Media Does this end the fighter pay talk for you?

[SuperNerd]

"Everybody has an opinion on this business. ... You know what you know about this buisness? What I fucking tell you"

Beautiful.

 

[Chpika]

Everyone throws out the 16-20% revenue number, which sounds bad. But, you have to put it in context with what their other expenses are. The put on at least 50 events per year, which costs alot of money. They have payroll costs for their employees. They have marketing expenses. They have invested in training facilities. They have travel expenses. They pay taxes, etc... it's not as if they are just pocketing the other 80% of the revenues.

Football clubs pay about 65% of revenue to its players. They also have academies which need good coaches for EACH age-group from 6yrs old, they will also infrastructure costs such as grass £1mill+ a year in the stadium. The training centre will have loads of pitches too, as will the academy facilites. They will have cooks, cleaners, engineers, physios, doctors, marketing, analytics teams, scouts across the globe for youth players, and potential first team players, and admin people. Also, transfer fees to buy other players.

UFC isn't unique.

 

[ironfist05]

Fighter pay has never been an issue for anyone until they are standing on a platform Dana built for them

Well the platform is built now, so they can say and so whatever they want

 

[Dbreiden83080]

"They don't want you to know what they make" LMFAO!!!

Every star athlete wants the world to know exactly what they make. That is why they hold out for 1 dollar more than the last guy.. Dana is such a lying scumbag tool..

 

[Myrddin Wild]

All revenue goes into the salary cap. That includes stadium revenue. But the more money an individual team makes on revenue that isn’t shared the more money that franchise gets to keep (assuming expenses are the same).

And yes, the ufc is like the cowboys and yankees of mma….

If your point is about the salary cap... then you would also have to add that the league puts all the athletes up against their salary cap. That's the way it's calculated. They said, "this is how much the league made this year... & 49% of that is this... & that's what the salary cap is.

So if they're already bumped up against their salary cap, then what good is some kind of loophole that says stadium revenue must be added until the salary cap is reached?

Now regarding the money a team owner makes in addition to the Leagues offering of 49%... You are exactly right that the team owner keeps it... and that the percentage of athlete pay vs. owner pay starts going down very quickly.

So an NFL team gets to cap the salaries of their athletes BEFORE we compare their total revenue to the fighter pay. (in these types of discussions)

Everyone just needs to wrap their head around that before comparing the NFL to the UFC.

people not paying attention are just happy to look at the "league's" split... while ignoring the fact that the team owners are making a shit load of money on top of that.

So maybe since you & I seem to be the only one who understands this... perhaps you can tell me why so many people ignore this simple math.

iow... we're asking the UFC to go off of "TOTAL FOOKING REVENUE" while comparing it to other orgs "league split" before their total revenue is calculated.



I just don't know how teh fook anyone who claims they have 2 fooking brain cells can make that comparison. Maybe you can explain it?

I’ve found a few articles that say 2/3 of revenue is from broadcast deals and 1/3 from ticket revenue. They also say ticket revenue is also split with players. Can you link me some proof of what you’re saying.

Proof that owners make money after the split is why I provided you with a link that showed the Cowboys are paying their athlets 20% of their total revenue, so I'm not sure what you want me to link you to. That "total revenue" figure, is all you need to see in order to recognize they were 20% athlete pay in 2018. Very simple right? All the bullshit aside... they can't hide their total revenue... & they can't hide their athlete pay. It's 20%... so you figure it out for yourself from there and then provide me with the explanation as to why we're comparing league split to the ufc's total revenue.

You seem to be mixing up 2 "COMPLETELY" different sources of income... because "Broadcasting" is basically all the fooking league does. (advertising n shit too as well as paying their fooking executives (non-athletes way too much BEFORE THE ATHLETE/OWNER SPLIT FFS) The "on the ground level" of ticket sales... are completely separate from the "League split." Tickets are 100% handled by the individual team owner himself and 0% handled by the "League."

To wrap your head around this... you have to make a distinction between "League spit" and "owner's total revenue" because they are 2 very different things. Then you have to be able to comprehend the difference between comparing the NFL's League split to the UFC. No... the UFC is both a League and the Owner. So if we're comparing the UFC's "TOTAL REVENUE"... then you can only be fair to compare the best team owner's "TOTAL REVENUE." (not their fooking "League split.")

However you want to twist it... you can't get around that their total revenue was 950M & they paid their athletes 190M. So their Athlete pay is 20%. It's obvious right? You don't have to believe anything I say, but just look at that figure and then you tell me what's going on. I don't even watch fooseball, but I got my head into how their league n shit operates... just because of this very discussion... & you just can't compare the UFC to the fooking League split alone while the team owners have a whole other source of income on the side. We do not allow the UFC to separate any of their income from the split in these convos.

What you have to understand here is that there is the "League" pay... & then there's the "Stadium" pay (concessions, seat tickets, putting my name "Myrddin Wild Stadium" in big fooking letters as the name of your stadium & I give them money god couldn't afford for the right.) Every bit of all of that goes straight to the owner & the players are only allocated their 49% "FROM THE LEAGUE." Which bumps them up against their cap & so that's all you really gotta understand right? So if the owner is as successful as the UFC... then yes, they will get a winfall & no they will not (& legally "can not") share those profits with their athletes.

So to circle back... why teh fook are we comparing the UFC's total revenue to a figure that does not represent total revenue in an NFL team.

Total Revenue vs. Total revenue = the only fair way to make this comparison yeah?

 

[kflo]

If your point is about the salary cap... then you would also have to add that the league puts all the athletes up against their salary cap. That's the way it's calculated. They said, "this is how much the league made this year... & 49% of that is this... & that's what the salary cap is.

So if they're already bumped up against their salary cap, then what good is some kind of loophole that says stadium revenue must be added until the salary cap is reached?

Now regarding the money a team owner makes in addition to the Leagues offering of 49%... You are exactly right that the team owner keeps it... and that the percentage of athlete pay vs. owner pay starts going down very quickly.

So an NFL team gets to cap the salaries of their athletes BEFORE we compare their total revenue to the fighter pay. (in these types of discussions)

Everyone just needs to wrap their head around that before comparing the NFL to the UFC.

people not paying attention are just happy to look at the "league's" split... while ignoring the fact that the team owners are making a shit load of money on top of that.

So maybe since you & I seem to be the only one who understands this... perhaps you can tell me why so many people ignore this simple math.

iow... we're asking the UFC to go off of "TOTAL FOOKING REVENUE" while comparing it to other orgs "league split" before their total revenue is calculated.



I just don't know how teh fook anyone who claims they have 2 fooking brain cells can make that comparison. Maybe you can explain it?


Proof that owners make money after the split is why I provided you with a link that showed the Cowboys are paying their athlets 20% of their total revenue, so I'm not sure what you want me to link you to. That "total revenue" figure, is all you need to see in order to recognize they were 20% athlete pay in 2018. Very simple right? All the bullshit aside... they can't hide their total revenue... & they can't hide their athlete pay. It's 20%... so you figure it out for yourself from there and then provide me with the explanation as to why we're comparing league split to the ufc's total revenue.

You seem to be mixing up 2 "COMPLETELY" different sources of income... because "Broadcasting" is basically all the fooking league does. (advertising n shit too as well as paying their fooking executives (non-athletes way too much BEFORE THE ATHLETE/OWNER SPLIT FFS) The "on the ground level" of ticket sales... are completely separate from the "League split." Tickets are 100% handled by the individual team owner himself and 0% handled by the "League."

To wrap your head around this... you have to make a distinction between "League spit" and "owner's total revenue" because they are 2 very different things. Then you have to be able to comprehend the difference between comparing the NFL's League split to the UFC. No... the UFC is both a League and the Owner. So if we're comparing the UFC's "TOTAL REVENUE"... then you can only be fair to compare the best team owner's "TOTAL REVENUE." (not their fooking "League split.")

However you want to twist it... you can't get around that their total revenue was 950M & they paid their athletes 190M. So their Athlete pay is 20%. It's obvious right? You don't have to believe anything I say, but just look at that figure and then you tell me what's going on. I don't even watch fooseball, but I got my head into how their league n shit operates... just because of this very discussion... & you just can't compare the UFC to the fooking League split alone while the team owners have a whole other source of income on the side. We do not allow the UFC to separate any of their income from the split in these convos.

What you have to understand here is that there is the "League" pay... & then there's the "Stadium" pay (concessions, seat tickets, putting my name "Myrddin Wild Stadium" in big fooking letters as the name of your stadium & I give them money god couldn't afford for the right.) Every bit of all of that goes straight to the owner & the players are only allocated their 49% "FROM THE LEAGUE." Which bumps them up against their cap & so that's all you really gotta understand right? So if the owner is as successful as the UFC... then yes, they will get a winfall & no they will not (& legally "can not") share those profits with their athletes.

So to circle back... why teh fook are we comparing the UFC's total revenue to a figure that does not represent total revenue in an NFL team.

Total Revenue vs. Total revenue = the only fair way to make this comparison yeah?

The cba sets the salary cap ensuring that the league in total pays 45-49% of total (all) league revenue. By definition the higher revenue teams will pay lower than the total average and lower revenue teams will pay more. But it also ensures all the revenue is shared across all the players. The Cowboys literally can’t spend 45% even if they wanted to. The cap ensures they don’t.

 

[Lemmy Caution]

Where was all of this public outcry when the UFC was 40 million in debt?

What a moronic thing to say. How is that even relevant?

 

[Lemmy Caution]

If your point is about the salary cap... then you would also have to add that the league puts all the athletes up against their salary cap. That's the way it's calculated. They said, "this is how much the league made this year... & 49% of that is this... & that's what the salary cap is.

So if they're already bumped up against their salary cap, then what good is some kind of loophole that says stadium revenue must be added until the salary cap is reached?

Now regarding the money a team owner makes in addition to the Leagues offering of 49%... You are exactly right that the team owner keeps it... and that the percentage of athlete pay vs. owner pay starts going down very quickly.

So an NFL team gets to cap the salaries of their athletes BEFORE we compare their total revenue to the fighter pay. (in these types of discussions)

Everyone just needs to wrap their head around that before comparing the NFL to the UFC.

people not paying attention are just happy to look at the "league's" split... while ignoring the fact that the team owners are making a shit load of money on top of that.

So maybe since you & I seem to be the only one who understands this... perhaps you can tell me why so many people ignore this simple math.

iow... we're asking the UFC to go off of "TOTAL FOOKING REVENUE" while comparing it to other orgs "league split" before their total revenue is calculated.



I just don't know how teh fook anyone who claims they have 2 fooking brain cells can make that comparison. Maybe you can explain it?


Proof that owners make money after the split is why I provided you with a link that showed the Cowboys are paying their athlets 20% of their total revenue, so I'm not sure what you want me to link you to. That "total revenue" figure, is all you need to see in order to recognize they were 20% athlete pay in 2018. Very simple right? All the bullshit aside... they can't hide their total revenue... & they can't hide their athlete pay. It's 20%... so you figure it out for yourself from there and then provide me with the explanation as to why we're comparing league split to the ufc's total revenue.

You seem to be mixing up 2 "COMPLETELY" different sources of income... because "Broadcasting" is basically all the fooking league does. (advertising n shit too as well as paying their fooking executives (non-athletes way too much BEFORE THE ATHLETE/OWNER SPLIT FFS) The "on the ground level" of ticket sales... are completely separate from the "League split." Tickets are 100% handled by the individual team owner himself and 0% handled by the "League."

To wrap your head around this... you have to make a distinction between "League spit" and "owner's total revenue" because they are 2 very different things. Then you have to be able to comprehend the difference between comparing the NFL's League split to the UFC. No... the UFC is both a League and the Owner. So if we're comparing the UFC's "TOTAL REVENUE"... then you can only be fair to compare the best team owner's "TOTAL REVENUE." (not their fooking "League split.")

However you want to twist it... you can't get around that their total revenue was 950M & they paid their athletes 190M. So their Athlete pay is 20%. It's obvious right? You don't have to believe anything I say, but just look at that figure and then you tell me what's going on. I don't even watch fooseball, but I got my head into how their league n shit operates... just because of this very discussion... & you just can't compare the UFC to the fooking League split alone while the team owners have a whole other source of income on the side. We do not allow the UFC to separate any of their income from the split in these convos.

What you have to understand here is that there is the "League" pay... & then there's the "Stadium" pay (concessions, seat tickets, putting my name "Myrddin Wild Stadium" in big fooking letters as the name of your stadium & I give them money god couldn't afford for the right.) Every bit of all of that goes straight to the owner & the players are only allocated their 49% "FROM THE LEAGUE." Which bumps them up against their cap & so that's all you really gotta understand right? So if the owner is as successful as the UFC... then yes, they will get a winfall & no they will not (& legally "can not") share those profits with their athletes.

So to circle back... why teh fook are we comparing the UFC's total revenue to a figure that does not represent total revenue in an NFL team.

Total Revenue vs. Total revenue = the only fair way to make this comparison yeah?

You can't count Stadium income. I don't know about the owner situation is today, but the owner of the 3rd Madison Square also owned the New York Rangers.

The Rangers played 40 home games there. The New York Knicks rented the arena for their home games. That's another 40 games. Should the Rangers players get a share of the revenue the Madison Square Garden made from the Knicks playing there? How about the other 285 days? The Garden is ideally used/rented out 365 days per year. Should the Rangers players get a cut from those days as well?

Should the players get a cut when a rock concert is held at "their" stadium? Of course not. It makes no sense on any level.

 

[Emjay]

Well, that isn't the most airtight logic. Of course no one was mad about low pay when they had no money to pay. The point is, they now do have the money to pay, and they aren't.

But where was the sympathy for the company struggling to make ends meet?

 

[Emjay]

What a moronic thing to say. How is that even relevant?

Why doesn't the company get the same level of sympathy when they were struggling?

 

[Lee_]

But where was the sympathy for the company struggling to make ends meet?

Not sure what you mean. Should fans have sent them sympathy cards?

 

[Emjay]

Not sure what you mean. Should fans have sent them sympathy cards?

It's just interesting to me that it's never a topic of discussion.

If it wasn't for them taking a huge risk and putting up the money in the first place, you guys wouldn't have anything to whine about now.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Lol most of us weren’t looking at Oscar as some kind of champion for fighter pay so no this doesn’t change anything

 

[thunderbeeast]

Dana White net worth is $500 million and makes $20 million salary per year
Conor Mcgregor net worth is $180 million
Ronda Rousey net worth $13 million
Anderson Silva net worth is $8 million
GSP net worth is $30 million
Jon Jones net worth is $10 million
DC net worth is $6 million
Chris Weidman and Diego Sanchez net worth each $3 million
Nate Diaz net worth $8 million
I got these from google searches. I'm not sure how accurate they are but I think Dana might be worth more than all his fighters combined including the UFC's biggest past stars and he didn't have to suffer any brain damage in the process. I think they can pay their fighters more.

 

[Dbreiden83080]

"Everybody has an opinion on this business. ... You know what you know about this buisness? What I fucking tell you"

Beautiful.

Is this the face of a man we can't trust?

 

[Dbreiden83080]

Dana White net worth is $500 million and makes $20 million salary per year
Conor Mcgregor net worth is $180 million
Ronda Rousey net worth $13 million
Anderson Silva net worth is $8 million
GSP net worth is $30 million
Jon Jones net worth is $10 million
DC net worth is $6 million
Chris Weidman and Diego Sanchez net worth each $3 million
Nate Diaz net worth $8 million
I got these from google searches. I'm not sure how accurate they are but I think Dana might be worth more than all his fighters combined including the UFC's biggest past stars and he didn't have to suffer any brain damage in the process. I think they can pay their fighters more.

Nah they can't..

Dana has yacht payments to make, and snow to fly in for his Vegas Driveway..

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

BTW is ts someone from mac life because there was no epic owning - just name calling, deflecting and bullying in that pointless rant.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

Oh and I love how Oscar wanted to have a charity fight with dana a while back but there was not rant about that - for once dana kept his mouth shut.

 

[Small Town Andrew]

Yep it does. Dana shut down any dispute.

 

[ferrisjso]

Oscar treating his fighters worse(especially the no names) doesn't change the reality of the UFC fighters situation. This is like Amazon highlighting they pay their workers 15 dollar minimum wage(aka about 7.25 due to inflation). That's only a big deal because others have set the bar so low. Or a pretty girl hanging out with ugly friends to seem pretty.

In a vaccum Dana is still exploiting his fighters. And Oscar's exploitation might be worse but it's not worse for everyone. Lower fighters in the UFC make much more than in boxing but stars make a lot less than their boxing counterparts. Dana's just exploiting different people who aren't going to be quite as fucked as a result of said exploitation cause he realizes that homeless UFC fighters is a bad look and it's better to steal from people who won't generate symphatic headlines. But the most exploited class in the UFC is the contender class(think top 5-10 guys who might get 1-2 career title shots) who can't headline events in the UFC this class can't afford to even do training camp. One star McDonald(he had one title fight) in 2013 even had to retire because of this.