Again with the Boxing vs. MMA Pay Comparison

by John Nash on Apr 27, 2011 11:26 PM EDT

Recently ESPN released a list of the best-paid athletes in 30 sports, sparking a discussion about the pay difference between Brock Lesnar and Manny Pacquiao, the two leaders in their respective sports. Weighing in on the matter was Kevin Iole, who when asked by Steve Cofield if he "would argue that the 30th biggest MMA fighter makes a lot more than the 30th biggest boxer?” gave an answer that caught my attention. “I would say yes. I would say that the 30th biggest MMA fighter, there is a middle class in MMA which does not exist in boxing. In boxing, you have I think probably, well just taking Mayweather & Pacquiao alone you could say two fighters earn over 90% of the money. But I think if you say you could probably say 10 fighters are earning 99% of the money in boxing and that would be very close to being accurate. And in MMA, it’s spread out much more. So, you know, I think that’s probably true. You have a good, solid middle class working in MMA that you don’t have in boxing.” (Transcript taken from Fight Opinion)

Was that right, that the “30th biggest MMA fighter makes a lot more than the 30th biggest boxer”? Iole should know, he has covered both sports extensively for years, but this didn't seem accurate to me. I have been working on a pretty in-depth comparison of the pay between boxers and mixed martial artists (still compiling) and from everything I've learned, and counter to most peoples assumptions, boxing paid a lot better for a lot more fighters. (Of course, I am still talking about the upper echelons of the sport - the masses still make nothing - as well as solely about fight purses and not additional money to be made off sponsors)

My interest piqued I decided to investigate (thank god for Google). Using the scientific method of picking names of boxers from off the top of my head I was quickly able to generate a rough list of the top earners for 2010. What follows is that list with the names, the number of fights I am using for their data (I was unable to find the purse info for every fights), what their guaranteed purse payouts were, and what their estimated pay was when including their share of payperview, gate, television, or other auxiliary revenue sources. For example: Floyd Mayweather was guaranteed $22.5 million for his fight with Shane Mosely, but when one includes his cut of the gate and payperview it is estimated that he took in close to $40 million for that one fight.

Top 30 highest paid boxers of 2010:

Manny Pacquia (2 fights): $27 million guaranteed / $45 million estimated
Floyd Mayweather (1 fight): $22.5 million guaranteed / $40 million estimated
David Haye (2 fight): $7.5 million guaranteed/ $18 million estimated
Wladimir Klitschko (1 fight): $6.7 mil guaranteed/ $10 million estimated
Shane Mosely (1 fight): $6.7 million
Paul Williams (2 fights): $3.25 million
Antonio Margarito (1 fight): $3 million
Vitali Klitschko (1 fight): $2.8 million guaranteed/ $6 million to $10 million estimated
Juan Manuel Marguez (2 fights): $2.4 million plus Mexican television share
Tomasz Adamek (4 fights): $2.1 million ($1.3 million on two fights other two fights based on previous purse (low) estimates)
Samuel Peters (1 fight): $2 million
Felix Sturm (1 fight): $2 million (based on a 5 fight $10 million dollar guarantee)
Miguel Angel Cotto (1 fight): $2 million
Amir Khan (2 fights): $1.975 million (does not include any payperview bonuses)
Sergio Martinez (2 fights): $1.8 million
Andre Berto (2 fights) $1.7 mil
Audley Harrison (for a1 fight/ no purse info on other fight): $1.5 million guaranteed/ $2.3 million estimated
John Ruiz (1 fight): $1.5 million plus possible Sky Box Office bonus
Jean Pascal (1 fight): $1.5 million
Mikkel Kessler (1 fight): $1 million guaranteed/ $2.7 million estimated
Bernard Hopkins (1 fight): $1.3 million
Juan Manuel Lopez (3 fights): $1.3 million ($750,000 on one fight, other two fights based on previous purses being no less than $275,000)
Joshua Clottey (1 fight): $1.25 million
Rafael Marguez (2 fights): $1.125 million
Carl Froch (1 fight): $1 million plus possible foreign television share
Arthur Abraham (1 fight): $1 million/ $1.7 million estimated
Andre Ward (1 fight); $1 million minimum
Andre Dirrell (1 fight): $1 million minimum
Chris Arreola (2 fights): $980,000
Michael Katsidis (2 fights): $900,000

So, roughly, the 30th highest paid boxer makes no less than $900,000 a year. Where would that put Katsidis if he was an MMA fighter? 11th based on my calculations (using the estimates of Meltzer, Chiappetta, and others, of course):

Brock Lesnar: estimated $7 million
George St-Pierre: estimated $6 million
Quinton Rampage Jackson: estimated $3 million
Randy Couture: estimated $2.5 million
Fedor Emelianenko: estimated $2.3 million - $3 million (based on Affliction lawsuit)
BJ Penn: estimated $2 million – $2.5 million
Anderson Silva: estimated $2 million - $2.5 million
Chuck Liddell: estimated $1.5 million +
Rashad Evans: estimated $1.4 million
Lyota Machida : estimated $1 million

(If you includes Alistair Overeem's K-1 pay - and if he actually got paid it - then he too would likely be in the top 10)

So Michael Katsidis would be the 11th highest paid MMA fighter, just ahead of Michael Bisping who took home somewhere in the neighborhood of $850,000 in 2010. As for Bisping he would actually come in 32nd amongst boxers, behind Kermit Cintron, who receive $860,000 last year for his fight with Paul Williams, and just ahead of Isreal Vazquez, Yuri Foreman, and Shannon Briggs, who all had fights last year where they were paid $750,000 (at least everyone but Briggs was paid). And immediately following them is Kelly Pavlik, Allan Green, Juan Diaz, Paulie Malignaggi, and Marcos Maidana: all of them being paid $500,000 or more in 2010. In fact when one continues to poor through the purses it's hard to find where MMA gains the distinct pay advantage. It's striking when sees a future champion like Jon Jones making less than half on his fights than what Brandan Rios made for any one of his undercard bouts that same year (and more than all four of Phil Davis's combined purses).

