FTC vs. UFC - Monopoly Investigation Coming

[Fighting Eagle]

This article is eye opening...

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/16996188/calling-out-ufc-is-a-losing-fight-but-its-time-to-step-into-the-ring

[Lucas]

Well its definately a start.

[Shaolin]

Maybe it's time for the UFC to turn into an organized league of sport like the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL instead of just a company.

[GeneChing]

Should have. Ever since the Strikeforce takeover, it's something that's been on my mind. MMA really needs one national governing body to be taken seriously as a sport. However, there are so many micro-leagues, that seems really far away.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Chadderz]

UFC is better the way it is. I do not want to see MMA go the way of Boxing, that is to say, fighters start ducking each other, won't fight unless certain rules are followed etc, etc... It's just stupid. Sure, fighters should get paid a bit more, but that's about it.

It's not an essential job, it's a passion that a few people get paid to do.

[Syn7]

UFC is better the way it is. I do not want to see MMA go the way of Boxing, that is to say, fighters start ducking each other, won't fight unless certain rules are followed etc, etc... It's just stupid. Sure, fighters should get paid a bit more, but that's about it.

It's not an essential job, it's a passion that a few people get paid to do.

Yeah but certain fights that should happen won't happen because they are contactually bound to stay in their own organizations. Like Fedor Vs. Couture. Fedor wanted more money than UFC was willing to pay and Couture was tied to the UFC and couldn't take it to another arena. That wouldn't happen anywhere near as much if it was set up more like boxing. Like Diaz Vs. StPierre, for example. That fight should have happened forever ago. I'm still skeptical. Seems like GSP may be at the tail end of his UFC career. We'll see I guess. I just have a feeling that he's alot worse off than his crew is willing to admit.

[Kevin73]

Yeah but certain fights that should happen won't happen because they are contactually bound to stay in their own organizations. Like Fedor Vs. Couture. Fedor wanted more money than UFC was willing to pay and Couture was tied to the UFC and couldn't take it to another arena. That wouldn't happen anywhere near as much if it was set up more like boxing. Like Diaz Vs. StPierre, for example. That fight should have happened forever ago. I'm still skeptical. Seems like GSP may be at the tail end of his UFC career. We'll see I guess. I just have a feeling that he's alot worse off than his crew is willing to admit.

That was the reason that Couture "retired" one of his times. He basically quit the UFC to fight Fedor and Fedor still wouldn't fight him. It's always easy to name a huge price to fight a guy when you know that the money will never be paid.

[Syn7]

That was the reason that Couture "retired" one of his times. He basically quit the UFC to fight Fedor and Fedor still wouldn't fight him. It's always easy to name a huge price to fight a guy when you know that the money will never be paid.

some would call it ducking.

im not a huge fedor d1ckrider but i dont think he was afraid of couture. what i think is fedor has a management team that thinks more about payday than their fighters career. fedor always seemed like such a nice guy, i never understood why he would let himself be managed by such gangsters. who knows... not me anyways.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You can spot the fallacy right away.

There is only one kind of coercive monopoly in America--government monopoly. A company like the UFC, though it does have its copyright issues and whatnot, is better off as a private company, and we are all better off as the viewers of that private company.

Why would any of us be better off if the UFC blended with one of the other hundred MMA leagues that went out of business because they were 1) bad talent scouts, 2) bad match-makers for individual fights, 3) bad advertisers, or 4) crappy businessmen who wanted to function on the Boxing model.

Socialists are always complaining about a fair wage and all that, but why do UFC fighters take their wages? Sometimes it's about name-recognition, side-promotions, etc.

How many Strikeforce heads were winning promotional contracts that were worth anything close to what Couture, the Iceman or any other guy was making? When is the last time you saw a Fedor commercial? Uriah Faber was an exception in the WEC--he was making mad promotions before the UFC. But even his career was probably saved by the UFC buyout.

