News UFC decreases fighter pay even more. Fighters only getting 13% of the revenue now (all time low)

[HP_Nut]

There's many factors, but the fact remains that fighter pay did not decrease.

Fighter share of the pie is lower, that is not in dispute. UFC increased profits by $120 million, not just revenue but actual profit while they paid out almost $33 million less in fighter pay, so technically it did decrease. If we assume that was entirely due to Conor not fighting, it does not change the fact fighter pay as a share of the pie is lower than before, or that fighter pay costs for the UFC did decrease by almost $33 million

 

[Fioretti]

Fighter share of the pie is lower, that is not in dispute. UFC increased profits by $120 million, not just revenue but actual profit while they paid out almost $33 million less in fighter pay, so technically it did decrease. If we assume that was entirely due to Conor not fighting, it does not change the fact fighter pay as a share of the pie is lower than before, or that fighter pay costs for the UFC did decrease by almost $33 million

No, it says "fighter costs" reduced by $32M - which includes fighter pay, but isn't only fighter pay.

Obviously Conor affects these numbers. Other factors are unknown. No matter how you (or anyone else) tries twist it, fighter pay did not decrease. Yes, overall they received a smaller percentage of the revenue. That doesn't mean fighters are being paid less. Period.

 

[Rank Squatter]

Fighter pay remains the same

UFC makes more profit

Sherdog mathematics and antics discuss how the percentage changes and say they decreased pay when actually it stays the same and UFC just makes more than previous

 

[Rozko]

Did every fighter on the roster get a new contract with lower pay?

Did higher paid fighters fight less?

Did the UFC put on cards loaded with no name fighters more often?

The raw numbers don't answer those questions.

 

[Willy Beamish]

So basically OP doesn't understand how business, numbers, or literally how anything else in the world works.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[Kb7]

Idiotic comparison and a couple of idiots liked it.

Because threads like these are just people who hate Dana & the UFC, it's just a bunch people jerking each other off when it's anything to diminish the UFC, even if it's a idiotic comparison like that one poster did, logic goes out the window.

You could post that snow in the driveway or clown Dana pic and get "likes" based on that alone.

 

[John12]

Fighter share of the pie is lower, that is not in dispute. UFC increased profits by $120 million, not just revenue but actual profit while they paid out almost $33 million less in fighter pay, so technically it did decrease. If we assume that was entirely due to Conor not fighting, it does not change the fact fighter pay as a share of the pie is lower than before, or that fighter pay costs for the UFC did decrease by almost $33 million

Exactly. These are just facts

 

[DestinedAussie]

No, it says "fighter costs" reduced by $32M - which includes fighter pay, but isn't only fighter pay.

Obviously Conor affects these numbers. Other factors are unknown. No matter how you (or anyone else) tries twist it, fighter pay did not decrease. Yes, overall they received a smaller percentage of the revenue. That doesn't mean fighters are being paid less. Period.

I didn't notice that.

Fighter costs must include hotels, flights, medical expenses, insurance etc. Fighting at the apex a lot probably helps keep those down.

That said if the 13% includes costs jezzz.

 

[Throttlehead]

Shitty cards with lowered paid fighters, its a thing.

There are far too many events, you have to goggle half the fighters to know who they are. It's a money making company that does not care about final product as much as they used to.

 

[The Judo Champ]

Easy to do when every second card is headlined by two female “contenders” and a card full of nobodies and 1 journeyman fighter.

Ufc has too many cards nowadays and anytime a fighter that’s not champ even thinks about asking for more money he’s a free agent and off to pfl or bellator

 

[Fioretti]

I didn't notice that.

Fighter costs must include hotels, flights, medical expenses, insurance etc. Fighting at the apex a lot probably helps keep those down.

That said if the 13% includes costs jezzz.

They previously included building UFC PIs in those costs too, so if they didn't build any......percentage goes down.

Again - pay didn't decrease.

 

[wwkirk]

The more accurate, non-misleading way of describing the pay situation was presented on the first page of the thread. But the way the title is written is more provocative, more dramatic. Understandable though. No UFC this week, so why not get worked up a little?

No it's because UFC is making more money but keeping fighter pay the same. Thus the percentages are getting smaller.

A more accurate title would be fighter pay remains stagnant as UFC revenue increases.

EDIT: Which I want to point out is equally bad but more technically accurate when you are splitting hairs.

