Fighters to Sue UFC

[Headliner]

So what is it they are exactly suing for?
They won't win their digital likeness, as it will be a part of their contract that they signed. The WWE locked that down with precedent in the past. I think the NBA even does that, which is why Jordan, who owned his before this stuff was thought out, wasn't in NBA games for ages, and had his own game in the 90s.

The sponsership stuff, that has no legs. No sports allow that. Lebron can't put Taco bell on his shorts.

I just don't see this having a leg to stand on.

[REDDzone]

So what is it they are exactly suing for?
They won't win their digital likeness, as it will be a part of their contract that they signed. The WWE locked that down with precedent in the past. I think the NBA even does that, which is why Jordan, who owned his before this stuff was thought out, wasn't in NBA games for ages, and had his own game in the 90s.

The sponsership stuff, that has no legs. No sports allow that. Lebron can't put Taco bell on his shorts.

I just don't see this having a leg to stand on.

Well we won't know until they file but I do wonder where the sponsorship stuff comes into play in regards to their contracts. Schaub said last week he makes more money off of sponsorships than his fight purse. Seems like a big change to make out of the blue.

[Cammo101]

For sure. I'm just so curious to find out who else. The articles made it seem like the case will be filed very shortly, as in this week or next.

Merry Xmas Dana!

I still have some doubts as to the validity of all this, but I'll sit here with my popcorn and enjoy the show regardless.

[Cammo101]

So what is it they are exactly suing for?
They won't win their digital likeness, as it will be a part of their contract that they signed. The WWE locked that down with precedent in the past. I think the NBA even does that, which is why Jordan, who owned his before this stuff was thought out, wasn't in NBA games for ages, and had his own game in the 90s.

The sponsership stuff, that has no legs. No sports allow that. Lebron can't put Taco bell on his shorts.

I just don't see this having a leg to stand on.

I pretty much said the same earlier (though you said it a lot better). It seems to me the smarter move would be forming a union.

[REDDzone]

For sure. I'm just so curious to find out who else. The articles made it seem like the case will be filed very shortly, as in this week or next.

Merry Xmas Dana!

I still have some doubts as to the validity of all this, but I'll sit here with my popcorn and enjoy the show regardless.

The validity of what? I doubt a seemingly credible guy like Brent Brookhouse is pulling all this out of nowhere. It would seem weird to destroy his career over something with no basis.

[Headliner]

For sure. I'm just so curious to find out who else. The articles made it seem like the case will be filed very shortly, as in this week or next.

Merry Xmas Dana!

I still have some doubts as to the validity of all this, but I'll sit here with my popcorn and enjoy the show regardless.

The validity of what? I doubt a seemingly credible guy like Brent Brookhouse is pulling all this out of nowhere. It would seem weird to destroy his career over something with no basis.

I think he means the validity of the claim, not the validity on whether there is actually a claim or not.

[REDDzone]

Oh yea well obviously its far from sure that the lawsuit itself will win. I'm skeptical of that for sure if that's what he meant.

[Headliner]

So what is it they are exactly suing for?
They won't win their digital likeness, as it will be a part of their contract that they signed. The WWE locked that down with precedent in the past. I think the NBA even does that, which is why Jordan, who owned his before this stuff was thought out, wasn't in NBA games for ages, and had his own game in the 90s.

The sponsership stuff, that has no legs. No sports allow that. Lebron can't put Taco bell on his shorts.

I just don't see this having a leg to stand on.

I pretty much said the same earlier (though you said it a lot better). It seems to me the smarter move would be forming a union.

I'm almost wondering if this is not what they are trying to force the hand of.
Whether they do it through settlement, through education of the fighters with the publicity this will receive...

I'm not sure if it is part of the plan or not, but I would think that the same group of fighters that thought this through are probably the same group of fighters that have been talking union talks behind the scenes.


Sometimes I wonder why Bellator or a second string promotion doesn't try to help the fighters start a union, and force the UFCs hand some.

[REDDzone]

They should sue the ufc for brain injuries and then play clips over and over of Dana saying cheerleading is more dangerous than mma.

[REDDzone]

Sometimes I wonder why Bellator or a second string promotion doesn't try to help the fighters start a union, and force the UFCs hand some.

I've never heard of or thought of this before. Interesting idea. Not sure what the implications would be, but definitely interesting.