This discrepancy is even more shocking when one looks at the top payperviews of 2010:

1. Boxing: Floyd Mayweather vs. Shane Mosley, May 1, 1.4 million buys
2. Boxing: Manny Pacquiao vs. Antonio Margarito, Nov. 13, 1,150,000 buys
3. UFC 116: Brock Lesnar vs. Shane Carwin, July 3, 1,100,000 buys
4. UFC 114: Quinton Jackson vs. Rashad Evans, May 29, 1,050,000 buys
5. UFC 121: Lesnar vs. Cain Velasquez, Oct. 23, 1,000,000 buys
6. UFC 124: Georges St. Pierre vs. Josh Koscheck, Dec. 11, 785,000 buys
7. UFC 111: St. Pierre vs. Dan Hardy, March 27, 770,000 buys
8. Boxing: Manny Pacquiao vs. Joshua Clottey, March 13, 700,000 buys
9. UFC 107: Anderson Silva vs. Chael Sonnen, Aug. 7, 600,000 buys
10. UFC 118: Frank Edgar vs. B.J. Penn/Randy Couture vs. James Toney, 535,000 buys*-+

Of course this shouldn't have come as a surprise to Iole, for he recently quoted Bob Arum explaining how :

On Ultimate Fighting Championship cards, Arum said, about 20 percent of the gross revenue is spent on talent. In boxing, he said that it is much higher and for a major card like Pacquiao-Mosley, around 80 percent.

It is surprising that someone as well-connected as Iole could make such an obvious misstatement.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

Tweet Comment 67 comments | 12 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Old myths die hard.

"Unless you can’t think of something intelligent to say, don’t reply and make the world as dumb as you are appearing to be." - mabel4life

by lowellthehammer on Apr 28, 2011 12:35 AM EDT reply actions

well, that could also be because all of the fighter pay is going to two fighters.

"When superman throws a superman punch, he calls it the GSP punch."

by Hendo_One-Shot on Apr 28, 2011 1:18 AM EDT reply actions

It could also be because boxers are still more valuable than MMA fighters.

Or MMA fighters are criminally underpaid. Either way, MMA fans need to pick which talking point they want. Is boxing dying when it still commands more money than MMA, or is the UFC shorting their fighters on pay?

"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe

by pdl on Apr 28, 2011 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions

You know what the truth is pdl? A lot of fans are poor and don’t care if these guys get paid a dime to take this abuse for their entertainment. What’s in the best interest for them as fans isn’t what’s in the best interest for the fighters, and the majority of them are then OK with that. Its not a battle you can win.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 28, 2011 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions

A lot of MMA fans are dickheads.

Just because we like the same sport doesn’t mean I have to sit back and let them be dickheads unopposed.

"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe

by pdl on Apr 28, 2011 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Hahahah

What are you going to do exactly to correct the pay problems? hahahaahah that’s the funniest thing about this site, a bunch of articles and discussions about the economics, marketing and business side of MMA.

by YaleJD on Apr 28, 2011 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions

and a couple of trolls thrown in for good measure

"The only freakshow's the one in my pants"
-James Toney

by chasethegoose on Apr 28, 2011 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

So if you don't have the resources to fix a problem

you should just pretend there isn’t a problem in the first place? That doesn’t sound fucking stupid at all.

"Unless you can’t think of something intelligent to say, don’t reply and make the world as dumb as you are appearing to be." - mabel4life

by lowellthehammer on Apr 28, 2011 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions

We don’t have the resources to fix this problem because we aren’t actually involved in the problem to start with (well pdl may be in the middle of this). We are fans on an internet blog fanpost comments section, our discussion is purely for our own entertainment/educational purposes. It’s great that articles are written that shine a light on the issue but for the rest of us we are just having a discussion for discussions sake.

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions

I realize that.

But his point is that it’s laughable that anyone would discuss these issues because they aren’t personally fixing them, which is stupid.

"Unless you can’t think of something intelligent to say, don’t reply and make the world as dumb as you are appearing to be." - mabel4life

by lowellthehammer on Apr 28, 2011 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes the guy above with 20 comments over the last year is saying something stupid. I found the reply above yours to be the appropriate response :D

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Here's the thing.

If you’re a fan, you’re the customer. You play a pretty integral part of how MMA succeeds or fails. If you don’t like what a company is doing? Don’t buy their product, and let them know why. Simple as that.

by gzl5000 on Apr 28, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions

Casual fans make up the vast bulk of the paying fanbase for this sport, we on the internet are a small part of things even in the customer end of things. When I don’t buy a UFC ppv I doubt anyone at the UFC notices.

Education is great and I fully support Kid Nate or Snowden writing an article about the subject to keep the spotlight on it but us down here in the comments section are just here for personal entertainment (same for pretty much every MMA topic). I know people hate hearing this but when it comes to making an impact on the sport and changing things Jonathan Snowden is doing more than all the comments on the site combined.

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions

perfect response.

by steak_knife on Apr 28, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

here's the best way to look at it (in my opinion)

why is the pay structure in MMA a problem for any of us? what even qualifies it as a problem? i’m sure plenty of people here at BE make more money than me, and i don’t have a problem with that either. i threw a football around the other day for free. peyton manning does it and he gets paid $20,000,000. should i have a problem with that? MMA isn’t boxing, so why waste time comparing the two?
in other breaking news: multi-millionaire businessmen are greedy. who knew?

by tha dude on Apr 28, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions

When you get to talking about these kinds of numbers plenty of people are going to have a hard time building up much concern, I mean we are talking about the top of both sports not the bottom guys here. If you made over $350,000 last year then you are in the top 1% of households in the US and when you are making more than 99% of all families out there you just aren’t going to get many tears for your payrate. Lots of the guys listed here (particularly in boxing) would be considered super-rich or capitalist class. When people talk about how Jens Pulver should of made more money in his career or how guys making less than 10k a bout can’t afford basic medical insurance then you will get all sorts of attention/empathy but if you are wanting to talk about how Brock Lesnar only made 7 million when you think he should of made 14 million then it’s hard to get anyone to care. Last year Brock Lesnar doubled the estimated average lifetime earnings of someone with a doctorate degree(before you even mention sponsorship money), once you get to this point it’s just hard to get much empathy about his financial plight. Even from a purely MMA pay outlook their are more important issues out there than what the 30th biggest fighter makes in each sport (like “what’s the mean average pay across the two sports?”).

The report titled “The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings” (.pdf) reveals that over an adult’s working life, high school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million; those with a bachelor’s degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master’s degree, $2.5 million.

Persons with doctoral degrees earn an average of $3.4 million during their working life, while those with professional degrees do best at $4.4 million.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/edandearnings.htm

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions

If Brock made a $100K it wouldn’t matter then either. That’s still more than the Subos of the world, and people like that have the majority mentality. They want to see fighters as equals to them, not as people who actually have skills deserving of enormous sums of money because they have intrinsic value to bring in money, so they’re not about to start caring. Doesn’t matter that Dana White & Co. pockets $20 mil when all the fighters together don’t even get $5 million combined after bonuses. Plus: A lot of these guys have emotional attachments to Dana and the company first instead of the fighters.

So yeah. Its not just that people don’t understand the notion that athletes actually are worth millions of dollars, its that they don’t care and don’t want to care.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 28, 2011 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions

If Brock only made a 100k then it would be something that people could understand as being a travesty (and everyone loves to bitch about evil corporations making big profits) but when you get down to it 7 million dollars in one year is something that is hard for the average person to even wrap their heads around and when you get up into 20+ million ranges then it’s really out there. You are talking about one man in one year earning more than entire extended families will in a lifetime (In 2010 Manny Pacquia outearned my entire highschool graduating class’s estimated lifetime earnings). It’s not an issue of Dana White love it’s an issue of the sums getting to the point where it all blends together into people making obscene money all around, when you are making more than 1 million a year you are making more a year than 99.7% of US households and are hitting at the lifetime earnings of the average high school graduate. You are to the point where the money is so large it’s just blurring together.

If you are wanting to say someone defending Donald Cerrone only making $36k a fight has an emotional attachment to Dana White then yea it’s a possible arguement to be had but when you apply that reasoning to Rampage Jackson making an estimated $3million last year it doesn’t really come across as the same. That’s literally 3 tons of money in one dollar bills, you don’t have to be riding Dana’s nuts to think that Rampage was making wheelbarrels full of money last year. Not every athlete is worth millions of dollars a year and there are some who are worth 10 million, they are special people when they get to that level but they are still individuals too.

Of course you also have to look at the fact that they are entertainers, they aren’t building bridges or fighting fires they are entertaining fans, there isn’t a whole lot of depth and meaning behind what they do. A police man bleeds to keep citizens safe and secure a prize fighter bleeds to give me 15 minutes of entertainment on a Saturday night, which one holds the most worth/value to society and which one actually should?

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Change out Brock for Frankie Edgar or Jon Jones or whoever is at the top of the UFC card. Doesn’t matter. But we’re essentially agreeing on the same base point from different angles. Now, people could try to understand what that kind of money means or what the percentage is going to the athletes versus the promoters compared to other sports, but again – they don’t want to. You point out police – If you found out that your locality was paying patrol cops $500K a year, you’d want indictments for embezzlement and rightfully so. Pay isn’t based on “worth to society”.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 28, 2011 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Change out Brock for Frankie Edgar

If you change out Edgar for Brock then you have a real point because Frankie Edgar is a world champion who is blatantly underpaid(and there are a hell of a lot fewer world champions in mma than there are in boxing). Edgar making 100k for a world title fight (and even if he is getting huge backstage bonuses I would image they aren’t $900k bonuses) is a very different issue than what the top ten- top twenty in MMA are making. This isn’t just a MMA thing, look at the NFL strike, how many people are really concerned about whether a offensive guard makes 3.2 million a year or 3.6 million a year? The financials are to the point where you might as well be just speaking gibberish to the general public, they just want to watch some football. I can’t tell you if a football player only making 3.2 million instead of 3.6 million is underpaid or not but I can get right on board with Frankie Edgar making 1/10th what Rashad Evans does being a financial wrong. MMA has the pay inequalities we can get fired up about it’s just that comparing the top ten guys to other top ten guys in boxing isn’t really one of them.

Now, people could try to understand what that kind of money means or what the percentage is going to the athletes versus the promoters compared to other sports, but again – they don’t want to.

Oh everyone bitches about that, is their such a good thing as a good corporation? Evil companies making money off the backs of their employees is a pretty standard griping point inside and outside of MMA.

Pay isn’t based on "worth to society".

Is that a good thing or a bad thing though?

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for the “Subo is broke” joke

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Contributor for CagesideSeats.com and Bloody Elbow Radio
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com

by Derek Suboticki on Apr 28, 2011 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Look guys, I think you’re right to bang some pans over this issue, if you’re doing it for the sake of the fighters, then what you’re doing is beyond reproach. I just think there’s an apples/oranges quality to this conversation. Boxing is an established sport, woven into the mainstream fabric and imagination as much as any other sport one can name. MMA is new, unestablished, still struggling mightily to find that kind of footing, contending in a marketplace long dominated by a sport, boxing, whose icons are not just considered sportsmen, but great emblems of social struggle and enduring pride. While at this moment, MMA may be competing well with boxing for eyes and interest, the roots are still shallow — not the case with boxing. I see fighter pay rising quickly as it is, but I can forgive Zuffa for investing the lion’s share of their profits in foundation building. Perhaps I’m naive to believe that they’re actually doing this…but I will give them some time to disprove the prevailing notion that they’re exploiting the fighters for the sake of their already incredibly fat wallets.

by Charlie Custer on Apr 28, 2011 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

The majority of MMA events in the world see the purse generally going to the top 2-4 guys on the card, so I don’t see this as being a valid criticism either. Another way to look at it is this: The combined announced payroll of UFC 126 as submitted to the commission is less than what Jean Pascal made to fight Bernard Hopkins. UFC 126 had a whole helluva lot larger gross for the promoter.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 28, 2011 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions

But...but...

but locker room bonuses! Don’t forget about those billions of dollars that flow under the table from the Fertittas’ coffers into the fighters’ open arms!

"Unless you can’t think of something intelligent to say, don’t reply and make the world as dumb as you are appearing to be." - mabel4life

by lowellthehammer on Apr 28, 2011 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions

I know for a FACT

that several fighters made $450,000,000,000,000 under the table at the last UFC.

BOOSH

by Farthammer on Apr 28, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I wish they would start giving those out on giant checks after the fight.

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Generally the top 3-4 bouts are all solidly paid with the rest of the guys on the card making $1-4k per fight (on major level shows anyway). I mean, guys who have 0-3 records can still get $1,500 to be an opponent for a prospect…etc.

Managing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 28, 2011 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions

It seems the inequality between boxing and MMA is at the very top and the very bottom but the mid-ranges seem to be rather comparible for major shows(although there are plenty of professional mma fighters who also make squat for fights too)

by who me on Apr 28, 2011 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions

But the Zuffa just bought Strikeforce,

and Subo told me that was going to make pay go up! So relax guys.

Contributor at cagepages.com Come check us out.
Head Kick Legend

by Neil Manich on Apr 28, 2011 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs

They just bought Strikeforce so there hasn’t been time to see one way or the other. I think you’re just hating on Subo to hate Subo.

But I don’t think having every fighter under one banner will increase pay at all and probably not directly . I think only increased popularity of the sport will. If fighter’s can get higher pay from sponsors, then they might have a leg to stand on when negotiating with Zuffa. They still have to negotiate to get on that stage.

by Rufford on Apr 28, 2011 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Your research is helpful, but the UFC’s pay obfuscation makes it difficult to do any comparison. I am confident that at least half of those UFC numbers are wrong, if not more. Not because your research was wrong, but because Meltzer and others are relying on third-hand reports (of third hand reports) of contracts with confidentiality clauses.

That being said, I still believe your overall point is right—the 30th highest paid boxer is still a lot better paid than the 30th highest paid MMA fighter. That is only one piece of the puzzle though. There was a very long piece a few years ago analyzing the revenue model of HBO boxing, and the conclusion was that the model was unsustainable from a profit perspective. I think one can make a strong argument that boxer pay is too high considering the low level of revenue your typical non-Manny/Floyd fight brings in. The UFC model allows them to run 10 + major shows a year all over the world on PPV. How many such shows does HBO do per year these days?

by Michael Rome on Apr 28, 2011 6:25 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs

Are you suggesting that the MMA pay compares to the boxing numbers listed above? Or are you quibbling about $10-15 K. And there are more boxers out there that made major cash. That’s a US centric list. Danny Green made more than all but probably 4-5 MMA fighters last year. And he wasn’t on the list. Same with Koki Kameda.

The MMA Encyclopedia:Now on Kindle!

by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 28, 2011 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions

There was a very long piece a few years ago analyzing the revenue model of HBO boxing, and the conclusion was that the model was unsustainable from a profit perspective.

Thomas Hauser’s HBO and the State of Boxing articles are a must read for discussing this topic. I don’t know if it’s what you are talking about here but it is interesting reading.

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/hbo-and-the-state-of-boxing—part-one
http://www.secondsout.com/headlines/main-headline/hbo-and-the-state-of-boxing—part-two
http://www.secondsout.com/headlines/main-headline/hbo-and-the-state-of-boxing—part-three

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Are you saying you think they make more or less than what I listed? I would be interested in hearing your guestimate,

As for your point about it being “only a piece of the puzzle”, I agree. Even with the point about boxing being unsustainable or at least not as profitable as it should be. But the fact that boxing is unsustainable or not doesn’t really explain the difference between the two. In fact, there is a huge difference between boxing and mma that many have failed to note besides the obvious competition that exists in boxing between the major promoters and cable companies driving wages up. MMA (at least the money for MMA) is focused solely on the UFC who do 90 to 95% of all North American business. The UFC will do this business while holding only 12 cards in the first 6 month of 2011. During that same span both Showtime and HBO will hold 29 boxing cards. So while the UFC can make a much larger percentage of revenue from a smaller number of cards without any rival driving costs up boxers can look forward to the fact that the two major cable companies have to compete for headliners while also holding more cards meaning more headliner spots. Part of the reason this is acceptable in boxing is that fans are more discriminating concerning the fighters they’ll watch while not focused solely on one promotion. I don’t think it is any stretch to point out that the typical boxing fan is much more knowledgable than his MMA compatriot about their sport and as such put a greater premium on talent than most MMA fans who want to see two dudes beating the piss out of each other. As such, even on smaller shows talented boxers can demand more from promoters while except for the very few MMA fighters are completely interchangeable for the only promotion that fans follow.

What the UFC has is the definition “winner takes all”. Instead of fans spreading their money across multiple cards and promotions, they spend it exclusively on the monthly or twice a month UFC card. They are the JK Rowlings of MMA. Sure this exists with Pacquiao and Mayweather in boxing but fans don’t ignore cards because Arum or Golden Boy isn’t promoting it.

A 3rd reason that wages lag way behind those in boxing is that no Ali act exists in MMA. There is no mandatory ranking dictating how valuable a fighter is. Jon Fitch is not universally excepted a the number two by WW by fans and mandated for a title fight and as such can’t use that in negotiations. There is also no “coercive provisions” in boxing contracts that force fighters to remain under contract when they are at they peak of their negotiating powers a la the champions clauses.

As for the piece you are talking about, it was either the Thomas Hauser articles who me linked to or the John Chavez articles from last year.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Not sure what you mean here-

I don’t think it is any stretch to point out that the typical boxing fan is much more knowledgable than his MMA compatriot about their sport and as such put a greater premium on talent than most MMA fans who want to see two dudes beating the piss out of each other.

If by “typical”, you mean the group of people who buy and watch Manny Pacquiao PPV’s (casual fans), then I would probably agree, but if you think every guy watching Pacman fight is a boxing connoisseur, who extols the all time greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson and drools at the mention of up and comers like Saul Alvarez, then you are delusional. Sure, considering that Boxing’s fanbase is largely older than MMA’s fanbase, and considering that boxing has been such a big part of modern sports culture, maybe your average boxing fan could tell you all about Mike Tyson’s glory days, or how they watched Ali v. Frazier live as a child, but I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison.

The average MMA fan is your typical tapout wearing bro, guys who start moaning when a fight is playing out at a measured, technical pace. But that’s because MMA is still young, as are it’s viewers.

If you’re talking about the typical forum goer, hardcore fan, then I would definitely disagree. I wouldn’t consider boxing fans to be any more insightful or knowledgable than MMA fans.

Xtreme Couture- The best never rest!

"I swear it upon Zeus an outstanding runner cannot be the equal of an average wrestler."
-Socrates

by ElliotMatheny on Apr 29, 2011 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Only recently has Showtime seriously tried to compete with HBO on anything even remotely resembling a serious level, for the last decade or so boxing pay has been propped up by HBO being flat out crazy with their checkbook. Boxing pay is almost entirely propped up by HBO overspending on the sport, something I’m sure you already know being as you posted the link to the John Chavez article (It’s not hard to find articles out there talking about how HBO overpays for fights and how the system is in trouble).

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Showtime actually was spending significantly less in the middle/end of the 2000s than they were at the beginning or even in the late 1990s. Still hasn’t radically changed the boxing pay scale.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 29, 2011 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Showtime is only a competitior now due to them snagging some of the big names but for the most part boxing is a HBO world and the boxing payscale is based almost entirely on how much a promoter can get HBO to overpay for a fight (HBO also has a history of getting sub-par fights but that’s a different subject).

From the John Chavez article linked above:

For those promoters that felt as though the offers were “low-ball” figures, I’d inform them that they’d be free to consider other offers from wherever they felt was better knowing that there is only Showtime and the independent Pay-Per-View.

If numerous promoters refused the payout structure, I’d simply begin discussions with the UFC once again and legitimately threaten to take my business to MMA or focus on allocating that budget in other sporting entities. We must remember, most of the UFC’s Pay-Per-View purse payouts generally fall around the $1.5 million mark for the entire card. This is less than the $1.765 million paid for the debacle that was Paul Williams vs. Kermit Cintron.

It’s as simple as that.

U.S. based promoters would cry but it wouldn’t matter.

Change is absolutely necessary in the world of fight buying as it pertains to American boxing.

It’s a complete bubble that could implode at anytime and the necessary measures must take place in order to stabilize and “right the ship”.

Here’s an example of a short list that I’d send out:

$1.5 million offer for a WCB slot
Humberto Soto vs. Anthony Peterson
Michael Katsidis vs. Marcos Maidana

$200,000 offer for a B.A.D. slot
Chris Arreola vs. Sam Peter
Sakio Bika vs. Librado Andrade

$1.5 million offer for a WCB slot
Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Celestino Caballero
Nonito Donaire vs. Abner Mares

$200,000 offer for a B.A.D slot
Roman Martinez vs. Jorge Linares
Robert Guerrero vs. Miguel Acosta

$1.5 million offer for a WCB slot
Kelly Pavlik vs. Lucian Bute
Alfredo Angulo vs. Kermit Cintron II

$200,000 offer for a B.A.D slot
Winky Wright vs. David Lemiuex
Mike Jones vs. Alfonso Gomez

What’s that you say? These fights are unrealistic based on the fighter’s minimums and the various promoters that would be forced to work with one another to put these cards together?

That’s fine… there’s always Showtime, Pay-Per-View and HBO possibly starting to pick up UFC fights for a higher ratings figure at a lesser cost. Let the boxing promoters cry, bitch, whine, and moan… they can posture all they want.

The reality of the situation is that without HBO, most U.S. based boxing promoters would be bankrupt in the blink of an eye. With the heavy competition for television entertainment dollars and subscription fees with the likes of Netflix, Blockbuster, and the internet, it is not that far-fetched to see HBO pull the plug on boxing within the next few years. It’s not something that I would like to see happen whatsoever but there needs to be drastic changes made as soon as possible.

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

The whole thesis that boxing on HBO is beyond sustainability hinges on HBO eliminating boxing. Sure, and ESPN could decide tomorrow to produce original dramatic series instead of sports. What indications exist to state that this is a real fear? In HBO’s case they’re throwing money at Bob Arum right now to bring back Cotto and Pacquiao to them.

As for the thing you said about Showtime: It’s wrong. They spent through the nose in the 1990s for names like Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, and Julio Cesar Chavez. Certainly more than the post Tyson/pre Super Six era when they had no exclusive contracts and paid out no more than $400K for a boxing program.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 29, 2011 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

It’s not just an issue of sustainability it’s an issue of when is HBO going to wise up and start paying comparible money for fights instead of way overspending. HBO will toss three million at a fight that it’s pretty apparent they could of got for 1 million (and probably isn’t even worth that but them buying crappy fights is another issue). What we see for boxing pay isn’t a market price it’s an inflated bubble and for that bubble to burst it doesn’t take HBO pulling out of boxing it just takes HBO to start being smart about paying for boxing content.

As for the thing you said about Showtime: It’s wrong. They spent through the nose in the 1990s for names like Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, and Julio Cesar Chavez. Certainly more than the post Tyson/pre Super Six era when they had no exclusive contracts and paid out no more than $400K for a boxing program.

How is what I said wrong? Heck it sounds like we are saying the same thing. Showtime isn’t really a bidding competitor against HBO because they don’t offer up near as much for fights. The only real competition they have added recently is them snagging Pacquiao and Cotto.

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

They also added Bute. Showtime doesn’t always offer as much for every fights as HBO does but they do pick and choose which fights and fighters to go after and pay just as well for those. Each Super 6 fight is probably averaging a $2 mil + purse.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions

First off, there is more competition than just Showtime for HBO boxing. There are also foreign markets they have to compete with. Fighter like Froch, Abraham, Kessler, and a multitude of Mexican fighters can use the leverage of foreign paydays against HBO to get them to sign. There is also the competition with payperview. To get fighters to appear on HBO they have to pay them enough to turn down a fight on payperview. In fact one of the major complaints many in boxing have is that the sport is addicted to payperview to it’s detriment. Ironic that the solution for boxing is to give fans more affordable fights while the UFC’s success is attributed to ppv.
Additionally HBO has to compete to get name fighters that will get subscribers excited to watch them fight (and one of the big complaints both Chaves and Hauser lay on HBO is that they are not spending on the right fights). So HBO has to deal with the fact that these fighters are not under contract to them so they can exert excess leverage (like the UFC) and actually need them because:
fans want to see those specific fighters or because they are ranked by a sanctioning body and/or are mandated for a title shot/defense.

Secondly, the amount being spent by HBO is not really excessive. It is only excessive because they have spent it on horrible fights and have done a horrible job building up names (compare it Showtime and the Super Six which turned into a dub but what a great job of marketing). Right now HBO has a boxing budget in the neighborhood of $50 million a year. That seems mighty affordable when you look at the fact that perhaps two million HBO subscribers do so because of boxing. 2 million x $6.5 (HBO’s cut of a subscription) is $156 million a year. So even with the 40% rule (pay cable should cost no more than 40% what they bring in to be profitable) it is making money, Showtime in comparison is spending $25 to $30 million on boxing this year and are ecstatic with the results.

Shit I just got distracted and now I don’t know where I was going to go with this. I am sure it was something enlightening.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Well HBO is a ppv provider too, they aren’t as much competing with ppv as they are providing the ppv outlet too. When talking about HBO and Showtime they aren’t as much competing against ppv at the top end as they are the ones providing the ppv outlets and at the lower levels of the sport ppv just isn’t going to sell what it takes to compete with HBO throwing 2-3 million at a fight. Only the biggest fights are going to do much on ppv outside of HBO or Showtime ppvs, here I’ll just quote again from the article you linked:

The gap between what HBO & Showtime are willing to pay for boxing events and the amount shelled out by ESPN’s Friday Night Fights is about as large as the gap between Michael Marley and the salad bar. The average amount paid by the ESPN series usually falls around the $25,000 range with ESPN retaining the rights to rebroadcast these events.

This is why it makes it virtually impossible for U.S. based promoters to showcase six-figure talent on outlets such as ESPN, Fox Sportsnet, or Telefutura.

There’s always the much maligned Pay-Per-View route which has a built-in risk for promoters as there is no guarantee as to the amount of revenue generated by the outlet especially when HBO fails to put their stamp of approval on the event. However, even with what would be considered as “dismal” Pay-Per-View figures, the revenue generated by even the worst selling fight cards tend to generate more income than the paltry figures offered by ESPN.

Example: Antonio Margarito’s comeback this past May would generate roughly 15,000 Pay-Per-View buys. It would be considered an absolute flop by most standards considering the low buy-rate but considering the price-tag, it would generate roughly $700,000 to $750,000 in total television revenue which would then be split by the cable and satellite distributors whom usually take about 55 percent for their services. This would leave about $325,000 on the table which could or could not generate a profit based on the production fees (usually totaling about $75,000-$100,000 for an independent producer), marketing costs(which can vary widely depending on the promoter), fighter purses, and traveling expenses. Nevertheless, the amount generated by even a dismal PPV as Margarito’s comeback would offer significantly more money than had Top Rank decided to sell their broadcast rights to an outlet such as ESPN.

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Secondly, the amount being spent by HBO is not really excessive. It is only excessive because they have spent it on horrible fights and have done a horrible job building up names (compare it Showtime and the Super Six which turned into a dub but what a great job of marketing). Right now HBO has a boxing budget in the neighborhood of $50 million a year. That seems mighty affordable when you look at the fact that perhaps two million HBO subscribers do so because of boxing. 2 million x $6.5 (HBO’s cut of a subscription) is $156 million a year. So even with the 40% rule (pay cable should cost no more than 40% what they bring in to be profitable) it is making money, Showtime in comparison is spending $25 to $30 million on boxing this year and are ecstatic with the results.

When you are spending more than market value you are overspending for something even if you are still making a profit on the other end. When HBO pays 3 million for a fight they could of got for 1.5 million due to that is all the competition would be willing to pay then they are creating a pay bubble that is above what the true market value actually is. In MMA it would be similar to what Affliction did only HBO is big enough it still can make money, paying more than market value is still overspending regardless of end profit. There isn’t a bidding war going on HBO has just been tossing money around. The actual market price for most of the fights they show would be the cost it would take to barely outbid Showtime, anything on top of that is just wasted money on their part.

A corporation’s goal isn’t to just make a profit it is to make the maximum profit they possibly can and still be successful in business. Sure corporations are evil and all but the evil is normally pretty predictable, what HBO is doing has had observers scratching their heads for years now.

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

The original point was that boxing was “unsustainable from a profit perspective”. Even if they are overpaying them how can it be unsustainable if they are turning a profit?

The other part I didn’t finish was that the correction already looks as if it happened. HBO has lowered their budget for boxing from $70 million per year to $45 million. Maybe they are still spending too much but when Showtime can swoop in and get Pacquiao, Cotto, and Bute, and put together the Super 6 with comparitive wages and see huge returns it seems like the wage scale must be about right.

One of HBO’s biggest problems is they have been putting together expensive fights that should be cheaper, not that they have been overpaying market prices on the good fights. For example look at the rematch of Dawson vs Tarver where they paid $3.2 million and a ton on marketing and production for two B-level fighters with no fan interest. For evidence it sold less than 1500 tickets for a $170,000 gate. Now compare that to Showtime signing the Froch-Taylor fight for $2.3 million after HBO turned it down so they could book Dawson/Tarver and which was a huge success as part of the Super 6. .

This is why fighters have some leverage even when someone like HBO holds most the cards: boxing fans are more discerning than MMA fans. Most UFC/MMA fans will watch anything. It’s part of its cathartic nature. A large segment of the fanbase just likes the violence and excitement. Boxing fans as whole -especially the ones buying tickets, cable subscriptions and most of the non-Pacman and Mayweather ppvs – are much more knowledgeable about the sport and the fighters. Which is why something like Clottey vs Cotto was probably priced right at $2.7 million. Because they and their management know that HBO needs to pay them that much to keep their subscribers and their is enough money available outside of HBO to hold out until they pay it.

Shit it might even be the case that because boxing doesn’t appeal to a huge casual audience many of the fighters have more leverage than they would otherwise. I’ll have to look into that.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions

The original point was that boxing was "unsustainable from a profit perspective". Even if they are overpaying them how can it be unsustainable if they are turning a profit?

Well that’s an issue with tomorrow being different than today. Lets face it HBO is going backwards in viewership for it’s fights and isn’t making the return it used to off of it, they may correct to proper levels with proper oversight or they may scrap the whole darn thing and do another couple of series shows that do so well for them in viewership numbers. As you said they just dropped the budget from $70 million to $45 million that’s $25 million dollars that is out of the sport of boxing that HBO decided could be better used elsewhere, don’t you think that missing $25 million is going to have an effect of boxing payouts? A company wouldn’t slash it’s budget for a product by 35% if it was happy with the product and what they were paying for it.

What was the ratings for Froch-Taylor?

by who me on Apr 29, 2011 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions

That drop has already passed: they went from $70 million a couple of years ago tot $45 million for 2010 and are now talking about recommitting to boxing with all the success Showtime has seen. So whatever purses we see now seems to be in line with where they want to see them.

As for the ratings for the Froch-Taylor fight? I’m not sure. I know it was a fight of the year candidate that helped launch the idea for the Super 6 tournament which is something that even though it has bombed as a sporting event has been huge for Showtime’s pocketbook. In fact, Showtime credits boxing as one of the major reason that have gained 10% in subscribers every year for the last couple of years. And If only 10% of those million new subscribers every year are doing so because of boxing that is $8 million extra every year – compounded. Part of the reason they’ve increased their boxing budget by some $10 million over the last couple of years.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Showtime said something similar about how MMA is helping their subscriber growth too and now they are really paying Strikeforce for that….. oh wait no not really. Showtime took advantage of the political fall out between Arum and HBO and they are bound to be happy about that but it’s still not all happy days and sunshine walks there either.

As for HBO, they cut their budget in 2010 and 2011 and are concerned that they are losing minority subscribers currently. What seems to be the talk at HBO is that heads may roll soon but it doesn’t sound like there is much talk about putting more money into this.

by who me on Apr 30, 2011 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Notice this

How many of those boxers fought exactly one time last year?

by Derek Suboticki on Apr 28, 2011 10:06 PM EDT reply actions

How many of those people with one fight listed only fought once? You misread what he wrote.

by VirtualBalboa on Apr 28, 2011 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions

There were at least 8 fights i didn’t list because I couldn’t find any purse info, meaning that the top 30 boxers averaged two fights each last year. I’m guessing the top 30 in MMA didn’t average much more than that.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 2:52 AM EDT up reply actions

The top 10 mixed martial artists I listed combined for 18 fights in 2010 while the top 10 boxers combined for 17. So your point is?

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Nice job cherrypicking

by Derek Suboticki on Apr 29, 2011 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Now I’m kicking myself that I added incorrectly. The top 10 highest paid boxers didn’t fight 17 times but actually fought 19 times. Mosely and Margarito actually had two fights apiece in 2010.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Picking the top 10 in each is not “cherry picking.” Stop trolling someone who is actually providing something useful.

The MMA Encyclopedia:Now on Kindle!

by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 29, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

I took it that he wasn’t being serious but instead intended it to be satirical. I know I read it that way and smirked.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Having dealt with him plenty of times believe me – you are giving him way too much credit for brains and subtlety.

The MMA Encyclopedia:Now on Kindle!

by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 29, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Again with nothing to contextualize the gap

It’s striking when sees a future champion like Jon Jones making less than half on his fights than what Brandan Rios made for any one of his undercard bouts that same year (and more than all four of Phil Davis’s combined purses).

There’s nothing striking about it. Jones was a blue chip prospect with nothing to truly validate the hype until earlier this year when he beat Bader. I was under the impression his current contract was signed before then (?). That right there is the manager’s job.

Either way, this is just another lameduck fighter pay comparison that does zero to define the context. For example, instead of looking at numbers and whining about them, why not ask ‘why?’ Why are these numbers so dramatically different? Is it because Dana is wasting money on his “degenerate gambling problem”? Is it because Zuffa is funding Joe Rogan’s drug use? Or is it because the models are so drastically different? In what way do their contrasting roles affect fighter pay? In this case, Zuffa as promoter, and producer (unlike the boxing model in which these roles are separated), and an entity still attempting to define itself in the public consciousness with very expensive lobbying (legalization), in addition to its aggressive expansion, both foreign (overseas shows), and domestic (buying out competitors). Surely this business model has an impact. But to what extent? And should this be an excuse to “underpay” its fighters?

More importantly, is the boxing model something we even want in MMA? Do we want to bring in independent producers who set out of control licensing fees which ultimately corrupt matchmaking? There’s every indication, as Michael Rome, alluded to, that the boxing model, as defined by HBO at least, is unsustainable. So what cues are we looking to borrow from?

