Issue 101

May 2013

After a wave of contract releases, disputes, and career-stifling court cases, we ask the MMA universe, should there be a fighters' union?

YES: Tito Ortiz – UFC Hall of Famer

For sure... I think it’s about time. It would help a lot of guys out, and make it a lot easier for some guys. A lot of fighters need the support and advice that a union could bring... 

But, that said, at the end of the day it comes down to the individual, you’ve got to do the extra work. You’ve got to take things like speech classes; you’ve got to do that extra work to make the difference. It’s not enough just to turn up and fight; it’s not.”

NO: Duke Roufus – Former kickboxer turned Roufusport head coach

The guys who have all the advantages in fighting are the best. I’m not saying unions are bad, but unions are designed to protect the guys on the bottom. 

Now, in my opinion, if you’re not the best then you don’t deserve to have what the best guys have. It’s just the way fighting has always been. 

People have a problem in MMA with trying to make it like a team sport, but it’s not a team sport. Fighting has always been about the guy who is the best getting rewarded with the most, and if you’re not the best then unfortunately you don’t get rewarded.”

What you had to say on the matter...

"The sport is too young to benefit from a union. The money/promotion aren't ready yet." – @MATBISMORE

"No, unions almost always end up manipulating the employees and employers to own ends and fans would suffer ultimately." – @HOWAY_THE_MAGS

"It would probably make start-up promotions even harder to perform if a union got involved in a fighter's affairs." – @PUNISHERPOP

"No. It's what managers are for in the first place. Also, a union rep may not necessarily represent all individual fighters' needs." – @BILLYHOLKUSMASH