What is YOUR ideal way of payinf fighters?

Bearknuckle

Silver Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,692
Reaction score
10,437
Ok with all this talk on fighter pay, and how bad the reebok deal is. What would be your ideal way of handling fighter pay and sponsors.

The UFC has always tried to find ways to get as much money from their fighters as they can. They were taking a percentage of the fighter sponsors, now taking the lions share of the reebok deal and hurting most fighters.

What would be a solution so that everyone is happy? Let fighters get a bigger share of ppvs? Higher guaranteed money? Better contracts? No contracts? Fighters union?

Theres always the bashing of zuffa or apologists to zuffa on sherdog.

But what is the solution?
 
Show&Win + (Fighters % of total Fighter Payout = % of Gate/2)
___________

Fighter makes 2% of total payout = 2% of $2Mil/2.
Total pay to him = Show&Win+$20,000 gate bonus.
.
.
.
Fighter makes 25% of $600,000 total payout = 25% of $2Mil/2
Total pay to him = Show&Win+$250,000 gate bonus
 
No sponsorship fees... leave sponsors between fighters and sponsors. Let them wear sponsors still, obviously. But eliminating sponsor fees, I think, would go a long way in getting fighters some cash/gear (fighters used to use sponsors to get their supplements and training stuff like workout shorts, etc...)
 
No sponsorship fees... leave sponsors between fighters and sponsors. Let them wear sponsors still, obviously. But eliminating sponsor fees, I think, would go a long way in getting fighters some cash/gear (fighters used to use sponsors to get their supplements and training stuff like workout shorts, etc...)

I think thats how it was before the UFC took a % of the sponsors. But even back then fighter pay was an issue.
 
Reebok merch.
Practical and useful in an athletic lifestyle. Also has a high resale value, so it wouldn't be hard for a fighter to receive product in bulk and flip it for good cash value.
 
Raise the league minimum to 30k/30k, pay the fighters more across the board. Allow sponsors, with no sponsor tax. Put on less shows, pare down the roster.
 
According to the UFC, they are giving all of the revenue from the Reebok deal to the fighters. I don't know if I believe that, but that's what they say. Either way, it's obviously not enough to make up for taking away their other sponsors.
 
No sponsorship fees... leave sponsors between fighters and sponsors. Let them wear sponsors still, obviously. But eliminating sponsor fees, I think, would go a long way in getting fighters some cash/gear (fighters used to use sponsors to get their supplements and training stuff like workout shorts, etc...)

If I was the prez, here's how I'd do it.

(1) I'd let them procure their own sponsors provided they don't conflict with the promotion's sponsors. So if we had Bud Light, no coors sponsorships would be allowed.

(a) A sponsorship fee might go into effect. It would depend upon how much these sponsors had proven themselves willing to pay.Say for example the fee was 100k a year, I would give the fighters a guaranteed percentage of the fee. The idea behind this is that if I were to enstate a fee, I might be able to prevent a company from shortchanging the fighters they sponsor by essentially forcing them to pay their fighters a substantial fee. This whole idea is a big MAYBE though, because I haven't ironed out what I would do for a sponsor who sponsored multiple fighters.

(2) I would only pay a show amount and not a win bonus. So instead of 8/8, I'd pay 14k flat. Instead of 35/35, I'd pay 60k flat. Something along those lines. I believe this might help rid the sport of overly conservative fighters who fight "too safe" just to get their bonus money (which makes sense the more your win bonus happens to be). There would be no bonus structure either. I would just trickle the bonus money down into the purse for each fighter.

(3) I'd have MUCH less fighters under contract, thus giving the fighters I do have a couple more opportunities per year to fight and earn a paycheck.

(4) I would do my best to make sure even the lowest prelim fighter was making 20k per event. I would do this primarily because I would like the fighters to be able, between sponsors, purse and potential bonuses, to train full time. This would make the product better because the fighters and fights would become more skilled. This would make the product more sellable.

(5) if I ever got to the point where my fighters were making heaps of cash, i would make that information public so as to make them appear larger than life. In so doing, this would make them appear more like superstars and less like average Joes. Upon the envy and adoration of the fans, I would try to create superstardom for our most promising prospects by piggybacking their talent onto the shows featuring the established superstars.
 
8k/8k, backroom bonuses, Reebok shoes and a case of Xyience energy drinks
 
Raise the league minimum to 30k/30k, pay the fighters more across the board. Allow sponsors, with no sponsor tax. Put on less shows, pare down the roster.

How does cutting the roster help the fighters?or less shows?

raise the minimum but cut shows?lol

bigger ppv % for champs and give their sponsors back

and i think maybe 15/15 minimum but keep the shows
 
Total earning = Fighter pay + Win bonus + Performance bonus + percentage of Gate revenue + percentage PPV revenue + percentage of UFC ads in the Octagon + personal sponsors
 
I'd like the fighters to be able to choose from different "packages" of UFC sanctioned sponsorship:

Offer the Rebook deal, maybe a Harley deal, a Budweiser deal, etc. Maybe 5 in all. All a little bit different, with different options.

When I hear Cowboy talking about Budweiser I feel like at least he chose it and it was not forced on him (I'd never drink that swill, but you get the idea).

I think if I was a fan of say, Luke Rockhold, and he chose to align with a certain UFC sponsor, he might be cool with it and in turn I might be down with the product to an extent; instead of a situation where he has a sponsor shoved down his throat.
 
According to the UFC, they are giving all of the revenue from the Reebok deal to the fighters. I don't know if I believe that, but that's what they say. Either way, it's obviously not enough to make up for taking away their other sponsors.

I really don't believe it. None of the fighters are happy about it,so if it was done solely to benefit them you'd think Dana would scrap it when most fighters are openly against it and losing money. I think Zuffa are taking the majority from the Reebok deal
 
I really don't believe it. None of the fighters are happy about it,so if it was done solely to benefit them you'd think Dana would scrap it when most fighters are openly against it and losing money. I think Zuffa are taking the majority from the Reebok deal

I don't think the UFC is doing it fro the direct revenue. They want to control the UFC brand image and associating it with stuff like Condom Depot is something that irks them. They are basically considering it an investment in the future of the sport... if they get a high flight sponsor smeared all over their product, it uplifts them by association, makes them look more mainstream.
 
fighters should make full amount (show money + win money) and another 50% of full purse for finishing.
 
Back
Top