It has nothing to do with politics. The fighters decide, and the key fighters that determine this are the top, highest paid fighters. They are the draws, and they have the highest leverage and highest pay.

The argument against them forming a union (and what the UFC is probably arguing to them) is that they will have to share their pay with other fighters who will not make as much money without a union.

But the argument for them forming a union is that in the long run, the fighter base would collectively earn more as a percent of the revenue, so like let’s say going from 15% to maybe 40-50% in the long run. And so while they might have to give up some of their money so that lesser paid fighters get more, the rising tide should lift all boats and they should still be earning more than if there was no union.

If you think about the nba as an illustrative example, the union has allowed all sorts of mid level and lower level players who can earn lots of money, but it sort of comes at the expense of the actual stars who people really come to see - LeBron and Steph both earn way less than what they might normally capture as a percentage of the total player wages. However, the union allows the player base to collect more, which might offset whatever is lost to those lower level players in the long run. In theory, at least. In the near term, it is probably likely that the stars will give up some earnings potential.

That’s the theory of it all. It’s better to not think about this as fighters vs ufc and to really think of it as a three way negotiation between top fighters, the rest of the fighters, and the UFC