Matt Lindland talks to Sherdog about fighter pay in MMA:
"I’ve always had a lot more stuff going on outside of fighting, but a lot of that came because I couldn’t make a living just by being a fighter. Even now, how many guys at the top level of the sport -- and by that I mean Strikeforce and the UFC -- can make a living off what they get to fight? It’d make for an interesting story that I definitely would read. In the NFL, there’s about 900 or so players, and they have a minimum salary that allows them to make a good living. Once fighters get to the NFL of MMA, there’s no minimum salary. Even with all of the success the big MMA promotions have had recently, it’s barely gotten better than when I got started."
9 months ago
Tim Burke
24 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Team Quest and the dealership I work for have a professional relationship.
At our company picnic Lindland and his wife were helping serve lunch. Very odd.
"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
In the NFL, there’s about 900 or so players, and they have a minimum salary that allows them to make a good living.
The NFL also has a TWENTY BILLION DOLLAR broadcast contract. The UFC’s $100MM FOX deal is a mere pittance compared to the cheddar the NFL rakes in. It took nearly 50 years before NFL players started making decent money. The UFC has made tremendous strides compared to where the NFL was at a similar stage in it’s life cycle.
by Steve4192 on Sep 5, 2011 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
With MMA and the UFC growing like it is, it just seems like people want things right away even if it’s not feasible. I do think that fighters in the UFC can get paid more, but nothing exponential. The pay rate for UFC fighters has been growing, and from the looks of it, fighter pay for UFC fighters continues to grow.
I’ll give Lindland the benefit of a doubt here. It’s easy to say as an MMA fan one thing, but for him as a fighter, trainer, etc, he has a totally different perspective. That NFL analogy from him was not representative at all though.
Check out the C&D Channel on YouTube for MMA reviews, predictions, analysis, and other MMA related content.
Yep
What people forget when talking about the UFC should be paying more is that almost none of their income is fixed. Whereas the stick & ball sports have broadcast contracts that pay them a fixed amount for years at a time, the UFC’s revenues still vary wildly from event to event.
The UFC is currently experiencing a dramatic downturn in PPV income versus the good old days of 2009-2010. If they had bumped up their fighter compensation based on their 2010 PPV sales, they would be in a world of hurt now that PPV buys are in the crapper. Heck, they still might be in trouble if the downward trend continues. That is why they are pushing globalization so hard. They are trying to insulate themselves from downturns in any one market by creating new profitable markets.
I’m sure Lindland is aware of that but when it comes to fighter’s pay, I’m sure he’s more of an expert than people online that are not fighting.
I’m sure he would appreciate the UFC healthcare coverage.
UFC 136 Edgar vs Maynard III is looking pretty good!
by VeeisAnimated on Sep 6, 2011 4:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Always interesting to see when someone bring up something that incontrovertible, that fighters don’t make much compared not only to the other major leagues but as a share of the revenue they bring in, how the fans instant reaction is to come up with excuses to defend the status quo. At least the top 7, if not more, purses this year will go to boxers. A dozen headliners on cable boxing broadcasts will make more on their one purse than the total reported payout for all fighters on UFC 131. If boxing can do that with only a fraction of the revenue why do we fans feel that it is so acceptable for MMA to pay less?
that’s sad. the ufc has made great strides in so many areas, can you imagine a first year rookie in the nfl eating rice and ketchup due to having no money.
'if you don't have humility as a fighter, fighting will bring humility to you...'
With the NFL,
it’s the veterans who get cut who eat rice and ketchup.
The NFL’s treatment of retired players is cold-blooded.
I don’t understand how the pay can be so low. All these contracts were signed when strikeforce was still around and their existence was supposed to magically make the salaries be the right amount. Was that wrong?
That is completely fallacious reasoning on your part phildo, and I’m sure you know that. Strikeforce was never a competitor to the UFC, their revenue was less than 1/10th of the major league. What the hope was is that they’d find enough success to be able start offering an alternate and thus drive up pay. But of course that would be bad because we all want all our money to go to the owners who “saved” the sport and not the greedy guys fighting.
by John Nash on Sep 5, 2011 7:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
it’s total snark. When it comes to sympathy about paychecks, fighters are lower on the list than me, teachers, the 40 year old mother of 2 cashier at walmart who doesn’t understand why the mortgage interest for her trailer home on someone else’s land doesn’t make her tax refund 20k, then young men doing what they want to for undetermined amounts of money that many of them seem very happy with.
