I need help formulating an agrument to win over UFC fans. I need to come up with slick, bullet proof reasons why the judging should be handled by the free market, not the government/state athletic commision.
Almost every other UFC event has a fight that goes to the judges that fans think was scored wrong.
You can tell the UFC fans that free market judges would at least have to answer to the market/consumer demand, but the government judges don't have to answer to anyone. But the UFC fans don't seem to care. They believe, if the judging was in the hands of the free market (probably the UFC), then the fights would start to be fixed.
Maybe this will help.
From what you said:
limitgov: You can tell the UFC fans that free market judges would at least have to answer to the market/consumer demand, but the government judges don't have to answer to anyone. But the UFC fans don't seem to care. They believe, if the judging was in the hands of the free market (probably the UFC), then the fights would start to be fixed.
Why do these fans have such allegiance to the UFC if they think that the UFC would be corrupt if given the chance? If the fans were to have loyalty to anyone, I would think it would be the fighters. If that is the case, then if the UFC turns out to be corrupt, then let another group or groups organize the fights. Who cares if it's a UFC fight if the fighters (and rules) are the same?
And why are incompetent judges better than corrupt judges? The results aren't fair either way. If your goal is to have fairly scored matches, wouldn't you want a system that can most easily react to provide this? If you want the system to change, why would you support a system that is more rigid by nature?
I doubt you will just convince people to change their minds, but you can at least ask them questions to get them thinking.
"Why do these fans have such allegiance to the UFC if they think that the UFC would be corrupt if given the chance? If the fans were to have loyalty to anyone, I would think it would be the fighters. If that is the case, then if the UFC turns out to be corrupt, then let another group or groups organize the fights. Who cares if it's a UFC fight if the fighters (and rules) are the same?"
Devil's advocate here:
the first question's answer is money.
2nd question is, its not that easy to attract great fighters all in the same organization. It has taken the UFC a long time to do this.
I think the real point here, is why is there just one organization? Sans government interference, if there were a dominant organization, it would be the result of customer satisfaction. You could say, "But some of them might fix fights" and you might be right. If so, that would be precisely what the customers are demanding. Look at all the WWF and its many spinoffs. Of course, there's just as much interference from politics in professional wrestling as anywhere else but the point is that the sport is "fake" because that's what the customers want.
There's a documentary on corruption in Sumo fight judging (I watched it on Netflix), both in how Sumo players cheat the system through cooperating with each other and also in how corrupt judges can open/close doors on specific players who are either "in" or "out". Nevertheless, people still show up and watch the matches and 99.9% of it is absolutely clean sportsmanship. So, it's all a matter of perspective. People are always going to try to twist any ruleset and any organization that participates in this is risking losing the public's attention entirely. Boxing and baseball are instructive examples of what happens when a sport gets too dirty. People just get bored and find a new sport to follow.
Clayton -
Clayton, what do you mean by there only being just one organization? There are tons of different organizations in the USA alone. UFC is the largest but definitely is not the only one.
The UFC doesn't get to choose the referees. They are state commissioned. I think Dana White is outspoken in regards to this issue at every other post fight conference; unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot he can do I don't think.
@jmorris: I wasn't clear - I meant, "Supposing there were just a single monopoly association in an absolutely free market - and it was 'corrupt' - the question would be why is there just one?" In other words, if there did emerge a monopoly sports association for a particular sport (and not by virtue of any monopoly grant by the government or other, indirect political interference), then this would be a reflection of the demands of consumers of that entertainment. And if this monopoly association fixed fights, again, we would have no conclusion but that that's what consumers demand. I pointed to professional wrestling as an example where the fights are blatantly and openly fixed... precisely because this is what the consumers demand. And if it were true there was some significant unmet demand for an sports association where fixing is not occurring, then that would be a profit opportunity, no?
Without any legal means to prevent a competitor from emerging, the fight-fixing monopoly would be helpless to prevent a non-fight-fixing competitor from entering the market. Since a single, fight-fixing monopoly is the worst-case scenario - and it turns out that there is nothing horrible about it in the slightest - then the actual case, where there is a small number of competing, non-fight-fixing associations is even better. Were this market freed to act as consumers demand, we should expect non-fixing associations (non-scripted fights) to become even more corruption-free and fight-fixing/scripting associations like WWF to be even more innovative in their competition for fan loyalty and story-line interest. I think the section of the Freakonomics documentary covering corruption in Sumo wrestling is very instructive and shows the complexities that any high-stakes, competitive sports association faces, whether MMA or baseball. But these complexities are problems for entrepreneurs and innovators to solve... no government bureaucrats required.
Well, there are several competing organizations, but as the scale and visibility effects of mass media businesses make one or two of them very large and the others very niche.
In any case, a "free market" arbitration system won't be necessarily "more just" to the fans of the sport. It might be, but that's not a foregone conclusion.
It all boils down to the structure of incentives that the judges are responding to.
The federation judges may be responding to reputation and perhaps bribes and influence trafficking, whereas the free market judges might be responding to whatever they perceive to be the interest of their clients.
You can think of the UFC fans as their ultimate clients, and that's not wrong in a broad sense, but that's also very naive.
Their clients are the people directly taking the decisions about hiring them, so you have at least a few layers of decisions buffering them from the UFC fans.
And they will be more responsive to these middle man (UFC organizers, agents and impresarios) than to UFC fans.
Therefore, it's not clear that they will resolve fights in a fashion that is considered, by UFC fans, as fairer.
It will depend on whether these middle man running the show consider profitable to increase fairness or not.
UFC fans respond to fairness to a certain point, but they are not zealots, and that's evident once we consider that some of the greatest fanbases in the sport were amassed by notorious juicers, cheaters and overal treacherous scumbags, like Chael Sonnen.
"but the point is that the sport is "fake" because that's what the customers want."
Devil's Adv:
I think the fans just want an entertaining match, they don't neccessarily need it to be fixed. I don't think they care, as long as its entertaining.
I've been an MMA fans since I first learned about it by watching the UFC in the late 90s, so I know exactly what you're talking about.
The trouble with modern-day MMA is this: it has strayed from its roots of vale tudo, where there were no rounds and no time limits. Also, there were no weight classes, but that is one dynamic that I can understand having today. As for the rounds and time limits, they need to be eliminated. Only then will you know who the winner is.
Most MMA fans freak on me when I tell them that. They say, "But we need regulations; otherwise we won't have a sport!" At what point does your sport cease to be pure, though: when the commission has boxing judges rule on MMA bouts, imo. Also, in a real fight, are there rounds? Are there time limits? Hell no! Chael Sonnen would've destroyed Anderson Silva both times had there not been rounds--I'm completely convinced. Yet there are rounds and time limits, which strongly adulterate the sport.
Then there's the judging. It's a purely normative, subjective, pointless process. It determines nothing other than what 3 people thought about the fight. The judges are in no way representatives of MMA fans--though the fans tend to think that. Judges judge--that's it. And there's no way to judge a fight that has a clear winner: someone who forces his opponent to throw in the towel, tap out, get TKOd or KOd.
I'm obsessed with MMA, so feel free to respond and I'll be happy to comment.
gotlucky: Maybe this will help. From what you said: limitgov: You can tell the UFC fans that free market judges would at least have to answer to the market/consumer demand, but the government judges don't have to answer to anyone. But the UFC fans don't seem to care. They believe, if the judging was in the hands of the free market (probably the UFC), then the fights would start to be fixed. Why do these fans have such allegiance to the UFC if they think that the UFC would be corrupt if given the chance?
Why do these fans have such allegiance to the UFC if they think that the UFC would be corrupt if given the chance?
Good point, gotlucky. That's why I've started to watch Bellator. They actually finish fights over there, so there's little to no corruption--yet.
limitgov: "but the point is that the sport is "fake" because that's what the customers want." Devil's Adv: I think the fans just want an entertaining match, they don't neccessarily need it to be fixed. I don't think they care, as long as its entertaining.
I can't speak for every MMA fan, but about 95% of them I personally know want finishes in fights so they know who won. Usually it's women who want a "good fight" as far as I've been able to notice. I've always come from this school of thought: the UFC means the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Not only is the organization geared towards producing winners but champions, and there's absolutely no way to know who won a fight unless a fighter actually wins a fight--not have 3 people judge on who did better.
Just my two cents.
"I can't speak for every MMA fan, but about 95% of them I personally know want finishes in fights so they know who won."
When I said, the fight doesn't need to be fixed, just entertaining, I was referring to Clayton's Wrestling.