Last week the Strait Times reported on a developing story that underscored the continuing tension between Nike and the UFC. A Nike-sponsored world tour which touts appearances by Jon Jones, Anderson Silva and Georges St. Pierre is being called “false advertising” by the UFC.
The 11 city overseas tour began in Paris May 5th and runs through June 7th with a final stop in Manila. Jones and Silva are sponsored by Nike. Although GSP is sponsored by Under Armour, organizers claim he will be making an appearance.
The Strait Times, which is based in Singapore, indicates that the fighters will host a clinic and meet and greet there. Fans will pay as much as $888 for the clinic and/or $128 for the meet and greet.
The Strait Times claims that the UFC has addressed the appearances and stated that the promotion of the UFC fighters was “false advertising” and advised fans not to buy tickets as the fighters are not involved.
Payout Perspective:
The report appears to show the continuing rift between Nike and the UFC. The Beaverton, Oregon sportswear giant seems to be unwilling to yield to the UFC sponsor fees. The latest sign was the lack of the swoosh on Jones during his latest fight at UFC 172. At the weigh-ins, any signs of the Nike were taped over. This included the shirts worn by Jones’ brothers who accompanied the champ to the scales. There was no word whether the three were in Paris on Monday.
UFC will do anything to make sure the fighters make less money
Someone explain to me again how the UFC’s sponsor policy is good for fighters.
Typical garbage from me and co.
Diego not sure what this has to do with what u r talking about. R the fighter appearing for Nike or is it a scam? That is what the article is about.
Is far as the UFC policy being good for fighters. It is t meant just for fighters. It is to protect the UFC sponsorship revenue also. But you ask how this helps fighters. We’ll ask your self how many fighters are paid by Nike? Basically there is 2 in half ass deals that hardly exist on the level as guys from other sports. IF Nike paid the “tax” they would sponsor many more fighters and use them rather than pretend they do t exist. The tax forces a commitment from sponsors like Nike who have yet to show one to the sport or it’s sponsored fighters. Didn’t Jones have to ask for a deal? Where is Anderson Silva’s nike relationship here in the US? Simply put Nikes has zero presence in this sport and it has nothing to do with the tax. The tax forces a commitment from companies who refuse to make one. Nike should not be able to push their brand to mma fans by using promotions and fighters and not promote those fighters, promotion, or sport to the rest of the world. In other words they are selling to the mma community while being ashamed of the community. They are not shy about their connection with NFL or NBA or their players. Using a cheap tax as an excuse when This company spends millions on players from other sports is a lame excuse to defend them.
BS,
You let your support of the UFC blind you to reason.
The article is about the UFC doing it’s usual job of maligning anyone who doesn’t play by their absurd rules. How does Dana even know where those fighters are going to be? Only one of the three is active – one is on injury reserve and the other one is retired. Given the choice between believing Dana and believing Nike, I’ll take Nike.
The only reason Dana is saying anything is because Nike won’t play ball. That’s also why all the Jone’s Nike logos got taped over – which winds up hurting Jones no matter how you want to justify it.
“IF Nike paid the “tax” they would sponsor many more fighters and use them rather than pretend they do t exist…The tax forces a commitment from companies who refuse to make one. ”
That is so far from reality that it’s laughable. You can’t force a commitment from a company by charging them a fee. The tax makes the cost of sponsorship higher, which weeds out companies who might otherwise sponsor a fighter. That’s all it does. What you’re suggesting would be like Jones saying that he will only accept sponsorships of $1M or more in order to force his sponsors to be more committed to him. All that would achieve is for sponsors to dump him.
“Simply put Nikes has zero presence in this sport”
Apparently they are trying to improve their presence by launching a “Fighter World Tour” and for some reason Dana is against it. Why could that be? Oh yeah, he’s not getting a cut so he doesn’t want his fighters to get paid either. If Nike has zero presence in MMA, it’s because they refuse to deal with slimy promoters.
“Nike should not be able to push their brand to mma fans by using promotions and fighters and not promote those fighters, promotion, or sport to the rest of the world.”
What is this? Communist central planning? Nike should be allowed to market to any consumers that it damn well wants to. And actually, what they are trying to do is exactly what you claim they are not doing – namely promote the sport globally.
“In other words they are selling to the mma community while being ashamed of the community. They are not shy about their connection with NFL or NBA or their players.”
Huh? They are launching a tour and taking some big MMA stars. How is that being ashamed? And they are not ashamed of sponsoring MMA fighters – it’s Dana that won’t let their logo be shown.
“Using a cheap tax as an excuse when This company spends millions on players from other sports is a lame excuse to defend them.”
You misunderstand the fundamental reason why other (non-MMA) athletes get more money from Nike – Nike spends more on other athletes because those athletes have higher exposure. More people watch the NBA on a given night than watch the UFC. And there are more nights of NBA in a year. Total views of a Nike logo if it’s on LeBron’s shoes compared to being on Jon Jones’ shorts aren’t even close. If MMA was a mainstream sport like Dana keeps claiming, then MMA fighters would command the same millions from endorsement deals that the top basketballers can earn.
This is just typical of the UFC’s narrow-minded mentality.
Nike has the power to turn fighters into popular icons which indirectly and directly can only help the UFC. But the UFC executives are so small minded w/ a thugs cash-only mentality that they are essentially fighting over peanuts — stepping over dollars to pick up the dimes.
This is the reason why the UFC is incapable of building new stars — nobody can be bigger than the brand and you better be grateful or apologetic every time that it is demanded of you. This translates into a very jealous & constricting relationship where everything that you make on the side will only make us question your loyalties — like a jealous wife that demands your happiness only come from her.
Remember when Dana always had these “cool” tshirts, a different one for every appearance? (maybe he still does, I just stopped watching his stuff)
He should also wear one with the taped over Nike Logo…
Dave Meltzer of wrestlingobserver/mmafighting mentioned on wrestling observer radio “I don’t begrudge the UFC for charging sponsorship tax or whatever you want to call it. If I was running the UFC. I would probably would to”
It would be simply retarded for the UFC to allow any company to milk the sport. Why should the UFC let Nike have free advertising when no other league does? Nike is just using the sport. Using the measly tax as an excuse is sad. No league allows sponsors who are not sponsoring the team or league. The nba has fined guys in the past for wearing a different brand of shoe. Guys in the nfl were forced to cover up the logo.