epwar Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Dammit, knew I should have picked someone not as highly ranked as Benson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 Fear the Fighter still hasn't paid John Dodson for his fight at UFC 172. July probably can't come sooner for some of these dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Uh oh: Bloody Elbow reporters John Nash and Brent Brookhouse have been investigating rumors of a class action lawsuit against the UFC by former and current fighters. Bloody Elbow can now confirm through multiple sources that such a lawsuit is not only in the works but that a filing is imminent. http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/13/7387889/fighters-to-sue-ufc-for-100s-of-millions-in-class-action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVileOne Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Not sure how you prove the UFC has used its market power to cripple the free market. FTC investigated ZUFFA and that investigation was closed and saw they didn't violate anti-trust law. Buying Strikeforce or Pride FC isn't crippling the free market. Strikeforce was losing money and was put up for sale. Putting shows on the same night as other events isn't crippling the free market either. I could see benefits of this if it means fighters getting some better payouts or a bigger slice of revenue somewhere, but we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I'm wondering if fighters like Fitch and Okami might be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 14, 2014 Author Share Posted December 14, 2014 Not sure how you prove the UFC has used its market power to cripple the free market. FTC investigated ZUFFA and that investigation was closed and saw they didn't violate anti-trust law. Buying Strikeforce or Pride FC isn't crippling the free market. Strikeforce was losing money and was put up for sale. Putting shows on the same night as other events isn't crippling the free market either. I could see benefits of this if it means fighters getting some better payouts or a bigger slice of revenue somewhere, but we'll see. I am not sure how much movement you can get on the uniform thing since every other league dictates sponsor advertising inside competition except maybe NASCAR. If the NFL changes over from Reebok to Nike, you wear Nike and they can issue fines if you don't. The UFC has given lots of free advertising time to sponsors not directly linked to them, and it was of their own volition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVileOne Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I am not sure how much movement you can get on the uniform thing since every other league dictates sponsor advertising inside competition except maybe NASCAR. If the NFL changes over from Reebok to Nike, you wear Nike and they can issue fines if you don't. The UFC has given lots of free advertising time to sponsors not directly linked to them, and it was of their own volition. Yes but then you can say NFL, NBA, etc have player unions that agree on the deals. That being said, it's the UFC's air time. I never saw a rule or law written that UFC as a private organization has to allow all the fighters to wear whatever sponsors they want. I think people assume just because they had this before they should always have it. It's UFC's air time, and they can dictate what is on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 14, 2014 Author Share Posted December 14, 2014 I am not sure how much movement you can get on the uniform thing since every other league dictates sponsor advertising inside competition except maybe NASCAR. If the NFL changes over from Reebok to Nike, you wear Nike and they can issue fines if you don't. The UFC has given lots of free advertising time to sponsors not directly linked to them, and it was of their own volition. Yes but then you can say NFL, NBA, etc have player unions that agree on the deals. That being said, it's the UFC's air time. I never saw a rule or law written that UFC as a private organization has to allow all the fighters to wear whatever sponsors they want. I think people assume just because they had this before they should always have it. It's UFC's air time, and they can dictate what is on it. That's what I am saying. There is no CBA. It's a bunch of independent contractors. You have to unequivocally prove that there are damages and prove UFC has reaped the benefits as a result. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert S Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Not sure how you prove the UFC has used its market power to cripple the free market. FTC investigated ZUFFA and that investigation was closed and saw they didn't violate anti-trust law. Buying Strikeforce or Pride FC isn't crippling the free market. Strikeforce was losing money and was put up for sale. Putting shows on the same night as other events isn't crippling the free market either. I could see benefits of this if it means fighters getting some better payouts or a bigger slice of revenue somewhere, but we'll see. (...) The UFC has given lots of free advertising time to sponsors not directly linked to them, and it was of their own volition. Isn't the rule that sponsor have to pay 50k or 100k or something like that to Zuffa to be eligible for visible fighter sponsoring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 14, 2014 Author Share Posted