re: Reebok deal- I don't really care either way. I think the fighters in general are somewhat underpaid and there is a lot of stratification in the pay grades. I supported the sponsorship tax idea (although maybe not the amount of the fee) because the UFC set up the platform for the fighters to get sponsorships in the first place. There's plenty of stories over the last 15 years of sponsors not paying fighters, changing deals, etc. It's still an emerging market and there has already been a bubble and burst. The reebok deal is terrible for fighters for sure, but it's an overall positive trend. That being said, I am strongly for the organization of a fighters union (obviously), but it requires some people at the top of the pay grade to move that idea in the right direction.
The "uniforms" look terrible, but that's just an opinion. I thought Stitch got a bad deal there, but again, I'm pretty indifferent on it. I think it's weird that the "fans" latch on to these weird things like the cutmen not getting paid sponsorship (who the fuck cares tbh) and try to make a huge deal about it. The bottom line is that you can't really expect to talk shit on your employer and not have any repercussions. The UFC has demonstrated time and time again that they act like a mafia as opposed to a proper ethical organization, so i wasn't surprised to see stitch let go. It was handled terribly by both sides.
Bellator Dynamite card didn't really get me excited. One night tournaments are super cool, but I'd like to see the best fighters facing the best fighters in top physical condition. I think one-man tourneys distract from the bigger goal of legitimacy as a real sport. Then again, so does having the sport run by promotions instead of an arrangement between the talent and the promoters, like most other sports.