Media Does this end the fighter pay talk for you?

[D'z]

I see the shills are hard at work on the dawg today.

U
Fight
Cheap

 

[JustBleed69]

It's never been an issue for me as I've always understood this, but does this end the debate for you?

Epic rant by Dana. Fuck Oscar.

Hopefully not reposted.

The problem is not what Oscar said, just about all of his complaints are 100% accurate. The problem is that Oscar is a hypocrite. He's no better than Dana or the UFC.

The fighter pay debate is over, they get paid 18% of the revenue. They are grossly underpaid by all metrics unless you literally have brain damage.

 

[Bowel-forged Stool]

This is true, the reason why Woodley was chosen to fight Jake Paul was because he was a UFC champ. If he was a One champ he wouldn’t have been selected.

 

[Oz.Pride]

So- if we don't agree with Dana, we don't understand business?

Drug companies charge WAY MORE than their research costed, and charge way more in some countries when they can get away with it; they make astronomical profits. As far as percentage of revenue, that is silly to throw all businesses together in terms of profit percentages. Legit pro sports pay close to half of the revenue, and well they should. Those who are out there getting CTE are the only reason anyone pays to watch, and they deserve a large portion of the revenue.

Why do they deserve a large part of the revenue? People watch because of the brand not necessarily the fighters. They keep recruiting more fighters and matching them up and marketing them to get the best performance possible and sell the best. If it was only to watch certain fighters the UFC would have died years ago.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

Oscar being a complete shitbird doesn’t change the fact that the revenue split is drastically lower than other “major” sports. I don’t know what the UFC can feasibly pay and still get their piece of the pie but if they are willing to pay 16-20% they can probably go a few percentage points higher and still get their nut

it does matter when so many people think that boxing is less corrupt than the UFC and that boxing pays better than the UFC. it doesn't. i've said it before, there's guys on undercards of televised boxing fights that are literally making hundreds of dollars TO TAKE Ls.

 

[Oz.Pride]

How many of you oxygen starved window lickers think the whole build back better thing is a good idea?

 

[Titan1980]

Everyome on here whining about pay but refuse to accept the fact no where else even pays close.

Maybe once you're an established name Bellator pays a bit more but that is only once you're a Rory, Moose, TUF winner/contender, former UFC champ. Other than that its pay outs are a joke compared to UFC. Even with the mythical sponsors people like to spout off about.

 

[FreedomCricket]

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.

Jeff Bezos is worth how many billions? He should probably pay all his Amazon employees at least $500k a year eh.

 

[Lee_]

Why do they deserve a large part of the revenue? People watch because of the brand not necessarily the fighters. They keep recruiting more fighters and matching them up and marketing them to get the best performance possible and sell the best. If it was only to watch certain fighters the UFC would have died years ago.

That's not even remotely true. Numbers are wildly different depending on the card and headliner. Absurd idea that fighters owe it all to the brand.

You ask why do they deserve a large portion of the revenue? Really?

 

[Oz.Pride]

That's not even remotely true. Numbers are wildly different depending on the card and headliner. Absurd idea that fighters owe it all to the brand.

You ask why do they deserve a large portion of the revenue? Really?

Of course. They're not related whatsoever.

If the brand wasn't there and established with brilliant word class marketing these fighters wouldn't be on screens.

I'm a part owner of the company I work with, and I get a cut of the revenue. However, we have staff who have nothing invested beyond the work we pay them for. What we decide to inform them about revenue is up to us and they have zero cut of it. Simple. Thinking staff deserve a cut of revenue is some seriously pathetic socialist mindset nonsense that has no place in reality. Comparing the UFC to NFL, NBA, MLB etc is also insane.

 

[mmadeewana]

the only thing bad in UFC is they dont allow fighters to get thier own sponsors.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

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.

Yes, the more revenue the "team owner" makes outside of that League split... (from his stadium) the lower their percentage of athlete pay is... and it's because they're legally limited to the salary cap and couldn't give them more if he wanted to. (as if he'd want to... lol) but that's not the point. The point is that these discussions have a white knuckle grip on this 49% thing... & it's just not an accurate representation of reality when the teams make more money outside of the split WITH THEIR TEAM.

You are absolutely correct in your statement... though I don't think it's all inclusive enough to describe the full problem of comparing the UFC to the NFL.

I'll give you another level of bullshit I just read something about regarding this parroting of the NFL's 49% split and comparing it to the UFC. THE NFL SPLIT IS IN THE FORM OF SALARIES AND BENEFITS.


Can someone please explain that to me? (I literally just read that & I'm floored that we're even comparing this to the UFC) I just assumed the 49% (48.8% to be exact) was all hard wages... but now I'm to understand some of their bennies are included?



Now how often in these discussions do we add up all the benefits the UFC gives its fighters & then add that into teh fooking equation. NEVER!!! Yet the NFL gets to tout their 49% as if that's cold hard cash? Am I missing something here? Anyone know how much of the 49% split is cash & how much is bennies?

So anywayz... the point of all this is to just let everyone know how absolutely unfair it is to allow a fooseball team to boast a 49% athlete split, when they make money else where that's not being figured into the final figure. Everyone's sure as fook scraping together every cent the UFC makes (which is also the "League" btw & so lets look at the NFL's corporate paychecks that are shared in the broadcasting money the League puts out for distribution.

