It's a good deal people. Everyone keeps saying what a crap deal this is and in my heart I agree. On the surface it seems like an unfair amount of money per fight to each fighter. But in my head, I realize that it's a business decision entered into by two companies and the total dollar value is based on something. For Reebok it's marketing dollars that create exposure and views for their product which in turn creates revenue for them. So is it a good deal or a bad one? For comparison my alma mater, ASU just signed a deal with Adidas for 8 years at $4.442M per year. The UFC deal is for 6 years at $11.6M per year. FYI all numbers used were found on google and rounded to some degree. If I am way off, let me know and I will update. ASU $4.442M per year UFC $11.6M per year 2014 ASU live attendance = 400,254 2014 UFC live attendance = ~400,000 2014 ASU Gate = $51M 2014 UFC Gate = $60M About the same size live audience. What about TV views? ASU 2014 TV views = 19.6M UFC 2014 TV views = ~44M (this is based on cable tv averages. I looked at 12 events - fight nights, prelimins, TUF finales, etc. averaged and extrapolated across the 48 televised events), I also assumed the pay per view is a subset of these viewers. If people want to argue that some folks ONLY watch pay per view, we can bump this up a little.) Ok, UFC gets about 2.25x as many views as ASU. They probably deserve 2.25x the sponorship money, but the UFC is getting 2.62x the sponsorship as ASU. Damn, Adidias screwed us... Wait! The adidias deal is the 2nd largest deal in college football. Adidias is overpaying! Conclusion - UFC is getting a good deal based on it's overall size and viewership, which is 2.25x of the #4 Pac-12 football team. It's actually a bad deal for Reebok in year one. I'm guessing that they are counting on viewership growth over the life of the contract to have the dollars make sense. The problem is that it's just that big of a sport. Very niche. When the contract is up for negotiation hopefully the UFC will be much, much bigger than today.