POLL: Should Fighters Receive Residual Performance Income?

Posted on July 16, 2013, 07:32 PM by Brian Cox
> Cool 12
|
> Poor 2
  1. 1. Yes: Fighters should receive royalties.
  2. 2. No: Fighters should receive no royalties.

Comments

REGISTER OR LOG IN TO POST COMMENTS AND BECOME AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY
  • Entity
    Sharp
    4
    Weak | 2
    Funny | 0
    Cool | 0

    It's a good idea, but I guess it can get sketchy if the company gets in a bind even for a short time.
    That extra could have helped the company get through the hard time and allow fighters to get a better contract when their current is up for renegotiation.

    I clicked yes anyway because I like the fighters more than Dana lol.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • N.C.
    Sharp
    7
    Weak | 3
    Funny | 0
    Cool | 0

    Yes, actors, pro wrestlers, bascially performers all get royalties. It's nothing new...

    Ever wonder where you favorite one hit wonder is? why the star trek casts never have to work? If they live modestly, they can live off syndication and radio play etc. Big name pro wrestlers get dvd's and old matches etc.

    What I dont get is why this doesn't already apply to UFC fighters. THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • thexperience1
    Weak
    7
    Cool | 1
    Funny | 1
    Sharp | 0

    No....

    Reply 9 months ago
  • N.C.
    Sharp
    3
    Funny | 2
    Weak | 2
    Cool | 0

    I'm not just going to weak this, I'm going to tell you to your face. I'm weak'in the sh*t out of this!

    I challenge you to respond with something remotely intelligent!

    MUSIC, MOVIES, SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, TV, THEATER, MODELS, even tv extras who show their face for more then a few seconds, all get residual Incomes... But not UFC?

    Responses like this is the reason why I don't tell people at work I train and watch MMA. Because the assumption is only the dumb and uneducated are fans. Every post like this proves those people right.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Weak
    1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0
    Cool | 0


    Experience,

    You are such a purist on this issue. Where I disagree with you on the subject, I respect your position.

    Perhaps one day and by argument, we will drag you over to the populist side of the debate.

    "Let my people go" and all of that, stuff. :-)

    PS - I loved the stoic...one word answer. :-)

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Weak
    1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0
    Cool | 0


    Dear NC,

    I endorse not only the arguments you make, but applaud your passion. I feel very much the same way and I could argue the point to a fine hone, that fighters are being ripped off on this consideration.

    To your debate with "Experience" and your criticisms of him, i assure you that he is neither dumb nor uneducated. Experience's MMA IQ and analytical abilities are very high and his opinion on all matters is worthy of respect...as is yours.

    I agree in your disagreement in terms of the points you raise, but in terms of Experience being ...whatever...he is not and I say this in his defense, the same way that I would say it in your defense. For you too, are none of those things.

    As the fighters are not dumb and uneducated, neither are their fans; regardless of opposing views.

    In the words of the late-great Rodney King "can't we all just get along." :-)

    Peace and respect to both of you. I respect and appreciate both or your opinions.

    Cheers,

    Brian

    Reply 9 months ago
  • hatch1921
    Sharp
    5
    Cool | 1
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0

    My question to you all... and maybe I'll learn something here... does the NFL,NHL,NASCAR,PGA,NBA or any other well-known professional sports organizations pay royalties? Now... when TV stations rerun events or programming they (TV stations) pay the organizations but not the individual players. This is a sitcom in syndication we are talking about. Would someone playing in the NFL expect to see a check when they made an outstanding hit in a highlight compilation being aired on FOX….. say from 1980?
    Would each person who was in that game... from both teams and the coaches who were visible in the footage be compensated? That isn't how it works. Organizations have their athletes sign over their rights in their contracts ... so the companies can use them to promote the business. They even go as far as using their “likeness” for promotion.
    No fighters should not be compensated if they signed away their rights in their contracts. Now.. if they can negotiate royalties from say… the “Best of the Iceman” dvd sales… or something along those lines.. It’s up to them/layers/managers and so on to work this out. No fighters should not receive residual income or royalties outright as part of fighting in the UFC or other organizations.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Cool
    Weak
    Sharp
    Funny


    Hatch, I would respectfully have to disagree.

    To the points that you raise and in regard to other sports, because they are not being properly compensated for their residuals, does not and would not constitute a defense or a prima-facie case, for denying compensation to UFC fighters for their due compensation.

