CNBC weighs in on Brock Lesnar, Bud Light and UFC sponsorship
CNBC's Darren Rovell weighs in on Brock Lesnar's post-fight condemnation of Bud Light,
In terms of official sponsors getting blindsided, this one takes the all time cake. When Anheuser-Busch took the risk of associating with the UFC, who ever thought that risk included having its competitor get the nod after one of the biggest fights in the organization's history?
The idea of pumping up Coors Light when they presumably didn't pay him wasn't a good idea. But the question as to what Lesnar owes UFC's official sponsors is a good one. Lesnar did what he did because he felt that, as the biggest star in UFC, he deserved his cut of what the UFC was making. This comes at a time when the UFC is now asking those who sponsor fighters to give the organization a cut so it's harder to ambush official sponsors who don't chose to sponsor the fighters. From the UFC's standpoint, the brands that sponsor the fighters are getting a cheap deal aligning with the brand without having to pay up. From the fighter's standpoint, any cut the UFC gets could take away from their pay and could restrict the amount of companies willing to still pay the fighters.
Lesnar's move was outrageous, but it wasn't an "in the heat of the moment" reaction as he might have you believe. There's a reason he did what he did. And it brings to a head the question of when companies buy rights to be an official sponsor, what do they get? And what do the athletes deserve? No matter what the answer is to that question, I know this. Bud Light didn't deserve Lesnar's "Silver Bullet" surprise.
Rovell taps into the most serious issue facing the UFC right now, sponsorship.
The UFC is trying to pursue as much high-level sponsorship as possible and in pursuit of that goal they have been restricting the options of fighter sponsorship more and more. Fighter's need independent sponsors due to their minuscule salaries and in fact the UFC has often cited this independent sponsorship as a reason for low salaries. Yet in the UFC's quest for continuity they are beginning to kill the independent sponsors market.
Dana White disagrees with this analysis saying,
We are the most lenient sports organization on planet (expletive) earth. When was the last time you saw guys wearing whatever they want in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, World Cup Soccer? Do guys wear whatever they want when they walk in? No they don't."
While factually correct this argument is completely disingenuous as all of the sports and league White described have collective bargaining agreements and player unions.
If the UFC continues with behind-the-scenes payouts with no CBA then criticism will build as the sport becomes more popular.
4 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It’s also disingenuous because all those sports Dana mentioned are team sports in which the players wear team uniforms, and those uniforms generally bear very little sponsor names/logos at all. Apples and oranges.
your response about player unions and collective bargaining is spot on….good post. besides, guys in the NBA that ride the bench clear a cool couple hundred grand….any prelim UFC fighters making a couple hundred grand a year? doubt it. training camp is provided at the start of the season by the team/organization….ufc fighters front the money for YEARS or training to even get a shot at 3k to fight, 3k to win when they get their foot in the door with the UFC “brand”
Gatti. Dekkers. Pele. Aoki. Kang. Vanderlei.
http://theworldsoldestsport.blogspot.com/
by theworldsoldestsport on Jul 17, 2009 5:23 PM EDT reply actions

by 















