Top female fighters say Reebok deal lacks equal treatment of women, UFC disagrees
Reaction from fighters and managers to the UFC's new exlusive uniform deal with Reebok has been mixed in recent weeks. Months ago, the UFC announced that pay to fighters from the deal would be based on their own internal rankings, but after a great deal of criticism, the UFC changed it to a tiered payment system based on tenure of athletes in the UFC and other Zuffa-owned promotions.
Many fighters have expressed enthusiasm about the deal, while many others have complained that the exclusive terms of the deal will cut out other sponsors and cost them a lot of money.
Now, the discussion has a new component to it -- gender equality. A week ago, top-ranked bantamweight star Miesha Tate expressed concern that the UFC's female athletes will necessarily be treated unequally in comparison to its male athletes, by virtue of the defintion of tenure in the promotion's new athlete outfitting policy.
Under the policy, fights in the UFC as well as other, now defunct, promotions like Strikeforce and the WEC that happened while the UFC's parent company also owned those promotions, would count towards recognized tenured fights. However, fights in organizations like Invicta FC, which is broadcasted by UFC Fight Pass, and where the UFC lifted the bulk of its first ever Ultimate Fighter championship season, which featured strawweights female fighters, would not count.
Because of that, some of the world's best female fighters, highly ranked in the UFC and with years of experience, will not be paid by the Reebok deal similarly to comparably experienced and ranked male UFC fighters. "I think it's a little bit unfair for women's mixed martial arts because we've barely been in the UFC very long," Tate said.
"We don't have the same number of fights as the guys do, because they wouldn't let us in forever, you know?"
Tate herself is perhaps better positioned than many other female fighters because she has a significant number of fights in Strikeforce, under Zuffa ownership, that will count towards her tenure under the new athlete outfitting policy. However, she still believes her position is sorely lacking.
"I probably have the most fights [among female UFC fighters) because of Strikeforce, and I'm still only on the second tier, so I get 5000 dollars," she went on.
"So I'm losing probably 90% or like 80% of what I make in sponsorships, so that hurts."
Ultimately, the former world champ is still optimistic that things will work out for female UFC fighters like her, eventually. "Hopefully there will be more perks that we don't know about yet with Reebok," she concluded.
"But the straight dollar on what I'm getting paid is definitely taking a big hit,"
Two days ago, former Olympic wrestler and No. 4-ranked female bantamweight in the UFC's official rankings, Sara McMann, told MMA Fighting that she is also distressed over the promotion's new athlete outfitting policy and that she plans to meet with an attorney familiar with Title IX cases.
"I feel like this is a really touchy subject just because if you look at the numbers and you look at the facts, there could be a strong case for gender inequity in the way this deal is presented," she said.
"I think the UFC and Reebok would never want to be perceived as somebody who was treating an entire gender poorly."
Indeed, the UFC and Reebok changed their initial plan to base payout on rankings after criticism abound from observers and fighters. McMann believes that more thought needs to be put into the new athlete outfitting policy because as it stands now, it will not necessarily pay equally experienced and qualified male and female UFC fighters the same.
"Gender equity is a very big deal," McMann continued.
"The women are just recently added, but that doesn't mean that these girls haven't been fighting for years or been in other sports for years and they don't deserve to be compensated for that...They deserve $2,500?"
Neither McMann nor Tate seem to have suggested that the UFC ever intended to make an athlete outifitting policy that compensated equally experienced and qualified male and female fighters differently. The discrimination, however accidental and unintended, will be a reality, according to the two former UFC title challengers, and needs to be addressed.
"I'm not going to come and make statements if I don't actually have backing, if I'm not in the right. I'm not gonna pitch a fit and throw a tantrum. I'm gonna come intelligently and say that really is not fair," McMann went on.
"This is really something they really need to think about, because it does look discriminatory against an entire gender. So I think they probably will do the right thing and contact people and make personal deals. They've already done that with other people and I don't understand why they couldn't do that with the women."
FOX Sports reached out to the UFC for comment on McMann and Tate's concerns and received a statement early Thursday morning. According to the statement, the UFC does not officially agree with Tate or McMann that the new athlete outfitting policy and Reebok deal treats men and women differently.
"The new UFC Athlete Outfitting Policy (AOP) equally recognizes each athlete's tenure in UFC, as well as any bout appearances in the WEC and Strikeforce for the period those organizations were under the Zuffa, LLC ownership," the statement reads.
"Women fighters with limited bouts under the tenure model are treated the same as other experienced men or women new to UFC from other organizations not included in the tenure model. This new policy was designed to provide an equal opportunity for both men and women in each tenure tier. In addition, the champions and challengers, regardless of tenure, will be equally compensated under the AOP for their bouts, something few other sports can claim."
