You gotta understand it from Dana's point of view. The less he pays fighters

[mmadeewana]

So Dana can have a white christmas in vegas?

How dare these peasants ask to make money

what i never really understand is if Dana is that rich why doesnt he buy a holiday home in a snowy state?

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

I love when the financially inept talk about money

Be honest: did this post make you feel good about yourself?

 

[Fergelmince]

The MORE money he makes. The more money the suits at WME make. They didnt get into this business to run a charity. They got in it to make huge profit margins. That 500 million dollar crypto.com deal benefits Dana and the WME suits. The lesson to be learned here. Dont aspire to be a fighter. Dont aspire to be a champion. Aspire to be the guy behind several champions and the premier mma league. Be the suit.

Yeah, that's 100% correct. All major sports in the US did this until they were FORCED not to. Unless WME/UFC are forced, this is the way it'll always be. It actually may become less and less a percent of gross revs if WME can get away with it.

What's funny is you're not really even advocating for it and many sherdooogers want your head on a plate.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

Yeah, that's 100% correct. All major sports in the US did this until they were FORCED not to. Unless WME/UFC are forced, this is the way it'll always be. It actually may become less and less a percent of gross revs if WME can get away with it.

What's funny is you're not really even advocating for it and many sherdooogers want your head on a plate.

Thank you. You're one of the few people that actually "get" my post. Ugh.

 

[GrantB13]

The problem with businesses these days (but probably for all time really) is that they need to make every single penny of profit they can. If in profit the business made $15M in year A, made $20M in year B, they act like they HAVE to made $25M in year C. They won't accept $17M even though that's still $17M in profit and still $2M more than two years ago. They will instead see it as a loss because they made less than last year. So now they'll go over the budgets, make cuts, cut corners, eliminate positions, restructure pay, or whatever combination of tactics they can. It's complete bullshit but it's what it seems like.

And if they make more the next year they won't give it back to the employees or anything and still maintain a healthy profit. They'll keep it because the execs make more. They'll only increases wages and stuff if under pressure like what was happening with the retail giants this last year. Only one company did it whether through genuine gratitude or as a publicity stunt, and then the rest of them followed suit because they would look bad if they also didn't give a bonus or increased pay because Store A did.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

The problem with businesses these days (but probably for all time really) is that they need to make every single penny of profit they can. If in profit the business made $15M in year A, made $20M in year B, they act like they HAVE to made $25M in year C. They won't accept $17M even though that's still $17M in profit and still $2M more than two years ago. They will instead see it as a loss because they made less than last year. So now they'll go over the budgets, make cuts, cut corners, eliminate positions, restructure pay, or whatever combination of tactics they can. It's complete bullshit but it's what it seems like.

The old idea of, "If you're not expanding you're shrinking"

 

[dominicanjudo8]

So Dana can have a white christmas in vegas?

How dare these peasants ask to make money

I don’t get this we have hearing for years how little fighters get paid and still they are thousands of people of not million right now training to be fighters. Why anyone would like to get into a career that doesn’t make money is beyond me

 

[avenue94]

But it does almost feel stupid doing so considering how little of the payout goes to the fighters outside the main events

Out of your 75 bucks or whatever, you contributed 2 or 3 dollars to fighters, at best, and a good chance even less than that.

Sound exactly like arguments (probably) made in the 60s (I’m guessing) before the first 1968 Collective Bargaining agreement.

Ball players then had little to gain until massive television contracts sprung up. And then they wanted some of that revenue. Now, it’s a little different because the owners then actually HAD agreed to share tv money with the players and tried to renege. Still, if they hadn’t got their shit together they would have continued playing for peanuts.

MLB union predates that era by a couple decades. Thank Curt Flood and free agency, not the MLB union for the spike in baseball wage share.

 

[Jibsta69]

So called sports league without a union does whatever they want and pays fighters less. I’m not shocked lol

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

Out of your 75 bucks or whatever, you contributed 2 or 3 dollars to fighters, at best, and a good chance even less than that.

MLB union predates that era by a couple decades. Thank Curt Flood and free agency, not the MLB union for the spike in baseball wage share.

I believe there was something many decades earlier that got broke (or several Union attempts that each got broke.)

Then the modern CBA was in 1968.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sb...624/mlb-mlbpa-cba-marvin-miller-robert-cannon

https://www.mlbplayers.com/history

Unless I completely misread these sources.

Definitely the Flood case brought free agency.

 

[MarleyLynx]

Be honest: did this post make you feel good about yourself?

If I'm being honest I believe you replied with an unrelated attempt at a personal attack to bait a conflict. What I said struck a chord with something close to your identity and now you're on subconscious autopilot.

 

[avenue94]

I believe there was something many decades earlier that got broke (or several Union attempts that each got broke.)

Then the modern CBA was in 1968.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sb...624/mlb-mlbpa-cba-marvin-miller-robert-cannon

https://www.mlbplayers.com/history

Unless I completely misread these sources.

What drives up pay in sports is completion. For baseball, that means free agency. Up to 1975, baseball had a reserve clause, which means if a player finished their contract, a team could unilaterally extend it one year, and owners colluded to make trades less frequent since that drives up wages. Post-1975 is when you see wage share explode.

If you want the numbers for wage growth, the minimum salary in the MLB grew 11.72 percent per year and wage share was 17.6 percent in 1974, which is actually than the 1950s. Post-reserve clause you see increases of 10 percent in 1976, 38 percent in 1977 and 22 percent in 1978.

As far as why the a lot of fans don't really know about this, probably because it would take shine away from the MLB union. From what I understand, Curt Flood, who gave up his career to sue against the reserve clause, still isn't in the Hall of Fame. I suppose it bears mentioning Flood was also a black ballplayer in a earlier era.

P.S. If you're wondering why the reserve clause seems familiar to mma fans, it's because that's what the champion's clause is in UFC and Bellator. It's a contractual tool that effectively eliminates free agency for champions.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

If I'm being honest I believe you replied with an unrelated attempt at a personal attack to bait a conflict. What I said struck a chord with something close to your identity and now you're on subconscious autopilot.

Personal attack? I just asked a question.

 

[kflo]

What drives up pay in sports is completion. For baseball, that means free agency. Up to 1975, baseball had a reserve clause, which means if a player finished their contract, a team could unilaterally extend it one year, and owners colluded to make trades less frequent since that drives up wages. Post-1975 is when you see wage share explode.

If you want the numbers for wage growth, the minimum salary in the MLB grew 11.72 percent per year and wage share was 17.6 percent in 1974, which is actually than the 1950s. Post-reserve clause you see increases of 10 percent in 1976, 38 percent in 1977 and 22 percent in 1978.

As far as why the a lot of fans don't really know about this, probably because it would take shine away from the MLB union. From what I understand, Curt Flood, who gave up his career to sue against the reserve clause, still isn't in the Hall of Fame. I suppose it bears mentioning Flood was also a black ballplayer in a earlier era.

P.S. If you're wondering why the reserve clause seems familiar to mma fans, it's because that's what the champion's clause is in UFC and Bellator. It's a contractual tool that effectively eliminates free agency for champions.

And everyone else can fight out their contracts and get the best offer in the market….taking their revenue generating power with them……

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

is there a better system?

this is the real problem.

the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

[Ozze]

Wow, so you're telling me that the less costs a company has the more profit they will make?

 

[kflo]

So what you're saying is, their business practice is predatory and immoral?

Which business practice did he mention was predatory and immoral?

 

[avenue94]

And everyone else can fight out their contracts and get the best offer in the market….taking their revenue generating power with them……

Funny how most of those guys and gals don't generate much revenue, plus they have other reasons to stay.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

The problem with businesses these days (but probably for all time really) is that they need to make every single penny of profit they can. If in profit the business made $15M in year A, made $20M in year B, they act like they HAVE to made $25M in year C. They won't accept $17M even though that's still $17M in profit and still $2M more than two years ago. They will instead see it as a loss because they made less than last year. So now they'll go over the budgets, make cuts, cut corners, eliminate positions, restructure pay, or whatever combination of tactics they can. It's complete bullshit but it's what it seems like.

And if they make more the next year they won't give it back to the employees or anything and still maintain a healthy profit. They'll keep it because the execs make more. They'll only increases wages and stuff if under pressure like what was happening with the retail giants this last year. Only one company did it whether through genuine gratitude or as a publicity stunt, and then the rest of them followed suit because they would look bad if they also didn't give a bonus or increased pay because Store A did.

Nailed it...

 

[kflo]

Wow, so you're telling me that the less costs a company has the more profit they will make?

Well, cost reduction if you can do it without impacting revenue….