Follow me at Head Kick Legend

by David Castillo on Apr 29, 2011 12:01 AM EDT reply actions

All those (or at least a majority of them) are good points which I hope to answer in a future fanpost, but none of those were the point of this particular fanpost. In fact, I am somewhat surprised that you failed to pick up what the true intent of this piece was.

In fact no one got it so maybe it was too veiled. I’ll give you another try.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions

No, I understood the intent just fine

but missed the content, which like every post about comparing fighter pay, always seems to miss the broader questions. It’s worthwhile information, like all your posts, but other than picking apart Iole’s statement, it’s missing a real thesis.

Follow me at Head Kick Legend

by David Castillo on Apr 29, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I think I got it.

Yahoo Sports, which Iole writes for, is a major provider of online PPVs for the UFC. And the “middle class” of boxing doesn’t mean as much to his interests as pumping up the bulk of the UFC roster, even though he covers both sports. Iole also has a history of pushing incorrect stories that favor Zuffa interests, infamously burying Cro Cop for leaving to DREAM when his contract was up (which he didn’t actually do). So here we have a Zuffa business partner using their news service to pull a Muhammad “Baghdad Bob” Saeed al-Sahhaf style “There’s nothing to worry about everything is great!” statement regarding the UFC pay structure.

Or maybe I’m reading too far into Iole’s frequently vapid press release writing for MMA.

"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe

by pdl on Apr 29, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

He’s got some really eyebrow raising comments. I am surprised no one calls him out on it.

by John Nash on Apr 29, 2011 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions

There’s every indication, as Michael Rome, alluded to, that the boxing model, as defined by HBO at least, is unsustainable.

Unsustainable? It’s been on since 1973. It doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Where does this talking point come from?

The MMA Encyclopedia:Now on Kindle!

by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 29, 2011 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Interesting

Could you provide some links to the estimates for Mixed Martial Artists? They seemed strange to me.

For instance, with Rampage, I assumed he’d get PPV bonuses, since his fights headlined both the cards he was on in 2010 and he is a top draw.

Assuming he was, and that he had Randy’s PPV bonus scale from when that was made public, I came up with $3,815,000 for PPV money and base pay.

Using the same scale for Rashad, I got $3,530,000.

For Lyoto Machida, I got $2,125,000.

Just wondering what causes the estimates to be very close to my math based on the released PPV scale in some cases, but not others. For Rashad and Lyoto, the fights during the time frame were during or right after their championship run, and they were the big draws on their cards.

I’m not saying their estimates are wrong. I’d just like to know if their estimates are based on talking to the fighters/agents, or if it’s just a guess.

by SmackyBear on Apr 29, 2011 11:13 PM EDT reply actions

Can’t provide them now because they are on my office computer but I’ll see about adding them monday or maybe to the next fanpost. I went nuts saving the boxing purses and then just got lazy about posting links. A couple of things to remember, though:
1) you can google the numbers yourself, goddammit. Try " Meltzer estimates Rampage made $2 million at UFC 114". I did that and I got an mmajunkie article linking to it. I alsoremember Kid Nate quoted Meltzer here about Rashad and Evans pay. Same with GSP and Brock (Brock was $3 to $3.5 mil each fight so I took the high number and doubled it)
2. The numbers are their estimates so who knows if they’re being lazy and rounding off, working with a diffrent ppv estimate than is given, or know something we don’t.
3. I don’t know if Rampage has the same tiered ppv bonus that Randy and others have. He came into the UFC with a WFA contract that included ppv bonuses so maybe it was a carryover or any of the things listed above.
4. I think both Evans and Lyoto have a much smaller ppv bonus written into their contacts than the other fighter.

Anyways, the numbers have to really be looked at with a grain of salt. The boxing numbers are more complete because they’re often forced to release the purse info, but it also doesn’t include all the fights for all the fighters. Every super 6 fighter listed problably $2 mil more than listed.

by John Nash on Apr 30, 2011 12:11 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

1. Don’t know if the “goddammit” is actual frustration, or faux. I’ll assume faux, since in general, googling UFC fighter pay mainly leads to blogs and forums without sourced info. But I was actually more interested in if your numbers had any more authority behind them than anything I could find. Thanks for the specific thing to look up, I found the article.

It’s a relatively preliminary estimate from Metzler, that he later revised up to 1,050,000. His previous estimate of rampage’s pay of about $2M for a 925k buy PPV is pretty much in line with the PPV scale released during the contract dispute with Randy.

2. Yeah, I know. That’s why I was wondering if this was a specific list Metzler or someone had developed from talking to agents.

3 and 4. I don’t know either, but after reading this on MMA Payout

While not confirmed, it is believed that this bonus structure is consistent across the board for the top fighters who receive pay-per-view bonuses.

it made me think that the headliners that get a slice of the pie have the same scale.

Without a comprehensive list from a credible reporter getting all the agents to talk, I honestly don’t put much stake in compiled estimates. Though I’m not agreeing with Iole’s statements. I’m sure that the 30th highest paid boxer makes more than the 30th highest paid mixed martial artist, even Dana White estimated that only 18 UFC fighters make $1m+ a year.

by SmackyBear on Apr 30, 2011 1:11 AM EDT reply actions

I’ve read – hell mmalogic has claimed it to be the case – that there is a universal contract for the big stars but I can’t be sure of that because it has been suggested that Lesnar has a couple of tiers ($4 and $5) that others do not, and as seen by the estimates for Evans he doesn’t make as much as the others. So who really knows?
The thing I find interesting as was really trying to point out was that a) boxing, a sport that sells much less in ppvs actually pays a lot more and not just for a select few guys at the top as widely reported. B) Kevin Iole is really a shill. I actually like a lot of his reporting but there is something ominous about him making claims about how much better paid UFC fightes are when it is so easily proven false.

by John Nash on Apr 30, 2011 2:00 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions