To me this move will motivate the sponsors that do commit to the $100k fee to sponsor on every card in that 6 month span and to sponsor more fighters per card to get the maximum value out of that $100k fee. So I see this as having the potential to attract that higher level of sponsor that can afford the $100k up front fee and it will actually increase the amount sponsors spend on fighters. Sponsors will be committing to the sport instead of just doing one time deals like sponsoring 1 fighter for 1 event and moving on. I think it also sets up the potential “Clorox” type scenario we mentioned above. Since a sponsor basically has to commit to 6 months at least it could lead to UFC fighters getting more commercial ad campaigns that play out over that 6 month period.

That said, it depends on the sponsorship. Guys who sponsor a dozen fighters (i.e. One More Round) absolutely see the value in having a deal with the UFC in place. Or, at least, they should.

However, companies which really only have one or two guys with any visibility are still basically paying $100K for one, maybe two, appearances, and that’s not really good.

Of course, the UFC doesn’t deal with commercials during UFNs, Spike does. It’s a network issue. It costs a lot of money to get Mike Goldberg to say your name thirty-five times during an event, but the guys aren’t paying an additional $100K for additional support by the UFC, they’re paying $100K to keep everything the way it was before, which is a little annoying.

That said, I couldn’t care less about the money lost by t-shirt companies. If Zuffa wants to bend the companies over a table, that’s fine with me. However, fighters are going to suffer a financial loss as a result, and I’m not particularly exuberant about that.

The UFC held 10 events in the first half of 2009. So that would average out to a 10k per event fee. I don’t see that as being too outrageous when comparing it to what it would cost to run a commercial during a UFC Fight Night for example if one of the sponsors feeling left out wanted to do that instead.

The value to sponsor fighters is still there.

What better way for Forrest Griffin to get the blood off his fight shorts than using “Clorox”.

I can see it now a commercial with Forrest Griffin the day after a big fight doing his laundry. Using “Clorox” to get the blood off his fight shorts. They could build a whole ad campaign around it.

It’s what they do in NASCAR. They get creative in their marketing. So maybe the MMA Agents just need to get better at doing their jobs. Maybe the MMA Agents need to get more creative and start looking outside the box for new sponsors to fill the void instead of standing back complaining about the ones they can no longer use.

Also, the number of sponsors are being dramatically reduced. There aren’t as many companies that sponsor MMA fighters as there are looking to sponsor Nascar. I don’t think we’ll see “Clorox” printed on fight shorts anytime soon.

I understand the necessity for it in MMA at this point in time because of the level of pay. However looking at all the other major sports that isn’t something MMA fighters should take for granted in the future in my opinion. Whether that is right or wrong I don’t know. I just know looking at other sports what the UFC and other MMA Promotions are allowing sponsors to do in their sport isn’t the norm.

Allowing sponsors on broadcasts is more like the NASCAR model and NASCAR limits certain sponsors based on conflicts with their interests. No different that what the UFC is doing. It seems to be working just fine for NASCAR. The race teams are still finding enough advertisers to sponsor their teams.

Generally when someone’s added to the “banned sponsors” list, it’s not provisional. I don’t think that the online gambling companies will come off (because they’re being banned for reasons other than the fee, from what I can tell), but if the only issue with the t-shirt companies is the fee, then I can see that being resolved once the cash ends up in appropriate hands.

Matt, athletes in other organizations are getting paid considerably more and have a negotiated minimum wage with the league that allows players to live the lifestyle of a professional athlete (and some to live the lifestyle of a celebrity). Since there’s no fighters union, MMA fighters become dependent on the sponsors. That’s the big issue here.

Of course, I’m not advocating for a fighters union, but at least for some united advocacy in the sport in order to improve the pay. But we’ve already had this conversation.

Otherwise the only information I really see is they have added some names to the list of banned sponsors. Are those sponsors just banned from UFC 100 or all future events? What were they banned for? All of that would seem to be important information in all of this as well.

@mjs

“All the othe rmajor sports have league sponsors AND allow players to have individual endorsements. UFC should be no different.”

Your absolutely right mjs they shouldn’t be any different. But they are.

Here is where they are the same:

The UFC has it’s league sponsors just like NFL, NBA, and MLB. For the players of NFL, NBA, and MLB they can all have their individual endorsements outside of their respective leagues. The UFC allows the exact same thing for their fighters. They can have their individual endorsements outside the UFC.

This is where they are different:

The NBA, NFL, and MLB don’t allow any of their players to advertise on their broadcasts under any circumstances.

The UFC does allow it with some restrictions. Such as it can’t conflict with their league sponsors or their other interests.