UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> UFC is NOT a Monopoly


11/20/08 3:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1654
 
Monopoly definition

"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare."

Please tell me in what way the UFC has ever barred a competitor or used it's resources to stop someone from putting on a show? Seriously is there one specific example?

Pride, Bodog, IFL, Elite and soon to be Affliction have all self destructed because of their own mismanagement.

Saying the UFC is unfair because they're the only game in town is untrue and dishonest.
11/20/08 3:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
VectorWegaLives
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/7/08
Posts: 1956
shmuckothemighty - 
Please tell me in what way the UFC has ever barred a competitor or used it's resources to stop someone from putting on a show? Seriously is there one specific example?

 Please tell me where in the definition you just posted that a monopoly is definied by barring competitors or using it's resources to stop someone from competing.  Seriously, is there one specific example in that definition?  Did you just pull this out of your ass?
11/20/08 3:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
IRANmymouthagain
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/9/07
Posts: 5610
FAIL
11/20/08 3:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
effertime
33 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/15/06
Posts: 768
UFC is estimated to earn 90% of all MMA revenue.

http://instantmma.net/2008/11/07/msnbc-states-that-ufc-will-make-90-of-all-mma-revenue/


"a single company owns nearly all of the market for a given type of product.."

Sure sounds like a Monopoly. But who knows.
11/20/08 3:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1656
First of ALL pride had to follow the sanctioned rules and that had nothing to do with Dana.

2nd Pride was able to run shows in the US (which failed)and Dana tried to work with them but they didn't want to and would probably be in business if they did.

And you can have an MMA event in a non Octagon shape ring, even in a boxing ring.

So no you fail at logic
11/20/08 3:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1657
VectorWegaLives -
shmuckothemighty -
Please tell me in what way the UFC has ever barred a competitor or used it's resources to stop someone from putting on a show? Seriously is there one specific example?

Please tell me where in the definition you just posted that a monopoly is definied by barring competitors or using it's resources to stop someone from competing. Seriously, is there one specific example in that definition? Did you just pull this out of your ass?



http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html
11/20/08 3:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1658
Hojak -
shmuckothemighty - Monopoly definition

"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service....."


And you're telling me that's not the UFC in the states?

Please tell me in what way the UFC has ever barred a competitor or used it's resources to stop someone from putting on a show? Seriously is there one specific example?


They scheduled an event last-minute to go directly up against Affliction. That's about as far as you can take it professionally.



FAIL, BRO.


Hey you know what sometimes more than one movie comes out on a weekend. And TV shows are on at the same time.

Scheduling a counter programming does not stop Affliction from running theres and is not Monopolistic.

Do schools now days not teach any business courses?
11/20/08 3:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1659
tap0utartist -
shmuckothemighty - First of ALL pride had to follow the sanctioned rules and that had nothing to do with Dana.

2nd Pride was able to run shows in the US (which failed)and Dana tried to work with them but they didn't want to and would probably be in business if they did.

And you can have an MMA event in a non Octagon shape ring, even in a boxing ring.

So no you fail at logic[/quote



LOL just face the fact that you don't know what a monopoly is, how many people need to cock slap you for you to understand?


"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1]

Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition."

Again how has the UFC limited anyones access to any MMA event?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
11/20/08 3:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1660
tap0utartist - Look, its the UFC In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it



So where has the UFC denied anyone access to any other MMA event or promotion?
11/20/08 3:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
VectorWegaLives
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/7/08
Posts: 1960
shmuckothemighty - 
VectorWegaLives -
shmuckothemighty -
Please tell me in what way the UFC has ever barred a competitor or used it's resources to stop someone from putting on a show? Seriously is there one specific example?

Please tell me where in the definition you just posted that a monopoly is definied by barring competitors or using it's resources to stop someone from competing. Seriously, is there one specific example in that definition? Did you just pull this out of your ass?



http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html
Your reading comprehension really sucks because that has nothing to do with the questions you asked (which sadly, examples were given anyways).
 
11/20/08 3:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Mike F
37 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2474
Did multiple fighters not just get 6 figure paydays fighting for a company other than the UFC? That still has an upcoming card scheduled?
11/20/08 3:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1661
tap0utartist -
shmuckothemighty -
tap0utartist - Look, its the UFC In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it



So where has the UFC denied anyone access to any other MMA event or promotion?


"determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

Are you stupid, illiterate or are you trolling me?


Give an example in which the UFC caused Pride, Bodog, IFL, Elite or Affliction from running a show?

The failure of large competition is the competitions fault and not because the UFC unfairly controls any market resources, and therefor the UFC is not a Monopoly
11/20/08 3:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1662
tap0utartist -
tap0utartist - I hope this guy kills himself


Have you killed yourself yet?



Don't get angry at me because you think Monopoly is a man in a Top Hat trying to get out if jail free.

Just keep reading and you might learn something.
11/20/08 3:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1663
tap0utartist -
shmuckothemighty - Give an example in which the UFC caused Pride, Bodog, IFL, Elite or Affliction from running a show?


"determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

LOL, please read you fucking idiot


I'll type real slow for you..

How ....Has...The....UFC....Determined...anyones....access....to...other....MMA....promotions.....
11/20/08 3:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
2JupitersTooMany
1751 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/14/06
Posts: 9278
Oh come on, lol
11/20/08 3:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
xkmasada
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/2/08
Posts: 396
Technically nothing wrong with a monopoly. See Microsoft.

It's when the monopolist abuses its market power where the legal issues arise.
11/20/08 3:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1664
TheLurKing -
tap0utartist -
shmuckothemighty -
tap0utartist - Look, its the UFC In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it



So where has the UFC denied anyone access to any other MMA event or promotion?


"determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

Are you stupid, illiterate or are you trolling me?


LOL you should read his other thread on Wrestlers (like stonecold steve austin AKA steve williams) using their real names to avoid losing their names in the WWE.


What's your point its also true.

I love the economic and legal geniuses who can't actually make a counter argument

Oh wait I forgot you said

"no"

that was a brilliant piece of sophistry, you could be a high priced Lawyer.
11/20/08 4:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
VectorWegaLives
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/7/08
Posts: 1962
xkmasada - Technically nothing wrong with a monopoly. See Microsoft.

It's when the monopolist abuses its market power where the legal issues arise.

 No.  There are plenty of problems with monopolies even if they aren't "abusing" their power.  BTW, Microsoft is probably not the right company to use to portray a "good monopoly).
11/20/08 4:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1665
TheLurKing -
shmuckothemighty -
TheLurKing -
tap0utartist -
shmuckothemighty -
tap0utartist - Look, its the UFC In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it



So where has the UFC denied anyone access to any other MMA event or promotion?


"determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

Are you stupid, illiterate or are you trolling me?


LOL you should read his other thread on Wrestlers (like stonecold steve austin AKA steve williams) using their real names to avoid losing their names in the WWE.


What's your point its also true.

I love the economic and legal geniuses who can't actually make a counter argument

Oh wait I forgot you said

"no"

that was a brilliant piece of sophistry, you could be a high priced Lawyer.


LOL anyone with reading comprehension can tell that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Really how so explain?

you won't cause you can't

Try this.

Give one example in where the UFC acted like a Monopoly to deny access to any other MMA company, either from the consumer side or the business side.
11/20/08 4:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tahiti Bo
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/26/05
Posts: 6753
Retired, Tahuna
shmuckothemighty - Monopoly definition

"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. 
 
Take a course in antitrust law.

Depends on two things that you have not addressed:

a. What is the definition of the "market"
b. What is the definition of the "product"

This is the core of the legal analysis.

You would be surprised in the ways in which FTC has defined "markets"....

national level/local level... PPV...
11/20/08 4:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
tappout
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/26/04
Posts: 13
Damn, the ignorance is strong here. Monopolies CANNOT exist without government protectionism. A company isn't a monopoly just because it holds a lion's share of the market. If the UFC were a monopoly there would be NO OTHER MMA organizations. I'm not a big fan of The Dana either, but you can't let that redefine words for you.
11/20/08 4:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1666
Tahiti Bo -
shmuckothemighty - Monopoly definition

"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service.
Take a course in antitrust law.

Depends on two things that you have not addressed:

a. What is the definition of the "market"
b. What is the definition of the "product"

This is the core of the legal analysis.

You would be surprised in the ways in which FTC has defined "markets"....

national level/local level... PPV...


Has the UFC stopped any other company from running a national PPV?

Elite was on CBS for Christ sake.

Where are all the other companies suing the UFC under anti-trust laws?

Nowhere, because they haven't broken any.
11/20/08 5:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tahiti Bo
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/26/05
Posts: 6758
Retired, Tahuna
 shmucko, i think you are confused or something...

you pointed out the definition of monopoly.
then you said something about UFC not being a monopoly because it hasn't "barred" anyone from entering the market.

These are two different concepts.

Monopoly is a state of being.

"Barred" or "barring" (I assume you mean using anticompetitive tactics to keep people out) would be activities/actions.

Barriers to entry can exist due to structural reasons (IP, economies of scale, &tc.) or due to anticompetiive tactics.

Just because UFC doesn't use anticompetitive tactics doesn't mean it is not a monopoly.  But, as I said before, to determine whether a monopoly exists the market and product need to be defined.
11/20/08 7:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shmuckothemighty
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/4/05
Posts: 1668
Tahiti Bo - shmucko, i think you are confused or something...

you pointed out the definition of monopoly.
then you said something about UFC not being a monopoly because it hasn't "barred" anyone from entering the market.

These are two different concepts.

Monopoly is a state of being.

"Barred" or "barring" (I assume you mean using anticompetitive tactics to keep people out) would be activities/actions.

Barriers to entry can exist due to structural reasons (IP, economies of scale, &tc.) or due to anticompetiive tactics.

Just because UFC doesn't use anticompetitive tactics doesn't mean it is not a monopoly. But, as I said before, to determine whether a monopoly exists the market and product need to be defined.


To achieve a state you have to follow actions.

I.E. I achieve the state of sleeping by the actions of closing my eyes and lying down.

For the UFC to be a monopoly by the definitions I posted they would have had to take steps to limit other MMA companies chance of success.

Regardless of the definition of Market and product there is no proof or example of the UFC ever trying to stop another MMA company from being successful.

In fact the opposite is true the UFC's success has enabled other companies and opportunities.

Does anyone think EliteXC gets a CBS deal with out the success of CBS on Spike?

Again while the UFC has the market share there is nothing inherent about their business practices that would stop competition from succeeding and therefore can't be considered a Monopoly.
11/20/08 10:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tahiti Bo
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/21/08 1:13 AM
Member Since: 8/26/05
Posts: 6762
Retired, Tahuna
> To achieve a state you have to follow actions... For the UFC to be a monopoly by the definitions I posted they would have had to take steps to limit other MMA companies chance of success.

Not true: again, you missed an important point in both my last post and in YOUR definition of monopoly.  (I am giving credence to "your" definition, but actually "your" definition really doesn't matter. What matters is how a monopoly is treated under law and FTC regulation.)

Your definition states the barriers to entry can be structural OR due to specific anticompetitive actions.  So, yes, you achieve a state by following actions.  But getting to a state of monopoly does not REQUIRE the "barring" actions that you claim it does.  Such a state can also be achieved in the normal course through structural barriers (IP, standards, regulations, economies of scale, non-predatory price advantages, &c. - none of which are anticompetitive per se).  Anticompetitive activites might include predatory pricing, product tying,  certain types of exclusive supply agreement, refusals to deal, &c.

Thus, your statements are simply not accurate, based on the very definitions YOU posted.

> Again while the UFC has the market share there is nothing inherent about their business practices that would stop competition from succeeding and therefore can't be considered a Monopoly.

You seem to imply  that the very existence of a monopoly is anticompetitive / unlawful.

This is not the case at all.

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete.

Again, UFC CAN be a monopoly without doing anything anticompetitive per se and without contravening FTC regs. 

Does that help?  Not much more I can do for you... and, yes, I am a lawyer that has had some experience in antitrust litigation issues.          

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.