Dallas Cowboys are actually at 20%... & the other teams are wherever they are... but the UFC being the equivilent of the most successful "team" (over Bellator, One, Rizin, Invicta, M1, ACA etc...) should be compared to the most successful fooseball team if we're doing an apples to apples comparison... but the UFC is also the "League" as well so you could never do an exact apples to apples due to the different business modelz.

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.

Fair point... So then lets get into UFC gyms. The UFC also had investments on the side that had nothing to do with the fighters. Teh fook do the athletes have to do with that? yet we throw EVER SINGLE BIT OF REVENUE the UFC makes into their side of this arguement while ignoring them from the other side.

Also, does the team owner allocate the money from those rock concerts & other venues to his football team's bottom line, or (like all rich people of that level of wealth) have several businesses that he allocates his profits from one venture to the other?

I honestly don't know the answer... but it seems pretty shady for a team owner to add in him renting his stadium to Britney Spears into his fooking team's bottom line.

However, to your point... IF... AND ONLY "IF" a team owner is adding his non-football uses of his stadium to the bottom line of his fooseball team's profits & revenue (which might actually be illegal btw.) then your point sticks. I would be really surprised if that's what's happening... but please enlighten me if this is something they do and then for good measure of coarse provide me with all of the money the UFC gets from things outside of the actual events.

I just seek the truth. I don't even give a fook about fooseball or whether I'm right about any of this. I'm just tired of hearing this 49% parroted as if that's some kind of fair comparison to a completely different business model from a completely different sport and so I put my head into it when I started hearing about this completely different business model the NFL works under.

 

[Kazuky]

Only if your a moron . Talking about how Oscar fucks over his fighters has nothing to do with the fact the UFC allocates 16-20% of revenue(ya know what was revealed in the lawsuit) to fighters and when Dana White was asked about that by a reporter(after those pathetic soft ball questions from that Mac Life cuck) around the 10 minute mark he ducked the question and came up with excuses.

How much should they allocate, and why? 20% is actually a pretty good number. Most companies don't pay more than that to their employees. Besides, the UFC has more than just fighters on their payroll. It's also important for a company to keep a good % of the revenue on hand, so they can pay for debts, new investments and legal issues. Only a dummy thinks this is a problem.

 

[dogsdonutsdragons]

Dana is doing damage control with that speech . The thing is very few companies run that efficiently . So the way money is often distributed is wrong. But the people in control think it’s what has to be done to be success.

 

[SirRealKiller]

This reminded me of this article on how the public thinks the average profit is much higher than it typically is. (the average net profit for a company across industries is 7.5% and the mean average was 6.5%. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-...-36-profit-margin-which-is-about-5x-too-high/

Yes, profits are not typically more than 10-15%. People just have no fucking clue about business. The UFC has a hell of a lot of overhead and every business has to continue to invest in new technologies, infrastructure...etc or they will become dated.

The reason boxers make the money they do is there's no organization that's actively building the sport. There's nobody developing the "boxing" brand. Everything is selling individual fighters and individual fights. Yeah, top boxers make a hell of a lot more than MMA fighters but the guys fighting on undercards in boxing are many times making less than the undercard guys in MMA.

 

[TestosterOWN]

Lmfao Dana is hilarious. Calls Oscar a sack of shit.

 

[greatsantini]

Yes, profits are not typically more than 10-15%. People just have no fucking clue about business. The UFC has a hell of a lot of overhead and every business has to continue to invest in new technologies, infrastructure...etc or they will become dated.

The reason boxers make the money they do is there's no organization that's actively building the sport. There's nobody developing the "boxing" brand. Everything is selling individual fighters and individual fights. Yeah, top boxers make a hell of a lot more than MMA fighters but the guys fighting on undercards in boxing are many times making less than the undercard guys in MMA.

The UFC has very little overhead. Their EBTIDA margin this year is supposedly going to be more than 50%. That's higher than the ridiculously high tech giants like Apple or Facebook. The reason boxers make more is because they are in a more competitive market. That's it.

 

[SirRealKiller]

The UFC has very little overhead. Their EBTIDA margin this year is supposedly going to be more than 50%. That's higher than the ridiculously high tech giants like Apple or Facebook. The reason boxers make more is because they are in a more competitive market. That's it.

Very little overhead? There are a lot of employees, they own several facilities. They do all the advertising and promotion. They have costs for events not held at the Apex such as setup and rental fees. There's a hell of a lot of overhead.

 

[greatsantini]

Very little overhead? There are a lot of employees, they own several facilities. They do all the advertising and promotion. They have costs for events not held at the Apex such as setup and rental fees. There's a hell of a lot of overhead.

There is so much overhead that their operating expenses take up less than half their revenue.

 

[SirRealKiller]

There is so much overhead that their operating expenses take up less than half their revenue.

Well, the problem with that logic is there are operating expenses and capital expenditures.

Operatiing expenses aren't the only expenses a business has. As I stated above every business also has to spend money on maintaining the property, improving or buying property, and developing business lines that aren't included in operating expenses. So you spout off about operating expenses being less than 50% of revenue but conveniently disregard capital expenditures that companies have to make to improve their businesses. Their total expenses are probably well over 50%.