Proof that Zuffa gave most the Reebok money to athletes.

[SPSUDISPATCH]

This was a response on another thread but I felt it needed its own.

I haven't done the math ahead of time so this is the calculations as they happen.

The NBA has a 50-50 revenue share so we will compare the UFC to see if it is better or worse.

The UFC/Reebok deal is worth $70 mil over 6 yrs. If it is 50/50 then that is $35 mil.

The UFC has 585 active fighters if I remember correctly. In any given year, we will say 3/4 of then fight and they average 2 or 3 fights so 2.5. 585*2.5*.75~1097 payments a year. So the average over the lifetime of the deal is $35,000,000/(1097*6)= $5317.53/fighter.

UFC on Fox 16 paid $213,000 to 24 fighters which comes to $8,875/fighter.

UFC 189 paid $235,000 to 22 which averages about $10,682

Finally UFC 190. $202,500 paid to 26 fighters averages $7,788.

Those three events are actually very representative so ($7,788+$10,682+$8,875)/3=$9,115. We will round down and say $9,000 per fighter.

This means the UFC is BETTER than the NBA with revenue sharing from sponsors. As a matter of fact, The split is HOLY SHIT 85/15 in favor of the fighters. Dana and Lorenzo weren't lying about most the money going to the fighters. I'm gonna make a thread on this.

 

[Andrew06]

should have just left it in the other thread. didn't need a new one about this

 

[BRASIL WAND]

should have just left it in the other thread. didn't need a new one about this

 

[MilesAbove]

Don't defend the terrible deal that took money out of fighters' hands and is forcing managers to drop clients. You look dumb.

Yay for 99% of $100 being statistically better than 15% of $1Bil when you just note the percentages. That's definitely not a personalized narrative.

 

[MMehh]

Should have left math in the other thread. Sherdog forum is too stupid to understand. Must complain about everything.

 

[JosephDredd]

Hmmn. I'm curious if this could actually be true. Even though the deal is shit, maybe the UFC isn't as greedy as we think.

But I doubt it. Has the $75 million been verified by anyone who's not Dana? Or is this like the $35 million Dana mentioned to Carmichael Dave when they were trying to secure Fedor?

 

[Mendoza]

You can't bank percentages.

85% of f.uckall is still nothing. All this shows is that the UFC sold their sponsorship rights for less than they were worth.

 

[Vergilius]

That's interesting and it's also interesting how relatively small amounts of money fighters still make given how relatively difficult it is to make it into the UFC.

 

[DGT4NOW]

You missed the point

Zuffa said ALL the Reebok money would go to fighters & then said everything but a small administrative cost would

 

[DGT4NOW]

That's interesting and it's also interesting how relatively small amounts of money fighters still make given how relatively difficult it is to make it into the UFC.

Difficult?

You can get into UFC with only a few years of training

Try that with other sports

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

A large part of the problem is that the Reebok deal allows for other sponsors. UFC should have locked those in already. It means the difference between $50k and $250k.

 

[Cooliox]

I remember calculating the revenue split for the UFC-GSP before.

It was like 90-10 in favor of Zuffa, based on GSP making 12million a year as he admitted.

 

[Gonzaginator]

What part of "the fighters would make a lot more money without the Reebok deal" don't you understand?

Also, your math is beyond stupid. 85% of nothing is nothing. 1% of a gazillion is a shitload of money. Don't compare NBA or Golf of Football to MMA. Sponsors are killing themselves in the NBA to get the best players locked up. Let me know when Adidas or Reebok offers Rousey 200 mil. to sponsor her. Oh, wait, she just made 30k. I guess that's sort of even.

 

[JosephDredd]

You missed the point

Zuffa said ALL the Reebok money would go to fighters & then said everything but a small administrative cost would

And they're allowing one non-Reebok ad on the fighters' shorts, which will also go to Zuffa.

 

[thechoice2]

You should also compare the revenue from the TV contracts as well. I believe the UFC gets 100 mil from Fox and about 70 mil from Globo per year. So that's 170 mil.

How much of that is paid out to the fighters?

 

[rbastid]

This was a response on another thread but I felt it needed its own.

I haven't done the math ahead of time so this is the calculations as they happen.

The NBA has a 50-50 revenue share so we will compare the UFC to see if it is better or worse.

The UFC/Reebok deal is worth $70 mil over 6 yrs. If it is 50/50 then that is $35 mil.

The UFC has 585 active fighters if I remember correctly. In any given year, we will say 3/4 of then fight and they average 2 or 3 fights so 2.5. 585*2.5*.75~1097 payments a year. So the average over the lifetime of the deal is $35,000,000/(1097*6)= $5317.53/fighter.

UFC on Fox 16 paid $213,000 to 24 fighters which comes to $8,875/fighter.

UFC 189 paid $235,000 to 22 which averages about $10,682

Finally UFC 190. $202,500 paid to 26 fighters averages $7,788.

Those three events are actually very representative so ($7,788+$10,682+$8,875)/3=$9,115. We will round down and say $9,000 per fighter.

This means the UFC is BETTER than the NBA with revenue sharing from sponsors. As a matter of fact, The split is HOLY SHIT 85/15 in favor of the fighters. Dana and Lorenzo weren't lying about most the money going to the fighters. I'm gonna make a thread on this.

Per viewer the UFC is also making more money in their Uniform deal than the NFL gets from their deal.

Everyone shits on the UFC's Reebok deal but the UFC, for the size of the sport and the size of the UFC's audience, out did the major sports in the USA.

People also like ignoring how fighters can get additional sponsors if they prove themselves to the sponsors, like Ronda did with Monster and as Cowboy has mentioned with Bud light.

 

[underdogftw]

You can't bank percentages.

85% of f.uckall is still nothing. All this shows is that the UFC sold their sponsorship rights for less than they were worth.

this, 70$ is quite a small number for all fighters and 6 YEARS when I read this deal I was like wow this feels so low for 6 years.

 

[rbastid]

What part of "the fighters would make a lot more money without the Reebok deal" don't you understand?

Also, your math is beyond stupid. 85% of nothing is nothing. 1% of a gazillion is a shitload of money. Don't compare NBA or Golf of Football to MMA. Sponsors are killing themselves in the NBA to get the best players locked up. Let me know when Adidas or Reebok offers Rousey 200 mil. to sponsor her. Oh, wait, she just made 30k. I guess that's sort of even.

What part of "No other major sport allows fighters to sell air time they don't own" don't fans, and even fighters, understand.

As much as we don't like it, the airtime is the UFC's and the Networks. The fighters get paid to fight, and just like other athletes they don't get the right to promote on airtime they don't own. They were allowed to for a long time but the UFC is trying to reign things in to be like EVERY SINGLE OTHER major sport in America.

Just like Jordan being fined for wearing the wrong shoes and Lynch being fined for wearing his "Beast Mode" hat.

Fighters can still make lots of money doing commercials, ads, meet ups and endorsements not on the UFC's TV time (just like every other athlete does to get the major of their endorsement money)

 

[moonwolf]

This was a response on another thread but I felt it needed its own.

I haven't done the math ahead of time so this is the calculations as they happen.

The NBA has a 50-50 revenue share so we will compare the UFC to see if it is better or worse.

The UFC/Reebok deal is worth $70 mil over 6 yrs. If it is 50/50 then that is $35 mil.

The UFC has 585 active fighters if I remember correctly. In any given year, we will say 3/4 of then fight and they average 2 or 3 fights so 2.5. 585*2.5*.75~1097 payments a year. So the average over the lifetime of the deal is $35,000,000/(1097*6)= $5317.53/fighter.

UFC on Fox 16 paid $213,000 to 24 fighters which comes to $8,875/fighter.

UFC 189 paid $235,000 to 22 which averages about $10,682

Finally UFC 190. $202,500 paid to 26 fighters averages $7,788.

Those three events are actually very representative so ($7,788+$10,682+$8,875)/3=$9,115. We will round down and say $9,000 per fighter.

This means the UFC is BETTER than the NBA with revenue sharing from sponsors. As a matter of fact, The split is HOLY SHIT 85/15 in favor of the fighters. Dana and Lorenzo weren't lying about most the money going to the fighters. I'm gonna make a thread on this.

ok thanks zuffa shill.
ps your math is garbage. major outliers in salary differences between fighters completely negate your statistical 'proof.'
now gtfo

 

[thechoice2]

What part of "No other major sport allows fighters to sell air time they don't own" don't fans, and even fighters, understand.

As much as we don't like it, the airtime is the UFC's and the Networks. The fighters get paid to fight, and just like other athletes they don't get the right to promote on airtime they don't own. They were allowed to for a long time but the UFC is trying to reign things in to be like EVERY SINGLE OTHER major sport in America.

Just like Jordan being fined for wearing the wrong shoes and Lynch being fined for wearing his "Beast Mode" hat.

Fighters can still make lots of money doing commercials, ads, meet ups and endorsements not on the UFC's TV time (just like every other athlete does to get the major of their endorsement money)

Nascar, Tennis, Golf, and Boxing aren't major sports? All of these sports are far bigger than the UFC, so how can you say this bullshit that sports don't allow athletes to use sponsors doing events? That's just something mostly in team sports where fighters have uniforms.