There will always be a side-market for ex-UFC contract fighters or sub-UFC contract fighters. BUt the networks will have to be smarter about running their companies if they want to compete.

The last thing we need is a union of fighters with periodic lockouts and *****ing and whining about commissions and whatnot. LOL....the very idea is, well, enough to kill MMA.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Should have. Ever since the Strikeforce takeover, it's something that's been on my mind. MMA really needs one national governing body to be taken seriously as a sport. However, there are so many micro-leagues, that seems really far away.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

MMA needs ONE NATIONAL GOVERNING BODY?

Maybe a "fairness" committee? Maybe a "best practices" committee? Maybe "a takedown review" committee?

It's fighting. Plus, it's MMA. The idea of ONE NATIONAL GOVERNING BODY is what will kill MMA's appeal. We like it's decentraized structure. It's mercenary. It's still open enough that any guy with a good enough rep. can get in--he just has to throw hay.

Look at the NBA and NFL for instance. In the former, not so much the latter, it is taboo to take a player straight out of high school. He ought, so say the commissions in charge, waste 4 years of his life taking classes in cultural sensitivity at a division-ranked college, learning under sub-marginal coaches whose gameplans do not apply to the Pro's, and then--and only then--try to hack it in the Pros.
(it's practically the TMA vs. MMA argument rehashed)

And then there's Lebron, McGrady, etc.

Can you imagine what'll happen to MMA? It'll get watered down, clunky, slow, and--"organized." The fighters will get complacent and *****y. They'll review decisions after the fact. They'll set up a monopoly of accepted training facilities and coaches, and they'll turn MMA into a laughingstock.

Before you know it, they'll be doing CMA pointfighting.

But everything will be "fair," right? And we all know that everything in fighting ought to be "fair," right?

LOL....

[Shaolin Wookie]

As for "taken seriously as a sport," I think you're overrating the "taken seriously as a sport" part.

If you were to go back and watch the Detroit Pistons take on the Bulls in the late 80s, you'd be amazed at what the players could get away with.

Hand-checks, stepping on ankles, elbowing, pushing, etc.

You didn't get respect (by players, coaches, or refs) for flopping and taking charges every play.

These "protect the player" measures that "respectable sports" have initiated, which are--of course--popular with players, ought to be avoided like the plague by any successful MMA venture. These "protect the fighter" measures will eventually come out of a governing body.

The UFC knows what we like--we like the UFC better than its competitors, plain and simple. What would an ideal and perfect UFC give us? Well, compared to what? Compared to the UFC as it is? And if we "commissionize" the hell out of the UFC, what is the likelihood we'll get a perfect UFC?

Very small, if experience tells us anything about ONE NATIONAL GOVERNING BODIES.

Sure, an unjust call can **** of fans in football. But that's the stuff a rivalry is made of. "Review" just messes up the spontenaiety (sp?) of a sport. We want a rematch, and occasionally we want an unjust call (b/c in a fight sport, there are only two parties).

MMA is all about spontenaiety. Nobody is protected. You have to earn your rep, or you have to defend it at leasT (thinking of Lesner).

[Shaolin Wookie]

Can you imagine how boxing would have evolved quickly if the referee didn't step in every clinch and say--hey guys, break it up!

Maybe the boxers would have said--Hey, man, I need some more finger flexibility to handle the clinch. We have to refashion these gloves. Plus, my elbows and knees work better in this range.

And maybe some would have said--Why sit here and punch each other to death? Why not throw and wrestle?

Whatever we say, MMA is the culmination. It won't get better by being regulated.;)

[trubblman]

I havent read the article but its high time the UFC is looked at. The problem with the UFC is that it sets the wages, tells the fighters whom they can fight and wont let the fighters fight others under other governing bodies. The fact that UFC sets the wages in and of itself should be a problem. It's the same thing with NFL. The NFL was successfully sued for setting a wage scale. Congress gave them an exemption.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Once again--do you think an interleague governing body will do a better job?

