Media UFC Antitrust case reveals USADA drug testing is part of 'fighter compensation'

[Sausage_Carius]

No, renting is more profitable for the ufc

Don't give the fuckers ideas. Next thing you know every contract will have a movement clause where you get charged like 0.1% of your show money per step to incentivize finishes.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

Do the female fighters get a cut of the used fight shorts that the UFC sells? And do they have to declare it?

 

[KeepItRealist]

Jury made it clear that he had to pay for his medicals. Other fighters have said the same.

Love to see what all went into to make up that 18% of the revenue going to the fighters.

 

[JoshR86]

I mean, what else are they supposed to do, they spend that money on the fighters and report it as an amount that is given/used on the fighter.

The UFC pays for surgeries and such required from injuries sustained during fights/training camps for fights right? If they do, not sure how it's that crazy, I feel like most large companies would do this.

Any source that they pay for injuries???

 

[philweed]

Here we go again....

If the fighters don’t like the contract, they don’t have to sign it. I don’t understand why guys sign the dotted line then complain like they got shafted.

 

[Stalingrad9]

Surprise surprise. That's what big corporations do. Find all the ways possible to lower the costs

 

[Pakman]

An insurance company pays for surgeries and other health care. Not the UFC.

But if you are making the point that most employers include health insurance costs when declaring total compensation, you are correct.
I completely disagree with including insurance costs when declaring employee compensation, but many disagree with me on that.

Health care is a universal right.

insurance company pays, UFC pays them. UFC pays for fighters to get treated.

It is what it is bro.

 

[mkess101]

This is a case where a company classifies something as x because it makes sense and is legal to do it that way on the books.

But when the information is made public, it has a very bad look because of how controversial fighter pay is (within the MMA community--nobody outside cares or even knows about it).

In the end, as a practical matter it's kind of ridiculous. USADA and drug testing are only requirements because the UFC made that the case. The fighters have zero say, since they can't collectively bargain. Essentially the UFC has said "We will require you as fighters to go through this testing, and when we pay for it we are going to classify it as compensation to you."

It's akin to requiring employees to wear uniforms and have those uniforms professionally cleaned by a specific dry cleaner weekly, and then telling the employees that they are being compensated every time that dry cleaning bill is paid.

 

[Fergelmince]

If it is something that is required for work, such as for licensing and the corporation pays for it instead of the employee, it can be considered as part of employee compensation.

This all depends on where you are located because depending on the country's and province's/state's tax laws, certain things such as testing for drugs (marijuana, alcohol, etc.) cannot be expensed in the manor of employee compensation the same way as things like paying insurance premiums, or in some cases is not even allowed.

Given that USADA is a partner of the UFC, it can be reasonably expected that the UFC has it in the contract language that the members of the roster must pass USADA testing to remain under contract and that the UFC will cover the costs associated with the testing.

Your discussing GAAP technicalities, whereas the public debate has always been about the lack of ethics in UFC's compensation to fighters. Now that we know the UFC has sneakily fattened their fighter compensation line-item on the income statement with USADA costs, they just look even worse.

GET IT???

 

[kflo]

The UFC is squirming at the fact that the fighters' cut of the revenue is below other sporting leagues so they are trying to pump up that figure, their own figures say 20-21% (highest). So it looks bad for the UFC by trying to bullshit pad that figure with things like drug testing. Drug/USADA testing doesn't automatically comes to mind when you think about 'fighter pay'.

Tennis and golf get less than 20% of revenue for their major championships.

 

[kflo]

Drug testing as part of fighter compensation and they can still only fluff it up to 20%.

Extend the Ali Act to MMA.

Ali act would do nothing and would just make it worse.

 

[mime]

Disgusting.

 

[campbecc]

Do the female fighters get a cut of the used fight shorts that the UFC sells? And do they have to declare it?

this complaint makes no sense, no one ever complained when male fighters fight worn shorts were sold so how was it wrong to also sell female fighters shorts? It's sports memorabilia, game worn jerseys are sold in almost every sport. Ali's fight worn shorts are hanging in museums.

 

[rmongler]

Here we go again....

If the fighters don’t like the contract, they don’t have to sign it. I don’t understand why guys sign the dotted line then complain like they got shafted.

Presupposes an area of concern with a large 'market' where there are many other alternatives as good or better than the one in question.

If a fighter wants to be the top guy fighting other top guys, as it stands, he has to go to the UFC. This ain't like boxing where fighters actually are free agents who can fight each other under multiple awarding bodies.

 

[Literally Bricked]

Your discussing GAAP technicalities, whereas the public debate has always been about the lack of ethics in UFC's compensation to fighters. Now that we know the UFC has sneakily fattened their fighter compensation line-item on the income statement with USADA costs, they just look even worse.

GET IT???

I understand it quite well, which is why I have no issue with what they are doing. You on the other hand seem quite distraught. Perhaps, a less intensive exercise than keyboard warrioring is appropriate; have you considered yoga?

 

[listrahtes]

Tennis and golf get less than 20% of revenue for their major championships.

apples and oranges.
Just read up on a UFC contract and what rights you loose and then a Tennis or Golf contract on the pro tour. There is next to no other sports org with such slave contracts than UFC .

 

[kflo]

apples and oranges.
Just read up on a UFC contract and what rights you loose and then a Tennis or Golf contract on the pro tour. There is next to no other sports org with such slave contracts than UFC .

What does that have to do with the % of revenue?

it’s not at all apples to oranges.

 

[moreorless87]

Sounds about right.... the UFC is such bullshit these days lol.

Always was run as a cash cow under Zuffa whilst fools fell in love with the Mr Mahon character who would bleeding out the sports future to keep the casinos in business.

 

[listrahtes]

What does that have to do with the % of revenue?

it’s not at all apples to oranges.

Because on the one hand UFC legally runs up the % with f.e. USADA costs which is legal and I do not have a problem with regrading fiscal declaration. But its not the number which athletes profit financially.

On the other hand "revenue" going to fighters is even more severly limited by UFC in taking away the ANCILLARY RIGHTS of their athletes forever!! Even after your contract expired.

I dont know any other sports league doing that and if you go by possible earnings for athletes that puts annother big minus into the athletes potential without showing up in revenue % . It is expropriation.

In simple terms: I take away 30k from your possible income and the grant you 50k that go into % revenue. How much do you profit as an athlete? Thats the reality of UFC contracts and payload.

The real number will be far below 20%

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

I mean, what else are they supposed to do, they spend that money on the fighters and report it as an amount that is given/used on the fighter.

The UFC pays for surgeries and such required from injuries sustained during fights/training camps for fights right? If they do, not sure how it's that crazy, I feel like most large companies would do this.

One of those things has nothing to do with the other. It's nice that the UFC pays for surgeries and stuff and that should be reported as fighter compensation since it benefits the fighter but the fighters didn't decide to hire USADA that cost isn't fighter related it was the UFC's decision to do it and shouldn't count towards fighter pay/compensation. That would be like if companies said that drug tests are employee compensation which is insane.