselves and thus open up the marketplace. Meanwhile, the UFC, now berift of guys people want to see fight, begins to market chiefly to the hardcore fans who will buy anything, giving them less than enthralling PPV cards more akin to what was on for free TV just a year or two ago and charging $45 for it. More revenue per household with roughly the same number of households and less money spent on fighter purses = more revenue and profit. And when fighters decide they want better, hey, go sit on that bench awhile and think about what you’re doing. We made you, boy.

    Boxing did that when PPV money for a midlevel PPV was better than what they’d get from HBO or Showtime (who priced boxing out of the networks) were going to give them. What were people saying about the health of boxing up until 2007?”

    Probably one of the best posts I’ve read on the topic, bar none.

  2. cyphronkd says:

    And his chief complaint is money. Naturally, the UFC isn’t about to restructure his contract or release him. See: point made by me.

    So that is the fault of the UFC? He signed a contract, and instead of fighting out the contract, he decided to act like a primadonna, don’t want to honor his contract, and so it’s the UFC’s fault for not agreeing to restructure his contract?

    He complained about Fedor…but also a lot more about the money he was making. The UFC isn’t looking to restructure his contract or release him. They’re hoping that a lawsuit can prevent him from fighting elsewhere. See: point made by me.

    Not honoring a contract and then walked out on it. This is the UFC’s fault for not releasing him from a contract he didn’t fulfill? How is that point made by you?

    Basically, you’re saying that when fighters don’t want to honor their contract, it’s all the UFC’s fault for trying to protect their own interest.

    To Tito Ortiz, who supposedly has a back injury he’ll carry for life and whom is putting his life on the line every time he fights, the risk being taken is all his, his is the name on the marquee, he’s the one who’s selling the shows off his name, etc. etc. etc. And really, Tito’s right. Because when Tito fights, buys go way up. Did he sign a contract with the UFC? Yeah. Was he happy with it then? Sure. He knew what his value was at that point (prior to UFC 60) and offered himself for it. Now he knows he’s worth a lot more. Ultimately Tito knows that no one will be there for him when he’s old and crippled. To act surprised or even consider him the villain for not fighting below his value is ridiculous.

    Then Tito should’ve signed a shorter contract. These contracts are not at-will contracts. These are principal/agent contracts. The agent must fulfill the contract because he SIGNED it. He knew what he was getting into when he signed it. Hell, I wish I could close my cell phone account halfway through, but I stupidly signed a 2 year contract. I wish I could walk out on it, but it’s a contract.

  3. D. Capitated says:

    So that is the fault of the UFC?

    If the UFC wants him to fight, ultimately they have to come to an agreement with Tito. If an NFL team doesn’t come to an agreement with someone holding out, same rule applies. A fighter has to look out for himself because promoters aren’t going to do it for them. What part of that is tough to understand?

    Not honoring a contract and then walked out on it.

    He’s honoring the contract by not signing a contract somewhere else and fighting there. Fighters are allowed to sit out contracts and employers are allowed to not pay them. Its when employers attempt to prevent future wages past the contract date (either directly or indirectly) that there become issues. 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?

    Basically, you’re saying that when fighters don’t want to honor their contract, it’s all the UFC’s fault for trying to protect their own interest.

    You’re creating a wildly one sided world here. You apparently want or expect fighters to follow contracts no matter what, even when they grossly underpay someone. Fighters are people like everyone else, except they can hire managers to tell them when they are worth more and when to start demanding it. This isn’t a one way street for anyone, including Dana White.

    Then Tito should’ve signed a shorter contract.

    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. You feel that market value or a fighter’s percieved sense of worth should never feed into this and I do. You’re okay with the meat grinder and I realize its probably not a good thing over the long run.

    The agent must fulfill the contract because he SIGNED it.

    Fufilling the contract means a great many things. If he chooses to not fight, he can do so. They are not slave labor, fighting at the behest of Dana whenever and under and conditions. Dana White has to measure what the demands are that someone returns to action with what consequences arise from altering the contract or not doing so and letting the fighter hold out. Obviously Dana White doesn’t care if these guys hold out and would even prefer that once their contract runs out, they still end up sidelined. Is that good for the fighters? Is it good for the sport? Is it something I should cheer and be happy about?

    The UFC can choose to do these things that they believe are in their best interests and yet still ultimately hurt themselves and the sport in general. There’s a long history of people wiser and more successful than Dana White fucking up sports much richer and bigger under the pretense of progress. Don’t forget that.

    Hell, I wish I could close my cell phone account halfway through, but I stupidly signed a 2 year contract. I wish I could walk out on it, but it’s a contract.

    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.

  4. cyphron says:

    You apparently want or expect fighters to follow contracts no matter what, even when they grossly underpay someone.

    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.

  5. D.Capitated says:

    Pay is what the market bears. It’s capitalism.

    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.

  6. Michaelthebox says:

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

    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.

  7. D. Capitated says:

    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.

    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.

  8. cyphron says:

    Without honoring contracts, commerce in this country would grind to a halt. But there’s no point in arguing with you. You’re right and the cornerstone of business and commerce in the United States and around the world is wrong. Contracts are meant to be broken in your world.

  9. Michaelthebox says:

    “You act as if signing a contract in sports is some sort of incredibly honorable thing.”

    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.

  10. D.Capitated says:

    Without honoring contracts, commerce in this country would grind to a halt.

    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?

  11. D.Capitated says:

    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.

    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?

  12. cyphron says:

    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?

    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.

  13. D.Capitated says:

    We were talking about CONTRACTS remember?

    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…

Comments

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