Media Does this end the fighter pay talk for you?

[DestinedAussie]

Dana shows that his business has higher expenses, but it's pretty dumb comparing what the UFC can afford to pay fighters and saying De La Hoya pays less.

Of course De La Hoya pays less, his revenue is infinitely lower.

What De La Hoya would argue is PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE.

Dana doesn't address that properly, but there's no question the expenses would be the meat and potatos of his argument.

Percentage of revenue clearly doesn't pay De La Hoya fighters anything significant. Would they have been better off if they spent more of the revenue marketing so they made more money? Then a smaller percentage would have been a greater amount of money. It isn't black and white.

You also have to think how much of the revenue comes from the brand and how much from the fighters. A lot of people (myself included) watch UFC pretty much because it is UFC. Their viewership shows they have a baseline who always tune in and then a percentage which only tune in for the biggest fights. There isn't much in between.

 

[brownsmith76]

A lot of people (myself included) watch UFC pretty much because it is UFC.

You're the type of guy who will watch 2 random dudes fight on the street or watch 2 guys fight in their backyard.

Other people have higher expectations and want professional fighters who sweat, bleed, and cry to be paid a higher share than 15-18% of every dollar.

 

[nostradumbass]

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.

Lol, one of the posts ITT was "anything less than 50/50 is not legit". I think they really do think Dana is just pocketing 80% of the revenue.


I don't think any of the people complaining have ever run a business or hired anybody for anything to have any concept of operating costs. Tennis or Golf would be the most similar in terms of expenses and setting up events in different places, and tennis tournaments pay about 12-17% in prize money.

Before they sold the UFC, Dana's salary had gotten up to like $15 million, lower the years before that, and they had like 43 events that year with at least 1 fighter getting a $5 million payday at one of them.

 

[FreedomCricket]

I agree with Dana's view.

I don't see any facts to refute his points or to show that 16% to 20% of PPV is too low. Can think of it as taxes.... other promotions pay fighters 50% say... but it's 50% of a much smaller pie versus 16% of the UFC pie.

I say let the free market work. If fighters want more money, sign with the other promotions and make more money. It will make other promotions better and drive UFC pay up as well. UFC undoubtedly allows for more/better 3rd party endorsements.

This is mostly a case of people looking to complain about something and tear down a successful business.

 

[MadNIghtKing]

Dana’s argument summarized:

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

I agree with Dana's view.

I don't see any facts to refute his points or to show that 16% to 20% of PPV is too low. Can think of it as taxes.... other promotions pay fighters 50% say... but it's 50% of a much smaller pie versus 16% of the UFC pie.

I say let the free market work. If fighters want more money, sign with the other promotions and make more money. It will make other promotions better and drive UFC pay up as well. UFC undoubtedly allows for more/better 3rd party endorsements.

This is mostly a case of people looking to complain about something and tear down a successful business.

"I say let the free market work"
Free market........

 

[the_details]

Sorry Dana, not all of us have wealthy friends with deep ties to Vegas to call up and bankroll a new fight promotion. The man has said a whole host of stupid things over the years but this is near the top for sure.

That only proves his point more. You need to have deep enough pockets to invest back into the business, and the ability to take on losses before you start being able to make money on MMA. He also commented that a lot of smart people have tried it and failed as well, naming Trump and Cuban in that statement. You can feel however you want about either of those guys but they are wealthy enough to have a chance of success in MMA promotion, and neither of them could pull it off.

The only thing that's going to increase fighter pay within the UFC is competition. Even if a large percentage of fighters unionize, it won't matter if joining the union just means they can't fight in the UFC. They'll be stuck fighting for pennies in Bellator while the non-union guys are making 15k to show in the UFC. And the UFC is going to promote their guys in a way that makes people want to watch them. While Bellator is doing shit like this:

Bellator literally put together a promotional product where Luke Thomas basically says that the promotion threw a fight for Rampage. Way to hype up a fight guys, you pretty much just said it's fake. Also all that dick riding talk. Way to go.

The thing that made Strikeforce dangerous was that they had stars making money (Like Bellator does now) but they looked from the outside like a legit competitor. Their production wasn't quite on par with the UFC but they promoted stuff like they were a big deal. Bellator has consistently chases the spectacle while Strikeforce yearned to be the sport. Until there is a boost in pay from the competition, people will always want to be in the org that pays more. And that's the UFC. And if you cut out the top 10% of earners, the difference is huge.

 

[ThulsaDooom]

That only proves his point more. You need to have deep enough pockets to invest back into the business, and the ability to take on losses before you start being able to make money on MMA. He also commented that a lot of smart people have tried it and failed as well, naming Trump and Cuban in that statement. You can feel however you want about either of those guys but they are wealthy enough to have a chance of success in MMA promotion, and neither of them could pull it off.

The only thing that's going to increase fighter pay within the UFC is competition. Even if a large percentage of fighters unionize, it won't matter if joining the union just means they can't fight in the UFC. They'll be stuck fighting for pennies in Bellator while the non-union guys are making 15k to show in the UFC. And the UFC is going to promote their guys in a way that makes people want to watch them. While Bellator is doing shit like this:

Bellator literally put together a promotional product where Luke Thomas basically says that the promotion threw a fight for Rampage. Way to hype up a fight guys, you pretty much just said it's fake. Also all that dick riding talk. Way to go.

The thing that made Strikeforce dangerous was that they had stars making money (Like Bellator does now) but they looked from the outside like a legit competitor. Their production wasn't quite on par with the UFC but they promoted stuff like they were a big deal. Bellator has consistently chases the spectacle while Strikeforce yearned to be the sport. Until there is a boost in pay from the competition, people will always want to be in the org that pays more. And that's the UFC. And if you cut out the top 10% of earners, the difference is huge.

Some things I didn't even consider but make a lot of sense. Thanks. Shoutout to you and @DestinedAussie for the great posts.

 

[DestinedAussie]

You're the type of guy who will watch 2 random dudes fight on the street or watch 2 guys fight in their backyard.

Other people have higher expectations and want professional fighters who sweat, bleed, and cry to be paid a higher share than 15-18% of every dollar.

Actually I am not that kind of guy. I don't watch boxing at all, I don't watch any of the smaller promotions which are shown here like hex fights.

The fight night viewerships numbers on ESPN are fairly similar, while there is some variation (often put down to what else is on at the same time) there is enough to tell you a large chuck of people are watching UFC on a regular basis not just when their favourite fighter fights. Besides how do you know a fighter is good or not if you don't watch their early fights in UFC. Fighters become popular because of their performances on fight nights/ prelim cards.

I would argue the DWCS being picked up by ESPN and repeatedly renewed shows just how popular the brand is as it rates well and never has a fighter I have heard of before on it.

 

[huhwhat]

fighters have choices to fight or not and they can negotiate about money and it has to be behind closed doors

btw i smell SJW and feminists in this thread
i think i want to puke

 

[CieloLuce]

Fuck Dana and his platform that he stands on.
He has had years to raise fighter pay over the last 5yrs and still chooses to lowball tuf winners and his Tuesday night contender fighters.
Oscar has one mma event and it didn't do well, Dana has had countless events and fighters barely making ends meet. Chooses to duck the hard questions because he knows he would sound like a hypocrite.
The only opportunity that Dana offers is entrapment.

 

[JayE]

Most high end boxing events see boxers make well over 50% of the revenue and we still have idiots in the heavies pretending the state of affairs is fine? Sounds like a normal state of things. MMA shouldn't compare to team sports (they stack up incredibly poorly, even to them, even though team sport athletes took almost a century to catch up to fight sport athletes). Back in the 1900s/10s/20s/30s, even when everything was run by the mob, these fighters made drastically more of the revenue, even with how obviously crooked it all was. The gate and purse of fighters used to be published in the papers. For championsip fights before WW1, they were making around 50% of the revenue, if not more. In the day and age without an 8 hour workday, benefits, or anything else. The level that UFC fighters are getting fucked is almost comical. As in people don't really quite get the scope of it. Before large parts of the country had electricity, boxers were making far more of the revenue than MMA fighters are making now.

This won't end without legislation (the Ali act doesn't do much without the IBC ruling in the 50s ruling out boxing monopolies, which will never be repeated in this political day and age for MMA) or unionization (which I think is unlikely with the mindset and background of most MMA fighters). This is what we have to look forward to: Dana White yelling and MMA fans and fighters complaining in vain. Maybe I'll be surprised and collective action among MMA fighters will be a thing (because no help is coming in terms of legislation), but I'm skeptical. I don't see much future for the sport, aside from a few crabs in the bucket getting their payoff. It's going to be the state of affairs for a long time.

 

[JayE]

fighters have choices to fight or not and they can negotiate about money and it has to be behind closed doors

btw i smell SJW and feminists in this thread
i think i want to puke

Definitely. I think most of the guys who used their own mob ties to threaten promoters (who used to threaten guys' families) to get higher pay back in the early days of prize fighting were "SJW and feminist" pussies ignoring how "fighters have choices to fight or not and they can negotiate about money and it has to be behind closed doors." I think anyone trying to get a higher cut of anything is a "SJW" and a "feminist". That's a well-reasoned position and I'm backing you.

 

[JayE]

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.

This is a great point. Here I was thinking they pocketed all their... revenue??? Did anyone familiar with the English language think revenue meant profit?

 

[KOPPE]

The UFC is what it is because of Dana

Had Dana and the UFC not existed fighters would be making even less . there's a reason why most choose the UFC with other options out there

take dana's balls out of ur mouth for a second and explain to me how does all that justify for example paying great fighters
like Peter Yan and Moreno 60k to show in a loaded card like ufc 245?

 

[TorontoTO]

I don't know why you guys are crying about operating costs and such, when you can all look at the money they have left over after all that and paying fighters. This is in millions obviously

Also can't believe you guys fall for the UFC PI bullshit when it cost 13 million to build the one in Shanghai and they have almost half a billion in money after all operating costs. 13 million is a drop in the bucket and you guys are really believing Dana that that is why they can't pay fighters more.

https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/11...-13-million-performance-institute-in-shanghai

 

[greatsantini]

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.

They are pocketing close to 50% of the revenue.

 

[the_details]

Most high end boxing events see boxers make well over 50% of the revenue and we still have idiots in the heavies pretending the state of affairs is fine? Sounds like a normal state of things. MMA shouldn't compare to team sports (they stack up incredibly poorly, even to them, even though team sport athletes took almost a century to catch up to fight sport athletes). Back in the 1900s/10s/20s/30s, even when everything was run by the mob, these fighters made drastically more of the revenue, even with how obviously crooked it all was. The gate and purse of fighters used to be published in the papers. For championsip fights before WW1, they were making around 50% of the revenue, if not more. In the day and age without an 8 hour workday, benefits, or anything else. The level that UFC fighters are getting fucked is almost comical. As in people don't really quite get the scope of it. Before large parts of the country had electricity, boxers were making far more of the revenue than MMA fighters are making now.

There are still differences between what most boxing does and the UFC. Most boxing shows are organized so that the promoter handles the talent and the event, and then they receive revenue by licensing out the broadcast rights of that event. That's why the presentation for an event on Shotime will look different than if it's on HBO, even if it's the same promoter. The UFC handles it's own production. Which means what most boxing organizations have a pure revenue actually has an expense for a UFC event. Now, obviously, the UFC gets compensated for the broadcast rights, but if that compensation exceeds what a boxing promoter gets after the costs of the production isn't known, as far as I've seen. However, the blanket % of revenue numbers are not directly comparable, because there are costs associated with each organization that are different.

This is true when comparing Bellator's revenue split with the UFC as well. Bellator is selling it's broadcast rights to it's parent company, for an amount that I'm sure is the most beneficial to that parent company from an accounting standpoint. Which means it's revenue is whatever Paramount wants to pay Bellator, plus ticket sales. They could theoretically have a system worked out where Paramount pays a flat percentage above talent compensation and brag about how big a piece of the pie fighters are getting. But that doesn't mean Bellator's worth is only the number that Paramount is willing to account.

This isn't to say that I don't want fighters to make more money. I do. But these arguments about revenue split are not the end all be all of the conversation. There are plenty of things that the UFC does that aren't factors in other sports or even other leagues. The enhanced USADA drug testing is one example. Bellator just lets the commission handle that. Health insurance is another. And the aforementioned production costs. It's a false equivalency to look at just a percentage of revenue and assume one side isn't paying enough. DWTNCS was paying guys 5k to show, 5k to win in 2017, and I think it's higher now. Bellator had guys fighting 2 weeks ago for 3k/3k. It isn't going to change until there is another place people can go to make money, and it wouldn't matter to a guy at that level what the revenue split is if he's going to get nearly the same show money from one organization as he would show+win from another.

 

[RemyR]

Dana isn’t exactly the most reliable person

 

[Marko Polo]

Dana’s rant is filled with nothing points about how much shit they’ve built all over the world. All of that stuff is for the ufc and the ufc only. Why he’s even mentioning that is weird. It’s an indication of UFC’s success, but that’s not being questioned. If anything, Dana going on about how lavishly they UFC is spending only lends into the idea that the revenue is split unfairly.