If rival MMA companies cannot stock their cards with UFC-quality matchups, why should the UFC be forced to mix their cards with crappy fighters with bad promotions?


The UFC doesn't do anybody any harm by not being as crappy as all the sub-UFC leagues.

The sub-UFC companies will do harm to UFC by using government as a referee in what is simply a decision that we make--to favor UFC to crappy sub-UFC fights.

Fighting dirty = using Uncle Sam to achieve government intervention in the name of socialist-style "fairness."

The WEC was doing a great job for a while, but their focus on lighter than heavyweight fights was a mistake from a marketing standpoint--and perhaps also their basis on cable. Why should the UFC be forced to become a crappy company just to create 30 more crappy MMA groups?

Remember---the UFC was a long time in hte making. Go back and watch UFC 1-10. The company had NO IDEA what it was doing. They had boxers fighting with 1 glove, "too deadly to spar" cats who didn't know anything more than TKD, etc. The UFC got better precisely because it wasn 't being regulated.

That is the joy of MMA. It is constantly in flux, and any "stasis" achieved by regulation--whether by fighters, coaches, or leagues--gets overthrown.

MMA is literally a microcosm of free-market theory--adaptation, flexibility, innovation. It's the American way.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Every decision has a cost.

A fighter can take a pay cut fighting for the UFC, for sure. But when he blows up, he blows up big and continues to make good purses on a regular basis. He also gets promotions and side-deals. Nevermind what these fighters make monetary-wise when they set up their own MMA "thinktanks" and call them schools/teams. These guys are literally pouring their sweat and blood into creating one of the most effect martial arts curriculums in existence. These guys don't teach because they cannot "do." They can "can" and they do "do."

Too many regulations will KILL the sport. You'll get congressmen and commissioners trying to set standards for martial arts--that is, you'll get the usual TMA BS. MMA in many states has had to fight Uncle Sam just to legalize the sport, for Christ's sake! Why would anyone want to bring those useless lumps of trash back into the equation?


Try your luck with another company/league. You won't get the repeat purses and media blowup.


And as we all know, fighters love personal recognition.

Troll the forums for awhile, and you'll see how people pimp their lineages.;)


**I admit, I'm biased. I'm a free-market anarchist like Lao-Tzu. I'm not into the Shaolin style of surivival (kowtow to Dear Leader, comply with regulations, always back down, sacrifice tradition to the party line)...LOL.

[wenshu]

I guess you could call Cosa Nostra a monopoly.

[GeneChing]

"218 cases of CTE in the past eight years"


Congress urged to provide more oversight to UFC and mixed-martial arts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/boxing-mma-wrestling/congress-urged-to-provide-more-oversight-to-ufc-and-mixed-martial-arts/2016/12/08/af9b7ea8-bd7e-11e6-ac85-094a21c44abc_story.html?utm_term=.6ccf42325eca)

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/12/08/Production/Daily/Sports/Images/UFC_205_Mixed_Martial_Arts-ffe28-1518.jpg?uuid=ZAoklr2GEeashQlKIcRKvA
Referee Dan Miragliotta stops a bout between Tim Boetsch and Rafael Natal at UFC 205 in New York on Nov. 12. Congress is being urged to provide more regulation of mixed-martial arts. (Julio Cortez/AP)
By Rick Maese December 8 at 3:41 PM

One of UFC’s earliest and biggest stars took to Capitol Hill Thursday to criticize what he called a flawed business model used by his former employer, urging Congress to amend federal law to provide more oversight to the mixed-martial arts world.

Former heavyweight champion Randy Couture told members of the House Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade subcommittee the deck is stacked against MMA fighters and they have little bargaining power, largely because the promoter and the sanctioning body are one and the same.

Promoters, such as UFC, the largest and most successful MMA operation in the world, create the fights, draw up rankings, award titles, determine purses and generate intrigue for certain bouts and pay-per-view shows. Fighters, meanwhile, have to fight exclusively for one organization and “have to sign a contract signing away a lot of their ancillary rights.”

