Zuffa 2004-2006 financials

[FrankieNYC]

According to an audit (supplied by John Nash) UFC was not in as bad of shape prior to TUF as they claim

They lost only $650k in 2004

But what a killer profit year 2006 was
They made roughly $42 on every $100, that is an incredible margin & set the tone for profit > pay

 

[FrankieNYC]

To put it into perspective


=


When you wonder why they received $4b, that shows how they set up a structure to be an ATM even on lesser years.

UFC in 2006 was a better business (profitability) than any year in WWF/E history

 

[LouisBolanos]

Any breakdown on % that went to fighters?

 

[gb@Trumpski]

ya wwe pay stupid money to its stars, probably 5 times as much as they should.

 

[FrankieNYC]

Any breakdown on % that went to fighters?

In 2006?
They were paying a lot less than now
So I'd guess under 10% easily

in 2015 it was 13% & 2016 it was 17% (of revenue)

But that audit proves two thing
1. The narrative that UFC were losing $40m in 2004 (before TUF) is BS
2. The 2006 year set the groundwork for how lucrative MMA could be by keeping fighter pay at a low %

 

[FrankieNYC]

@LouisBolanos
In order to be at even 10% in 2006, they would have had to pay $18m to fighters
I don't see that as reality for 2006

 

[LouisBolanos]

@LouisBolanos
In order to be at even 10% in 2006, they would have had to pay $18m to fighters
I don't see that as reality for 2006

Well this breakdown shows why a 50/50 split is completely ludicrous. 180m revenue with 83m cost. That's 46% gone. If the UFC were to hand anywhere close to 50% to the fighters they'd be making no money.

 

[FrankieNYC]

Well this breakdown shows why a 50/50 split is completely ludicrous. 180m revenue with 83m cost. That's 46% gone. If the UFC were to hand anywhere close to 50% to the fighters they'd be making no money.

I agree
At that stage, they had to recoup & build

I think a fair % would be 25% now
in 2016 that would have been roughly $175m
That is about $55m more than they paid & would have still put UFC at $170m profit for the year

What I said would be fair & go a long way is to keep the money the way it is, but come up with a bonus structure at the years end once the financials are confirmed.
They can give fighters a % bonus compatible to their pay structure & amount of fights

If they added $55m to a bonus & have 550 fighters (lets make it easy) that is $100k per
So if they went by %, even a prelim guy might get a nice $20-25k check

 

[Bubba32]

In 2006?
They were paying a lot less than now
So I'd guess under 10% easily

in 2015 it was 13% & 2016 it was 17% (of revenue)

But that audit proves two thing
1. The narrative that UFC were losing $40m in 2004 (before TUF) is BS
2. The 2006 year set the groundwork for how lucrative MMA could be by keeping fighter pay at a low %

How much did they lose in 2003, 2002 and 2001?

 

[FrankieNYC]

How much did they lose in 2003, 2002 and 2001?

Nobody has info on that

 

[Bubba32]

Nobody has info on that

Then the claim that the Fertittas were over 40m in the hole could still be true.

 

[FrankieNYC]

Then the claim that the Fertittas were over 40m in the hole could still be true.

I said

The narrative that UFC were losing $40m in 2004 (before TUF) is BS

The narrative is they were on deaths bed at end of 2004, when actually they almost broke even & all signs pointed to a turn around (due to almost breaking even).

 

[Bubba32]

I said


The narrative is they were on deaths bed at end of 2004, when actually they almost broke even & all signs pointed to a turn around (due to almost breaking even).

Im just saying they could have still been in the hole since we dont have 2003, 2002, and 2001.

but without tuf they probably would have remained at that near break even point dont you think?

 

[FrankieNYC]

Im just saying they could have still been in the hole since we dont have 2003, 2002, and 2001.

but without tuf they probably would have remained at that near break even point dont you think?

They certainly were in the hole
No arguing
but they expected that as an investment

Without Tuf they would have grown anyway
MMA was becoming more mainstream, but TUF certainly kicked the speed up ... no arguing that.

What happened was Big John & Rogan had a discussion on how UFC lost so much in 2004 that they were on deaths bed.
That prompted Meltzer & Nash to have a discussion that I chimed in on & thought the numbers Nash gave were interesting to share

TLDR: UFC were not at deaths door prior to TUF, but it is a great story. It also shows how fighter pay vs profit was in 2006 & why they could sell for $4b & go up in value after

 

[bisquit]

Any breakdown on % that went to fighters?

 

[Reach4theSky]

A direct reflection the impact the TUF show had..

 

[randomg1t]

Well this breakdown shows why a 50/50 split is completely ludicrous. 180m revenue with 83m cost. That's 46% gone. If the UFC were to hand anywhere close to 50% to the fighters they'd be making no money.

wouldn't fighter pay already be included in the 83m cost?

 

[BobbyBuds]

According to an audit (supplied by John Nash) UFC was not in as bad of shape prior to TUF as they claim

They lost only $650k in 2004

But what a killer profit year 2006 was
They made roughly $42 on every $100, that is an incredible margin & set the tone for profit > pay

Except they took it over in 2001.... Have a look at those financials. Now your 7 figures "net" losses with 9 figures revenue...... That's mis-leading to the first 3 years of operation

 

[FrankieNYC]

Except they took it over in 2001.... Have a look at those financials. Now your 7 figures "net" losses with 9 figures revenue...... That's mis-leading to the first 3 years of operation

It isn't misleading when my point was what they lost in 2004 & what they made in 2006 only

 

[FrankieNYC]

wouldn't fighter pay already be included in the 83m cost?

Yes