The UFC really has its fighters on a short leash these days. This can’t be more evidenced than by the fact that Jason (The Athlete) MacDonald, who sports a 5-5 record in the UFC and can be counted on to "bring it" every time he enters the cage, was released from his four-fight contract over the weekend. This after he lost the first two bouts of his new deal.
It was obviously very disappointing news to his supporters, especially the Canadian ones. But I think it’s worse than that. I think it’s a trend that could ultimately hurt the UFC in terms of its fan following.
I considered writing about this last month after Jason (Dooms) Day was cut following his second straight Octagon loss. But now that another Albertan was given his walking papers, I have no choice.
And believe me it’s not about sticking up for those who bare the maple leaf. I felt the same way when Rich Clementi was handed his pink slip in February.
It’s about allowing fans of this exploding sport -- and its top promotion, which does so many things right in terms of marketing -- to follow fighters they like without having to worry that in one month they might not be able to see them on a PPV again.
Is it expected after a guys drops two in a row? Well, you can’t even say that, because that isn’t the case with every fighter. In fact, there’s no clear rhyme or reason as to why a two-fight skid is death knell for one fighter but not another.
Why hasn’t Joe Stevenson (6-4 in the UFC) been shown the door? Or Houston Alexander (2-3), for that matter. He’s dropped three straight.
Why was Sam Stout given a chance to avoid a third straight loss, while MacDonald wasn’t? Each lost three of his past four in the Octagon. What about Ed Herman? (Who incidentally was victimized by MacDonald a couple years ago.) His second consecutive defeat last September dropped his overall UFC record to 3-4. At least MacDonald has never been under .500. The standard isn’t clear, if there even is one.
How about the upcoming bout in Germany between Rich Franklin and Wanderlei Silva, who are both coming off losses: Will the loser be out of a job?
Not only is this tough for fans, it puts the athletes in very uncomfortable situations. Imagine you’re a fighter and you win a big fight and earn yourself a four-fight deal. You figure, “Great, I’ve got four more fights to move myself up the ladder.” Oops, a couple of hiccups in your first two. “No worries,” you think. “I’ve got two more, and if I put on great performances in my next two against tough competition, I can get myself back in a good position.”
Nope, the UFC pulls the rug from under you. Why? Because they have too many fighters and not enough cards to get them in? Does that mean you have to “trim the fat”?
Obviously fighters are aware of the precarious situation they’re in when they sign their deals, because the contracts are not guaranteed. And this isn’t the only sport where that exits.
The NFL has non-guaranteed contracts. The difference is, if you're cut from a team, there are 31 other suitors, all of whom are equal. You can't simply cut a guy if he has two bad games and know if and when you want him back, he'll be available and eager to return.
What you can do is bench the player. Which is essentially what the UFC should do. You don't have room on your cards and you want the guy to get his "game" back in order? "Bench" him. Tell him he won't be fighting for a while and he's free in the meantime to fight on other "smaller" (read: non-rival) promotions. But find a spot for him before too long, to allow him to -- as Jason wrote in his own blog -- "work through his slump."
Then there's no re-negotations if and when you want (or need) him to step in for a fight. And the fighter doesn't have to consider taking a pay cut if and when you offer him a brand new contract. He has the peace of mind to go out there and fight according to the deal you've already worked out with him. Why should you as an organization be holding all the cards?
It’s not about protecting the fighters at the expense of your business; these guys are good assets. They’ve built a fan base, people are excited to see their next fight. You think because they’ve lost two in a row, the fans don’t want to see them again? They might want to see them more, to see how they’ll rebound from added adversity. That builds intrigue.
The EPL has relegation. But you have to be bad for a whole year and what causes you to be relegated is clearly defined. Here, the fighters have to hold their breaths.
If you’re the UFC, why do you want to do that to your athletes? Why do you want to do that to the fans?
Finally, there’s the argument that it’s all about the W. But, since we’re talking business, shouldn’t it be all about the dough? And if you’ve got a guy who your president says “always puts on exciting fights,” has a tremendous fan base that drives gate and peripheral sales, and whose record in your organization is still no worse than .500, why not let him at least finish out his contract?
He deserves it. So do the fans.