December 14, 2014 That didn't apply to every sponsor. For example, I don't believe Dynamic Fastener ever paid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Cibernetico Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 This might have been a long term coming but the timing couldn’t be worse for the UFC. Obvious they are hoping more fighters will sign on because of the Reebok deal. Frankly i am not exactly sure if the suit will have any chance of success but with possible fallout with the Reebok deal and the bad S&P numbers they might be forced to settle. I hope they will be able to settle for a small amount and perhaps the mandatory institution of an fighters union (perhaps even including an renegotiation of the Reebok deal….and a potential breach of contract if necessary). Franky i do hope it does not hit the UFC to hard because the current state of MMA would not fare well without them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Whatever the outcome, I think the fighters need a better situation. What they really need is to be unionized. The UFC has periodically purchased all of its major competitors so options really don't exist for top tier fighters or fighters a step down from them to go elsewhere and make money. Sure Bellator will shell out some dollars for a few guys but that's about it. I just think if there's going to be a brand like the UFC and they're going to control all aspects of what goes on in and out of the cage including sponsorships, fighter pay, testing policy, etc., then the fighters need to unionize and negotiate these things and at least have a voice. Not to mention fighter pay. Edit: And again, fighter pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 And let's not forget the Reebok deal was done without consulting a single fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 15, 2014 Author Share Posted December 15, 2014 Steven Marrocco @MMAjunkieSteven now10 seconds ago News conference announcing class action lawsuit set for Tues (12/16) at 1 p.m. PT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 15, 2014 Author Share Posted December 15, 2014 Jeremy Botter @jeremybotter 6m6 minutes ago Plaintiffs and details for the class action lawsuit against the UFC will be revealed at a press conference tomorrow at 1 p.m. PT. Jeremy Botter @jeremybotter 6m6 minutes ago The press conference is at the Hyatt in downtown San Jose. SJ? I guess Meltzer has to go then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Jeremy Botter @jeremybotter 6m6 minutes ago Plaintiffs and details for the class action lawsuit against the UFC will be revealed at a press conference tomorrow at 1 p.m. PT. Jeremy Botter @jeremybotter 6m6 minutes ago The press conference is at the Hyatt in downtown San Jose. SJ? I guess Meltzer has to go then. I figure Cung Le will probably be the only guy on the current UFC roster involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 It has to be more than Cung Le I would think. If it's just a couple of a UFC names and a bunch of Bellator guys, I dunno how well this goes for the plantiff side. How can you argue a monopoly when you're working for a company that essentially bought themselves back into the MMA landscape and surpassed a bunch of wannabe UFC competitors in mere months? Having a three or four big names from the UFC (retired or not) would work way better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Yeah, we could see the likes of Baroni or Wanderlai on there. But of the current roster, I can't imagine anyone outside of Le wanting to be brave/crazy enough to step to Dana while under contract. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilwaldo Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I don't understand the idea behind the lawsuit unless it is a money grab from some good and bad former fighters. I could see some former fighters with money problems coming together for a lawsuit. Some of these guys are not the brightest bulbs like Nate Diaz. If they are talking about lost video game fees and the NCAA lawsuit they could be looking at the UFC because they are not unionized. They might be thinking that they fall under the realm of the NCAA players rather than the four major sports which have Player Associations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Not all that surprising but it looks like Jon Jones and Ronda Rousey have signed their individual deals with Reebok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Someone for the old DVDR Lawyer band might be able to answer this...could a low level UFC fighter sue for restraint of trade? Since evilclown isn't around, I guess the news later on today will have to suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Greg Savage @TheSavageTruth now6 seconds ago Here in San Jose for the lawsuit presser. Hoping to get some answers. Have seen Cung Le and Carlos Newton here so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Greg Savage @TheSavageTruth now5 seconds ago Media packet states that Cung Le, Jon Fitch and Nate Quarry are the participants in the suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epwar Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The folks suing the UFC are Cung Le, Jon Fitch, and Nate Quarry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianChris Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 How much they suing for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts