Bloody Elbow

They have to listen to Fox. If Fox says no guns, there are no guns. Depending on when the news actually went out to the fighters, the only people in real trouble are the people fighting this Saturday, and if your agent was counting on the gun store (or can’t find a replacement) for a fight on Fox, you probably need a new agent.

Every sport has restrictions on what can be worn on official “league” events. Kicking out the gun sponsors but being seen on Fox and FX is more than a fair trade in my book.

Eaxctly spot on about the Why

The deal between FOX and UFC is going to be the cause of a lot of seemingly small changes like this gun sponsor ban. If you want to make it on network television and you opt to get in bed with a major channel, prepare for some changes, some watering down, and some political/social correctness.

Unfortunately, the way the UFC is structured, this DOES hurt the fighters. If the sponsorship honing continues, hopefully the UFC will increase the pay of the fighters on a sliding scale, so that the lower end guys get a good boost, mid tier guys get an average boost, and the top end guys see some increase as well. And honestly, I think that the Fertitas and Dana will try to make it right with the fighters because they do care passionately about the sport and their people.

What are you people thinking?

Are you children really comparing UFC fighters pay to other sports? NFL 1st yr rookies make well into six figures after 4 yrs they get a pention. These sponsers are how these fighters live and until these athletes are paid what they deserve Dana and Fox shuld leave them alone. The guys at the bottom are not able to get the big sponsers and there’s nothing any agent can do right now, the sport is just to new……

ejmma - January 26, 2012 reply

Where did I compare their pay? I compared their rules. You don’t get to where whatever you want wherever you want.

UFC had a choice, be on Fox, or have gun sponsors. If you can’t see that they made the right choice, I don’t think you should be calling anyone a child.

milliondollardreams - January 26, 2012 reply

True

Didn’t Marshawn Lynch actually get fined for wear cleats that had skittles on them after he was seen on the sideline with skittles in his hand? Football players get fined all the time for wearing something that the NFL doesn’t allow. Chad Ochocinco had gold cleats etc.

I remember someone in the NBA getting fined every game for wearing unapproved shoes

Because they were “his” shoe.

NFL players are all getting paid a lot more money than fighters though.

I don’t think the mid level guys today should have to do that. This sort of story supports the notion that pay should scale upward should a fighter find mild success under the UFC banner.

castleeb - January 26, 2012 reply

I just wish the UFC would increase everyone’s pay and then forbit anyone from having sponsors. I’m tired of everyone complaining about the UFC banning sponsors and what not.

Even if it is a restrictive business practice

what fighter has enough money to take on either Fox or Zuffa?

Couture did, when backed by billionaire Mark Cuban

Then the UFC paid him off and that was the end of that potentially precedent-setting case.

paythefighters - January 27, 2012 reply

Couldn’t there be something like sponsors strictly just for PPVs? Or would FOX put a kibosh on that too?

dv8shun - January 26, 2012 reply

They probably could stop that from happenning too as it would prevent them from ever showing these PPV shows on FX or Fuel…

Instead of helping fighters find replacement sponsors or ponying up the difference themselves they're going to hand out black tape for shirts and shorts

RVCA be damned!

Uhh . . . uhmmm . . . ask Rico Rodriguez about sponsors and MMA events

I’m sure he has some interesting insights.

VeeisAnimated - January 26, 2012 reply

That would never happen again... things are a bit more organized these days.

Just like for whatever period of time BUD LITE will be plastered on the octagon, you won’t see a fighter get a coors lite sponsorship because I’m sure it’s in the Budlite contract that they will be the only beer sponsors logo in the octagon regardless if its on the cage or the fighter.

I don’t blame the casino that gave UFC a hard time will Ricco’s sponsor… would you let competition advertise at an event held in your place of business?

This is an issue right now BUT will most likely be a non issue in a year or so...

If the UFC explodes and truly becomes mainstream excepted and has tons of live content on NETWORK tv regularly ( not once every 2 or 3 months) then the big time sponsors will come… Look if Gatorade, Nike and underarmour and companies like that are already starting to sponsor or pay MMA fighters to be representatives of their brand in due time the big sponsors will be there regularly to sponsor talent.

I'm with UFC/Zuffa on this

I can understand how someone would read Nate’s response and feel sorry for these guys…but you have to have certain rules for Sponsors. I don’t believe they should be allowed to ban for things like competition and things like that, but I do believe they have to ban things like guns, drugs, terrorism, etc. It’s up to them to go out and find other sponsors and also have side jobs to make ends meet. Nothing says once you become a fighter you can’t do anything else on the side.

themango69 - January 26, 2012 reply

Why guns?

Drugs, terrorism, etc are not protected by the Constitution.

The Constitution is a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. Get over it.

Just a piece of paper...?

GTFO!

All I meant is that what was relevant hundreds of years ago might not be today… the right to bear arms made sense when you had cowboys running around robbing everybody… in 2012, not so much.

Disagree completely.

rdmcurator - January 26, 2012 reply

Yeah... cowboys... in the late 1700's

Please get a vasectomy.

His knowledge of American History came from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure...

Excellent source material

Chris Hall - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

Lucky Luke, actually.

The 2nd amendment was meant to protect people from government.

Guns helped found America by fighting an overpowering english government. The reason the gun issue is the 2nd most important topic is because they didnt want government to abuse its power to control people ever again.

Harley hooper - January 26, 2012 reply

Great big mobile rec for that statement. Understanding, you have, young padawan!

Mr. Socko - January 26, 2012 via mobile reply

Have you actually read the consitution

It holds up amazingly well. Our founding fathers were very intelligent people with a lot of foresight. Read up on that shit son.

Also if our government becomes abusive it is our responsibility as citizens to overthrow it. How are we going to do that without gats?

LOL. Good god man, effecting an air of indifference is one thing

but the Constitution’s national and global effects from its inception makes it the single most important political and social document ever devised.

Declaration of the rights of man is more important, for one

Constitution didn’t mean shit outside of the domain of a bunch of uppity ex-colonials for a century or two after its creation. French Revolution, however, changed the progression of European history, and indeed contributed largely to the foundation of Euro-democracies.

Gugabe - January 26, 2012 reply

Constitution + Bill of Rights + Declaration of Rights of Man

are all basically the same thing, written/thought about by the same group of people and thinkers. There is a lot of crossover. In that regards, all three documents are the foundation of where the world finds itself today. However, the Constitution came first, by a few years, with the bill of rights being the twin of the Declaration of Rights being ratified just a few days before. I’m not trying to turn this into a nationalistic debate, (america vs europe) just trying to stress the importance of the IDEAS in the documents.

Wow

Americans really over-value the effects of the Constitution on the rest of the world

YPG - January 26, 2012 reply

Nobody really gave that big a damn about America till the mid-1800s, and even that was damned peripheral stuff.

Gugabe - January 26, 2012 reply

It only took us 60 years, by your count, to go from peripheral to holder of the world's reserve currency.

That’s gotta be a record.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!

And now China owns something like half of America… Fuck yeah, indeed.

Check your facts

Foreign holdings of US debt account for about 1/4 (and that’s rounding up) of the total US debt. http://www.polycapitalist.com/2011/09/graphic-who-holds-sovereign-debt-70-of.html

Of that 1/4, China, the largest foreign holder of US debt, holds only 1/4. So they hold 1/16th of US debt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Total debt is ~100% of GDP. So they own about 1/16th of 1 year’s worth of US economic activity. If the U.S. was a guy making 64K a year, ‘he’ would own China 4 grand.

So rather than them owning half our country, it’s like they’re our credit card company. :)

Thor77 - January 26, 2012 reply

own china = owe china sorry typo

Thor77 - January 26, 2012 reply

nicely said

But to provide other contexts, this same sort of language was used in the 80’s regarding Japan, they even had a bestseller and a movie made about it. But in the end, it didn’t work out that way. China is facing a major, major correction in many ways, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because with the phenomenon of global capitalism, we will suffer as well when their real estate market (and other markets) corrects, their socio-political problems erupt, and we all get to see what happens when a superpower gets an arrow to the knee again.

China’s single-minded focus on GDP growth, insanely huge cash reserves with bizarre investment rules and 5 year planning blocks are going to provide some remarkable economic volatility in the next 10-20 years.

not to mention the complete disregard for their environment to ensure domestic manufacturing dominance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - January 26, 2012 reply

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ school kids in Beijing draw the sky brown

instead of blue…

and cars alternate days driving based on last license plate number being odd or even

Also real estate bubble in China makes the US real estate bubble look like a plaything

Nope, I’m aware of what’s happening in Iraq.

No

That would be the Magna Carta

MattParker117 - January 26, 2012 reply

I was considering the magna carta

and it is one of the most important because it does set into motion the seed of many later ideas found in the constitution, declaration of independence, bill of rights, and declaration of rights. It does not have quite the far ranging and discernible ties to the global condition right now though.

lets not forget Rousseau

Locke, and Hobbes as providing the groundwork and the concepts of the social contract and the groundwork for modern government. Wow, this is getting pretty far afield from the gun store issue, lol.

Lets bring this shit all the way back to Cyrus!

Further... let's get Hammurabi up in this piece

Better known as

Bellator-Hammu.

wonderfulspam - January 26, 2012 reply

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

That attitude is probably one of the most sickening things I have ever read on here, and shows fundamental problems in our education system. FIRST, it was written over 200 years ago. SECOND, it was the document that has protected your sorry ass all your life. The erosion of our Constitutionally protected rights are why we are becoming a gross police state. Without the LAWS written within it, we are just another tin-pot dictatorship. The military doesn’t protect your rights, that document and the courts adherence to it does. I’m really not mad at you, but I most certainly pity your ignorance.

As far as the ban on these sponsors, that’s the UFC’s business, and as a private entity, they are allowed to hire, fire, ban or allow what they see fit. I don’t agree with this decision, but will definitely defend their right to do so. That’s part of freedom. If the government, on the other hand, had tried to impose in the UFC’s rights to have legal sponsors pay their fighters, then I would take issue, because that would be an imposition on their rights as a private business.

Mr. Socko - January 26, 2012 via mobile reply

I’m Canadian, so yeah, your Constitution hasn’t protected my sorry ass… but whatever.

your canadian so seriously STFU because you really should have no input on the constitution of the United States of America

there no little asterisk saying and canada in there

Fair enough. And again, I didn’t mean to deprecate on the Constitution… all I meant to do was question the “right to bear arm” portion. But fair enough. I’ve done enough damage as it is.

What’s more important is that the constitution has absolutely zero relevance to the question regarding the ufc and fox limiting sponsors.

Chris Hall - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

Hey I didn’t bring up the Constitution in this discussion, Ulf Murphy did.

That bastard!!!

Chris Hall - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

Really?

The center of the argument is that gun advertisers are not appropriate for corporate mainstream television, yet our Founding Fathers deemed guns, and the ability to own them, the SECOND most important addition to the US Constitution.

This is a gun issue.

You trolling ulf

Chris Hall - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

only kind of. ;)

I always go to the extreme on gun issues.

Oh cool of that’s what we’re doing, then ban all the guns!!

Chris Hall - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

nice

The second amendment doesn’t have much meaning anymore since the government has almost all the guns.

...

Sugel Mendoza - January 26, 2012 reply

Still has nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution says what the government can and can’t do. The government has nothing to do with this, so the constitution has nothing to do with this.

He's coming from the same Constitutional Law class

that Sarah Palin attended. You know, where a host of a radio show loses her job, it’s a violation of the host’s first amendment rights.

Pantherhare - January 26, 2012 reply

Why do you keep harping on the order of the Bill of Rights? The third amendment was the one against the forced quartering of soldiers in people’s houses — do you think that’s more important than the right against unreasonable search and seizure or right to a speedy trial?

Pantherhare - January 26, 2012 reply

it is fun?

right to bear arms is totally relevent today

a man buying a gun to protect his home in a dangerous neighberhood is not relevant at all right? no one does that ever of course

I suppose. But we don’t have dangerous neighborhoods where I live, so I wouldn’t know. Why aren’t Americans nicer to each other?

youve gotta be kidding me with that comment.

i dont know how to answer that but i promise you there is crime in canada and plenty of people who own guns but after that comment your officially trolling

But I’m not. There were 9 murders in all of 2011 in my city of almost 250,000 people. And I don’t know a single person that has a gun in his house. I know a few with hunting riffles, sure, but no guns. I’ve never actually seen a gun in person.

mictlantechutli - January 26, 2012 reply

A hunting rifle

isn’t a gun??

Gun=handgun. To me, at least.

Below: Totally not a gun.

Sugel Mendoza - January 26, 2012 reply

I agree that ~~people~~ non-felons should have the freedom to own guns for a sense of protection, but that’s not really what the second amendment was about.

True

The FF definitely had in mind state militias, but they also could not have foreseen automatic weapons and the capacity for mass destruction becoming so readily available. One has to remember that at the time they wrote, the best guns took a long time to load and fire and only the wealthy would own them, and class structure was a lot different then as well (the middle class was tiny in comparison). I seriously doubt that any of those guys would have wanted to see poor people or non whites or women owning guns. Remember we’re talking about slave owners and upper class early capitalist males.

It was also because the founding fathers didn't want a standing army

Or at least that is what I was taught in school. Could be bullshit though

Poverty?

You’re being ridiculous Ben. I didn’t say it want relevant in the modern us. I said it wasn’t relevant to this discussion. And it’s not.

Chris Hall - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

i know its not im annoyed at shnak

The Constitution is a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. Get over it.

and thats why

Like I said, I’m sorry about that, horrible wording. I only meant to say that not everything in the Constitution applies today.

it still applies just not in the same amount of application

people still need guns in certain places and i will buy a gun to be honest when i have my own family

That is what you said. Don’t apologize just because people don’t like it. That’s not what America should be about.

Shnak, more importantly

Taking out the vitriol and angry defensiveness of benten20, the Canadian constitutions of 18whatever (british in origin) and 1982 both used the US constitution as a model. Without the US constitution, Canada would not be politically and socially structured as it is. Most of the world would not be either. The freedoms, rights, and democratic process, as troubled as it may be, that is found around the globe, is due in large part to the US constitution.

I understand all that, and do not question any of that. I was only replying to the “right to bear arms” which someone said was a good reason to allow “The Gun Store” to sponsors in the UFC. That’s all.

i actually agree with you about that as being a straw man reason for allowing gun sponsors

however i dont agree with you saying this

The Constitution is a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. Get over it.

And you’ve made that perfectly clear, thank you. Again, sorry about that.

no worries not pissed really it was kinda like a wtf moment

It really seemed like you were pissed there for a few minutes… but really glad if you weren’t.

I hate your face.

na but i get defensive over stuff like that

mostly because as a jew being able to practice my religion freely here because of the my constitutional rights while others cant walk around without fear of attack….ya you get my point

Ugh. Don’t get me started on religion…

on your marks get set go

Haha. You’d see this post go from 80-something comments to about 500 in 5 minutes, and then everyone would get banned. Yeha, that’s okay. I prefer to talk about MMA (and Constitution as of today apparently).

MMA works for me lol

damn your logic

I will turn off the troll button…

lol our very own tower of babel.

be wary, lest BE mods banhammer us all!

Huh Canadian..? Ooh You mean Northern Mexican.

and I apologize in advance for insulting any Mexicans.

LOL at someone from a free democracy in the Western Hemisphere

who thinks that they don’t owe their happy little lifestyle to the big bad United States. If it wasn’t for us, you’d be enjoying M-1 events in your native Russian.

Dave Strummer - January 26, 2012 reply

That’s true, but it certainly isn’t because the Constitution says anything about the right to bear arms, which is the only thing I’m talking about here.

The Constitution is a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. Get over it.

ya because that wont bother any americans right?

I honestly didn’t think it would. The Constitution is obviously a million time more engrained in Americans than anything we have here in Canada. There’s literally nothing you could say about Canada that would piss me off, or even mildly annoy me.

I hear

you’re all afraid of the dark

MemphisMike - January 26, 2012 reply

HOW DARE YOU!!

I hear

all your heads flap when you talk.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but I’m offended, deeply offended, eh?

Your own governement has been disregarding your own constitution for years now.

They view it as an old piece of paper. Why can’t you all?

Clay Davis - January 26, 2012 reply

that is sadly true

but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t care.

Thor77 - January 26, 2012 reply

Agreed

If this keeps going we might need to revolt. Our country is already becoming a police state with the passing of the NDAA

The real questions here:

What are all these bears going to do… running around with no arms, all because you Americans feel you have special rights.

Ballsagna - January 26, 2012 reply

Ha! It’s probably “right to bear legs” in Brazil… well, for one Brazilian in particular, at least.

touche!

well done

Ballsagna - January 26, 2012 reply

Dont you owe your own independance

to the FRENCH? lol.

Broseidon - January 26, 2012 reply

I would say we owe it to sugar

French homeboys did help us out

We paid them back later though.

If your Canadian, why are you talking about something you know nothing about?

But it has a treasure map hidden on the reverse side!

seriously, if this is the level of discourse you’re bringing, shut it.

um wtf? the constitution is a hell of a lot more important to this world then you or I will ever be.

Alright, relax everyone. I honestly didn’t think I’d cause everyone to go berzerk with this comment. I only meant that stuff that applied over 200 years ago probably doesn’t apply today. But whatever.

ahahah

“I had no idea that dismissing the founding principles of your nation as irrelevant would be offensive!”

lol thats a good laugh. Reminds me of Louis CK for some reason.

It's ok your comments reflect the way I feel about the CFL...

Same here. I hate the CFL, it’s horrible to watch. 2-and-outs all the time. No thanks. NFL all the way!!!

As a fellow Canadian, I recommend avoiding taking shots at the US Constitution

when in a room full of Americans. It tends to be a tender subject. Even if you have valid points, it’s just not worth it.

pud333 - January 26, 2012 reply

thats the second

very stupid thing you’ve said on this thread that has contributed in no way to the conversation.

What was the first?

this was your first

I just wish the UFC would increase everyone’s pay and then forbit anyone from having sponsors. I’m tired of everyone complaining about the UFC banning sponsors and what not.

so because you’re tired of reading about this issue, you think that the company should just restructure its entire business model to relieve you of the inconvenience? GTFO

What’s so stupid about that comment? You don’t see individual sponsors in hockey, basketball, football, etc, etc. The league has sponsors, and they pay their players accordingly. The UFC should do the exact same thing.

at the risk of feeding what seems like a mild troll

Here is why your comment was stupid and not contributing:

1: You frame it as “I’m tired of everyone complaining”: Okay, everyone complaining is referring to a very, very small percentage of some of the hardest-core fans of MMA. Furthermore, you position it as being not an issue for all of us in the community, but yourself. There’s an easy solution to this: stay off like 2 blogs and a twitter feed or three and you’re good.

2: You are ignoring all kinds of other sports that do operate their sponsorship models in this way, and that also have had many conversations about which sponsorships are appropriate. For examples: Boxing, the model of which is one the UFC looked at a lot, as they are both combat sports of a type. Also, the NFL won’t be a good example, because if you are old enough and paid attention enough, their was a huge hubbub around alcohol sponsors and how the NFL would deal with them a few years back. Well, more than a few, but still, not that far back. Nascar is a similar model and there have been indeed many conversations and rules regarding sponsorship. I loathe the sport and consider it a huge pollutant so I won’t go find you examples there.

3: The solution you propose to relieve you of your irritation is that they completely overhaul and revamp their business model so that you, Shnak, don’t have to read about it anymore. I think this point is obvious, but I think that saying this is of course, hardly a realistic proposal. Do you think it likely or even remotely f*cking possible? So to return to my point:

GTFO with your mild Canadian trolling.

Oh and WTF with “Derrr, I didn’t think bashing the constitution of the US would bother my famously nationalistic neighbors to the south derrrrrr.” GTFO with that too. Come on man, own up. You are a guy who is probably pretty nice but is indeed having a troll. Consider this your having been fed. GTFO

I’d rather not see sponsorship talks pollute my favorite MMA site… that’s all. If you’re not happy with me saying that, well GTFO yourself and don’t read or reply to my comments.

Athletes in hockey, basketball, football has no sponsors?

That’s why Lebron is in Nike commercials right?

have

He doesn’t have a big Nike swoosh on his uniform, though. And if he does, it’s because it’s a league-wide sponsor, not a personal sponsor.

Shnak - January 27, 2012 reply

You fadin' the Constitution?

SLAP YOSELF!

Sugel Mendoza - January 26, 2012 reply

awesome comment

I have to rec you for successfully trolling the entire White American Male Libertarian population of BE.

Next you should make fun of the gold standard and Ayn Rand.

mollcutpurse - January 26, 2012 reply

The constitution has nothing to do with what rules Fox or the UFC puts in place.

Thats a bit of a straw man

The UFC’s rules over sponsorship content are completely divorced from one’s right to own and bear arms. Constitution says nothing about advertising deals in the commercial sector.

I don't know a thing about NASCAR...

BUT if I was the UFC or a combat sport managment company I would be very intune to how they secure and retain such great sponsors… there has to be something that can be learned and applied from how NASCAR teams conduct sponsorship and marketing business…

But once again until UFC is on regularly like other sports and covered heavily by mainstream news outlets this is going to be an uphill climb…

one benefit that NASCAR teams have is that if you sponsor a car you pretty much know that your logo is going to get some TV time once a week for 36 weeks. It’s harder when fighters fight 2 or 3 times a year to get a commitment like that.

Does anyone remember the ktfo incident a few years back?

The idea that Zuffa can impose sponsorship rules is not new. It’s completely in their rights to do so.

You don’t think NASCAR has veto power over what sponsors can be allowed on their cars?

I don’t see where the controversy is here, outside of people who support the gun industry and are pissed that their hobby is considered non grata by the UFC.

CstBoog - January 26, 2012 via mobile reply

What was the ktfo issue ? refresh my memory if you dont mind

Shitty clothing company ktfo (standing for, obviously, knocked the fuck out) started sponsoring a bunch of UFC fighters.

The UFC shortly thereafter, said “woah woah woah, I don’t think we want a company with ‘fuck’ in their name sponsoring fighters on our PPV” (the irony was lost on Dana at the time, I guess) and banned the company as a sponsor.

The company then changed the meaning of the acronym to “knock that fool out”, and the next PPV was fully sponsored by ktfo, complete with Goldberg saying “brought to you by ktfo, knock that fool out!”. It was hilarious and awkward.

In the meantime, the owner of the company was feuding hard with everyone on the UG, including leaving hilarious awkward voicemails on yves Edwards phone, and sponsor cheques to Mayham Miller bouncing and him forging a Bank of America letter to make up and excuse for it.

CstBoog - January 26, 2012 via mobile reply

Sometimes they use this power for good

Like with Hoelzer Reich

The best thing about the sport becoming more popular with a wider audience is the chance to get more mainstream (ie: richer) sponsors

I don’t want anybody fighting for fucking TIRES.

We’re years away from seeing “Apple: Think Differently” on some dude’s fight shorts, but it’s gonna be sweet as hell when it happens.

I personally would go out and get every other weapon sponsorship…knives, tasers, yard of beef, etc.

rdmcurator - January 26, 2012 reply

the ban covers all weapons/ammo/knives

although maybe Wusthof? that’s cooking supplies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2kVbTNLwus

Kaizen MMA POWERMACE

Having talked to Spencer Fisher personally...

He was sponsored by the Gun Store back in 2009-10. I know he may not be the greatest example, because he seems to have his finances in order. However, they didn’t send him cash for payment.

They sent him a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

Don’t get me wrong, that is pretty sweet. However…Nate is relaying a story of necessity, not of excess. Could you turn around and sell that gun? Yeah, after quite a process. I don’t know the details if he chose to be paid in “guns” or could have had cash instead.

Also, begs the question; What other sponsors chose not to sell their brand to the fighters because they are anti-gun? I’m sure there will be a few jokes about being sponsored by the Church or whatever…but it’s a serious consideration. It’s entirely possible a sponsor could come in, paying better and more often because the Gun Store is gone.

Clownshoes - January 26, 2012 reply

Fox was able to strong arm the UFC...

Fox said they wouldn’t allow gun sponsors. The UFC made it easy to protect themselves and banned them. It’s a decision the UFC is fully allowed to make, and for the first time in a while…Dana White and the UFC isn’t the biggest dog in the yard.

Clownshoes - January 26, 2012 reply

Those Barretts kick ass

Cash or Check good...?

No… GUNS!

the revelation that sponsors are paying in trade rather than currency is disgusting

Barter is cool and all, but the grocery store only takes cash, checks, and credit cards.

if you need new tires for your car or a new sniper rifle, why wouldn’t you take the tires instead of cash for the tires?

irrelevant

and if you don’t need new tires, Toyo just says ‘tough titty’?

The fighter has the ability to say no to the sponsor

behind door #1 – tires you don’t need

behind door #2 – jack shit

wow, that’s a truly great choice.

or door numbered 3 through 100, other sponsors that will pay cash.

I have no idea why people get so upset at financial arrangements that adults determine are ok for themselves.

you are making all kinds of crazy, unsupportable assumptions

who said he has all these other sponsors lined up? nobody. In fact, the problem is a shortage of sponsors to the point that they don’t even feel the need to spend money, these guys are taking whatever’s on offer in goods instead of legal tender.

You are the one making crazy unsupportable assumptions. Quarry needed tires, he got tires. You are assuming that they didn’t offer him cash.

What shortage of sponsors, everyone cries about this all the time, yet everyone has their shorts filled. If you don’t need tires and someone says, wear my patch and I’ll give you tires, why on earth would you take the tires if you don’t need or want them? no one forced him to take the tires.

People, companies, etc exchange goods and services that aren’t straight cash homey all the time.

"everyone has their shorts filled."

by the same dozen or so companies. You noticed that, right?

so?

These are the companies that are offering the most to the fighters, so they are on the shorts. If you don’t like what they are offering say no.

Right up there with the decision to become a professional fighter.

no... they say "Afucka yu Quarry son"

you say, give me cash. If they say no, you find a new sponsor.

But this is numba one tire yu no like Quarry son?

Liking your use of ‘son’ rather than ‘san’.

rdmcurator - January 26, 2012 reply

trying to be as sterotypical and offensive as possible...

(not really)

C'mon san

wonderfulspam - January 26, 2012 reply

I want to know...

Who “needs” a new sniper rifle.

Because if you’ve completely worn out your old sniper rifle, and you just can’t feed your family with it anymore?

Never mind. I’ve suddenly discovered a very good reason why I no longer have any interest in knowing the name of a person who needs a new sniper rifle.

Carry on, nothing to see here…

RobtWeaver - January 26, 2012 reply

I don’t know anyone that really needs one, but I assume someone who accepts one in lieu of cash either thinks that they need it, or has no problem doing it, so good for them (as long as they aren’t aiming at people).

Again, I don’t know if he could have “cashed out” the gun or not. Maybe he worked out a deal, it’s hard to tell. I just know that Spencer isn’t too hard off for cash and may have went that route.

Clownshoes - January 26, 2012 reply

could have taken it to the guys that do pawn stars... get on tv, get a cash for the gun...maybe get another sponsor... win.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Family/7/3/Big-50-Caliber-Guns.htm

He could have sold it for between $3k and $10k depending upon model

minus all the time, effort and fucking hassle and who says he'll be able to get what it's worth?

meanwhile, the gun store sells guns and has everything set up to handle that business from the get-go.

CASH ONLY, PLEASE.

If you want cash, you get or ask cash, no one forced him to take the gun.

Did you ever fire a Barrett?

Better than cash

Owning that gun is itself an expense

If you ever want to shoot it. .50 cal rounds are pricey.

It would make sense that they offered him either cash or more value in product.

The retail price of the product is marked up significantly from the actual cost a company pays, so, hypothetically, if the retail price of a rifle is 50% mark-up and the gun sells for $3k, it’s the same cost to the company if they offer $1500 cash or the $3000 gun.