My sympathies lie more with thos people as well, but guess what, this is an MMA site. And guess what as well, many fighters aren’t happy with their cut of the pie. But apparently it’s better for us and the sport that the vast, vast majority of the money we spend go to the few money go to the few men who’ve cornered the market. And this ties directly into who you’re sympathies lie with; it’s the same reason why 50% of the country had only 2.5 of its wealth.
by John Nash on Sep 5, 2011 9:47 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
their revenue was less than 1/10th of the major league
…. and the UFC is less than 1/10th of the NFL. Which is why Lindland’s comparison is ridiculous.
I don’t hold it against the UFC for making as much or paying as little as they can. They’re a business, it’s what they’re supposed to do. But I’m always surprised at the number of fans who feel the need to defend or explain away a system where the talent get a fraction of the share of revenue they get in other sports and the owners walk away with $75 million in dividend payments every year. Especially when they are smart fans like you two.
by John Nash on Sep 5, 2011 9:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m not thrilled that the Fertittas have been sucking cash out of the company like a Hoover, but that doesn’t mean I advocate a knee-jerk reaction in the other direction.
The UFC has not established what their sustainable level is yet. Their revenue hasn’t stabilized yet. Just as we saw massive increases in 2006 and 2009, we are seeing a massive decrease in 2011. If they had gone hog wild and signed guys to monster contracts when they were raking in the cash over the last two years, they would be in serious jeopardy now that things are going the other direction. For all we know, 2011 might be the beginning of the end.
The UFC is not a mature business with predictable levels of income. They aren’t at the stage yet where they can dole out 50% of their revenues to the athletes. Could they do more? Probably, although we really have no idea how much since they keep such a tight wrap on fighter compensation.
I am not looking to wave the Zuffa pom poms, but I am also not looking to pillory them just because they aren’t in a hurry to radically alter their expense structure. That kind of thing doesn’t happen overnight in any industry. It takes decades.
Three things: 1) so a small group of men keep making huge profits from us paying to see other people fight but decades from now when it gets worked out it will make up for those fighters who missed out? 2) the reason wages are higher in all the other sports including boxing is because there is some form of competition which doesn’t exist in MMA and doesn’t seem likely. 3) even the simplist thing which would greatly increase a fighters leverage, such as applying the Ali act to MMA, would, according to fans, ruin the sport.
As I have written many times, I don’t hold it against the UFC to do what they do. Why change when there is no pressure to do so? But I’m shocked at the number of fans who’s loyalty lies with them over the fighters. Who cheer record ppv sales and then rip Dan Henderson for daring to ask for more. And who, even if the FTC finds faults with the UFC, will claim they did everything for the sport and not themselves.
And sure, the UFC would be in major trouble if they overpaid and saw a massive downturn in business. But that didn’t stop the owners from taking out huge loans in which to pay themselves huge dividends. Now, if it all goes under, they will at least be able to walk away having already profited ten or twenty fold what they put into it. Will the fighters?
by John Nash on Sep 6, 2011 1:44 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
The only thing I really care about is the long-term viability of the company. I have zero confidence in the sport continuing to move forward should Zuffa falter. For all their faults, Zuffa has been the only company that has shown the ability to think long-term. I honestly think that a Zuffa implosion would send the sport right back into the dark ages, and fighter pay would suffer WAY more from that it does from the Fertittas being greedy little shits.
I am willing to live with them sucking blood from the company like ticks as long as they continue to make the right decisions in building the empire. The growth of the UFC is best thing that can happen to fighter pay in the long-term, even if they aren’t receiving an equitable amount of that growth in the short-term. In 20 years, the fighters will be making more money if the Zuffa leviathan makes good on their ‘biggest sport in the world’ dream than they would if Zuffa implodes because they jacked up the pay scale too fast and experience an unexpected downturn in business.
by Steve4192 on Sep 6, 2011 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Although Lindland is a bit of a blowhard
I don’t think he’s talking completely out of his ass
A while back Jonathan Snowden did write an article over at MMA Nation about the total costs that fighters pay after they receive their fight pay
http://mma.sbnation.com/2011/8/18/2161891/the-economics-of-mma-how-much-does-it-cost-to-be-a-fighter
If a lot of this is factual, then honestly, I don’t understand how even 3\4’s of UFC fighters are not in the poor house
I may be exaggerating a bit regarding the numbers but its not out of the realm of possibility
by devious1 on Sep 5, 2011 6:47 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
that article still blows my mind because i dont understand how most fighters make that much
endorsments and apparences will will get you some extra moolah but at the end of the day the FIGHT is the real money maker and to see how much high level training cost and how many people dont get paid “anderson silva money” is semi-confusing too me, but for evreyone out there reading this who doesnt follow boxing at all i suggest you go look at their pay days for a solid chuckle
R.I.P victor ortiz
The article only applies to the VERY high end of fighters,
you’re average joe on the undercard—hell, even the average co-main-eventer—doesn’t have nearly the same costs. Snowden explains all that in the article.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
