MMA in recent years has "grown to nearly rival tennis or golf in the value of its sponsorships and the breadth of its audience," but it has "failed to develop a counterweight shared by most other professional sports: some form of collective organization, setting standards for athlete compensation and other rights," according to Lydia DePillis of the WASHINGTON POST. MLB, the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLS "all have unions" and they also "pay out a much higher percentage of their revenue in player salaries than MMA promoters do." Some fighters are "talking about creating an organization that can advocate for fighters, pay their legal bills and negotiate with promoters over salaries and benefits." U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) is backing legislation that "would subject MMA to the same rules that were instituted for boxing 16 years ago, giving fighters more leverage in their negotiations with the corporations running the show." DePillis noted UFC "did away with personal sponsors in the ring when it cut an exclusive deal with Reebok." Fighters get some revenue, but the deal "limits their ability to seek their own sponsors who might pay them more." The MMA Fighters Association "aims to fund itself through group licensing revenue and provide some collective benefits, including litigation support and financial planning." It also "sets its sights on a more far-reaching goal: legislation in Congress that would protect all MMA fighters." Rob Maysey, who established the MMAFA in '06, said, "Our overall goal is not to change the classification from contractor to employee. It’s to bust up the stranglehold on the sport that one promoter has to allow these guys to move around to a whole bunch of different promotions. That will drive their market value" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/24).
