As happens periodically, there is talk of fighters in the UFC wanting to form a union and get collective bargaining rights with the company (technically Zuffa, which operates the UFC). UFC President Dana White has come out against the talk of unionization, saying that "The fighting business is so different - this is an individual sport, this isn't a team sport. It's completely different. Let me tell you what. These fighters have managers for one fight and they fire them and then they're on to the next guy. It's a lot of crazy stuff that goes on in this business."

According to Jose Aldo, interim featherweight champion and unionization rabble-rouser, Dana told him that he should not "take anyone’s sides because the cake would be split the same for everyone, but I could get a bigger slice if I stayed quiet."

Finally, during another round of talks about unionization, the UFC released a memo to its fighters saying that they should not join a Teamsters and Culinary Union, because that would put them under the control

Unfortunately, while Mr. White is an excellent promoter, his analysis of the effects of a union on MMA is lacking. First, the that the UFC as an individual sport is different from a team sport in its negotiation is specious. The players in other major sports leagues, like Major League Baseball, don't negotiate as teams. They negotiate collectively when dealing with the League itself, e.g. during the players' strike of 1994, and they negotiate as individuals when dealing with different teams, at least after the reserve clause was struck down, which itself was owed to collective bargaining and the union thinking of Marvin Miller. The same would hold with the UFC. In negotiating basic terms with Zuffa, the fighters would be able to bargain as one. In negotiating between management teams, or between fighting organizations, the fighters would do so individually.

This also points to the problems with Dana's comments to Jose Aldo. The purpose of a union is to ensure a baseline for all fighters, especially those lowest on the totem pole, who are individually worth almost nothing to the UFC but are collectively incredibly valuable, as losing them would require a drastic cutback of events and the size of the undercard, which would in turn reduce their ability to find new stars in the making. Furthermore, highly valuable individual fighters would receive greater compensation, as can be seen in other sports. Alex Rodriguez still made hundreds of millions of dollars, and the largest contracts in the NFL are incredibly large as well. The UFC is smaller than the most popular sports leagues, so their top stars would expect to make less, but mega-draws like Conor McGregor and elite champions with a large home country following like Jose Aldo would still do extremely well for themselves.

The third and final quote, concerning the teamsters union, is a bit more sensible, but still fails. It is true that if a few fighters joined a union unconnected to MMA, they could suffer, as they would not be truly united, and their management team wouldn't know much about the ins and outs of MMA. A crucial point, however, is that this doesn't represent a huge change from the current way of doing business.

Fighters are already in it for themselves, and for every savvy negotiator, like McGregor, who is far and away the largest draw in the company and is working on getting partial ownership of the UFC, or Tyron Woodley, who actively attempted to get a fight with legendary retired champion Georges St. Pierre, and from there pestered the UFC until they put him on a card with McGregor, thereby ensuring he would have a million dollar windfall, as champions are paid extra according to the amount of buys a PPV gets, even if they didn't main event, there is a great number of fighters who can be lead around by the UFC. Former bantamweight champion TJ Dillashaw's wife is his manager, and he's stuck making $25,000 to show and $25,000 to win, despite being a former champion with two defenses and the #1 ranked bantamweight with another title eliminator on the horizon. Former middleweight champion negotiated with Lorenzo Fertitta himself, and while he is a man of many skills, professional fighters, who get punched in the face for a living, are rarely known as intellectuals.

At last, it is time for a quick rundown of the numbers and the economic theory now that we're done with the specifics of the UFC's situation. According to estimates (Zuffa is a private company without a CBA), fighters receive around 15% of the company's revenue, and over half that goes to fighters at the top of the sport. By comparison, in the NFL players are entitled to just under half the overall revenue in the MLB, the number is just below 40%, although it has been higher in the past.

Clearly, unions are doing something right for their members. We also see the benefits of unions in this case from an economic standpoint. Casey Mulligan outlines a few views of unions in the New York Times, describing Coase, Barro, and Friedman's differing takes on the situation. Coase's theorem implies that unions will not have too great a negative effect on the day to day running of the business, as what would be in the firm's interest without a union. Barro argues for unions based on the bargaining power they give workers, as a one to one negotiation is almost by definition fairer than a one to many. Friedman argues against them because they provide a monopoly on workers' ability to negotiate and move for themselves. This argument, however, applies less in the case of the UFC (and other professional sports leagues), because there is only one predominant game in town. Perhaps in an alternate universe where there are dozens of of competing MMA organizations, or football or baseball, fighters would be able to negotiate for themselves. But for now, they must deal with the UFC predominantly, so it is best to let them be united, rather than fighting like fish in a bucket.