- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,640
- Reaction score
- 1,915
The class-action antitrust lawsuit against the UFC has forced a lot of financial data of the company to be released in court and be made publicly available.
"The share of Zuffa event revenues going to fighters as compensation ranged from 18.6% to 20.5% from 2011 to 2013."
Very interesting, as this puts to rest all the crazy talk from numerous people; 7% according to Brendan Schaub, 35% according to Jon Anik, 50% according to Lorenzo Fertitta.
"Data includes all forms of fighter compensation—some publicly disclosed, such as fight night bonuses; others occasionally disclosed, such as show and win purses; and still others rarely disclosed, such as pay-per-view payments, letter of agreement payments and other discretionary pay."
"Readers may immediately flash to a comparison with the Big 4 sports leagues in North America, which pay their athletes around 50% of revenues, but the UFC is a different corporate entity. Its fighters are independent contractors and do not collectively bargain, there are no teams within the organization competing for talent, and the promotion is a single entity that cannot collude or conspire with itself. The question in this case is: What would fighter compensation have been but for the UFC’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct with long-term, exclusive fighter contracts (and possibly television, sponsor and venue contracts)?"
"(UFC) likely exercises monopsony power in the input market for certain types of fighters, and its wage share is significantly lower than those of the more traditional North American sports. But did it anticompetitively acquire and maintain monopsony power by raising rivals’ costs via long-term exclusive fighter contracts? And should wage share or wage levels be used to estimate that potential harm to fighters? We’re getting closer to those answers every day."
SOURCE:
"The share of Zuffa event revenues going to fighters as compensation ranged from 18.6% to 20.5% from 2011 to 2013."
Very interesting, as this puts to rest all the crazy talk from numerous people; 7% according to Brendan Schaub, 35% according to Jon Anik, 50% according to Lorenzo Fertitta.
"Data includes all forms of fighter compensation—some publicly disclosed, such as fight night bonuses; others occasionally disclosed, such as show and win purses; and still others rarely disclosed, such as pay-per-view payments, letter of agreement payments and other discretionary pay."
"Readers may immediately flash to a comparison with the Big 4 sports leagues in North America, which pay their athletes around 50% of revenues, but the UFC is a different corporate entity. Its fighters are independent contractors and do not collectively bargain, there are no teams within the organization competing for talent, and the promotion is a single entity that cannot collude or conspire with itself. The question in this case is: What would fighter compensation have been but for the UFC’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct with long-term, exclusive fighter contracts (and possibly television, sponsor and venue contracts)?"
"(UFC) likely exercises monopsony power in the input market for certain types of fighters, and its wage share is significantly lower than those of the more traditional North American sports. But did it anticompetitively acquire and maintain monopsony power by raising rivals’ costs via long-term exclusive fighter contracts? And should wage share or wage levels be used to estimate that potential harm to fighters? We’re getting closer to those answers every day."
SOURCE: