I'm happy that this is going ahead, but having worked for a union before I wasn't that impressed with the notes that I read from the meeting. I know that unions work differently in the US, I know that sporting players associations aren't typical unions, and I know that they probably didn't think it was the right time to detail how they were going to achieve their goals.
But... it's one thing to have a stated goal of getting fighters 50% of the pie, it's another thing altogether to actually achieve that. And they haven't even begun to say how they'll achieve it. They haven't even said how they're going to build their power base - on the contrary, I think it was Kennedy who said that they don't need to have the conversations with other fighters, and that other fighters will come to them. Sorry, that's a really arrogant way for any member-based organisation to think, and it's completely unrealistic.
There are over 500 fighters currently contracted to UFC. I know that GSP, Cerrone and Valasquez are pretty big fish - but they needed to have more fighters on board before this announcement. They needed to be in a position where these guys could be the face of it, but they needed to be able to say that +10% of UFC fighters have committed to supporting the MMAAA, and that they're in a strong position of power to be able to negotiate better outcomes for fighters. Because we've already seen that the issue with GSPs contract is that times have changed since he last fought (Reebok), but he still has fights on his deal with UFC, so he's stuck. As it is - and knowing Dana as we do - he's likely to say "**** off, I can do without you 5, but you won't be released from your contracts to work elsewhere".
But if they had over 10% of the fighters prepared to act collectively so someone like GSP can get his compensation for loss of private sponsors sorted out, that's a lot better than the MMAAA saying "we've got 5 fighters on board who are pissed off."