If you need cash, take the cash, but I presume he wanted a new rifle. Makes sense for everyone involved.

kid_eh - January 26, 2012 reply

so offering a product instead of cash could be beneficial to both parties? What a fucking horrible practice, somebody call the cops!!! This must be stopped.

That was an odd comment.

The Pawn Stars only take guns from a certain year (1890 or something like that) and anytime before that year. They don’t take any modern guns.

chrisbboy82 - January 26, 2012 reply

He now gets to say “I got paid in sniper rifles for beating someone up on tv.”

iiowyn - January 26, 2012 reply

I've always liked Quarry, and he reinforces my problem with the weapons sponsors decision

I absolutely get why the UFC would want to ban weapon sponsors. It makes sense, and it is probably a pretty important step in the evolution and maturation of the sport. It may even pay indirect dividends to fighters at some later date, as more mainline sponsors start to view MMA sponsorships as viable.

But for now, every time the UFC takes another sponsor off the table (something they’ve done multiple times, for reasons far less sensible than the weapons sponsor ban) they harm fighters who really don’t have any choice in the matter. Fewer sponsors means less competition, means lower sponsorship dollars, means less money for fighters who are already financially strapped.

If you’re going to be the Alpha and Omega of MMA, as the UFC has become, and if you’re going to stifle real competition, as the UFC certainly has done, then you have a responsibility to recompense fighters when you take money out of their pockets, since they are still the engine that makes you go.

Dave Strummer - January 26, 2012 reply

I get your point,

But remember the long game here. Would you rather be sponsored by the gun store or Nike? Seriously, pulll back a bit and get some perspective, or context. I agree it would be nice to have a smooth transition from one stage to the next, but that’s not realistic.

To be clear, I applaud your concern for the actual fighters. it’s why I love this community and its contributors, there’s a lot of smarts in here for an MMA site.

Let the UFC take care of all sponsorships

I say let the UFC take care of all sponserships. I have a feeling they are in a better position to arrange them than managers. Then put ALL sponsership money for an event (including sponsers like Budlight, video games, movies, etc which currently all goes to the UFC) into a pool for the fighers/UFC to split. Say UFC gets 50% and fighters split the other 50%. The fighers breakdown could be something like main/co-main event share 50% of the fighter pool (so 25% each of the pool), the next 3 fighters on the main event share th next 25% of the pool, and the prelime fighters share the last 25% of the pool.

So if there were 11 fights on the card and total sponserships were 1,000,000, main and co-main event fighters get 62.5k each, other main card guys get 20.8k, and prelim fighers get 10.4k in sponsership money.

All the %s I’ve stated are completely arbitrary of course. Maybe give the fighters a bigger piece than the UFC? Maybe change the distribution between fighters? But I think as they grow and more restrictions are put on sponsors something similar is the way to go.

carpediem - January 26, 2012 reply

Yeah

I think such and agreement would require a CBA, which would require a union, and as Luke and Nate have gone over, that’s not likely in the near future.

Why should the fights get an even split?

That is a completely stupid idea. Why should Jon Jones get the same amount of sponsorship money as Nik Lentz?

No comedic references to condomdepot.com?

JAYGK95 - January 26, 2012 via mobile reply

maybe fox supports safe sex. as well as the majority of be?

Bobillarious - January 26, 2012 via Android app reply

Reading what Quarry wrote...

How many people today are willing to make those kind of sacrifices? Very few. That’s why so many people are bums sitting around on the couch collecting welfare/food stamps/whatever, smoking pot and playing Xbox and never amount to jack shit. Quarry just explained the attitude which used to prevail but has pretty much died out.

IKiIIed007 - January 26, 2012 reply

to take this in a pretty different direction...

Most people aren’t lucky enough to have the chance to ever find something that they love so much. I know plenty of really hard-working people who just never connected to their passion. I myself am kind of crazy, but I aged out of my first love and now I am just flailing around looking for something to match my earlier object for my passion and drive. It’s weird not having the very simple life of knowing exactly who you are and why you are here on this earth. Having had it at one time and now being without it, I have a good perspective on the difference. (It wasn’t MMA, and I wasn’t extremely successful, I just had the goal and the drive and direction.) So many people just go through life without ever getting to experience what it feels like to know what they are on this earth to do.