    In essence, siting an outstanding "wrong", as it would be viewed by the plaintiff and as inflicted upon a 3rd party by the alleged aggrieving party, "should not" constitute grounds for dismissal of their (the fighter's) claim of grievance and their seeking of compensation for such claims.

    A motivated and good legal team could go to town on this issue.

    Issues that you raise:

    Rights and "signing them over". I bet you most fighters sign their contracts in terms of being paid "X" for fighting and with no consideration of that fight being re-broadcasted or sold, particularly over the advent of 50 to 100 years.

    Hatch, question..."The Business", what would be your definition of be?

    As I see it, "The Business" is the fighters and for any promotion to pay them for their "live" performances only, is to be duping the fighters out of their rightful due.

    On this subject Hatch, the fighters (as all other athletes) would have a point all day long. If it was warranted to pay fighters for the original performance, then it is more than reasonable to seek compensation for re-performance.

    How I see this issue, it's almost akin to extortion on behalf of the promotions.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Entity
    Cool
    Weak
    Sharp
    Funny

    Residual Performance Income: definition ;

    Residual income is the net operating income that an investment center earns above the minimum required return on its operating assets.

    It can be taken in a few different manors. Though not to be confused with product endorsements.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Cool
    1
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Sharp | 0


    Entity...my MMA friend...

    I have read and re-read your definition and Entity, I'm not happy with it. :-)

    That my friend, would not be my definition. Not even close.

    Nutshell-ing it, Jon Fitch still works for the UFC; in image. It is wrong, that he does so without compensation. It is also wrong, that all other fighters do the same and regardless of whether or not they are past or current; GSP and his replays, as example.

    This doesn't even begin to raise the issue of games, action-figures and whatever else that might be of "financial issue".

    That, my awesome MMA friend, is what I'd be looking at. The shekels that are being handed out in bonuses and back-room deals, is nothing...in comparison to the money that's coming in under those streams.

    That is where I'd "begin" in my definition of residual income.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Entity
    Cool
    1
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Sharp | 0

    yea, the "minimum" part wasnt accurate actually. Just took a basic definition from the net, Every company better make more than its initial investment or it wont grow.
    I definitely see your point. 8))

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Entity
    Sharp
    1
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    And every video special shown after the card is over should have at least some kind of royalty involved since they are using their work for the company as advertising to further their product after the initial fight pay.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Cool
    Weak
    Sharp
    Funny


    Entity...the "net", who give a **** about the net and whatever it might have on it regarding this issue, inclusive of whether or not it came from the "Harvard Law Review"; F'em.

    Let us put the legalistic garbage aside and consider it from the POV of English Common Law and not legal "Sea Law" or "commerce law".

    On this issue I would say, give me a budget and a good legal team and I'd beat it into a pulp, that the fighters are being ripped off and that their "recorded" images are not the chattel of the UFC or any promotion; Bellator, etc.

    To me, this is an absolutely ridiculous question and if it is covered by covenant of contract, then I would make the strong legal argument, that the contract is signed under duress and I could easily make that case in front of either a jury or a court of public opinion. It would easy.

    Entity, over a beer and a few wings and a good PPV, I would convince you of my correctness.

    Cheers, your fan

    Brian

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Entity
    Funny
    1
    Sharp | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    To go any further would remind me of a pyrrhic victory on one side or the other 8))

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Cool
    1
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Sharp | 0


    Entity, I do not fight such battles, for they would be foolish; hence the understanding of the word.

    However, that is not to say that I do not happily great and defeat a-priori, argument. :-)

    Parlor games aside, I truly wish I could sit down and have a few (very) cold beers and some (very) hot wings with you and all while watching a great UFC card. I'm sure the "bill" would be well-worth the entertainment value of your conversation (both serious and comical and you are comical) and of course, I'd pay. it would only be fair. :-)

    Reply 9 months ago
  • clownshoes
    Sharp
    2
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    Royalties are part of the contracts people sign in those other businesses. The UFC owns the rights to the content of their libraries, and is under no obligation to pay royalties to the fighters. If a fighter wants to work that out into their contract with the UFC, then they can try and then the UFC has the right to refuse, but note that if they didn't refuse, then they would likely pay the fighter less in other forms of income. The fact that television actors get paid royalties has nothing to do with MMA. It's just another form of compensation.

    Reply 9 months ago