 

[rjmbrd]

They previously included building UFC PIs in those costs too, so if they didn't build any......percentage goes down.

Again - pay didn't decrease.

The facilities debt amortizes over years, you realize they don't write a single check to build a complex in a calendar year right?

The on going costs of staffing and running the PI are included in "fighter pay."

I know you mean well and are a real fan, but you unintentionally post misinformation frequently on this topic. I don't understand why you keep after it?

 

[nostradumbass]

Which fighter are we pretending took a pay cut?

 

[Fioretti]

The facilities debt amortizes over years, you realize they don't write a single check to build a complex in a calendar year right?

The on going costs of staffing and running the PI are included in "fighter pay."

I know you mean well and are a real fan, but you unintentionally post misinformation frequently on this topic. I don't understand why you keep after it?

I thought the PIs are included in "fighter costs", not "fighter pay"? How do you know if they include the initial $12-14M in "fighter costs" in the year it was built, or if they only include the actual amortized cost per year? It makes sense that general costs and staffing would be included on a yearly basis, obviously, but everything else (building costs, equipment, etc) would likely be included in the year it was built.

Do you have a source saying otherwise?

 

[Scott Stapp]

I wanna bash Dana and Endeavor for their greed, but I also want to bash these corny dojobros and their shitty tribal tattoos that make up the bulk of the sport. Where do I begin?

 

[HP_Nut]

No, it says "fighter costs" reduced by $32M - which includes fighter pay, but isn't only fighter pay.

Obviously Conor affects these numbers. Other factors are unknown. No matter how you (or anyone else) tries twist it, fighter pay did not decrease. Yes, overall they received a smaller percentage of the revenue. That doesn't mean fighters are being paid less. Period.

LOL, I'm not saying UFC started cutting fighter salaries, but UFC could be giving us shittier cards by having the lesser known guys fight more often or having less superstar headliners (not even Conor but having some B star headlining a UFC main event). That is an example of reducing fighter costs without reducing the fighters contracts. We all know UFC pumps out way too many watered down cards these days. Why have a fighter earning over $200K headline a main event when we can use a fighter who we only need to pay $150K

You can keep trying to move the goal post but it is 100% fact that fighter share of both revenue & profits is less than it was, & it was already super shitty compared to any other major sport in North America. Imagine if next yr, they said "UFC once again increased their revenue & profits to record breaking numbers but they still paid the same as they did 2 yrs ago", are you still gonna be defending them? If you adjust for inflation, the Venum deal is worse than Reebok for a lot of fighters? That's just sad & pathetic that despite UFC value increasing ridiculously over 7 yrs that somehow they couldn't get a better sponsorship deal than what Venum gave. I honestly think some people on here are bigger fans of Dana than the fighters themselves, & that's just sad

 

[NikkiNeversleep]

 

[Fioretti]

LOL, I'm not saying UFC started cutting fighter salaries, but UFC could be giving us shittier cards by having the lesser known guys fight more often or having less superstar headliners (not even Conor but having some B star headlining a UFC main event). That is an example of reducing fighter costs without reducing the fighters contracts. We all know UFC pumps out way too many watered down cards these days. Why have a fighter earning over $200K headline a main event when we can use a fighter who we only need to pay $150K

You can keep trying to move the goal post but it is 100% fact that fighter share of both revenue & profits is less than it was, & it was already super shitty compared to any other major sport in North America. Imagine if next yr, they said "UFC once again increased their revenue & profits to record breaking numbers but they still paid the same as they did 2 yrs ago", are you still gonna be defending them? If you adjust for inflation, the Venum deal is worse than Reebok for a lot of fighters? That's just sad & pathetic that despite UFC value increasing ridiculously over 7 yrs that somehow they couldn't get a better sponsorship deal than what Venum gave. I honestly think some people on here are bigger fans of Dana than the fighters themselves, & that's just sad

I'm not defending anything, guy. I'm simply stating that the multiple people who are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the numbers, what they mean, and the ones who keep insisting that fighter pay decreased..... are incorrect.

Fighter pay has not decreased.

 

[TheNinja]

They should allow sponsors again. Corn to the core!! Mickey's the official malt liquor of the UFC. And of course Condom Depot plastered on the shorts.

UFC could allow fighters to get their own sponsors and it wouldn't cost Dana a single dime more. Maybe lose the Venum deal or have to restructure it I guess.