CBC News Video Feature on MMA salaries

They really should have let people know when Randy’s interview for that piece was, because it sounds like it was before the Brock fight. I really think the Brock/Randy fight invalidates a lot of what was said. If Randy really cared about the people making 3k/3k and thought the UFC was evil, he wouldn’t have gone back.

As for comparisons to other sports, the other sports have unions because the players got together and unionized. It’s not up to Dana to form the fighters union, it’s up to the fighters. And the problem with the union, is that for Aaron Riley to get more than 4k/4k, Randy and Brock are going to need to get less than whatever they got.

My other problem with the piece is that they used the same idiotic math that the anti-zuffa brigade uses to figure everything out. They estimated the number of PPV buys, ignored the fact that the UFC doesn’t get all the PPV money (as well as ignoring the fact that fighters get money from sponsors) and came up for a number of how much money they took in from PPV.

by Phildo on Jan 12, 2009 11:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

They also compared UFC pays with the major sports. That is a huge fallacy. 240 millions in PPV revenue (half that for the UFC) versus multi-billion revenues for the major sports. Fair and balanced or did they rehash the talking points from the Sherdog forums?

A union will happen once the UFC becomes a multi-billion dollar sport business.

by cyph on Jan 12, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2007 league revenue for NFL 6.5 billion, MLB 6 billion, NBA 3.57 billion, NHL 2.44 billion.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lets look at percentages

And how major sports pay their players NO LESS than 50% of their profits

The UFC pays out about 10% of profits to the fighters. They get robbed

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at all the math I did below. revenue sharing from big sports doesn’t work unless the scale is huge and it doesn’t mean that the UFC is ripping of anyone.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maeda made 4K

to fight Torres. Not getting ripped off? He couldn’t fight for 180 days after that bout.

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Fedor made 300k to fight Sylvia? and Frank Trigg made $1 for his last fight also?

by Phildo on Jan 12, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First that is the WEC not the UFC, there is a huge huge difference there.

Second there is no telling what Maeda actually made as it seems quite common they pay Japanese fighters in ways that keep them from paying lots of US taxes.

Third that still doesn’t mean that he got ripped off, he knew what he was making and he agreed to take the fight for that amount of money beforehand. The assumption is that Zuffa has fat bags of loot that they aren’t sharing and that just has never been shown at all. Give me Zuffa’s net income numbers and we will talk about whether they are ripping people off or not.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All I can hope is they are worse than Station Casinos

And the Fertitta’s have to sell to cover their loans. Then maybe you might get somebody that gives a shit about making sure fighters can actually live and train to fight instead of worrying about what time they have to be at their 2nd job at Pizza Hut.

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes we get it that you don’t like the UFC or the way they do business but that’s an emotional response not a logical one. Starting fighters having to work a job while training isn’t something that is going to change regardless of who is running the UFC because just starting out in pretty much any industry sucks. There are people that are forced to work at Pizza Hut just to survive but MMA fighters get to go out and live a dream with the hopes of one day hitting the big time.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tom Atencio seems to give a shit about making sure fighters can live and train to fight. Unfortunately, it seems his promotion won’t be around long enough to make sure they do.

Maybe the issue is that the business has to come first, not the fighters. Same as in every other sport. The UFC and Strikeforce have it right.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s hard to see how you can have a establish or maintain union or another form of collective bargaining when an employer can fire employees after a single loss. It’s also difficult to see how you would reconcile a union with a PPV-based business model.

by Jahbulon on Jan 12, 2009 11:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This topic is always a screwy one, we don’t know what the UFC makes or how much the fighters actually make and we don’t know what terms are actually in the contracts so how can we the fans actually make a informed decision on this subject? The discussion normally ends up all emotion because the facts just aren’t there for any kind of honest discussion.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 12:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Here’s some reality:

MMA organizations are having a hard time staying in business with the current salary structure…

I’ll say that again:

WITH THE CURRENT SALARY STRUCTURE MMA ORGANIZATIONS ARE BARELY STAYING IN BUSINESS.

what do you think would happen if that increased? or if pensions were mandatory – or health insurance?

If you care about the sport especially during this growth time you’d be begging Zuffa not to increase the standards in pay… it will not hurt Zuffa as much as everyone else.

What’s good for the fighters is not Zuffa paying more… It’s more orgs operating and sustaining a living for its owners and its fighters.

by mmalogic on Jan 12, 2009 12:39 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

People in America are so used to equating big sports stars with millions of dollars. MMA isn’t there yet.

