Why not a UFC monopoly??

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: atikiN
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:06 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

bjj_rage said:
atikiN said:
Yeah the soccer comparison isn't a valid one. UEFA is not a league, it's the European soccer governing body. Top teams compete in the Champions League because it gives them massive exposure and huge earnings. Winners not only get substantial monetary rewards but also bigger sponsorship and ratings revenue as well as a broader fan base. Teams like Real Madrid, ManU, Barca, Chelsea, Inter and AC Milan all benefit by playing each other. The UFC does not benefit by competing with other organizations.
The best thing we can hope for is that the UFC gets so big that instead of being a promotion they become a governing body and set up various promotions around the globe then have the champions from each reagion square off against each other in a Champions tournament.
Click to expand...
that will never happen, why? because its a PRIVATE CORP. A sport cannot be own by a private corp such as ZUFFA.
And regarding to the soccer example, youre forgetting they do not only play aganst each other, they also play against smaller teams, very small ones, and they do have the risk of getting beat and eliminated from tournaments.
Click to expand...
They don't play against random small teams though, they play against Champions from other countries in a prestigious tournament that's very beneficial for the biggest teams. Such tournament doesn't exist for the UFC to enter. It;s not benefitial for them to pit its champions against other organizations. I assure you if the La Liga and Seria A and to lesser extent the Bundesliga didn't exist, the EPL teams wouldn't be competing in the Champions League because there would be no point for them to sine they would be so far ahead of the competition in terms of talent pool and revenue.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:31 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

bjj_rage said:
that will never happen, why? because its a PRIVATE CORP. A sport cannot be own by a private corp such as ZUFFA.
Click to expand...
Sure it can. NFL (except Green Bay), MLB, etc. -- all privately owned.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: FURY187
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:38 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

I'm confused. Is monopoly coming out with a UFC edition or not?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Reako
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:47 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

There are many reasons the soccer model (though I still disagree strongly with rage about its makeup, all those innitials he threw out are clearly organizations promoting soccer and making money doing it, whether you call them a league or a conference means nothing) there is one major reason it cannot work the way soccer does.
Soccer has been setup effectively as a city vs city or country vs country sport. Each team has an inherant built in fan base besides the stray fans in other areas that decide they like them too. That is why it works, regional pride.
The same concept does not work in MMA. Fedor is huge in Japan, he is not Japanese. GSP is huge in the US, he is not american. While there is always some regional affiliation from a fighter fight fans in general support individuals not countrymen or atleast they do in the US and that is where the major money is.
If the major money was not in the US Affliction would not be banging their heads against the wall trying to get fans in the US to climb on the Fedor bandwagon. They cant make the potential money in Russia they could in the US. They cant make the potential money in Korea they do in the US. They cant make the potential money in Brazil they could in the US. They cant even make the potential money in Canada they could in the US though mainly because Canada simjply has a smaller populace then the US does. They couldnt even make the potential money in Japan that they do in the US.
This is how insignificant Affliction is in the grand scheme of MMA. They are still trying desperately to get the attention of the American audience while the UFC is going international trying to gain the attention elsewhere because they already have a foothold in the US.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Reako
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

FURY187 said:
I'm confused. Is monopoly coming out with a UFC edition or not?
Click to expand...
Your contract has been cancelled by the UFC, do not pass Dana White, do not collect $200

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: AgoniesCreep
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

It's a proven fact that power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absoletely. With the dirty deal Dana pulled on Jon Fitch (as one of many examples) I really don't want Zuffa or anyone to gain total control over our sport. Zuffa dosen't even acknowlege that Frank Shamrock (the greatest pre-Zuffa champion) ever existed. What about the fishy circumstances of lorenzo fertita voteing against sanctioning for UFC when he was on the NSAC (a move that slit UFCs throat at the time) then turns around & buys the UFC from SEG for 2 $million. I don't like monopolies in general & I don't want MMA to come under total control of any one group. When Pride was alive there was world class MMA comming from both organizations. If the Idea of WAMMA catches on then we can have our "worlds best dream matches" & there's no reason for it not to unless someone is trying to control it all.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Reako
Date: June 30, 2009 at 06:57 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

