WAMMA'S True Intentions Revealed
In Rob Meysey MMAFA blog, he explores WAMMA's organizational structure and motives in latest post.

On June 20, 2008, when asked about whether WAMMA will charge sanctioning fees for its title matches, Szady replied: "No. We are not taking any sanctioning fee from a promoter nor are we taking any percentage of a purse from a fighter. Our business model and our revenue stream come strictly from our sponsors for the WAMMA belt or for sponsoring the events themselves along with the promoters." Lynch, echoing Szady, replied: "WAMMA is in no way charging a sanctioning fee from the Affliction promotion nor are we asking for a percentage of the fighter’s purses. As Dave said we truly are trying to emulate the best aspects of boxing’s sanctioning bodies while eliminating all the aspects of sanctioning bodies that we find in boxing that will be a detriment to the sport."24 Szady’s response above is unqualified as to whether WAMMA will charge sanctioning fees. The response of Lynch however, who is a lawyer, may leave room for maneuver. Lynch’s reply in regards to WAMMA not charging sanctioning fees may be read as applying only to the Fedor Emelianenko-Tim Sylvia title bout in the Affliction promotion. In order to eliminate the possibility of any misunderstanding, I asked Lynch whether WAMMA can state, "with 100% certainty, that sanctioning fees will never be sought and/or collected from any promotion and/or any fighters purse." Lynch replied, "Yes. . . Most importantly, WAMMA will NEVER make a living off a fighter’s back by taxing a fighter’s purse." However, in WAMMA’s materials presented to athletic commissions at the ABC Convention for MMA held in Montreal, WAMMA indicates that it will "receive revenue from title sponsors, online portal subscriptions, sale of unique digital content, merchandising, and in the future sanctioning fees."25 The WAMMA brand is not yet established, and networks are not yet utilizing its rankings. Thus, the necessary traction does not yet exist for WAMMA to require sanctioning fees. If the WAMMA brand becomes entrenched, however, sanctioning fees, as WAMMA’s own presentation materials indicate, will follow.
This article includes more comprehensive examination on WAMMA's goals and structure. This article is a must read.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
0 recs |
6 comments
Comments
Thanks, good looking out Nate
by The Bronzeville Bully on
Oct 8, 2008 11:31 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My problem with this is that there’s a limited amount of money that sponsors would be willing to put into MMA (at least there’s limited space on the mat, TV screen, and things they can name like the Bud Light Replay).
Isn’t every dollar that goes to WAMMA a dollar that could have gone to the org or to the fighters?
by Phildo on
Oct 9, 2008 8:38 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm going to
reach out to WAMMA’s CEO and COO on this and see if they are as willing to address rumors and situations such as these as they claimed to be when I interviewed them earlier this year.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on
Oct 9, 2008 8:41 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
WAMMA
An organization professing to rank fighters, award championship belts, sanction fights, etc., should NOT be a for-profit corporation, ESPECIALLY when it conceals the identity of investors.
Being a private company and not revealing its investors makes WAMMA smell to high-heaven. Hiring an ex-FBI agent as an executive is such an obvious ruse.
Why is WAMMA not a Sec. 501 © (3) tax-exempt non-profit corporation? Simply because everything would then have to be transparent. They way it is, there will always be an appearance of huge conflicts of interest and no one will ever know.
Guarantee you, somewhere down the line (after everyone has joined) they will have the leverage (and great reasons) for changing their policy about sanctioning fees.
by ringstar on
Oct 9, 2008 8:02 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs











