What is fair for fighter pay?

[Jorge Luis Borges]

“Top level mma market” is where top level mma fighters fight. ONE, PFL, Bellator, rizin and other orgs all have fighters who can compete with top ufc fighters. If fighters can’t draw there, then those fighters aren’t the only thing that makes a draw.

Fans preferring the ufc for their mma doesn’t mean the ufc has to share all of that with the fighters. It may not seem fair but we, the fans, are part of the reason.

1. Yeah globally there's only four companies. Two are in the Far East with almost no US or North American presence. That means an American MMA fighter can choose between the dominant UFC or Bellator. In such a situation, the market isn't necessarily going to result in a fair solution.
2. Nah, as a fan, I'm not at all a part of the problem of low fighter pay.

 

[avenue94]

Fighters need to stop crying about their pay and do something about it. The reason why Conor McGregor makes Infinite times more money than rest of the roster is because he doesnt just talk the talk but also walks the walk.

I mean, it's not like 90 percent of fighters can be as good as he is no matter how hard they train, or have his charisma lol.

I'd say the only problem with that course is that the top level MMA market is only one or two companies. So 'let the market decide" doesn't really work well in such a situation.

Yeah, that's where breaking off belts and rankings from promoters comes in. It's very likely to impact matchmaking from a fan perspective (not as bad as boxing, but still a risk), but it would be a pretty big bump to fighter leverage and pay. And also let more promoters enter the market.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yeah, that's where breaking off belts and rankings from promoters comes in. It's very likely to impact matchmaking from a fan perspective (not as bad as boxing, but still a risk), but it would be a pretty big bump to fighter leverage and pay. And also let more promoters enter the market.

Why wouldn't it be as bad as boxing? I think it would be just as bad and maybe worse.

 

[avenue94]

Why wouldn't it be as bad as boxing? I think it would be just as bad and maybe worse.

If you split sanctioning bodies through the Ali Act, the mechanism is that it orders the ACs (technically not them, it would be the body that created the unified rules) to study the sport and then make a commission. You don't need to create 4 sanctioning bodies. Boxing has that many in large part because all 4 bodies predate the Ali Act. So you could hypothetically, if you set aside corruption, greed and incompetence, just create one sanctioning organization for the entire sport of mma. Big if cuz of those three problems, but yeah. The issue in boxing isn't really that sanctioning bodies exist, it's that there are 4 of them and they all have their own peculiar rules.

 

[pudgelarson36]

Look how many folks in this thread don’t even understand the difference between profit and revenue, yet want to offer up business advice. This level of knowledge is essentially where we’re at with every major topic being discussed in this country right now.

 

[ejlarson249]

I see a lot of threads on fighters are not getting paid fairly, what exactly is your definition for fair fighter pay?

I think the only definition that matters is the current one. The one where every single fighter in the UFC willingly agreed to get paid X per fight. They negotiate, and agree in advance that it is fair, then they sign.
I guess I would love to hear someone explain to me how that isn't fair?

 

[Athlas]

The yankees pay around 30% of revenue. They’d be foolish to pay a lot more. They are competing for talent with other teams that have a lot less revenue. The tigers pay like 70%. It’s not because the tigers are more generous than the yankees.

I said "NFL and NBA".
You forgot to mention that teams like the Yankees, pay millions of Dollars in luxury tax, which helps maintain a competitive balance in the league.

 

[Athlas]

Look how many folks in this thread don’t even understand the difference between profit and revenue, yet want to offer up business advice. This level of knowledge is essentially where we’re at with every major topic being discussed in this country right now.

Dude, get Dana's nutts out your mouf.

 

[Athlas]

and like they nba. As WNBA doesn’t make a profit they should be paid like that. I agree.

all good fighters should make a quality living the best should be millionaire many many time over. Woman are horrible at this so should be thankful just to be forced onto cards.

You're causing a distraction by trying to start a gender war. This is exactly why there is so much divide in this country. The goal is to get these fighters who put their lives on the line so we can be entertained to patake on the fruits that they helped cultivate. They're the product. Without them there is no UFC.

 

[avenue94]

I think the only definition that matters is the current one. The one where every single fighter in the UFC willingly agreed to get paid X per fight. They negotiate, and agree in advance that it is fair, then they sign.
I guess I would love to hear someone explain to me how that isn't fair?

You're assuming that promoter and fighter have roughly equal negotiating power in these transactions, and its not even close. MMA promoters are ridiculously powerful, even a guy like Conor can't negotiate on equal footing.

Or if you want the the dumb analogy, it's not like most people want indentured servitude legalized, even though it's just 2 parties signing on a dotted line.

 

[tastaylvr]

The industry standard is 50% of revenue. This is standard in basically every single sport.

 

[Athlas]

The industry standard is 50% of revenue. This is standard in basically every single sport.

Thank you.

 

[TGArthur]

100% share.

Fighters need to seize the means of promotion.

Spoiler: Before any jimmies get rustled

I kid I kid

Spoiler: Or am I?

Spoiler

LOL you shouldn't of put spoilers so we can see some more jimmies being rustled

 

[gspieler]

Until some champions with drawing power start demanding a CBA, "fair" is just going to be whatever the UFC can intimidate fighters into accepting.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The industry standard is 50% of revenue. This is standard in basically every single sport.

That's what the NBA pays and roughly what the NFL pays. Who else? Because there are plenty of sports that don't have a 50-50 split. Like, say, tennis. The USTA paid out 14% of rvenue to players in 2018. https://tennisaccent.com/majors/us-open/power-control-and-greed-in-professional-tennis/

Saying 50% of revenue is standard in every single sport is ignorant bullshit.

 

[POWER2]

Usually 40-50% of net profit, where they only receive on average like 15-20%. UFC has also been flooding its roster with contender series cans rather than paying out to legitimate international prospects.

 

[sapporo ichiban]

The market decides the overall profit based on ppv buys. The fighters get their percentage take based on their ranking. They get a base rate and the success of the card dictates the bonus.

The cream still rises to the top and has a solid incentive. The company can be creative in marketing the fighters.

As much as we all seem to want to get into the economics lessons, the other side of it is that if the opportunity for solid pay is present, the potential to attract more talent and retain people who will stick around to develop.
Business is business but I feel like good pay will grow the sport and take the competition up a notch within a couple years.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

What do you mean usually? This isn’t NBA or NFL. Is that what it is in boxing? That’s the closest comparison.

The UFC is closer to a league with employees then it is to independent contractors.

 

[DestinedAussie]

I see a lot of threads on fighters are not getting paid fairly, what exactly is your definition for fair fighter pay?

I don't think it really exists, especially when revenues change so much depending on who is on the card. The only thing really would like changed is the UFC's ability to cut. They should have to pay out the number of fights left on contract to cut, there is too much false security in a "5 fight contract" which could end after 1.

Usually 40-50% of net profit, where they only receive on average like 15-20%. UFC has also been flooding its roster with contender series cans rather than paying out to legitimate international prospects.

the UFC doesn't pay fighters 15-20% of profit, they pay them 15-20% of revenue before costs are taken out. They probably already get 40-50% of net profit.

Closer to 50% revenue for sure.

I don't know if this is sustainable for UFC. I think the smaller a sport is the harder it is for them. In Australia the major sporting leagues pay about 30% of revenue, so still more than UFC but not as much as the big 4 in the US. Since we can't see all the numbers it is hard to know what a fair revenue share is.

50% of revenue, and bring back their freedom for sponsorship

I would love to give them back some agency around sponsorships. This is a big opportunity for fighters to really gauge their worth, even if it is just an announcement as they walk out who they are sponsored by and there is a list of sponsors you can't compete with. This works well in Australian sport, the league has sponsors which teams can't compete with but anything else is fine (even if it clashes with another teams sponsor).


Fighter pay is such a hard topic to know what is far but one thing the UFC isn't given credit for is the money fighters earn has certainly grown each year. Just look at the payouts on a card 5 years ago and the difference for the undercard is night and day.

 

[Captain Herb]

I think the only definition that matters is the current one. The one where every single fighter in the UFC willingly agreed to get paid X per fight. They negotiate, and agree in advance that it is fair, then they sign.
I guess I would love to hear someone explain to me how that isn't fair?

The UFC is pretty much the only game in town since they bought up the competition. If you're a fighter who has invested time and money in yourself and reached the top level, are you going to take what they offer, even though it's way too low, or are you going to throw it all away and get a job at Starbucks? They have all the leverage because of the lack of competition that they created by buying up the other competing orgs.