
(The American Kickboxing Academy team poses during a Dethrone Royalty photo shoot. Yes, that is Josh Thomson‘s mean-mug. Photo courtesy of Combat Lifestyle.)
In the future, UFC fighters will only be able to wear Xyience t-shirts and Burger King hats before and after their fights. At least that’s how it seems with the way the UFC has been banning sponsors from the Octagon:
Okay, I get the Dethrone thing — the MMA apparel brand is associated with AKA‘s fighters, and the UFC is probably still salty over the video game likeness rights debacle. But Rolling Stone just made its debut at UFC 99, MMA Authentics was supposed to be dead to the UFC…and how are you going to steal One More Round from poor old Stitch? Don’t tell me he’s thinking of starting a rival MMA league.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any details as to why each brand is on the blacklist. Obviously this sucks for the fighters who are just trying to make a living, some of whom will probably have to scramble to find new sponsors for the July 11th show. (The long-suffering Jon Fitch, for example.) And that $100,000 fee thing? Ballsy, guys. We’ll see if anybody’s stupid enough to pay it, but that seems like a cruelly effective way for the UFC to shut out certain brands without actually telling them "you can’t sponsor our fighters because we don’t like you on a personal level."








Post your comment
Showing 1-25 of comments
commentsMaybe not the best example, but even Nascar restricts their sponsors, so I guess now we're as legitimate as a bunch of inbred hicks as far as sports fans go.
Whether it's right or wrong, it seems the UFC is trying to obtain the right to control as much as they can. Which I think is smart.
...There are strong questions of ethics and morals, and it probably sucks for the fighters right now...but what are you gonna do, go start a bright and promising career with Affliction?
DANA: Hey, skyscrape how you holding on?
SKYSCRAPE: Good bro. You know it's just crazy, one minute you're hanging with your dog and the next minute he dies in his Furrari.
DANA: Oh, I forgot to mention. You guys need to get your shit together and pay me $100,000 if Tapout wants to continue sponsoring fighters in the UFC.
SKYSCRAPE: ......
DANA: Get better, and the punch is fucking great.
While i agree with most of what you said, your first statement isnt really fair. Most non-team / single person sports (think golf,boxing,tennis etc.) you DO see people wearing whatever they want / whatever sponsors they want as long as its not offensive.
Of course you're not going to see team sports (NFL, Football, MLB) advertising on jerseys. Those owners OWN the stadiums. They advertise PLENTY. Compounded by the fact that the average MINIMUM salary of any of the major team sports in america is DOUBLE most of the best paid MMA Fighters in the UFC... the individuals dont NEED to advertise for themselves. Theyve made their money just for making the cut.
Really, those fighters were 40 million in debt trying to get MMA on the map?
/PimpSmack
While it sucks, it seems like they're targeting specific brands that are either quite large or using UFC fighters a LOT (like Dethrone) to promote their products. It's not like they're saying that fighters can't have their Joe Blow Chevrolet ads or whatever. It's big ticket sponsors who are trying to sneak in some cheap/free ads.
There's a lot of outrage on the internet about it, but really, there are very few guys who are complaining about their pay, and it's not like they don't have other choices. Plus, if they were fighting in Dream or Strikeforce, the big ticket sponsors wouldn't be interested because they weren't getting the exposure of UFC.
Having even fought in the UFC once adds insta-cred to your gym where you're selling memberships, your instructional tapes, and any random t-shirts/whatever you decide to lend your likeness to.
It's also interesting that in the same thread people will comment that MMA fighters don't get paid enough compared to MMA fighters, and then note that the superbowl gets 100x the amount of viewers of a big MMA event. There are a million different orgs to fight for, and that's why these fighters have managers to determine the pros and cons of each.
If it wasn't for the fighters leaving there blood and sweat in that cage the "UFC" wouldn't exist
Uhhhh, the average cost of a 30 second ad during the superbowl was $800,000. 97 million people watched the superbowl this year, and an average of ~90 million people have watched over the past ten years.
Today we salute you, CP resident Math Genius Swedish. Ignoring all factual, statistical, and common sense data, only you would think reaching 1% of the superbowl's audience for 1/8 the price is "not bad".
Im sure your thriving lemonade stand at $8 dollars a cup is a big success.
Douchebag.
They pay guys like Jardine 14,000$ to fight on main cards, fuck with them any chance they get (hey Fitch!) and the only steady source of income these guys usually have are their sponsors, so why not fuck with that too?
Oh well, I guess they will in return get more publicity on magazine covers. Oh wait, Im sorry... the UFC doesnt promote their fighters on magazine covers, they instead have aerobic instructors try to act tough on covers (your thumb goes on the outside when you make a fist Dona).
I dont care about brand and marketing, all I care about is seeing good fights and that the fighters get treated well for the work they do.
And as much as the ball lickers here would just want one organization, I hope that for this latest (and the previous) reasons, that the other orgs like Strikeforce and Affliction and Bellator do well. Monopolies never serve anybody except the monopolists.
Not at all.
It's like the fucking thought police. It's unfair for the UFC to ban any sponsor from the UFC. What purpose does it serve? Fledgling companies may end up folding if they're not allowed to get exposure from UFC events.
Honestly, if the UFC wants to prove that they're the best in the business. They should allow fighters any sponsor they want. I can understand approving fighter T-Shirts and the like, but to completely ban whole companies is another story.
If Dana White really wants to shit on Tom Atencio's chest, he should allow Affliction shirts back in the cage.
Yes, this is the way of capitalism. However, the way of capitalism is also that those who are greedy eventually get punished by the free market. History is littered with companies that were big, got greedy, and got killed by their competitors. And if the UFC continues to bleed other companies looking to make a living, eventually, those companies will turn on the UFC and support other organizations.
The UFC is sure throwing its weight around considering only 8 years ago they weren't on pay per view, and 5 years ago they weren't on television. They are on a meteoric rise, but how will they maintain that? By building relationships with the companies and fighters that help make it possible. If they're going for the quick payday now, so be it. But if they want to build for the long term, they should quit alienating fighters, product sponsors, and others whom they will need down the road.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Don't be surprised if in 5 years Dana White is out of a job, and the Fertittas are begging everyone to give them another chance while some other upstart company is the king of MMA.
What other major sports franchise allows it's athlete's to wear whatever it wants during competition?
I don't have a problem with the UFC seeking revenue for advertising - to a point. They sell signs on the octagon, and have Buffer weave movie plots into the pre-fight intros, they have sponsored replays, and the whole thing costs money to watch on PPV. That's all good, it's all their stuff, they should be able to sell it.
But to tell a fighter what kind of t-shirt he can wear to walk out and fight? I get restrictions on tshirts banning profanity, etc., but actually saying which brands are approved on the fighter's own clothing?!? that crosses the line, especially because framing the issue as "approved sponsors" allows them to control the fighters without bargaining for that control through a contractual agreement.
Smells like power gone wild.
Sign in
Register | Lost your password?
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Log in | Lost your password?