“If you’re not a Ronda Rousey or a Conor McGregor, you’re getting the shaft,” Couture, a frequent critic of UFC’s business practices, said following Thursday’s hearing. “Everybody below that that’s not in the top echelon is struggling. It’s not going to get better; it’s going to get worse.”

Thursday’s discussion was an informational hearing that could lay the groundwork to re-examine the Muhammad Ali Act. Passed in 2000, the Ali Act was considered landmark legislation for boxing, aimed at protecting fighters both in and out of the ring, while also providing better oversight of the sport. Since then, MMA has grown in popularity but has been able to operate outside the terms of the Ali Act.

In May, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) introduced a bill that would extend boxing reforms to combat sports. Mullin said following Thursday’s hearing that he’ll reintroduce the bill the first week of January, shortly after Congress reconvenes, and he’s hopeful the measure can work its way through the Energy and Commerce committee and eventually reach the House floor next year.

Mullin sees the bill as a bipartisan measure that faces just one big roadblock: the UFC.

“The UFC is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against their fighters, and I really wish they’d be spending that money paying their fighters,” said Mullin, an Oklahoma businessman who briefly competed as a professional MMA fighter. “If the sport is going to survive, it’s only going to survive if you take care of the fighters and the promoters, too. . . .The MMA doesn’t exist without fighters.”

UFC issued a statement Thursday, making clear its stance on congressional oversight or any changes to the Ali Act that might cover MMA.

“UFC continues to believe the federal government would have no productive role in regulating MMA promotions or competitions,” the organization said. “In addition to the organization’s standard health and safety practices, each state actively regulates MMA bouts to create an atmosphere that promotes the safety and well-being of the competing athletes.”

Not all members of the subcommittee came to Thursday’s hearing with Mullin’s understanding of the MMA world’s inner-workings. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she is not a fan of the sport but does care about workers’ rights and safety.

“You don’t have to be an MMA fan to recognize the need for greater negotiating power and stronger protections for MMA fighters. . . .The lack of leverage they have in their contract negotiations is, frankly, pretty shocking,” she said.

Couture explained to the panel that if the Ali Act was amended to also encompass MMA, contracts would be standardized, an independent agency could determine rankings and titles, fighters could operate in a free market and promoters wouldn’t face inherent conflicts of interest. The current structure gives all the leverage to UFC and the vast majority of fighters, Couture said, aren’t getting a fair cut. He estimated UFC, which was sold this year to a group led by the talent agency WME-IMG for more than $4 billion, takes in 90 percent of the revenue and shares a small fraction with the fighters.

“A machine is basically printing money for them,” he said. “They don’t want to give up that structure and that power that’s allowing them to do the things they’re doing [and] kind of hold an iron fist over the sport.”

[Archives: How Jeff Novitzky went from anti-doping cop to UFC exec]

Couture was one of the UFC’s biggest stars, holding a half-dozen world titles before he retired in 2011. He clashed in the past with UFC President Dana White, and his appearance on Thursday’s panel was not without controversy. Mullin had said the UFC threatened to boycott the subcommittee hearing if Couture was involved.

Jeff Novitzky, UFC’s vice president of athlete health and performance, represented the Las Vegas-based company at the hearing. He spoke on safety and anti-doping measures but said little about the Ali Act. Novitzky did express concern that an open market could unfairly pit a UFC fighter against another competitor who’s subject to different safety and anti-doping standards.

In addition to Couture and Novitzky, the subcommittee also heard from Dr. Anne McKee, the Boston University researcher who’s credited with much of the groundbreaking chronic traumatic encephalopathy discoveries in recent years. McKee said her team has identified 218 cases of CTE in the past eight years. She told the panel that she’s only examined the brain of one MMA fighter – a 27-year old who committed suicide. That fighter’s brain showed evidence of CTE, she said.