Also, a HUGE part of fighter pay is SPONSORSHIPS. The UFC buisness model is much more like NASCAR and much less like the MLB, NBA, or NFL. There aren’t teams of fighters, just individuals, like in NASCAR.

by Dexerion on Jan 12, 2009 2:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

NASCAR is also a good example because there are teams, just like there are MMA teams. It’s just everyone thinks of it as an individual sport.

by Phildo on Jan 12, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Talk about underpaying the talent, NASCAR drivers are completly paid by sponsors, even the prize money for races is supplied by sponsors.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your website is featured in this story.

by steveoc24 on Jan 12, 2009 3:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Kudos to CBC for doing the kind of reporting that media members who actually have UFC access are too spooked to do. Dana gave them the exact canned, non-answers he gives to anyone who goes poking around issues like revenue share and how the lower level fighters can barely make ends meet; the only difference is that they actually called him on his bullshit. His example of the 150k discretionary (locker room) bonus is a perfect illustration of exactly how unfair and arbitrary that system is, and the CBC was not afraid to point that fact out.

Its all too easy to write this topic off because “Randy is just greedy”, or “MMA and NBA/MLB/NHL are totally different”, but there are practices employed by the UFC which are irreconcilable with the concept of fighters being paid fairly. The amount of guaranteed money is far too low for all but the top tier fighters; the salary scale at the entry level is so low that most fighters need part time jobs to make ends meet; their contracts are one-sided and draconian; handing out large portions of purses in discretionary bonuses is fundamentally unfair and insecure; the revenue share fighters as a whole receive is paltry, and on it goes.

These are enormous issues which fighters are struggling with on a day to day basis, and which aren’t reported on with any kind of urgency by the usual suspects in the MMA world. Hopefully sites like this one will do more digging into the matter, because as long as everyone is happy to pretend like the problems aren’t there, the situation is not going to improve for the fighters.

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 3:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Simple questions:

If what Zuffa offers and does is so “irreconcilable” … why do these fighters fight for them? why do they sign?

Do you think Lorenzo has their parents locked up somewhere as leverage?

by mmalogic on Jan 12, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine.

Jesus.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can always depend on your intelligent rebuttals.

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It wasn’t a rebuttal. It was a commentary on your attitude.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To clarify: you might have some reasonable points. But by making them in such a whiny, damn-the-UFC manner, you repel people from taking you seriously.

For the record, I believe that there should be some reforms to the UFC’s salary structure. But I don’t agree with your melodramatic and one-sided method of making your points.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pardon me for getting right to the point instead of writing a 10,000 word essay on the pros and cons of the situation. But your accusations are laughable. You’re the one being whiny and emotional here, nobody is saying “damn the UFC”. Try not to make everything into a personal argument.

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baloney. Your entire post is filled with weasel words and slanted statements. I’m willing to call a spade a spade, even if other people aren’t.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Furthermore, why should anybody waste their time actually trying to rebut you? I outright proved you wrong in the WW rankings thread about Mike Swick, and you ran from the thread. If you can’t admit your mistakes, you’re only wasting everyone’s time by trying to discuss, well, anything.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Settle down, fellas.

by Luke Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Come on, Luke. At some point, we should expect accountability. The guy is basically a troll, in that any time somebody proves him wrong, he runs away, just to come back and slime the UFC for something else.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Trolling” is what you’re doing right now. Chill out and try not to take things so personally all the time.

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

smoogy is many things, but a troll he is not. All I’m asking is that this stop being a pissing contest. If neither of you are going to agree with the other or have meaningful dialogue, just move on.

by Luke Thomas on Jan 12, 2009 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want meaningful dialogue. Based on what he chooses to answer and not answer, I don’t believe smoogy does.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I smell a UFC shill

How much do they pay you to come on here and 45 Huddle to show up on FightOpinion I wonder

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you get medical?

PR is more important to the UFC than the fighters at any rate

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My father works as a top engineer for the largest company in the world and he doesn’t get medical, hell I can’t think of any independant contractor that does. For the major sports they have to self finance a lot of that stuff as insurance rates would be unworkable to start with, the UFC still does insure fighters for what happens in the cage.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So he's an Engineer in the military?

They do too give medical. You may as well pay to go to a civilian anyway though cause its horrible.

