Ben Fowlkes of MMA Junkie posted an article yesterday about the UFC's new sponsorship agreement with Reebok. Apparently, after first announcing that the sponsorship agreement with Reebok would be tied to fighter rankings, the UFC has changed course and is now going to tie sponsorship money to fighter experience.
Ben thinks that this is a step in the right direction and more "fair" to UFC fighters.
I have to disagree. While tiering fighters based on actual UFC experience is a more objective way to handle the sponsorship, it certainly isn't more "fair". As Ben pointed out, a fighter like Gleison Tibau, who has 25 UFC fights, would be paid more under this arrangement than a rising star like Cat Zingano based solely off of experience. That is great for a fighter like Tibau who has grinded it out for years in the UFC octagon, but how is that fair to young, up-and-coming fighters like Zingano, Paige VanZant or Conor McGregor? One could make the argument that those fighters have a larger fan base and will bring more eyes to the Reebok brand than Tibau. So why shouldn't they get compensated for that?
Yes, fighter rankings are subjective and it is not "fair" to have a fighter that deserves to be in the Top 5 or 10 be left out because the media or whoever is responsible for the rankings got it "wrong". However, that system, at least, allows you to rectify the situation with one win in more cases. For example, say a fighter that most people believe should be ranked in the Top 5 (or whatever the requirement for Tier I status) is left just outside of that ranking. In most cases, winning their next fight would be enough to move them up into that next tier.
In the new system, a guy like McGregor is going to be penalized by experience. No matter how great of a promoter he is or how dominant of a fighter he is, he will only be able to move up the sponsorship levels by fighting. And his journey up the rankings will be solely tied to how often he fights, not how well he fights.
I can understand how the majority of fighters would like this plan better. They don't have to actually be a top performer to earn top sponsorship money. They just have to be slightly better than average and slightly more entertaining to keep their job. As long as they continue fighting (win or lose) they continue to move up the pay scale.
What I don't understand is why the UFC likes this idea. The previous system gave incentive to fighters to win and to do so dominantly. The better they performed, the higher they would be ranked and the more sponsorship money that they would be paid. Now they just have to show up and do enough not to get cut.
We are still three months away from this plan actually going into effect so it is entirely possible that this structure will change again. It is also possible that the tiers are grouped closely together (say 0-2 fights, 3-5 fights, 6+, etc) and that fighters can move up quickly through those tiers. Let's just hope that final structure, however it is arranged, incentivizes fighters to be more like Zingano or McGregor than fighters like Tibau, Yves Edwards or Gabriel Gonzaga.
Ben thinks that this is a step in the right direction and more "fair" to UFC fighters.
I have to disagree. While tiering fighters based on actual UFC experience is a more objective way to handle the sponsorship, it certainly isn't more "fair". As Ben pointed out, a fighter like Gleison Tibau, who has 25 UFC fights, would be paid more under this arrangement than a rising star like Cat Zingano based solely off of experience. That is great for a fighter like Tibau who has grinded it out for years in the UFC octagon, but how is that fair to young, up-and-coming fighters like Zingano, Paige VanZant or Conor McGregor? One could make the argument that those fighters have a larger fan base and will bring more eyes to the Reebok brand than Tibau. So why shouldn't they get compensated for that?
Yes, fighter rankings are subjective and it is not "fair" to have a fighter that deserves to be in the Top 5 or 10 be left out because the media or whoever is responsible for the rankings got it "wrong". However, that system, at least, allows you to rectify the situation with one win in more cases. For example, say a fighter that most people believe should be ranked in the Top 5 (or whatever the requirement for Tier I status) is left just outside of that ranking. In most cases, winning their next fight would be enough to move them up into that next tier.
In the new system, a guy like McGregor is going to be penalized by experience. No matter how great of a promoter he is or how dominant of a fighter he is, he will only be able to move up the sponsorship levels by fighting. And his journey up the rankings will be solely tied to how often he fights, not how well he fights.
I can understand how the majority of fighters would like this plan better. They don't have to actually be a top performer to earn top sponsorship money. They just have to be slightly better than average and slightly more entertaining to keep their job. As long as they continue fighting (win or lose) they continue to move up the pay scale.
What I don't understand is why the UFC likes this idea. The previous system gave incentive to fighters to win and to do so dominantly. The better they performed, the higher they would be ranked and the more sponsorship money that they would be paid. Now they just have to show up and do enough not to get cut.
We are still three months away from this plan actually going into effect so it is entirely possible that this structure will change again. It is also possible that the tiers are grouped closely together (say 0-2 fights, 3-5 fights, 6+, etc) and that fighters can move up quickly through those tiers. Let's just hope that final structure, however it is arranged, incentivizes fighters to be more like Zingano or McGregor than fighters like Tibau, Yves Edwards or Gabriel Gonzaga.