[Cammo101]

Sometimes I wonder why Bellator or a second string promotion doesn't try to help the fighters start a union, and force the UFCs hand some.

I've never heard of or thought of this before. Interesting idea. Not sure what the implications would be, but definitely interesting.

If all these former fighters like Couture, Shamrock, and Sherk are so angry, they should be the ones to lead the charge toward a fighter's union IMO.

[CPT]

So what is it they are exactly suing for?
They won't win their digital likeness, as it will be a part of their contract that they signed. The WWE locked that down with precedent in the past. I think the NBA even does that, which is why Jordan, who owned his before this stuff was thought out, wasn't in NBA games for ages, and had his own game in the 90s.

The sponsership stuff, that has no legs. No sports allow that. Lebron can't put Taco bell on his shorts.

I just don't see this having a leg to stand on.

I don't know about the WWE, but for the actual sports, those things are usually collectively bargained.

The UFC likes to keep their fighters at arm's length, as "independent contractors", when it suits them, but impose conditions on them as if they were employees.

The video games thing will be interesting, because IIRC (I probably don't), it wasn't in the contracts before, but when the UFC got a video game deal, Dana goes around saying "we got a **** video game, sign this so we can put you in it forever, oh yeah, you don't get any of the money from it, lol". The deal was basically sign over your rights, or go fight somewhere else, which may be illegal in and of itself, or it might not, but I imagine the fighters will argue they were strongarmed into signing the deals because of the UFC's status as a monopoly.

The Reebok deal seems way easier, because there's no chance the fighters agreed to that. The only thing with that, is that this case was apparently in the works long before the Reebok deal was made.

That all being said, we don't know the language of the fighters' contracts, nor the lawsuit, so it's hard to say much either way. Though from the sounds of it, I don't think it can just be dismissed.

[CPT]

As I side note, if the fighters involved turn out to just be old guys with an ax to grind (Shamrock, Couture, Tito, etc.), I'll be disappointed.

I hope to see some current big name fighters taking a stand here.

[Susan]

GSP seems to be the most likely of the big names to me.

[REDDzone]

Lots of rumblings that this will get filed tomorrow.

[blkout]

Surely there's got to be a precedent somewhere in sports sponsorship that the UFC can use to win this.

The fighters are considered independent contractors. I really doubt that there has ever been anything like this before.

Not technically a sport but WWE performers are independent contractors also and they're not allowed to display their own sponsorship unless it's something the company agrees on (Brock Lesnar is the only one I think).

[REDDzone]

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/15/7 ... d-at-press

Tomorrow confirmed with presser to follow the filing...

[REDDzone]

There is a fun thread on the UG that is just compiling rumors about this. One very common rumor is that the three primary plaintiffs consist of: 2 former ufc fighters and 1 "technically current" ufc fighter.

Very interesting. Any speculation? The technically current is of interest to me. The fighters I can think of that fit that description are: Cung Le, Rich Franklin, Wanderlei Silva.

I may not even follow this case if its coming from someone as delusional as Wanderlei, unless the law firms are really as prestigious as described and have some case.

Also, again take it fwiw, but the rumors are saying none of the current plaintiffs are Randy, Frank or Ken.

LOL, if it ends up being like Ken Shamrock, Wand (making videos yelling at the camera the whole time), and Tito....someone may as well delete this thread haha.

[CPT]

Cung seems like a likely choice. I remember seeing a headline about him asking to be released, but I didn't care enough to read it.

GSP could be "technically current", couldn't he?

Even just GSP would be a bit underwhelming. I'm hoping they have some guys who actually have something to lose. Jon Jones, Anderson Silva (technically current?), or someone like that.

[REDDzone]

Oh man, I'll disagree with you about the GSP thing. I think that immediately becomes the news of the year in cammo's thread. The ufc's biggest draw and golden boy...just goes rogue.

Plus with GSP, unlike if its someone like Ken/Tito/Rampage/Wand, you KNOW it would be well thought out and strategic and at the very least there would be a case and not just something frivolous.

My BEST guess would be Cung. Kept hearing him complain about the ufc's handling of his test, demanded a release, but has now been very quiet recently. Because this is on the horizon possibly? Also would kind of make sense with the presser supposedly in San Jose, no?