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exxon, the majority of their site management personel are independant contractors, that is how it works. They don’t get any benefits at all, heck they don’t even get employeers taking care of tax benefits, you get paid just like you are a subcontracted company not like you are a employee. Contract labor is very common in the engineering field, of course the pay is good but that is also because they aren’t pulling out taxes or medical benefits or any kind of retirement benefits out of your check. Honestly I’ve never had a job (even when I was a standard employee) where I had “free” medical, the best you can hope for is that the company pays part of it.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Independent contract labor is also very common in the world of MMA websites.

by Jahbulon on Jan 13, 2009 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you not see Luke telling people to cut it out?

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why does anybody think this is an effective tactic? Calling people “shills” is a pretty clear sign of a fool.

If somebody reasonable wants to question my motives, I would take that into consideration. If you want to question my motives, I take it as proof that I’m on the right track.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cup half empy?

The UFC hands out locker room bonus, and instead of thinking how benevolent they are, the detractors claim that it is unfair and arbitrary. Free money from the goodwill of the owner should be arbitrary because it is their money which they do not have to give out since it is not governed by any contract. Should there be a system in place to make giving out free money fair and non-arbitrary? The fact of the matter is that they ARE NOT obligated to give out this money. So then we should beg the question: why should it be fair and non-arbitrary?

The people who keeps harping on the the inadequate revenue sharing should ask this question: how much are the fighters’ brands bringing in, revenue wise versus the UFC’s brand? No one fighter sells PPV as it takes an entire card with the backing of the UFC brand and marketing muscle behind it. The proof is out there: Affliction VS UFC PPVs. The MMA business is an entirely different business model and it is not comparable to boxing. The fighters are each a small part of the UFC fight card, one which pulls in revenue beyond the pull of the fighters.

Fighters like Randy should not think too highly of their revenue generating power by themselves. Just ask Arlovski and Fedor how much their brand brings to the table and whether it’s the fighters or the UFC brand that actually sells PPV. A guy like Lesnar could not sell a PPV or even (virtually free) tickets for K-1, but when coupled with the UFC marketing machine, he’s now arguably the biggest PPV draw in MMA today. Now, how much money do the fighters really bring in?

by cyph on Jan 12, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Discretionary bonuses aren’t “free money”, they’re part of the pay structure which UFC can easily manipulate to favor certain fighters based on whatever criteria they choose. Obviously they use it as a deflector of criticism about pay, but there is no question its not a fair system. If they really wanted to show their benevolence, they’d increase the guaranteed portion of the fighter purses. Handing out these huge bonuses that are often more than the fighter’s purse and sponsorship money combined pretty effectively demonstrates what a joke the pay structure is.

As far as these draws competing outside the UFC, don’t confuse a shitty marketing job by K-1 or Affliction as proof that they are not valuable commodities. With a competent promotional push, who knows how well Lesnar or Arlovski could do outside the UFC? The fact that Tito vs. Liddell 2 can sell 800,000 more PPVs than, say, Franklin vs. Okami leads me to believe certain names bring in a LOT of money. But I disagree with the argument that a fighter’s pay should be directly tied to the amount of sales he generated for the UFC. Its certainly a factor, and the top draws are always going to make a lot more than the entry level fighters, but the low end of the pay scale really needs to be brought up to a point where any fighter who is competing full time for the organization is making a decent living. Can you imagine if NBA teams only offered 30-50k a year to their guys at the end of the bench because “they don’t sell tickets”?

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not free money? If the UFC refuses to pay out the “discretionary” bonuses, would it affect their business whatsoever? Has any fighter come out and say “The UFC owe me my discretionary money that I deserve!”? You’re trying hard to turn a positive into a negative and I’m not buying it.

100,000 fan stadium and virtually free tickets is a shitty marketing job? NASCAR, NY Times billboard, CBS advertising, 3000 self bought tickets are a shitty job? My God, what must these companies do to NOT do a shitty job? Nothing. They are doing as good a job as possible, but there’s nothing they can do unless they have 100 million to lose long enough for their brand to catch on. First mover advantage is the reason the UFC is entering multiple international countries at a rapid pace.

Certain names do bring in money…with the UFC backing. That supports my original argument even further. Look at Tim Sylvia, Arlovski, Barnett, and Fedor. If names can sell by themselves, then why isn’t Affliction a viable business? These guys alone would sell 700k buys with the UFC name behind it.

You’re arguing about direct pay for fighters as if MMA is like a job at the bank. This argument lacks imagination. The majority of pay is coming from sponsors. The UFC backing gives clout to those fighters where they can demand more in sponsorship money. Even once releaesed, ex-UFC fighters are able to procure a contract with a second organization fairly quickly. Those are the intangible benefits that come with the UFC brand. Payment doesn’t always come in dollars and cents.

by cyph on Jan 12, 2009 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Go ask 80% of the workforce out there in the US if they will accept 30k-50k to be a back up bench basketball player instead of what they are currently doing…

by mmalogic on Jan 13, 2009 3:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only a small chunk of the workforce has a fighting chance making 30K a year on the bench in a variety of minor league sports, and choose not to.

by D.Capitated on Jan 13, 2009 8:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are some important points that you bring up but honestly we don’t know if the fighters are underpaid or not because the real problem here is the secrecy in the sport. 4k/4k sounds horrible but that doesn’t mean that a fighter making that much is underpaid for his experience level or position in the company. If a young guy makes that much for 4 fights and even if only wins one of them he will still be beating the money an average young male working fast food or Wal Mart would be making and he is following his dream(as opposed to being a wage slave), I agree it’s horrible money but it’s not like life makes you any guarantees. Lets face it if you compare the GNP of the US to the median income of families in the US we are all taking a beating.

Things like revenue sharing go along with the big established sports but that isn’t something that should be expected at this point in MMA’s growth cycle, of course it’s hard for us to even judge based on that criteria because we don’t have numbers for what the fighters actually make or what the UFC’s revenue is (revenue sharing outside of the UFC would leave the fighters making negative money in most cases). In the future there will be some big changes, particularly when the sport becomes established and breaks into the mainstream but right now we are just chasing our own tails in these discussions.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Transparency is the real issue in regards to fighter pay. We have no real idea how much the UFC spends on marketing, advertising, overhead and so forth, or how much they invest in the sport. We don’t have the info to say with certainty who is paid reasonably and who is not.

My guess is eventually a fighter union with fair arbitration will arise to solve the problems. But right now such a union might actually hamper the growth of the sport and end up hurting the fighters. Its an interesting problem.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sold on a fighter’s union as that would be very complex (more complex than other sports unions due to MMA being a true international sport) and it would also mean that top fighters would have to give up too much for collective bargaining to help the young guys in the sport. If they tried I could see it ending up comparible to the boxers union (irrelevant and unknown).

I do think that one day their might be a separate Muhammad Ali act for MMA from the government that is tailor designed for the issues in MMA (the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act doesn’t really work in MMA due to the completly different business models). A “Randy Couture Act” could one day be the legislation that brings about a change. Of course that is just my opinion.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Secrecy” isn’t a problem. There is nothing wrong with people’s paychecks being private.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Jan 13, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ARRRGHH!

being a professional athlete is not a RIGHT. it’s a PRIVLEDGE! they are not forced into anything, and yes it is just that simple.

by bdw on Jan 12, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

In general professional sports is a very poor career move if you are doing it for the money. Only a very few professional athletes make anything close to a decent living. People see how much NFL, NBA, MLB stars and top rank boxers make and think that atletes make big money but most don’t make squat. Most MMA salaries exceed the averages for professional athlete salary in general.

The median expected salary for a typical Professional Athlete in the United States is $28,946. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals’ analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_AR17000014.html#readon

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oops. That should of been “median for professional athlete salary” not “averages for professional athlete salary”. There is a difference.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whats the median pro salary for athletes that compete for billion dollar businesses?

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is the UFC a billion dollar business? Honestly your going to ignore Dana White’s bluster when he says he pays everyone well in the locker rooms but you are going to buy his bluster when he claims they are a billion dollar company?

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m pretty sure a billion dollars or so is the accepted valuation of the UFC. But if you want it phrased another way:

Whats the median pro salary for athletes signed to organizations with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue?

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whats the median pro salary for athletes signed to organizations with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue?

That is only a relevant argument if cost structures are similar and variable across all revenue ranges. The UFC has much higher ratio of fixed costs not related to fighter pay due to the fact that they have to invest in tons of stuff that the NFL and MLB and other major sports have had for decades.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and just to smack you down a little further:

Lets say that the UFC’s actual revenue is around 200 million a year. Given what we know about their income structure and PPV sales, that is a reasonable expectation.

200 million/6.5 billion

means that the UFC’s annual revenue is about 3 percent that of Pro Football. Thats right. 3 percent.

So, what would happen to paychecks if the UFC’s revenue moved up to Pro Football levels?

4000 * 1/.03

= 133,333 per fight. But fighters fight multiple times per year. 133,333 * 3 fights per year equals an annual income of $400,000.

So there you go. Scaled to Pro Football (and close to pro baseball) revenue rates, entry level fights make $400,000 a year. So you seriously have no argument at all.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Those are some interesting figures, but UFC’s annual revenue is well over 200 million. They do more than that on PPV alone.

by smoogy on Jan 12, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From Sherdog, October, 17 2007

Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported that Zuffa is believed to have grossed $190 million last year and posted a before-tax profit of $76 million.

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/behind-the-curtain-zuffas-finances-come-into-focus-9528

I went with 300million but there is no way to be sure as they just don’t release any numbers.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, they don’t. They get 50% at best of PPV revenue. Just assuming 500,000 average buys on 13 PPV cards a year, getting 22.50 from each buy, is $146 million.

I assumed approximately 70% of revenue is from the PPVs, I recall reading something to that effect from Meltzer a while back. Even if that isn’t the case anymore, PPV is still the bulk of the revenue. So what if the number is actually my $200 million or who me’s $300 million? That doesn’t change the basic point, that fighter paychecks relative to company revenue scales very similarly between MMA and the major sports. They aren’t being ripped off, despite your claims that the contracts are draconian, unfair, insecure, or whatever other slanted words you want to use.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

A couple hundred million a year in annual revenue gives you crap for pay still because that isn’t that big for a company. I posted this already but if this is what you are wanting then these are the numbers for the big sports that actually pay the big money: 2007 league revenue for NFL 6.5 billion, MLB 6 billion, NBA 3.57 billion, NHL 2.44 billion. The UFC’s isn’t even in the same ballpark.

Lets call the UFC $300k a year in revenue for the sake of arguement and we will pull the NFL at 6.5 billion a year for comparison and we will look at median incomes (average incomes become very skewed due to a handful of huge contracts, median is a better way of seeing what the players are really making). That going to put the UFC at making less than 5% (.046) of what the NFL makes in revenue. The median pay in the NFL is around $770,000 a year. Apply some basic math: $770,000 × 0.46 = $35,420. For comparible in this that is where you would pin the median(half the fighters make more and half make less). Lets say fighters normally fight 3 times a year in the UFC: $35,420/3 = $11,806 per fight would get you to that median number. Now we can be pretty sure just off what we do know that the median income for a UFC fighter is way higher than $11,806 per fight.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha beat you to it!

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea I just noticed, that’s what I get for googling for actual NFL median pay numbers :D

Different math, similar results. A lot of these arguements revolve around average pay of the major leagues and doesn’t take into account that the UFC is very very small by comparison. When you compare by reveunue size (and I gave them 100million more revenue than you estimated)and look at median pay instead of average pay the UFC out does the NFL. The NFL is able to pay out such a large revenue percentage because of economies of scale but there are also a heck of a lot more NFL players than their are UFC fighters and the averages in the NFL are all wonky due to the severe difference in player pay.

Rookie minimum pay in the NFL in 2007 was $285,000 a year, apply the 0.46 from above $13,110 a year. 4k/4k minimum for a entry guy getting into the UFC, if he fights 3 fights and wins 2= $20,000. By comparison the NFL is ripping it’s rookies off.

It should be noted that all this math is just for example because I don’t have a real revenue number for the UFC and I only know the athletic commission released pay for fighters. I would love to know gross revenue and net income numbers for the UFC (particularly the net income as that is the one that actually means something).

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

all this being said

The UFC has a shitload less to pay into personnel than the NFL. It doesn’t change the fact that even with alot less personnel infrastructure to deal with fighters in the UFC make 10% of the profits of the UFC while approximately 50% of the NFL’s profits go to player salary.

Gimme 1 Round!

by skwirrl on Jan 12, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First, the players get 60% of the NFL’s revenue. I have no idea what percentage of profit that is, but it’s a major difference.

The other thing is that the NFL has sources of revenue that the UFC doesn’t, and the UFC has expenses that the NFL doesn’t.

The NFL doesn’t have to pay to rent arenas like the UFC does (until they build one in Vegas), the NFL doesn’t have to pay to produce their shows (the games), the NFL doesn’t have to pay to lobby people to get the sport sanctioned.

The UFC is a unique entity, trying to compare to other sports just isn’t possible. And there is no way on earth to put an accurate number on what percentage of revenue or profits the fighters get because no one knows what the UFC takes in or pays out.

by Phildo on Jan 12, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the UFC paid out 60% of their revenue in fighter pay they would immediatly collapse. The thing is we don’t even have a clue what perecentage of revenue the UFC does pay out (we don’t even know what their revenue is). If you add in the guys who get a PPV percentage and these unknown locker room bonuses then it is going to push a heck of a lot higher than 10%. Hell when we do hear about PPV perecentages it normally is close to what the athletic commission post for whole card pay. Look at Randy vs Brock, their combined PPV percentage was probably a scary hit for the UFC to pay.

The UFC also doesn’t get all the PPV revenue too, if you take out the 40% or so that the PPV provider takes off the top and use a adjusted revenue then you might get a lot closer to the NFL percentage too. Using adjusted revenue is used a lot of time in sports like that(heck I think the NFL uses an adjusted revenue for it’s player percentage numbers).

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clear up your numbers a bit, my understanding is that cable companies and PPV providers take off something closer to 60% rather than 40%.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn’t surprise me, as the UFC grows and gains more leverage they will get more favorable rates in the future. This is still a young company in a very young sport.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last I heard, they got a more reasonable deal last summer, I think for 45%, which is similar to what WWE gets. Wasn’t with all the companies of course, I believe they have to negotiate separately with each service.

WWE is the gold standard, and I think they get close to 50%. PPV companies just take a lot, across the board.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We don’t know what the UFC’s overhead is or what they need for their operating budget. The NFL only puts on events for part of the year and almost all the production cost are absorbed by the broadcaster, stadiums are propped up with local tax dollars and they had to inact a complex revenue sharing between teams to keep the league functioning because not every team makes enough to survive. The NFL is established and doesn’t have to put any money at all into future growth where the UFC has to invest huge sums of money into that too.

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For comparison, if the UFC is actually valued at 1 billion that would make it worth about the same as the average NFL team. Of course the NFL has a complicated system of profit sharing in place to keep the teams going so you couldn’t really compare the UFC to say the Kansas City Chiefs directly(much of the value in the Chiefs comes from it belonging to the NFL).

by who me on Jan 12, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are a number of fallacies in this video:

1. MMA fighters all deserve to be able to make a living doing it: No they don’t, nobody “deserves” anything. To claim this means that it’s Zuffa’s duty to provide a stable living to everyone who fights for them. I don’t know why this would be unless you think it’s some kind of religious obligation.

2. The low end pay is unfair: No it’s not. Paying at the current scale, they have an unlimited number of guys trying to get in at that scale. In fact there are hundreds that would probably do it for free. The vast majority either wash out or move up, they don’t stay on the scale for long. Seeing as they could fill undercards paying 1k/1k, the 3k/3k scale is just another 4,000 in generosity.

3. Comparisons to other major league team sports that are hard-set in American culture, have national television, large unions, and independent ownership of teams determining salaries is ridiculous on many levels. There are so many distinctions that it’s absurd to even do the comparison.

4. How is a discretionary bonus system unfair? Companies across the country and world have “discretionary bonus systems.” In my field for example there are set bonuses for hours and then discretionary bonuses with no set criteria. Maybe it’s bringing in business, maybe it’s working extra hours, maybe it’s a great job you did on a case. It is up to the people in charge to decide on a discretionary basis how much you’re paid. Then there are soft factors—do the partners like you, do you take on extra work, etc ec. Welcome to the real world.

5. Embarrassing misinformation: How they could not know the UFC splits PPV revenue is beyond me. Isn’t this a professional news outlet? The 10% figure is bogus because it ignores all the bonuses, such as the extra 150k Jon Fitch got after his match with GSP. These bonuses happen all the time, they’re designed to incentivize performance. I think there are better ways to do it but it is working well for them so far.

by Michael Rome on Jan 13, 2009 12:06 AM EST reply actions 2 recs

To be fair the information they did use was so out of date that it was way before GSP fought Fitch anyway. Heck they based their entire report around saying that the biggest battle in the UFC is the one between them and Randy Couture, I don’t know if it’s a very old report or if they just didn’t realize that Randy signed back with them 6 months ago but either way it was just silly.

by who me on Jan 13, 2009 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree completely.

I also didn’t like the line along the lines of, “for all the courage they display in the octagon, most fighters do not openly voice their opinions about the pay.”

Not only does it assume that pretty much all the fighters don’t like the pay and that they’re unhappy, but it also takes a stab at their courage. Classy.

by Rundownloser on Jan 13, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs