- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
- Messages
- 18,796
- Reaction score
- 1,430
Join date Feb 12 and already banned
This fool didnt last 2 weeks
Join date Feb 12 and already banned
Scummy fucking organization.https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/2/...d-was-never-really-a-thing-in-the-first-place
This is disturbing. From what I understand, originally the Reebok pay was to wear the exclusive Reebok brand during fight week.
Now, this pay could potentially be withheld for "misconduct". So basically, no more compensation for the uniforms (in place of sponsors), this pay is for behaviour and media obligations. The Reebok Sponsorship is essentially gone, and the money is being redistributed under new rules and guidelines, not associated with the Reebok deal.
My understanding was that media obligations have always been understood when contracts were signed, that fighters had to do it as part of the promotion for the fight, uncompensated. Now, they're "being compensated for media obligations" but it's just the Reebok money, and the potential is there to be withheld. So when Conor didn't show up for his conference that one time, in theory he would have lost his "reebok pay".
-----
The promotional guidelines document reads that sanctions on the fight week incentive pay could be imposed if a fighter is involved in criminal offenses; “inappropriate physical, verbal and online behavior;” “violent, threatening or harassing behavior;” and more.
“Now they’re not only saying what you do when you’re representing the UFC, now they’re saying you could get in trouble in your own personal life and we’re gonna impose these sanctions on you,” Middlebrook said. “And so not only now are they reaching out and saying you have to wear Reebok while you’re fighting for us, you have to wear it during the fight week. Now they’re saying if you get in trouble in your personal life outside of working hours and we could impose discipline on you as well. To me, if that doesn’t scream employee, I don’t know what does.”
Middlebrook said the Reebok deal — which, in his estimation, amounts to a fighter uniform — and specific promotional duties separately are more in line with how companies treat employees, not independent contractors. The promotional guidelines and the UFC saying it now has the ability to fine the “fight week incentive pay” — which was once known to fans as Reebok money — amounts to discipline different than what independent contractors would expect.
-----
Furthermore, UFC denies the money was ever for wearing the Reebok gear:
------
“Athletes were never compensated for wearing Reebok,” the official said. “Athletes received Athlete Outfitting Policy payments for complying with UFC’s Athlete Outfitting Policy. Athlete Outfitting remains an important pillar of the fight week experience.”
Now, that same money has been rolled up into three different things — outfitting, code of conduct and promotional duties — and all or part can be taken away if rules are violated.
------
Just a regular fine system--the difference is its agreed to between the players and NFL, through the CBA.what does nfl have in place ?
basketball ?
just curious
Tax returns don’t show itemized per event dollar figures.And Rogan saw the tax returns for it. Are you going to dispute Rogan too?
only benefits the company bottom line? what are you talking about?Notice the shit he post only benefits the company bottom line and not the fighters?
Yes. But giving how you have to behave now, what you have to dress and what you are allowed to do and what not do would check all boxes even in the US, wouldn't it?
All sponsors; it demonstrates how terrible the Reebok deal was if a fighter outside the top ten can get at least $100,000 per fight, but the deal was never brokered with the fighters in mind, it was brokered to make the UFC look more mainstream and less like a niche product so that when they sold the company they'd get a better offer.
no we don't. the market got way smaller after the reebok deal happened. companies didn't want to sponsor fighters anymore because it wasn't worth it anymoreWell if its all sponsors its a misleading number
They can still have their usual sponsors and endorsements
What they lost was fight night on kit sponsors
So we need to know what percentage of that 100k came from short sponsors
what does nfl have in place ?
basketball ?
just curious
Does that seem like a fair deal?
You're operating under the (false) assumption that fight night sponsors and non-fight night sponsors weren't mutually exclusive; they were, unless you were a huge name like GSP who remained sponsored by Under Armour after retiring. There's no possible way to argue that the Reebok deal helped more fighters than it hurt.Well if its all sponsors its a misleading number
They can still have their usual sponsors and endorsements
What they lost was fight night on kit sponsors
So we need to know what percentage of that 100k came from short sponsors
You're operating under the (false) assumption that fight night sponsors and non-fight night sponsors weren't mutually exclusive; they were, unless you were a huge name like GSP who remained sponsored by Under Armour after retiring. There's no possible way to argue that the Reebok deal helped more fighters than it hurt.
And Schaub isn't the only one who made that kind of money from fight night sponsors: Bader made $80,000 per fight and Nelson made over $100,000 per fight.
https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2017/7/...-fighters-reebok-deal-free-agent-bellator-mma
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...money-he-lost-per-fight-thanks-to-reebok-deal
These figures also line up with what Jon Jones' manager said in an article back in 2010:
https://mmainsight.com/featured/ufc-fighters-sponsorship-earnings-revealed-by-mma-agent
So, you can either admit you're wrong, or I'll just continue to prove it with my responses.
I knew this Reebok deal was too good to be true for the fighters!