Something that needs to be understood by all mma fans...

[TempleoftheDog]

This thread is going off the deep end. Come on...

Like that’s anything new around here these days??

 

[TempleoftheDog]

It is that basic. Contract. Sign or don't. They are adults. If you are more invested in changing this than they are, this is not your tree to bark up.

Exactly. These clowns ignore the millions that don’t have enough food to eat. Let alone the millions that do not have enough fresh drinking water everyday. I mean.. It’s only the second most important thing a human needs to survive after breathable air. You don’t drink water for 3 days and you die. How about the homeless in every city on this planet? Obviously including the ones where all of these heroes live.

But these clowns really think that a contract somebody willingly signed is literally the biggest injustice on this planet? And they do NOTHING but bitch to a bunch of random strangers about it.

I can’t even express how utterly lame and pathetic I believe that to be.

Some dude actually posted the other day that he doesn’t watch DWCS as his way of standing up for fighter pay and all that other nonsense. I mean he’s the bravest guy I’ve ever heard of.

 

[Kryptt]

10k posts in two years and you couldn't give a shit about fighter welfare when they take brain damage for a living. Perfect example of why the MMA fan base is the worst in all sport.

Fuckin come back to the real world if ya can.

Most folks wish the best for all but when you accept dangers in employment (entertainment or not) the buck stops there.

 

[TempleoftheDog]

Fuckin come back to the real world if ya can.

Most folks wish the best for all but when you accept dangers in employment (entertainment or not) the buck stops there.

Do you mean if I join the military I might actually find myself facing real bullets someday? (Ex vet of the CDN military that never saw action. The most action I ever saw was the drinking in our company mess after shooting practice).

The extent of the mental gymnastics that take place in here is truly astounding.

 

[Luvhawky]

Thanks for answering because I think it’s a relevant question yet no one wants to address it because it is uncomfortable for them to answer.

It’s possible that the incremental value to espn is greater for that early prelim spot (for whatever reason - entice viewers to subscribe to espn+, etc) so they pay more. They don’t care about the names, they just trust the ufc brand and management. So they pay for the content. The fighters then are ENTITLED to 50%. It just doesn’t hold up, imo. There is a market for those fighters, and the company negotiating the deal shouldn’t be beholden to some arbitrary requirement.

But I appreciate you taking a principled stance and sticking with it, and I won’t say it’s wrong. I just have a different view. I think there has to be some grounding in the broader actual mma market for talent.

Just like it wouldn’t make sense to say the yankees have to pay 50% of their revenue back to the players when they make 2x the revenue of every other team (I’m making up the 2x part for effect ).

I don't think that incremental value is higher to the UFC or ESPN. I think there is incremental value, but I imagine an even earlier set of prelims would only convert so much of the viewing population. The further you get removed from the PPV, the worse those conversion rates (I'm assuming, but am willing to bet a shitload on that concept). And because those conversion rates are so much lower as they translate to PPV purchases (as the UFC pays the fighters), I can't imagine the share of those fighters would be on average higher than the other fighters even if they were getting 50% of the rev.

This is obviously hypothetical and honestly I struggled to even explain what I did. I really hope it was coherent and I wish I took English more seriously in school.

 

[kflo]

I don't think that incremental value is higher to the UFC or ESPN. I think there is incremental value, but I imagine an even earlier set of prelims would only convert so much of the viewing population. The further you get removed from the PPV, the worse those conversion rates (I'm assuming, but am willing to bet a shitload on that concept). And because those conversion rates are so much lower as they translate to PPV purchases (as the UFC pays the fighters), I can't imagine the share of those fighters would be on average higher than the other fighters even if they were getting 50% of the rev.

This is obviously hypothetical and honestly I struggled to even explain what I did. I really hope it was coherent and I wish I took English more seriously in school.

Sorry, mine was more hypothetical (although still possible). IF it was the case, would they deserve 50%? Even if not, would they deserve 50%? The individual fighters aren’t even important (as they are interchangeable with lots of other fighters) to ESPN. Just the brand they fight under.

 

[Luvhawky]

Sorry, mine was more hypothetical (although still possible). IF it was the case, would they deserve 50%? Even if not, would they deserve 50%? The individual fighters aren’t even important (as they are interchangeable with lots of other fighters) to ESPN. Just the brand they fight under.

I might be lost in this, sorry.

To clarify: Is your question assuming "adding an earlier prelims is more profitable per fighter for ESPN than say the regular prelims". And the question is: should the earlier prelim fighters be compensated better than the prelim fighters as 50% of the rev will be more?