Which is why I would point you to my qualifications of "probably" and "depending on the division"
Probably about equal to a top 50ish fighter in mma, guys right outside of the UFC/Bellator's top 10ish guys.
If a company wants to beat out UFC fighters and they don't have pockets that are as deep, they either have to match or exceed the non-purse terms of UFC contracts. There are exceptions, but by and large most contractual language is pretty similar at this point.
Not really. What exactly is the capacity of the UFC? They can't have 2,000 fighters on the roster, but 1,000? That's probably doable.
Because the UFC belt is seen as most legitimate and has the highest concentration of elite fighters that one needs to face to be seen as elite and have a shot at huge paydays. So, once again leads back to the UFC.
Not sure why you're telling me something I've explained to other people frequently.
Not sure why you always want to talk movies with me in the UFC section. I wouldn't expect a movie to pay a fixed revenue across all productions, particularly given that movie accounting is generally designed to screw actors, directors, etc as much as possible.
And? You want the UFC to pay a luxury tax or something? Not sure what comparing a market that is anticompetitive via collective bargaining agreements and other antitrust exemptions is meant to tell us about mma.
I’m sure there’s greater variability as well
So they are incentivized to have less restrictive contracts than the UFC’s very restrictive contracts. Got it. Agree.
. Again, for every one of the bottom undercard guys, there are lots of comparables in the market they can be replaced with.
Because you seem to believe you get paid based on the “revenue you generate”…..(without noting the revenue the franchise generates)…
Lol. Look at you ignoring that the yankees pay a small % of their revenue compared to other franchises they compete with. Do you think without the luxury tax they would all of the sudden start paying 50% of their revenue to players instead of 30% just to fit in?
Yes, that's what I said at the start. Most promotions will either copy the UFC contract or have an incentive to make theirs less restrictive.
Sure is, that's why fixing fighter pay from the bottom up is a nonstarter.
Yes, somewhat. But all ties back to the UFC since they dominate the market. Not to mention many orgs operate as UFC feeder leagues, not competitors.
I do note the revenue a franchise generates. You don't see me saying that fighter should get 50 percent of revenue, do you?
So what does the baseball market have to do with mma? Other than it pretty clearly showing that the champion's clause would be unlikely to survive a court challenge.
UFC fighters aren't getting paid higher than ever?
No I didn't figured their prelims were of the same caliber as the UFC. Who knows, maybe you're right? I just would expect when Conor came in MMA and set a new bar it would also do so for everyone else, yet today we talk about fighter pay all the time. It's hard for me as a fan who has never had 1M in the bank to be like "yeah he deserves 10M minimum for that fight".
Oh it did some. But there are only 2 ways to boost fighter wages at this point. Either regulatory changes (limits to contracts, Ali Act, etc) or increased competition (which would probably require the former).
True, but keep in mind an elite athletes career may last a decade, if they are lucky. Frankly, most fighters and boxers will get outearned by a police officer or any variety of fairly mundane jobs. It's not like a career in mma will prepare you for a steady job after the fact, even if you are lucky to have your body and faculties about yourself still, which is a huge if.
That isn't saying much, it's like pointing out a developing country and being amazed their GDP doubled in a decade.
That isn't progress? It took the NFL almost 60 years to start paying players a high salary on average. You can look up average pay in the 80s before collective bargaining and strikes.
Because professional athletics wasn't monetized as well. There is now more ways to make money in professional athletics than 60 years into the NFL's tenure where gate was the primary way to make money.
I truly don't care about money, but I just want to see more active fighters. If money brings that I'm all for it. True, fans are going to buy an increasingly expensive ppv everytime they up the price. So we paid already and they need to figure this stuff out.
NFL wasn't on television before the 80s? They didn't overtake baseball as the most popular sport in America since the late 50s because of television? Football players were underpaid for a very long time. It took multiple strikes and collective bargaining to change pay. Football players might be still underpaid compared to other major sports in America.
It took about 40 years, when the AFL came a long. Collective bargaining doesn't drive pay in sports, competition and free agency are what do that. It's a fundamental misunderstanding a lot of people have. Also you are failing to adjust for inflation.
Generally yes, more pay means more activity. The issue is that people will blame fighters instead of promoters for matchups not happening. For example, the fact that we don't see cross promotion is almost entirely the UFC's fault, but fans kind of accept that protecting the UFC brand is in their interests.
"My grandpa had to suffer, so my kids should also suffer"
They are first and foremost putting money back into WME's pockets. Any "perks" for fighters, like the PI, are pocket change compared to that.
They were better compensated then fighters by probably around the 1950 and 1960s.
The fact that that dude was trying to compare median and average pay should tell you enough about how good his sources are.
