Trading Shots: Who's winning – and losing – in the UFC's Reebok deal?

Johny Hendricks

In this week’s Trading Shots, retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss whether fighters are getting a raw deal in the UFC’s exclusive apparel sponsorship deal with Reebok, and what it would take for them to do something about it.

Downes: Ben, this past week the numbers from the partnership between Reebok and the UFC came out. The initial reaction from fighters has been overwhelmingly negative, aside from a few out there who welcome the deal, and a few others who basically say it’s the UFC’s business to do with as it pleases.

What does Ben Fowlkes think? Fighters will be affected in the short term, but isn’t this ultimately a good thing for the sport as a whole? Doesn’t Reebok lend more credibility and professionalism to the sport? Remember Hoelzer Reich?

Fowlkes: I keep hearing that argument, and I see some merit in it, but I also see people skipping steps to arrive at that conclusion. Getting rid of the Dude Wipes logo and replacing it with the Reebok one is an improvement, but it doesn’t instantly make the sport of professional cagefighting any more (or less) legit. It just changes a piece of the scenery.

Seriously, when’s the last time you decided to watch or not watch a sporting event because of the Brands™ associated with it? Reebok is a well-known company, but it’s not as if anything it touches turns to gold. This isn’t Apple we’re talking about here.

Which is not to say that Reebok can’t help the sport’s image or clean up the look of UFC gear. It could. Then again, it could also just homogenize the hell out of it, stripping fighters of their individuality. I guess we’ll have to wait and see which way that goes.

What did you make of the fighter reaction? Those numbers were lower than I expected, but I admit I was a little surprised at the force of the response. Is this a tipping point in MMA’s ongoing labor vs. management dispute? If Danny “Boy” Downes was still in the game, could he live off $2,500 in sponsor pay?

Downes: Honestly, $2,500 in sponsor pay would have been a huge improvement from what I earned in my UFC fights. Now, how much of that falls on my management and how much was a factor of the larger sponsorship environment, that’s hard to say. The one thing that people fail to realize when discussing all the numbers out there is that these are gross wages, not the actual take home money.

I know nobody likes talking about accounting, but after your coaches take their cut, manager takes his/her cut, Uncle Sam takes his cut (at an unfavorable rate, because you’re an independent contractor), another government takes its cut (if you fight overseas or live in another country), and pay for training costs? Well, that $8000/$8000 contract plus Reebok money shrinks quickly.

Having said that, I don’t think this event will be the “tipping point” in the labor vs. management dispute. If anything, I think it shows why it’s further off than we would hope. Why? Because everyone is out for themselves. The people with higher profiles that could actually accelerate the change won’t say anything because 1) they’re already doing pretty well for themselves and 2) why should they put a target on their backs? The mid- and lower-tier fighters could stand to benefit the most from collectivization, but who can guarantee they’ll be on the roster long enough to do anything?

Should it prompt some change? I think you could make that argument. Especially when fighters are being told that this deal is no different than “any other sports league.” We all know what a false equivalency that is. As we’ve seen every time fighter pay is discussed, though, the vast majority of the public sides with promoters. Nobody asked them to be fighters! Why don’t they try to get a real job! The guy at McDonalds doesn’t get a Reebok sponsorship!

As much as some people (myself included) would like to see some type of fighters union, I just don’t see it happening. Do you really think it’s a possibility? What makes you think that fighters aren’t just going to complain and go about their business? It happened with the “sponsor tax,” and it’ll happen with this. Unfortunately, the odds of fighters keeping the momentum with this is about as likely as some mass exodus to another MMA organization – none.

Fowlkes: Really, $2,500 in sponsor pay would have been an improvement for you? Damn, Danny. I feel like I could have gotten you better money than that. It’s just about finding synergy with the right sponsor. For you, I’m thinking one of those shady online colleges would’ve been perfect. Maybe an industrial-strength sunblock too, just to round things out.

To be honest, I think fighters have already spoken out more than expected about the Reebok numbers. Usually there’s a lot more fear of reprisal, and you could still see that poking through in spots here, but I also think you saw the meta-discussion about that aspect of it also starting to show. For instance:

You’re right, though, sustaining that outrage is the hard part. As much as MMA fans on the Internet love a good rage-a-thon, they’re also usually pretty quick to move on. Maybe one key to preventing that this time around is to remind people of the role that sponsors used to play in the UFC.

That outside money? It wasn’t just a bonus. For many notable fighters, it was what made their careers possible and profitable.

Those sponsors were subsidizing UFC salaries, in a way. If they go away, only to be replaced by lower payouts from Reebok, how exactly does that help the sport? Why wouldn’t that be one more reason for high-caliber athletes with any choice at all to choose another sport, or even just another line of work? If the UFC’s six-year deal with Reebok represents a net loss of income for the majority of UFC fighters – which, at least so far, is what nearly everyone I’ve talked to is projecting – how does that help elevate the level of competition in the UFC?

Downes: I don’t know, Ben. I feel like if you were my manager all I’d end up with is a subscription to the The Atlantic and a bulk bag of gas station coffee beans. I always tossed around the idea of tanning a sponsor’s name on myself, but kudos to “Smile’n” Sam Alvey for actually going through with it.

(As a total aside, what does it mean when Tom Wright says, “We tried to do something to remove it; it was unremovable?” Did they try to touch it up so it said “Perfect Tennis Shoe” with a Reebok logo?)

Again, I don’t think the Reebok deal affects the long-term sustainability of the sport. Fighters got on with far less than they do now, and MMA as a whole has progressed. My first fight in the WEC was for $4,000 to show and $4,000 to win. Not only did I lose the fight, but it was on short notice (five days) so there was no sponsor pay.

If I recall correctly, the Canadian government took about $500 – $800 (American) – off the top when I received the check in the locker room. Then, I had to give management and coaching their respective cuts.

One of the problems, though, was that they earned their percentages based off the contracted amount ($4,000), not the net $3,200-$3,500. Couple that with the fact that to get licensed in Edmonton, I had to get an MRI scan of my brain. That was $1,200 out of my own pocket. Needless to say, I didn’t walk away with a lot to show for it (although I did experience the “Iron Man” shot challenge afterward).

I taught lessons at the gym and did other things to supplement my income. Could you argue that having to find secondary sources of income negatively affected my growth as a fighter? I suppose you could say that. But there are other fighters who do the same thing, and have had greater success.

From the clothes that the athletes wear, to even the songs they’re allowed to walk out to, the UFC should be able to exert control over how it wants to present its product. I don’t think anyone disputes that. Like anything, though, it should come at a cost.

The problem with this deal so far is that fighters seem to be bearing the majority of the costs. No one expects the UFC to sign a deal that would hurt its long-term financial interests. We should just expect that a deal wouldn’t hurt competitors’ long-term interests. I’m sure that more of the details will come available, but as of right now, who’s really winning? Seems like everybody’s lost so far.

Fowlkes: The UFC seems to be winning. I’ve seen various people offer projected breakdowns of what the UFC will pay out in sponsor money based on these Reebok tiers, and most of them show a considerable gap between what we know the UFC is getting and what it seems poised to pay out.

This one, for instance, shows what the UFC would have paid over the last three years if this deal had been in effect. It’s roughly half the $11.3 million and change that the UFC is making per year from this six-year, $70 million deal. The projection for 2015 is a little higher – almost $6.5 million – but that still leaves almost $5 million unaccounted for. You’re going to tell me all that goes to “operating costs”?

But, as you pointed out, the UFC should make money off a licensing deal. That’s how those usually work. Where it gets into trouble is when it makes that money at the expense of its fighters, which are already, on average, compensated pretty poorly in comparison with other major sports.

It also doesn’t help that the UFC claimed first that it wouldn’t make a penny off this deal, then later that the “vast majority” of the money would go to the fighters. Unless we’re missing something with these payout projections (which is possible), neither seems to be the case.

I know you don’t think that fans really care how fighters are paid and/or treated, but I think you’re wrong. I also think this Reebok thing could be what proves it. We love MMA in part because we appreciate the tremendous sacrifices fighters make, as well as the risks they take, in pursuit of this peculiar type of glory.

We want them to be rewarded. We are sensitive to any hint of them being exploited. When they talk about that, we listen. If they cared as much about each other’s money as they do about their own, they might have a real voice in this conversation.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.