Trading Shots: Was the UFC right to withhold pay for outfitting policy violations?

Donald Cerrone

In this week’s Trading Shots, retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss the UFC’s move to withhold pay from fighters due to violations of the UFC’s outfitting policy.

Downes: Ben, the first week of 2016 has ended and we already have another chapter of the infamous “Reebok Deal” in the books. Three UFC fighters received reductions in their outfitting payments for “knowingly and seriously” violating the policy.

We were upset at the payouts in general, and now some fighters will be receiving even less. Where’s your outrage? This the most egregious insult yet, right? To the barricades!

Fowlkes: I know you’re expecting me to reach for the pitchfork purely on reflex here, but after looking into this story last week, I think this one is not quite so simple.

On one hand, yes, it sucks to hear that fighters lost money because of a failure to adhere to the deal that is already costing most of them money. It especially sucks for the fighters who had existing contracts before the UFC signed this deal with Reebok, because the rules were essentially changed on them without any chance for them to voice an opinion.

On the other hand, I understand that if the UFC is going to make this deal work, it has to have some way of ensuring that fighters don’t just rip off their Reebok trunks to reveal a pair of Condom Depot shorts right before the fight starts. Financial measures are a good way to ensure compliance.

But there are two things about this “withholding” situation that bother me. One is what the UFC does with the money it takes from fighters. According to UFC officials I spoke with this week, that money stays with the UFC. Or, as one UFC official put it, the money “remains in the athlete outfitting policy compensation fund and will continue to be distributed to the athletes who comply with the policy.”

That doesn’t mean that other fighters are going to get more money now that Donald Cerrone got less. It just means that the UFC still has his money, which also means that the UFC could potentially have an incentive to find fault with how fighters conform to the outfitting policy.

That leads me to my other concern. The UFC said that these fighters “knowingly” violated the policy. In Cerrone’s case, that seems to be true. In the case of one other fighter who spoke on the condition of anonymity, it wasn’t. He characterized his violation as more of a misunderstanding and said he wouldn’t have done it if he’d known he’d lose money over it. Tell me Danny, doesn’t that concern you a little bit?

Downes: What concerns me is that you’re expecting me to give an opinion about an anonymous quote referencing a violation which I know nothing about. Some writers may feel comfortable making statements based on pure conjecture and rumor, but not Daniel W. Downes, my friend. Was this anonymous fighter trying to push the bounds? Did he tiptoe up to the line and call their bluff?

As much as fighters and fans dislike the Reebok deal, it is a fact of life now. It makes sense that the UFC would have rules and enforcement procedures in place to try to make this thing work. You may not like paying your taxes, but “knowingly and seriously” avoiding them doesn’t usually have the best results.

I agree that the withholding situation is a cause for concern. If it simply goes back to the pool of money, you’re right that it incentivizes the UFC to find more violations. As the big homey Sheryl Crow once said, “The first cut is the deepest,” and now that the first punishments have been levied, it’ll be easier to cite precedent. You’ll be able to point to other fighters who have been punished and use them as examples.

When you spoke to the UFC official, did you find out if there are ways to dispute these withholdings? I doubt we’ll see independent arbitrators hired any time soon, but do these fighters have any recourse other than begging on Twitter?

Fowlkes: We didn’t discuss a specific appeals process, mainly because the UFC’s position seems to be that everyone knew there would be consequences to their actions.

And that makes me wonder, Danny. What happens if a sponsor comes along and tells a fighter that they’ll give him, say, twice what his Reebok pay is just to sneak a logo onto his shorts? Then, even if he loses a portion of his outfitting policy pay, he still comes out ahead.

The UFC maintains that it has the right to pull a fighter from a bout over these violations, but we all know that just wouldn’t be tenable in some circumstances. You’re telling me that if Cerrone had put a Budweiser patch on his shorts and refused to remove it, the UFC would have yanked him from the fight and left big FOX without a main event? Not bloody likely.

That’s what I wonder about going forward. You mention this as the first cut. You think it will make fighters fall in line? Or will it just make them mad?

Downes: I suppose it could be a little from column A and a little from column B.

At the same time, I wonder if fighters really care. I bet a lot of them file it under, “Sucks for Cerrone, but I got mine.” I imagine that there will come a day where a particular fighter challenges the outfitting policy to the level you propose, but he/she will probably end up getting cut and moving on to another organization. Solidarity is not really a common trait among fighters.

We’ve gone back and forth here, but what’s your ultimate conclusion? I feel like we’ve basically said, “rules are rules.” It may be unfortunate that fighters had funds withheld, but it’s the UFC’s prerogative to discipline as it sees fit. Like any business, the UFC’s ultimate duty is to maximize profits. Does that make me a shill for saying that? Should I just go out and apply for a job at Turing Pharmaceuticals?

Fowlkes: I think it’s fine for people to acknowledge that the UFC is a business which exists to make money for its owners, but that doesn’t mean anything it does as part of that pursuit is automatically excusable.

At the same time, you’re right that the Reebok deal is a reality at this point. I totally understand why the UFC would institute some kind of punitive measure to make sure fighters abide by it. I also think, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the UFC should take whatever money it withholds from rule-breaking fighters and give it to charity. Then, at least, something good can come from the sin of knowingly and seriously flouting the Reebok commandments.

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.