UFC president Dana White says EA Sports responsible for current MMA video game war

[Unknown Soldier]

Remember that UFC also pays their fighters more than all the other leagues so you can't really blame them. If you want to put criticism on the UFC, you have to do more so for all the other fighting leagues(WEC, MFA, MFC, SRP etc.)

UFC has done great imo.

Bring on Brock vs Lashley.

 

[Sonic]

I think it's critical to their business for them not making one fight deals and allowing the fighters fight elsewhere. Let's say Fedor comes in and beats Brock and leaves, that does not look good. I think their analogies are good. In normal working life, you work for the one that you have contract with and many jobs have clauses that prevent you working for the competition during a certain time period, sometimes those can be quite long. UFC also pays many of the fighters injuries and surgeries that come during training and not just injuries that come during the events.

Contracts like this should be wholly illegal. I see no reason why a company should have more rights than an actual living human being.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Contracts like this should be wholly illegal. I see no reason why a company should have more rights than an actual living human being.

I agree that there are some questionable parts in UFC contracts, but the one where there insist that the fighter only fights in UFC is the only smart thing for them to do.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Contracts like this should be wholly illegal. I see no reason why a company should have more rights than an actual living human being.

I'm not sure why it should be illegal. It's just like any other job. The owner sets the provisions for being allowed to work. The worker choses whether to accept those rules and work there.

If the worker doesn't adhere to those rules the business is free to let them go.

If the worker additionally signed a contract that stipulated terms, then that is certainly legally binding. If the worker didn't assert what he required in the contract before signing it then it certainly isn't the businesses problem.

In other words...

No one is "entitled" to fight for the UFC. It's a job. You qualify, perform and follow the rules or hit the road... Your choice.

The problems for sports leagues such as the NFL, NBA, and MLB in the past was because the clubs actually OWNED the players. The players were basically property. And the clubs could do whatever they wished with them, buying and selling them with no input from the players. Including having players blacklisted and prevented from playing on ANY other team. That was deemed illegal. Now players can have input on contracts including trade clauses, etc...

Regards,
SB

 

[Sonic]

I was making that statement in generalities and not specifically to sports. Those types of contracts with non-compete clauses should be illegal in all jobs. A corporate entity/business should not be allowed to have contracts where it limits an individual from going to work for a competitor in any single way. I understnd all the hoopla about trade secrets and what not, but that's what lawsuits are for.

 

[obonicus]

Shouldn't that apply to all sports, then? Or what do you do when a given sport doesn't use non-compete clauses, but because it's the only game in town?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I was making that statement in generalities and not specifically to sports. Those types of contracts with non-compete clauses should be illegal in all jobs. A corporate entity/business should not be allowed to have contracts where it limits an individual from going to work for a competitor in any single way. I understnd all the hoopla about trade secrets and what not, but that's what lawsuits are for.

I don't get it. If you work(non-sport) in a specific field for a specific company, as far as I'm aware you are not allowed to work for a competitor in that specific field. It's standard practice as far as I know, at least it is in my country. I am allowed to have a second and third job but it's not supposed to clash with the main job.

 

[Arwin]

It's not about having two jobs at the same time, it's about if you had a job for a certain company, they often want you to sign contracts that prevent you from leaving that company for a competitor at some point in the future. While this is understandable though, at least in the Netherlands these contracts do not tend to hold up in court very well. A number of reasons for this:

- if you get fired, there's no stopping you from going to a competitor
- if you leave and you're offered a job by a competitor and there's no job offer that's close enough in terms of required education, challenge, etc.
- if you leave and you're offered a job by a competitor at a significantly higher salary, there's no stopping you ...

Etc. This is not theoretical either. I've seen this happen a bunch of times. And the same thing goes for lease contracts by the way.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As far as i'm aware, they've signed a contract to fight for the UFC. I don't remember reading anywhere that they have to stay at the UFC till they finish. Infact I know some of the players have gone to fight in other leagues and have returned to the UFC. Frank Mir is a commentator for WEC but has signed to fight in the UFC, which is right in my opinion. The fighters sign up for a certain amount of time. Once they finished their contract, they can go sign up anywhere else if they feel the need to.

EliteXC and Strikeforce all have contracts in place I presume. Their fighters won't be automatically coming to fight in the UFC, that and because Dana won't allow it without a contract. It wise decisions.

Take Nick Diaz, he fought in the WEC before the UFC, then did a spell in the UFC and now is back at EliteXC, Strikeforce and what not. At some stage, i'm sure if he wants to go back to the UFC, he can do so but he'll have to sign a contract for that. I don't see anything wrong.

Again, how much do you think these fighters earn at EliteXC, Strikeforce, GFC etc. versus the UFC? I'd say a lot less. But that's my personal opinion.

 

[Mintmaster]

I think it's critical to their business for them not making one fight deals and allowing the fighters fight elsewhere.

I wholly disagree, but I'll indulge you for a moment. Do it like every other sports league and keep paying the fighter for the length of the contract. Also, the idea that you can perpetually extend the contract with the same compensation and same inability to leave if the fighter doesn't lose his belt is ludicrous. Randy Couture couldn't even retire from the UFC to fight elsewhere.

In any other sports league, exclusivity is agreed upon by the teams, not imposed on the player. If a player want to leave for a different league, he can, but he voids his existing contract and nobody else in the league can sign him. Moreover it only applies to team sports.

For individuals in sports, exclusivity is completely unheard of. Tiger Woods can leave the PGA tour whenever he wants to. Federer can play outside ATP events. Boxers can find another promoter/agent if they want to.

Remember that UFC also pays their fighters more than all the other leagues so you can't really blame them. If you want to put criticism on the UFC, you have to do more so for all the other fighting leagues(WEC, MFA, MFC, SRP etc.)

Other leagues have no access to the same fighters and hence can't get the same revenue. Only Affliction has any of the remaining well known good fighters, and they do indeed pay their fighters a much higher percentage of revenue. Competition is there, but the fighters can't take advantage of it. (FYI, WEC and UFC are under the same ownership.)

The UFC is basically trying to treat a fighter and his ability to fight as their own property. They're stifling the mechanisms of a free market.

 

[Mintmaster]

As far as i'm aware, they've signed a contract to fight for the UFC. I don't remember reading anywhere that they have to stay at the UFC till they finish. Infact I know some of the players have gone to fight in other leagues and have returned to the UFC.

That only happens if the contract expires or the fighter is cut. Otherwise they can't leave. Look at what happened with Randy Couture. The UFC took him to court (or threatened to) and said that his contract would not expire even after the 18 months of the agreement. If Couture was still HW champion, it would extend for another year. If he retired, his contractual obligations would extend indefinately. After expiry, if the UFC matches any competing offer then again the fighter can't leave.

The US must have some really shitty labour laws for this to all be legal, and if a guy of Couture's wealth can't find lawyers to free him, then it must be.

 

[Mintmaster]

If the worker doesn't adhere to those rules the business is free to let them go.

That's fine, but if you're allowed to fire a fighter for almost any reason (including one loss), then the fighter should be able to quit for any reason. If you're going to make a contract for X months, then you should have to pay him for that long if he doesn't break any rules, just like in other sports leagues.

If the worker additionally signed a contract that stipulated terms, then that is certainly legally binding. If the worker didn't assert what he required in the contract before signing it then it certainly isn't the businesses problem.

He asserted it, but he had no choice due to the monopoly.

No one is "entitled" to fight for the UFC. It's a job. You qualify, perform and follow the rules or hit the road... Your choice.

Nobody is saying people should be entitled to a job. I'm saying they should be free to take any job offered to them.

There's no IP or company secrets here, so it's immoral and against free market dynamics to own control over someone's skilled labour.

Shouldn't that apply to all sports, then? Or what do you do when a given sport doesn't use non-compete clauses, but because it's the only game in town?

Unions. If a union is stupid enough to make demands that will ruin a business and the owner is dumb enough to acquiesce, then tough shit for both of them.