Reebok pay is gone. It's now promotion, conduct and outfitting.

DNgaLfjWsAUG0m-.jpg
Join date Feb 12 and already banned
<36>

This fool didnt last 2 weeks
 
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.

------
Scummy fucking organization.

What were their lawyers thinking? Puts them at major risk with the 'independent contractor' bs.
 
And Rogan saw the tax returns for it. Are you going to dispute Rogan too?
Tax returns don’t show itemized per event dollar figures.

When you grow up and pay income tax you’ll understand.
 
i don't see how this is worse. it pays them more.

the article references lawyers vested in taking a position against the ufc.
 
weidman.0.0.png


So now the UFC can withhold your sponsor pay for either not promoting your fight enough (in their opinion) or being a Twitter troll....
 
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?

No, not all of them. For the IRS, the boxes are grouped into three broad categories: behavioral control, financial control, and type of relationship (source). The UFC definitely hits boxes in all three categories. The IRS used to offer a 20-point checklist, which was frequently referenced in court, but has downplayed it more recently. UFC fighters definitely don't meet the criteria to be "probably dealing with an independent contractor," mostly due to the exclusivity of the arrangement. They definitely check multiple of the boxes under "probably an employee." Based on this guide, you'd definitely think they were employees, but again, it's been de-emphasized recently, and there are certainly some major boxes they don't check.
 
Marc Raimondi will be on The MMAHOUR today to talk about this. Looks like he's scheduled to be the last guest so should be on around 4:45pm ET if your interested.
 
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.

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
 
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
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 anymore
 
Does that seem like a fair deal?

"Hell to da fuck to da nah!!!"

That is an extremely fitting analogy. They used to send them deposits/hand them envelopes with "wearing Reebok during fight week" on it, now they have "don't show your ass, including talking shit about Reebok" on them.
 
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.
 
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.

but again, since the reebok deal, fighters still have sponsors, they are on twitter, instagram all the time promoting them

so of Shaub's 100k it hasnt all simply vanished.. a portion of it has..

but what portion?


you are operating under the assumption that they lost 100% of their sponsor revenue



that peice cites Benson Henderson who had exactly NO SPONSORS on his bellator debut..



"Bader said he lost anywhere from $20,000-$65,000"

between 20 and 65? could he get any more vague.. which is it, 20 or 65?
 
Back
Top