MMA Fighting reports that Vitor Belfort has asked the UFC to pay him for being ready to fight at UFC St. Louis but it appears that Dana White is claiming that due to the fact that he turned down replacement fights, he will not be compensated.
Belfort’s opponent, Uriah Hall, was unable to weigh-in on Saturday before Sunday’s event and the fight was cancelled. White blamed Hall for not being able to fight as he claims that he was not taking training seriously.
Dana White with some harsh words from Uriah Hall, says he didn’t take his weight cut serious and that was the cause of his incident. https://t.co/zpksS4RJXg pic.twitter.com/LPKtuIo6TQ
— Mike Bohn (@MikeBohnMMA) January 15, 2018
On social media, Belfort asked for his pay as he trained for the bout and made weight.
White rebutted the notion of paying Belfort by claiming that he had turned down a replacement fight and another for next week in Boston.
Payout Perspective:
It’s clear that there must be an actual policy for payment which should be in a fighter’s contract that the fighter is guaranteed at least his purse (and maybe win bonus) if he or she is able to make weight and their opponent cannot fight. Offering a replacement is a solution but a flawed one for the simple fact that Belfort has trained specifically for one fight and is now presented with another. Moreover, a loss would impact their ranking and earning potential. Not to mention loss of win bonus. From the UFC perspective, it’s the best that they can do. But, it would seem fair that since the fighter did everything possible to fulfill the terms of the contract, there should be some sort of mechanism where they are compensation in the event the other party fails to fulfill their terms of the bout agreement. It would seem finding a replacement would put the fighter in a “take it or not get paid” position. I’ve been told that this scenario does not just happen in MMA but also in boxing which is unfortunate. The solution, of course, is to push for a better deal in the bout agreement. This is easier said than done because the bargaining leverage is skewed toward the promoter.
Leave a Reply