[Alexandergreat3]

Originally Posted by TheNinja

I also don't blame UFC for non-exclusives either.

I think you meant that the UFC contracts are exclusive (meaning the fighters only fight for the UFC), right?

You think the Patriots want Brady to go play Canadian football and get hurt?

Both the UFC and the Patriots do not want their athletes to get hurt by performing outside of their organization, because they do not want to lose their investment.

However, the Patriots' contracts are justifiable whereas the UFC's contracts are Not. Here is the MAJOR difference between the UFC and the Patriots:

The Patriots INVEST money into their players:
1) Paid them money
2) give training facility
3) coach them

This legittimately make the Patriot players their investment, and therefore, justifies their Exclusive contract.


The UFC DOES NOT invest anything into their fighers! :
1) The fighters get nothing during the off season to pay for living expenses
2) The fighters use their own money for training facility
3) The fighers hire their own coach with their own money

And because the UFC does NOT invest into their fighters, the fighters are NOT the UFC's investment, and therefore, there is NO justification to their protecting their "investments" by forcing exclusive contracts.

[Alexandergreat3]

Originally Posted by TheNinja

I also don't blame UFC for non-exclusives either.

Bro, I think you meant to say that the UFC contracts are exclusive, right? (Meaning that their fighters exclusively [only] fight for them)

You think the Patriots want Brady to go play Canadian football and get hurt?

Both the Patriots and the UFC do not want nor allow their ahtletes to play/fight for another organization and risk injuries. The Patriots and the UFC protect their "investments" by using Exclusive contracts.

Most of us know this.

But what most of us might not see is that: The Patriots invested in their players -- The UFC DO NOT.

For example:

The Patriots' investment into their players:

1) Pay their players
2) Provide free training facilities
3) Give free coaching

The UFC:

1) Only pay fighters after each fight
2) Fighters get NO money for living expenses
3) Do NOT pay for fighters' training facilities
4) Do NOT pay for fighters' coaching

So as we can see, between the Patriots and the UFC, ONLY the Patriots INVESTED in their players - The UFC DO NOT. Therefore, only the Patriots have the legitimacy in protecting their investments by Exclusive contracts.

By the way, just to make it clear, I'm not a "UFC hater". I'm just pointing out the unfair treatment that the UFC contracts force onto the fighters.

[MmaTurf.com]

sell shirts!

[Alexandergreat3]

Damn, double post.

[Xamien]

Originally Posted by Alexandergreat3

Bro, I think you meant to say that the UFC contracts are exclusive, right? (Meaning that their fighters exclusively [only] fight for them)



Both the Patriots and the UFC do not want nor allow their ahtletes to play/fight for another organization and risk injuries. The Patriots and the UFC protect their "investments" by using Exclusive contracts.

Most of us know this.

But what most of us might not see is that: The Patriots invested in their players -- The UFC DO NOT.

For example:

The Patriots' investment into their players:

1) Pay their players
2) Provide free training facilities
3) Give free coaching

The UFC:

1) Only pay fighters after each fight
2) Fighters get NO money for living expenses
3) Do NOT pay for fighters' training facilities
4) Do NOT pay for fighters' coaching

So as we can see, between the Patriots and the UFC, ONLY the Patriots INVESTED in their players - The UFC DO NOT. Therefore, only the Patriots have the legitimacy in protecting their investments by Exclusive contracts.

By the way, just to make it clear, I'm not a "UFC hater". I'm just pointing out the unfair treatment that the UFC contracts force onto the fighters.

The Patriots don't pay their players or give them training facilities in the offseason, and most players hire their own personal trainers and nutritionists.

You also leave out the fact that the UFC has to pay money to promote their fighters.

Your comparison fails in pretty much every way.

[Alexandergreat3]

Originally Posted by Xamien

The Patriots don't pay their players or give them training facilities in the offseason,

When a player is signed by the Patriots, the players are paid. That's before they even played, right? This is how the players pay for their living expenses?

and most players hire their own personal trainers and nutritionists.

Don't their team have their own trainers/nutritionists?

You also leave out the fact that the UFC has to pay money to promote their fighters.

The UFC promote the fighters before a fight as part of marketing. They are investing into promoting the Fight, which is no different than in Boxing. Boxing don't lock their players into exclusive contracts.

Your comparison fails in pretty much every way.

I think you fail to realize the unfair treatment of the UFC contracts.

[drivesick1]

I hope affliction doesn't go under cause I really like their stuff. I also think that part of their plan is promoting the affliction name to sell more shirts. part of this is advertising and the possible losses may be fine and used as a writeoff to offset the great sales of the clothing.

[falconstalon]

Originally Posted by *******.com

sell more shirts, at new price $99....

A WINNER IS YOU!

[carso]

Originally Posted by Broncoi!

who cares, i dont care about their business plan

Then why are you reading, or even posting in this thread?

[fighttime84]

im confused also