Pay comparison between of yesterday’s UFC main event winner and boxing’s B side winner.

[avenue94]

Boxing probably gets better tv deals and better sponsors. Specially better sponsors, as MMA fans are seen as trashy and no respectful brand wants to be associated with the sport (unfortunately) while boxing is seen as a classy sport and all the brands like to associate with it.

They do not get better TV deals. UFC takes in about half a billion in TV/PPV gurantees from ESPN. DAZN was paying Matchroom and Golden Boy a bit north of $200 million combined in 2019. ESPN pays Top rank $90 million annually, Fox and Showtime pay another $60million for PBC.

SPonsors are slightly better in boxing atm but not by much.

I've said it time and again, but the biggest difference in model between the UFC and boxing is athlete pay. Period. To argue it is anything else is ignorant or disingenuous given that boxing promoter are paying 2 to 3 times the wage share the UFC does. Sometimes closer to 4 times as much annually.

 

[wwkirk]

this is why... the top draws in boxing make more than the top draws in mma because the top draws in boxing can go to many different promoters and draw about the same. that gives them the power.

in mma, no fighter can draw similar numbers under a different banner than they can in the ufc. that gives the fighter less power in terms of % of revenue.

the flip side is that the baseline revenue and fan base is going to be inherently higher with the ufc because they have a built in fan base that has allegiance to the org.

Interesting. Thinking about your answer, though, it would seem that how old boxing is, is relatively unimportant. The key seems to be the freedom of a given boxer to sign with whichever promoter will offer the best deal. That would imply that the UFCs contract structure together with its market share is the main culprit for limiting MMA fighter income.

I still wonder about your last statement regarding baseline revenue of boxing vs the UFC. I've yet to see any documented, researched evidence about this. I don't know why, as there have to be businesses, journalists, and other researchers who have looked into it.

 

[avenue94]

Thinking about your answer, though, it would seem that how old boxing is, is relatively unimportant.

It's this, no matter how much people tip toe around it. Boxing's first non-inflation adjusted million dollar purse is pre-Great Depression. That's a Conor sized first...almost a century ago.

That would imply that the UFCs contract structure together with its market share is the main culprit for limiting MMA fighter income.

UFC's market share currently sits at or a little north of 80 percent. A lot of people don't realize this or the implications of that and still think the UFC doesn't have some form of monopsony power, at a minimum.

I still wonder about your last statement regarding baseline revenue of boxing vs the UFC

Revenue is about equal at the end of the day, if not slightly more for the UFC given it has a more favorable deal with ESPN than the standard 50 percent that a PPV provider keeps.

 

[wwkirk]

It's this, no matter how much people tip toe around it. Boxing's first non-inflation adjusted million dollar purse is pre-Great Depression. That's a Conor sized first...almost a century ago.

Well, I'm still not understanding this part. Yes, boxing has been making bank for many decades. But what has that to do with the present? The boxers, promoters, and especially the fans, of yesteryear are not around anymore. Businesses, sports included, have to make their money from the present. (Excepting investments, which I don't think apply to boxing.) So, why would popularity and sales from the past, or even over a hundred years, matter to people thinking about what to watch in the present day? If my dad and granddad loved boxing, does that mean I'll love boxing?

I suppose that's true for some sports, like baseball and football. Is that the idea? More people today like boxing over MMA because they grew up appreciating it? Thus, more fans, more money?

 

[kflo]

Interesting. Thinking about your answer, though, it would seem that how old boxing is, is relatively unimportant. The key seems to be the freedom of a given boxer to sign with whichever promoter will offer the best deal. That would imply that the UFCs contract structure together with its market share is the main culprit for limiting MMA fighter income.

I still wonder about your last statement regarding baseline revenue of boxing vs the UFC. I've yet to see any documented, researched evidence about this. I don't know why, as there have to be businesses, journalists, and other researchers who have looked into it.

i didn't say it was the age of boxing. i agree it's not the big driver. but most boxers can't just go out to bid for every fight. they are signed to a promoter. both mma fighters and boxers can sign with whichever promotion gives the best deal. in boxing, the boxer generally takes their revenue generating power with them from promoter to promoter. in mma, not so much.

on baseline revenue, look at ppv's. here's an article from 2019 on the top 15 ppv's since manny/ floyd in 2015.
https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2019/04/09/top-15-ppv-floyd-mayweather-manny-pacquiao/
wilder / fury 1 is #10 at 325k. that's over almost 4 years.

i get that boxing audience is different markets but i think that does say a bit.

 

[kflo]

Well, I'm still not understanding this part. Yes, boxing has been making bank for many decades. But what has that to do with the present? The boxers, promoters, and especially the fans, of yesteryear are not around anymore. Businesses, sports included, have to make their money from the present. (Excepting investments, which I don't think apply to boxing.) So, why would popularity and sales from the past, or even over a hundred years, matter to people thinking about what to watch in the present day? If my dad and granddad loved boxing, does that mean I'll love boxing?

I suppose that's true for some sports, like baseball and football. Is that the idea? More people today like boxing over MMA because they grew up appreciating it? Thus, more fans, more money?

it's just another red herring.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Anthony Joshua is the biggest drawing HW in boxing anyone who fights him is going to make way more money than they normally do. Volkanovski is an underappreciated FW champion. This comparison is just silly.

 

[avenue94]

Well, I'm still not understanding this part. Yes, boxing has been making bank for many decades. But what has that to do with the present? The boxers, promoters, and especially the fans, of yesteryear are not around anymore. Businesses, sports included, have to make their money from the present. (Excepting investments, which I don't think apply to boxing.) So, why would popularity and sales from the past, or even over a hundred years, matter to people thinking about what to watch in the present day? If my dad and granddad loved boxing, does that mean I'll love boxing?

Because some people like to argue that UFC wage share is so low because the sport is young and imply that the UFC has start up costs or huge costs that boxing doesn't have to pay since it's established. But that's clearly not why wage share in the UFC is so low. That's what I was pointing out with my comment.

More people today like boxing over MMA because they grew up appreciating it? Thus, more fans, more money?

Boxing is still more popular globally but it's not exactly a 1 to 1 substitute for revenue. The UFC is about the size of all the major boxing promoters put together, if not bigger still. The UFC's ESPN contracts alone are about half a billion annually, which is what you would get if you lumped together all the broadcast money boxing promoters get annually.

 

[wwkirk]

The UFC is about the size of all the major boxing promoters put together, if not bigger still. The UFC's ESPN contracts alone are about half a billion annually, which is what you would get if you lumped together all the broadcast money boxing promoters get annually.

 

[GUY]

They do not get better TV deals. UFC takes in about half a billion in TV/PPV gurantees from ESPN. DAZN was paying Matchroom and Golden Boy a bit north of $200 million combined in 2019. ESPN pays Top rank $90 million annually, Fox and Showtime pay another $60million for PBC.

SPonsors are slightly better in boxing atm but not by much.

I've said it time and again, but the biggest difference in model between the UFC and boxing is athlete pay. Period. To argue it is anything else is ignorant or disingenuous given that boxing promoter are paying 2 to 3 times the wage share the UFC does. Sometimes closer to 4 times as much annually.

You are probably right, as I did not confirm the numbers, but those 200M from DAZN, are for how many fights, compared to the UFC 500M from ESPN?

I guess the fact that the UFC is such a powerful brand, that in a way brings more viewers than the fighters, plays a role.