No. No they couldn't. It is mathematically impossible for 30% of the revenue to also be 7% of the profit.
It would be unusual, but definitely possible both mathematically and in terms of financial performance.
"Revenue" and "Profit" are woolly and meaningless terms without context. Even professional accountants disagree on how to classify certain items and that's why all public income statements include footnotes outlining how they're defining each line item.
Off the top of my head, situations that could contribute to "profit" being higher than "revenue" include:
-Time offsets between receiving cash payment vs. recognizing contracted revenues or costs. Fees or salaries may not be paid/received until the year after they are incurred
-Credits due to restatement of prior year performance
-Tax incentives or extraordinary items due to merger activity, i.e. acquiring Pride, Strikeforce and WEC
-Conflating OpCo vs. HoldCo numbers. Zuffa LLC has revenues, costs and deductions from casino + who knows what else in addition to UFC performance
-Asymmetrical payout: e.g. a Partner may own 20% of a company and allocated 20% of revenues while bearing 20% of costs, but may also own a tiered upside carry structure where they receive higher % of profit when performance is good
Bottom line is the poster you're responding to is correct: %'s don't mean anything w/o actually seeing the numbers and financial statements behind them. The fact that Zuffa is a private partnership means they could have structured the ownership and payouts pretty much anyway they want.
