RealGM

Anybody been following this little saga?

ESPN releases an article concerning the pay of UFC fighters as a whole, as well as compared to other sports leagues (not overall, but as a percentage of the league's revenue).

Some quotes:

"The [UFC's] payout percentages in terms of revenue generated are far from the percentages paid to athletes by the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL," Maysey said. "If I'm taking all revenue from all sources, I would put it around 5 percent."

Not: Most other league revenue is around 50%. I think there was a point in the article where they note boxers usually get around 70%.

"We're basically fighting for crumbs," said one current UFC fighter, a veteran of more than a dozen years in the sport who also asked that his name be withheld for fear of reprisals from UFC management.

"The top 5 percent [of fighters] are definitely making good money, but you've got to look at the guys at the bottom of the card," the fighter said. "They can't fight anywhere else. If they make $10,000 a fight and fight every six months, they can't make ends meet."

Here's the story:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/pag ... ul-hit-all

Dana is already on the defensive, as well as the offensive, some tweets:

"I'm in Rio but my stuff is ready to roll!!! I'm excited to smash and discredit ESPN and the piece they did!! So pumped!"

"He and ESPN are gonna get beat down with this story. U guys will see how media spins and LIES!"

"UFC doesn't mean shot to them especially now that we are on FOX. ESPN has to own and control EVERYTHING!!!"

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=ycn-10832167



I'm interested in people's thoughts on this. Like most things, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Fighters getting 5% of revenue is an absolute travesty and I would be SHOCKED were that true. That said, some of the fighter purses I see are kind of small, and I'm not really the guy to believe that these guys walk back to the locker room and get million dollar undisclosed checks from Daddy Dana just because he is in a good mood. That said, they signed the contract, and it is what it is.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I hope Dana actually reveals something because like most I'm very curious about this.

They signed teh contract but I also have a choice on whether I want to contribute to $60 buys on Sat nights. And I won't ever buy UFC's. I bought every Pride Bushido offered back in teh day, wanting to support the lower weights and encourage the sport here in NA, and I support all sorts of local live events. But Zuffa is run by exploitative psychos and no money from me.

I either split the ppv with friends or go to a bar and watch.

I do pirate strikeforce though...

(Therefore I reserve the right to bitch about ufc fighter pay in this thread but not sf fighter pay.)

I'd like to see the minimums bumped up for UFC fighters, but I have no issue with the pay scale where the top guys gets paid. Those guys get paid, because they are the draws that actually bring in the fans. The bottom half of any UFC card could be replaced a week before the fight and no one would notice. When that is the case, you are not going to be getting paid a fortune. It is simple supply and demand.

I for one would like to avoid the kind of pay structure that has been a big part of boxing's demise.

Read large segments of the article elsewhere, not sure how much I missed. Didn't think it was particularly persuasive. A bunch of unsourced stuff, and comments from a guy trying to start an MMA fighters union (like that guy isn't just looking for a cash grab) and some guy from the Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union (I guess relevant to establish the Fertittas as anti-union, but somewhat of a stretch to relate that to UFC fighter pay). Definitely looking forward to the reply from Dana/Zuffa.

Apparently this is going to be a segment or full episode of ESPN's Outside the Lines. That should be interesting. There's a 1 minute preview in the article. I believe DW has already stated that they are going to put the full interview with Fertitta up on UFC.com, because they aren't happy with the way it has been edited.

My take on fighter pay is that for the most part, guys get paid according to what they bring in. In reality, the guys at the bottom making $6k that everyone cries about aren't even generating $6K. If they are any good, they earn their win money, bonuses, and will be on a better contract sooner rather than later. If they aren't any good, they likely get a huge bump in sponsorship money compared to being on a regional show, and they also get to throw "UFC veteran" on their resume when they return to the regional circuit. It's not such a bad deal for those guys.

Honestly the worst deal is probably for the TUF winners/competitors, who get locked into a pretty low salary for multiple years/fights, even though they have a bit of drawing power because they were on the show. You could say they only have that drawing power because of the UFC, and you would be right, but they still receive less than market value at that point.

I'd like to see the base get up to at least $10k/10k as a minimum (with most guys getting more like 20 and 20), but it's getting there. Seems like just yesterday that prelim guys were routinely making 3 and 3 or less. At UFC 141 the lowest paid guys made $8000 in a loss. However UFC 140 had some guys still making 4 and 4, so there's still work to be done. On the bright side, with prelims being aired on Facebook and soon FX, sponsorship dough should be going up.

I think the 5% number thrown out there is complete nonsense, but it wouldn't surprise me if the number is closer to that than the ~50% split most pro sports operate at. That being said, I think the UFC has more expenses than the major sport leagues. Aside from having to split large sections of their revenue with arena owners and PPV providers, the UFC is investing a lot of money in growing the sport in the US and worldwide. Trying to get MMA sanctioned in places like Ontario and New York isn't free. Whether or not it is right to take that money out of the fighters' cut when the UFC will benefit from those investments is another issue, but it's not like 70+% of the revenue is going right into the Fertittas' pockets.

As a fan, while I recognize the need for money at all levels to draw high level athletes to the sport, I think that is most important at the top, where guys are getting paid very well. I would also like to see everyone at the UFC level be able to make enough money to support themselves/their families and concentrate entirely on training, and I think we are at or near that point. Beyond that, I'm not too bothered by what they make, high or low, as long as there are fights. The system in place now is far preferable to the unionized system we see in most pro sports, where we could be faced with work stoppages every few years, or in boxing, where you have to wait years to see the fights you want to see, if you get them at all.

One thing to consider is that A-Rod can't cover his jersey in Xyience ads and can't shout out Gatorade after every home run.

I just took Gleison Tibau's fights in 2011 as an example since he's in the middle of the pack and he fought three times last year... Can't find his purse for UFC 128, but Zuffa paid him at least $154,000, including bonuses, for his performances in the other two events. Add sponsorship money to this, plus his UFC 128 purse, and that's not a bad living at all. And this is a fighter that no one pays to see.

I really do have a problem with the Luis Ramos' of the world making $5,000 a fight. There's no reason it can't be $25,000 at least, they can afford an extra $200K in purses per PPV. The lower tier fighters, fighting three times a year, should be able to make six figures, the guys in the middle, maybe two or three times that (like Tibau), and the GSPs and Silvas should be multi millionaires, as they are. It's hard to sell something as a legitimate sport if the athletes aren't paid well, so most of my interest in this lies with the lower tier fighters.

It's a very fascinating story. I haven't read much into it because I plan to watch the video segment. I thought it was going to be on E:60 but apparently it will be on Outside the Lines tomorrow morning. I do respect Josh Gross a lot because he is one of those real journalists who asks the questions that need to be asked. He's not someone whose sole purpose is to build up MMA as a sport, which Dana has called for. That is not journalism buddy!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_AmZDsEqc4[/youtube]

I don't care what MMA fighters make. I don't care if it's too low. The only thing important to me is if the fights are exciting.

If it's too low, they should get out of MMA and do something more profitable (e.g., start your own business). Another option would be to get a second or third job, like the rest of the world.

That's why I was hoping the NBA owners would have crushed the NBA players association with a hard cap and below 40% share of revenue (like 20%).

All these damn athletes are coddled too much. There's no reason why a guy like Lebron James or even Michael Jordan, back in the day, should be making more than $100K per year.

You only care about the fights being exciting, but you suggest that mma fighters should get two extra jobs?

The less time they can devote to training, and the less quality camps they can put together...the worse the fights will be. Seems obvious.

REDDzone wrote:You only care about the fights being exciting, but you suggest that mma fighters should get two extra jobs?

The less time they can devote to training, and the less quality camps they can put together...the worse the fights will be. Seems obvious.

Don't waste your time explaining anything to him. He's an idiot. I feel bad for whatever board he's a moderator of. His quote shows he lacks the ability to look at things from other people's perspectives.

terryoh wrote:I don't care what MMA fighters make. I don't care if it's too low. The only thing important to me is if the fights are exciting.

If it's too low, they should get out of MMA and do something more profitable (e.g., start your own business). Another option would be to get a second or third job, like the rest of the world.

That's why I was hoping the NBA owners would have crushed the NBA players association with a hard cap and below 40% share of revenue (like 20%).

All these damn athletes are coddled too much. There's no reason why a guy like Lebron James or even Michael Jordan, back in the day, should be making more than $100K per year.

I hear what you are saying, but don't really agree because the league would fold in a second.
I agree that the players are paid way too much, but imo the whole sport system should be socialized, where a certain amount of the profits should have to go back to the city that the team plays in.
That wouldn't work in an individual sport like MMA or boxing though.

We don't know much about the "undisclosed bonuses" or sponsorship money, but the disclosed fighter pay is laughable compared to what the UFC's revenue must be.

The local bar I watch the fights at has to pay around $1,200 to show a PPV (up from a few hundred less than two years ago). We're not talking about a Buffalo Wild Wings or a big national chain like that. A few bar buys pay for the entire "show" money for a lower level guy. That's absurd.

You pretty much have to be one of the top few hundred guys in the world to get a spot in one of the UFC's divisions, especially at the more competitive weight classes. The top few hundred guys in any other big pro sport are averaging a lot more than low-six figures.

The bottom line is this: The UFC better be paying these guys what they're worth or it will cost them a lot more when the fighters organize.

To the guy who said top tier athletes shouldn't make more than 100k per year, please consider two of many, many reasons you're wrong:
1. How much revenue per year do the generate and why should they not share in that?
2. How much are other professionals who are among the very best in their field paid?

I remember when Bisping got in trouble and Dana didn't suspend him or fire him or anything, he said something like (paraphrasing) "I hit him with a worse punishment than that; I didn't give him his bonus. The fighters know what that means". I'm assuming that'd be a pretty big bonus.

terryoh wrote:I don't care what MMA fighters make. I don't care if it's too low. The only thing important to me is if the fights are exciting.

If it's too low, they should get out of MMA and do something more profitable (e.g., start your own business). Another option would be to get a second or third job, like the rest of the world.

That's why I was hoping the NBA owners would have crushed the NBA players association with a hard cap and below 40% share of revenue (like 20%).

All these damn athletes are coddled too much. There's no reason why a guy like Lebron James or even Michael Jordan, back in the day, should be making more than $100K per year.

I actually agree to some extent with the overall tone of your post, and I too was on the owners side in the lockout, but the bolded part might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on RealGM. I'm not trying to exaggerate either. I've been here a long time, read a lot of stupid things, but I can't fathom someone actually believing what you just wrote.

The only thing I can come up with is that you may be a communist.

You realize that at a certain point, with all the money the Lebrons and MJs of the sports world generate for their teams/leagues, they would start their own league. The NBA pays the players just enough to stop that from happening. Lebron and MJ are worth more than their salaries, not less. I can get behind the idea that an end of the bench scrub should only make $100K a year, but superstars are generating hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't understand why you think they should get an even smaller slice of the pie.

The same thing applies to the UFC. The guys generating the money get a pretty decent chunk of the revenue. The guys that aren't bringing in any money get their foot in the door and a chance at working up to being one of those top guys.

I would like to see fighter pay improve and everyone make at least $10K, but at the same time it's a privilege to fight in the UFC and when you make a worthy contribution they reward you. Barboza was one of those $6K guys (not sure what his purse was last night), but he's made $300K in FOTN/KOTN bonuses his last 3 fights. It's hard to argue that guys going to ho-hum decisions on the undercard deserve much more than they're being paid.

I'm a capitalist. I have zero problems with voluntary contracts among consenting adults. The guys on the lower end of the card are expendable, so they get paid less.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbbs5nKXliU&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

That's what you call being LorenzOWNED (assuming his statements were true).

^ capitalist here too but I worry that underpaying them forces some of these fighters to train part time or get job(s) to support their fighting. I'd prefer it if each fighter has enough money per year to train full time, pay the bills, food, rent and training/coach costs. To me, that's about 30k a year, which is easily earned with 3 fights a year at 10k minimum per fight. This also ensures that we, as the consumer get the highest quality product (skill/cardio, etc).

edit. responding to NZB2323

jTF2 wrote:^ capitalist here too but I worry that underpaying them forces some of these fighters to train part time or get job(s) to support their fighting. I'd prefer it if each fighter has enough money per year to train full time, pay the bills, food, rent and training/coach costs. To me, that's about 30k a year, which is easily earned with 3 fights a year at 10k minimum per fight.

I think 30k a year is pretty low when you consider paying trainers and coaches and supporting a family.

However, I think anybody fighting in the UFC 3 times in a year makes that easily.

Even at 6 and 6, if you lose all 3 of your fights, you're making $18,000. That's just in disclosed pay from the UFC. Most sources indicate that fighters at least double their UFC salary with sponsorships. I'm sure that's oversimplified, but it's not hard to imagine a guy being able to bring in another $6k in sponsorships for a UFC fight, especially now that they are guaranteed to be shown somewhere. If anything, the guys on the lower end of the scale may make more than their UFC salary in bonuses. Again, this is before any of those undisclosed bonuses, the disclosed performance bonuses, or even winning a fight. If you go 0-3 at the UFC prelim level, maybe you aren't good enough to make a living as a fighter.

I still think that UFC contracts should start at 10 and 10, with a decent raise after each win, but without knowing the undisclosed bonus structure, it's hard to really argue.