AgoniesCreep said:
It's a proven fact that power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absoletely. With the dirty deal Dana pulled on Jon Fitch (as one of many examples) I really don't want Zuffa or anyone to gain total control over our sport. Zuffa dosen't even acknowlege that Frank Shamrock (the greatest pre-Zuffa champion) ever existed. What about the fishy circumstances of lorenzo fertita voteing against sanctioning for UFC when he was on the NSAC (a move that slit UFCs throat at the time) then turns around & buys the UFC from SEG for 2 $million. I don't like monopolies in general & I don't want MMA to come under total control of any one group. When Pride was alive there was world class MMA comming from both organizations. If the Idea of WAMMA catches on & there's no reason for it not to unless someone is trying to control it all.
Click to expand...
I have a better chance of buying ZUFFA then WAMMA has of being successful. WAMMA was never anything more then a few guys at the top disgruntled that they never got their piece of the pie when the sport exploded after they put effort into the grassroots age of the sport along with several website journalists that thought they could be significant in the future realm of the sport. Since then several of those both on the slighted grassroots side as well as several of the journalists have left the org. The only one that really takes them seriously is Affliction and that is simply because they need WAMMA to give Fedor legitimacy to the non hardcores who dont know who he is so a pretty (not really) belt by an orginization with initials including MMA helps them in that avenue. WAMMA simply is not necessary. the ABC and the individual state athletic commissions handle rules and sanctioning while the promotions themselves handle event promotion.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ShadyCambo
Date: June 30, 2009 at 07:03 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Zuffa dosen't even acknowlege that Frank Shamrock (the greatest pre-Zuffa champion) ever existed. What about the fishy circumstances of lorenzo fertita voteing against sanctioning for UFC when he was on the NSAC (a move that slit UFCs throat at the time)
Click to expand...
Zuffa doesn't need to acknowledge F Shamrock. He's under contract to different org, he never fought under their banner, and you are just wrong in saying he's the greatest champion.
MMA wasn't MMA when NSAC voted not to sanction it. It was still NHB and NHB was brutal, violent and sick. It was "christians to the lions" entertainment for the blood thirsty minority.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: poppa_smurf
Date: June 30, 2009 at 08:41 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Oligopoly is a better scenario, with a few large powerful companies putting on rival shows you get a better product from them all as well as better pay for the fighters seeing as how most of them get paid a pittance.
As long as there is some form of cross promotion i see this as the ideal set up.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: MCM
Date: June 30, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

AgoniesCreep said:
It's a proven fact that power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absoletely. With the dirty deal Dana pulled on Jon Fitch (as one of many examples) I really don't want Zuffa or anyone to gain total control over our sport.
Click to expand...
It's moves like this that make me want ONE organization ruling MMA. If Zuffa of more accurately the UFC was the only game in town like NFL or MLB then they wouldn't be able to pull crap like that because the fighters would have unionized like they have done in other professional sports. If the UFC were the only organization to have the best of the best fighters then those fighters would be able to have a better say in how they are treated, paid, represented, etc... Look at it this way, Dana said he would not deal with Fitch over video game rights, but if Fitch were part of a Union, Dana would not be able to single him out because the rest of the Union would refuse to fight thus canceling any upcoming UFC events. There will always be smaller shows and local shows and minor leagues like Strikeforce, WEC, Dream but to have one organization with the best fighters in the world is really in the best interest of the top fighters as well.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: EccentricElixir
Date: June 30, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Their is no way the ufc can have a monopoly, even in the fighting sense, not business sense. How can it, they only carry about 200 fighters, and even as it is, most of the fighters dont fight enough. Most fighters fights 3 -4 times a year, some of them want to fight more. And they can only schedule so many events. This is a young sport, its not only growing in this country, its growing in all of the world, their is no way that in a few years, they will even half of the greatest fighters in the world, of course they will market it like they do, but it will be a lie.
And why would anyone want them too, fighters need to have a livelihood and compition makes it better for them and for us the strong fans. Why would you only want to watch say 2 ufc shows a month, when you can watch like 1 ufc show a month, then other promotions will get strong, plus you can watch like a strikeforce every other month, dream like every other month, wec every other month, pfc sometimes, dont buy into all the ufc hype. Logistally and for the betterment of the sport, we're better off with many strong organizations. Fairness.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Reako
Date: June 30, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

EccentricElixir said:
Their is no way the ufc can have a monopoly, even in the fighting sense, not business sense. How can it, they only carry about 200 fighters, and even as it is, most of the fighters dont fight enough. Most fighters fights 3 -4 times a year, some of them want to fight more. And they can only schedule so many events. This is a young sport, its not only growing in this country, its growing in all of the world, their is no way that in a few years, they will even half of the greatest fighters in the world, of course they will market it like they do, but it will be a lie.
And why would anyone want them too, fighters need to have a livelihood and compition makes it better for them and for us the strong fans. Why would you only want to watch say 2 ufc shows a month, when you can watch like 1 ufc show a month, then other promotions will get strong, plus you can watch like a strikeforce every other month, dream like every other month, wec every other month, pfc sometimes, dont buy into all the ufc hype. Logistally and for the betterment of the sport, we're better off with many strong organizations. Fairness.
Click to expand...
Well I do hate to inform you of this but this fairness concept is a fantasy land. Business is business and it is not the job of business to be nice to everyone.
There will always be room for smaller promotions but innevitably one org will be the top dog. This idea of several equally strong orgs having tea parties and cross promoting fight cards just is not going to happen. You will have the big dog then the smaller orgs will be there grooming up and coming talent who will then go to the major leagues so to speak when they are ready.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Crookie
Date: June 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

I read the heading of this thread and instantly thought u were going to talk about making a UFC monopoly game lolz
dunno how it would work but id def buy it =P

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Paint_Chips
Date: June 30, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Imagine if every fighter had nowhere to go except the UFC. Take Fitch's recent foray into not giving in to the demands of the company. Remember when he had a problem with giving the UFC lifetime rights to his likeness? If a fighter had nowhere else to go they'd have to give in to any demand the company wanted or give up their career. Possibly with a fighters union it wouldn't be all bad, but a monopoly isn't very attractive to me.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Shaunissey
Date: June 30, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

I would argue that an MMA oligopoly, similar to the years of PRIDE and the UFC would be best for MMA. In a monopolistic situation, the UFC would have complete control and be able to use this control to abuse the fighters. I am all for as many of the best fighters being in the same promotion, but at the same time, I am also all for the fighters. I think in order to maintain competition, and keep improving on the product, and expanding the industry, it is imperative for MMA to have competition. I think that too much competition is harmful, as in a boxing scenario, or recent MMA prior to the mass exodus of organizations is harmful in the long run, and I favor a situation that is modeled more on the early PRIDE vs. UFC type days. They allow for growth and maximize the product(by including a number of name fighters in each org) but they still allow for competition from a fighter standpoint so that the fighters don't make peanuts whilst putting their health on the line.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Reako
Date: June 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Shaunissey said:
I would argue that an MMA oligopoly, similar to the years of PRIDE and the UFC would be best for MMA. In a monopolistic situation, the UFC would have complete control and be able to use this control to abuse the fighters. I am all for as many of the best fighters being in the same promotion, but at the same time, I am also all for the fighters. I think in order to maintain competition, and keep improving on the product, and expanding the industry, it is imperative for MMA to have competition. I think that too much competition is harmful, as in a boxing scenario, or recent MMA prior to the mass exodus of organizations is harmful in the long run, and I favor a situation that is modeled more on the early PRIDE vs. UFC type days. They allow for growth and maximize the product(by including a number of name fighters in each org) but they still allow for competition from a fighter standpoint so that the fighters don't make peanuts whilst putting their health on the line.
Click to expand...
The NFL players made more money once competition to the NFL was crushed, the same with the NBA. A fighters union will come into play within the next 5 years mark my words on that one whether there is a monopoly or not it will be needed so you wont have to worry so much about the fighters being taken advantage of.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Shaunissey
Date: June 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Reako said:
Shaunissey said:
I would argue that an MMA oligopoly, similar to the years of PRIDE and the UFC would be best for MMA. In a monopolistic situation, the UFC would have complete control and be able to use this control to abuse the fighters. I am all for as many of the best fighters being in the same promotion, but at the same time, I am also all for the fighters. I think in order to maintain competition, and keep improving on the product, and expanding the industry, it is imperative for MMA to have competition. I think that too much competition is harmful, as in a boxing scenario, or recent MMA prior to the mass exodus of organizations is harmful in the long run, and I favor a situation that is modeled more on the early PRIDE vs. UFC type days. They allow for growth and maximize the product(by including a number of name fighters in each org) but they still allow for competition from a fighter standpoint so that the fighters don't make peanuts whilst putting their health on the line.
Click to expand...
The NFL players made more money once competition to the NFL was crushed, the same with the NBA. A fighters union will come into play within the next 5 years mark my words on that one whether there is a monopoly or not it will be needed so you wont have to worry so much about the fighters being taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
Yes, but both of these sports are team sports for one, and also are made up of franchises. There is a huge difference between marketing a team versus marketing a single fighter. For instance, in a team sport, it is easier for the home city to get behind the players, and also easier for fans to get involved because they feel like they are an essential part of the team. Whereas in a singular sport, it is much harder because it deals with an individual and their rise or fall, so it isn't as easy to build the same bond with fans or to gain the support of a city as easily. Another important aspect of this is that fans are loyal to a team, not a player, and when it comes to combat sports, we see how flippant some fans are because they maintain a similar mentality. So, while I agree that team sports can thrive as a monopoly, I find it hard to believe that a singular combat sport will thrive with the same path. That being said, MMA is of course a full contact sport, whereas football and basketball are considerably less violent and more palpable for the masses, and I don't think the same formula will work.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: grapplethis
Date: July 01, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

is there a tennis players union? or golf?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Reako
Date: July 01, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

grapplethis said:
is there a tennis players union? or golf?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily the best comparison since Golf and tennis run on the premise of several tournaments a year with prizes given according to your placement in the tournament. The one thing they do have similar areas though is sponsorships. Golfers and Tennis players make a good chunk of their money from sponsorchip deals outside of the game itself.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: grapplethis
Date: July 01, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/why-not-a-ufc-monopoly.14922/

Reako said:
grapplethis said:
is there a tennis players union? or golf?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily the best comparison since Golf and tennis run on the premise of several tournaments a year with prizes given according to your placement in the tournament. The one thing they do have similar areas though is sponsorships. Golfers and Tennis players make a good chunk of their money from sponsorchip deals outside of the game itself.
Click to expand...
it wasn't a comparison, i was just wondering.