Reebok deal question

Psydeshow

So as I understand it the Reebok deal is supposed to be about legitimising the look of the sport and to have fighters look more like NFL players than nascar drivers, as I read somewhere, that I now can't find to reference. But does this extend to the UFC itself, can it continue to get any sponsors it wants for the cage, canvas, clock and all the other stuff the UFC promote the **** out of? Basically is this double standards:

The fighters must look like legit professional sports people and take a financial hit for it, for the good of the sport..... The UFC can plaster everything with every sponsor we can conceivably shoe-horn into the broadcast?

Or have I completely mis-understood the rational of the deal?
Just a question thats been in my head a while that I thought I'd throw out there.

MartyMcFly84

I am pretty sure the image is a minor factor.

In reality the UFC were not making any money off of the fighters sponsors. Yet had to pay for the broadcast, promotion etc.

The UFC also had very little control over who the fighters could get sponsorship off, leading to some questionable sponsors getting adds shown on their broadcast or even rival companies to those that already pay the UFC a large amount to have their branding shown.

Its down to the UFC wanting the full income and control over who gets advertised on their promotion essentially.

Foxtrol

I don’t get the double standards issue.

Do you expect Rooney to able to wear his own Nike jersey next season when Man Utd are sponsored by Adidas?

It's a pretty standard thing for professional sports.

Professey Chin

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

I am pretty sure the image is a minor factor.

In reality the UFC were not making any money off of the fighters sponsors. Yet had to pay for the broadcast, promotion etc.

The UFC also had very little control over who the fighters could get sponsorship off, leading to some questionable sponsors getting adds shown on their broadcast or even rival companies to those that already pay the UFC a large amount to have their branding shown.

Its down to the UFC wanting the full income and control over who gets advertised on their promotion essentially.

Not really true. They were charging pretty high prices in a kinda sponsor tax and priced a lot of sponsors out as a result.
http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/09/13/the-truth-about-fighters-and-sponsors

It is true that this is down to them wanting full income and control more then anything else though.

MartyMcFly84

Not really true. They were charging pretty high prices in a kinda sponsor tax and priced a lot of sponsors out as a result.
http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/09/13/the-truth-about-fighters-and-sponsors

It is true that this is down to them wanting full income and control more then anything else though.

True, i was thinking of a little earlier I suppose. Looks like these were the first steps towards what they have now done regarding sponsors.

Psydeshow

While yes it's obviously a money/control grab by the UFC, consolidating it's position as yee mentinoed above. I just wondered given the 'official' reasoning (as I understand it) was there a juxtaposition between the UFCs expectation of it's contractors and itself. A company not holding the moral high ground isn't a surprise in itself, just wondered if anyone had called out the flimsiness of the rational or had I missed something.

Do you expect Rooney to able to wear his own Nike jersey next season when Man Utd are sponsored by Adidas?

The difference between Rooney and any UFC fighter is that he's an employee of Man U though, the UFC maintains that the fighters are private contractors. In my mind its closer to like Tennis, where the players wear tennis whites (by whomever they please I think...could be wrong), but the world tours don't plaster bud light or whatever all over center court. Both imperfect analogies but I take your point.

mmapk

Psydeshow wrote: »

While yes it's obviously a money/control grab by the UFC, consolidating it's position as yee mentinoed above. I just wondered given the 'official' reasoning (as I understand it) was there a juxtaposition between the UFCs expectation of it's contractors and itself. A company not holding the moral high ground isn't a surprise in itself, just wondered if anyone had called out the flimsiness of the rational or had I missed something.



The difference between Rooney and any UFC fighter is that he's an employee of Man U though, the UFC maintains that the fighters are private contractors. In my mind its closer to like Tennis, where the players wear tennis whites (by whomever they please I think...could be wrong), but the world tours don't plaster bud light or whatever all over center court. Both imperfect analogies but I take your point.

Rooney {insert any P/L Footballer} does and continues to use and get paid a substantial amount of money to wear Nike {insert any other brand} of football boots, regardless of kit sponsor.

I understand the Reebok deal to a point, and for European fighters in the UFC its no doubt a better deal than they get at the moment, but for the whole fight week exclusive to Reebok - not for me.

DuffleBag

As an aside, the new stuff has started to be drip fed to the irish Reebok site. Reebok.ie. McGregor and Rousey only so far