How Close is The UFC To Becoming A Monopoly

[hto63]

The UFC doesn't employ every single MMA fighter, nor are they the only promoters putting on fights.
If anything the UFC probably has less than 5% of all active MMA fighters on their roster. Just this last weekend 30+ MMA events were held around the world, while the UFC held just 1.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this thread...

It's not about the quantity of the events but control of the market. Look at it from this way and watch your attempt at logic crumble.

The UFC is already a monopsony and have been investigated in danger of becoming a monopoly in the US market before, they are already there as far as top tier MMA is concerned.

 

[Horse Meat]

Ben Askren, Michael Chandler, Eddie Alvarez and Eduardo Dantas disagree

You were able to name four guys. Just stop.

 

[ovbious]

If you go by the definition that matters, which is the amount of market power UFC has on the market, they are a monopoly on top level MMA.

NFL, MLB or NBA doesn't have the same type of control, since there are 20 or so teams sharing the control over salaries, ticket prices and other important economic decisions.

Anyone with half of a brain can see that, so yes.

 

[ovbious]

It's not about the quantity of the events but control of the market. Look at it from this way and watch your attempt at logic crumble.

The UFC is already a monopsony and have been investigated in danger of becoming a monopoly in the US market before, they are already there as far as top tier MMA is concerned.

I didn' write the word "monopsony" because I thought it'd be too much for people here to understand. By the concept people here use, there would be few, if any, monopolies in the world, which is stupid.

 

[Andre Xiong]

in 2007 with purchase of PrideFC and again in 2011 with purchase of Strikeforce?

 

[Post Crisis]

It's a done dada. UFC is MMA. Ask any Joe Nobody.

 

[lolcat15]

Seriously who cares? As long as the top fighters are competing against each other, then we fans win.

 

[kflo]

Depends on the sport. If you're talking about football, or baseball, absolutely. The reason being MLB and The NFL are subsidized by our tax dollars. "How could that be" you might wonder. The answer is that the stadiums where they play are paid for by the government, meaning everyone one of us pays to build those stadiums because they take the money to build those stadiums out of our taxes. So why would the government aggressively go after those organizations for being monopolies and try to destroy them when they are subsidizing them? It would be irrational. However, a sport like MMA that isn't subsidized by the government could conceivably be taken to court over the issue of them possibly breaking the anti-trus laws.

but they're not breaking anti trust laws.

 

[Non]

1. The UFC isn't a monopoly. The fact that it's the only MMA promotion you watch does not change that. That fact that it has nearly all the top fighters does not change that.

2. Anti-trust laws have always been applied only very loosely to sporting organizations, which by their nature tend to gravitate toward monopolization.

This.

 

[BrainLeakage]

Seriously who cares? As long as the top fighters are competing against each other, then we fans win.

Ahh, but the UFC seems to be taking another route recently. They don't keep/sign the best fighters. They seem to shift the focus more on entertainment than fighting results.

(Disclaimer: I do not think the UFC is a monopoly)

 

[ThatBJJGuy]

UFC is a Monopoly already

 

[ovbious]

1. The UFC is a monopoly. The fact that it's the only MMA promotion you watch does not matter. That fact that it has nearly all the top fighters does not matter. But the huge market power they have over top level MMA is the only thing that matters.

2. Anti-trust laws have always been applied only very loosely to sporting organizations, which by their nature tend to gravitate toward monopolization and the fact that NFL/NBA/MLB have 20 or so employers and service providers, putting a check on each other. The case with UFC is a lot different.

I corrected for you.

You don't need to thank me.

 

[mraa1]

lol

 

[kflo]

I corrected for you.

You don't need to thank me.

no, you just invented your own argument / definition.

 

[suffersystem]

Also, the UFC didn't exactly just buy out the other orgs, they were for sale already were they not?

 

[ovbious]

no, you just invented your own argument / definition.

Making it closer to the real world, unlike delusional Zuffa lovers opinions.

The free market is something that governments should make sure is not threatened by one or another company via market power.

That was spirit of the anti-trust when they were created back then.

Anyone could, in theory, be competting with the Rockefellers, but the real thing is not as simple as that.

 

[kflo]

Making it closer to yhee real world, unlike delusional Zuffa lovers.

The free market is something that governments should make sure is not threatened by one or another company via market power.

That was spirit of the anti-trust when they were created back then.

Anyone could, in theory, be competting with the Rockefellers, but the real thing is not as simple as that.

what gives them the market power?

why can't a fighter sign with bellator?

 

[The Real Pedro]

I corrected for you.

You don't need to thank me.

If the UFC is a monopoly and will be treated differently than other professional sports organizations as you claim, then why hasn't the FTC brought a suit against them?

So far, the folks in charge of regulating monopolies seem to agree with my take on the UFC rather than yours. I'm sure we can bump this thread when that changes.

 

[ovbious]

what gives them the market power?

why can't a fighter sign with bellator?

Do you know what market power is? I'll give you an example: how many people didn't buy PPV due to the $5 increase? If the trend is pretty much umchanged, then you'll a very rigid demand. That's market power for you.

As far as I know, Silva-Weidman was on all time PPV buys list, even with the price increase.

If bellator offers the same salary, and the fighter still choses UFC, it shows UFC has market power.

When you have competitors of the same level, both consumers and employees can switch from one to another more easily, with looser contract clauses. If you have market power, you can put whatever you want on the contract and the fighter will have to sign if he wants to compete at top level.

In football/baseball, there is always other teams with similar conditions for both athletes and consumers, making it a more competitive market. Do I need to make it more clear?

Usually, you have companies with market power over consumers OR employees, UFC has over both.

 

[CobraKia]

wasteland top nominee goes to TS, lol