UFC Sponsorship Policies Hurting Fighters?
Posted in Apparel, Featured, financial, sponsorships, UFC on December 10th, 2010 by Kelsey PhilpottJonathan Snowden of BloodyElbow has written an interesting sponsorship piece that argues the combination of the UFC’s sponsorship policies and the bad economy are hurting the fighters. He also suggests that this confluence of factors has perpetuated the fight camp issue over the last year.
As the UFC continues to record record profits at events around the world, it’s never been harder, in the post Ultimate Fighter world, for a fighter to secure a lucrative sponsorship deal. This is particularly true for fighters outside of the Zuffa empire – and it’s not just a product of an economy staggering and reeling like Zab Judah after a Kosta Tsyzu flurry. It’s part of a calculated campaign by the UFC to hurt its competition. Unfortunately, the primary victims are the men and women trying to make a living in the cage.
In many ways, this is just a reality of today’s business climate. While we often think of the UFC as an established monolith, the Fertitta brothers have actually owned the company for less than a decade. It’s still a very young business, run by the hyper-competitive Dana White. He wants the UFC to be associated with MMA the way professional football makes fans immediately think “NFL.” And he’s not afraid to play hardball with sponsors and rival fight promoters to get there.
“As the market collapses and the major sponsors keep cutting back, television fighters are losing their leverage. Guys without names are being pushed out of the market entirely,” one agent told Bloody Elbow anonymously for fear of retribution. “Clients outside the UFC are in even worse shape. Apparel companies are walking on eggshells and essentially won’t touch anyone outside of the UFC they don’t already have a deal with. No one wants to get banned.”
Payout Perspective:
I agree with the basic argument that the combination of the UFC’s sponsorship policies and the current economy have hurt the fighters financially. I also concur that this financial instability has helped to perpetuate the fight camp mentality that is currently wreaking havoc with many UFC divisions. However, I feel as though the article from Snowden unduly frames the UFC as the greedy bad guy in this situation.
It should be pointed out that official UFC sponsors are paying millions of dollars every year for a very particular, and often exclusive, set of rights. What other brands are doing through the sponsorship of fighters inside the Octagon is tantamount to ambush marketing. In that sense, the UFC is justified in charging the excess sponsorship fee as a means of curtailing these ambushing strategies, not of punishing or harming the fighters.
Tapout has become synonymous with the UFC by virtue of its long-held official sponsorship (essentially ownership) of the apparel category. Yet, if we were to erase all memory of Tapout from our collective brains and insert them as official sponsor today – given the current UFC sponsorship climate – does anyone really think Tapout would have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming as strongly associated with the UFC? No, absolutely not, and that’s the concern here. The level of confusion that exists as the result of ambushing may really hinder a brand’s ability to collect ROI/ROO. This, of course, then has some bearing on the ability of the UFC to solicit sponsorships across its official categories.
However, it’s also fair to acknowledge that the UFC has been less than consistent on this front. Bud Light is the UFC’s largest corporate partner and official beer sponsor, but the UFC has in recent years signed both Miller Lite and Mickey’s Malt Liquor to sponsor its TUF program on Spike TV. The same can be said for Xyience and AMP Energy or BSN and MusclePharm.
The Fighter Sponsorship House of Cards
The ability of brand’s to collect an ROI/ROO is also the reason I believe fighter sponsorship is a house of cards waiting to collapse. Yes, fighter sponsorship has played a pivotal role in helping to support fighters in the early years, but there simply isn’t a strong enough return under the current model to justify the investment. It’s not just a case of the economy being tough, either. It’s a case of the sponsorship industry waking up and finally understanding that this 1980′s model of sponsorship of cash for signage is absolutely ridiculous.
Investors have seen the success of the UFC or Tapout and figure they can achieve something similar. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. ABG’s acquisition of Tapout, Hitman and Silver Star is just the start of what will likely be a great deal of consolidation in the industry over the next few years. Some of these brands will be purchased by larger holding companies in order to gain market share, capitalize on economies of scale, and accumulate negotiation leverage. Many of the others will close up shop because they can’t differentiate their brand from the plethora of competition.
The brands that do survive are going to be the ones that figure out how to differentiate. Here, I do see a role for fighter sponsorship, but it’s likely to be something far closer to the contemporary endorsement agreement that brands have with today’s top athletes. The brand will pay for likeness rights and commitments to advertising, a set number of appearances, and specific social media interaction with the brand. Any sort of fight night signage will probably end up being a throw in or small percentage of the overall deal.
Why? The value in sponsorship comes from the generation of repeated impressions with an audience across a host of different message channels. The fighter’s appearance on a televised card with minuscule logos on his advertising banner or fight shorts simply is not enough to generate material ROI; and if that’s all the fighter is doing for the brand, there’s likely to be very little ROO, either.
The brands that find a way to create an integrated marketing strategy and then incorporate the fighter into that strategy will be most successful at leveraging his abilities to gain traction with the consumer.


