GDT: UFC 265: Lewis vs. Gane

[m9]

hypothetically if the ufc doubled their revenue share we aren’t having this conversation because both companies would be paying out their “fair” (fairer?) share of the revenue

do you think a fighter for Titan FC should make the same as Kamaru Usman because they do the same job and that if they don’t we should be criticizing Titan FC? Because thats basically your argument. You get paid based off of the money you generate for your company

we just want the UFC to pay their fighters a share comparable with every other promotion. It’s not that hard to comprehend, and the other position is entirely indefensible when looking across the landscape of not only this sport but ALL sports. Bellator pays their fighters a more fair share of what the fighters themselves generate. Documented fact, not opinion. Doesn’t matter if the actual dollar figure is lower, it’s what they generated.

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. That's fine. Enjoy your day.

 

[CDJ]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. That's fine. Enjoy your day.

I fully understand what you’re saying. Enjoy your Sunday as well

 

[m9]

Yeah, hopefully it happens before the end of the year. Nov/Dec would give him some time off and still work.

Aldo was really impressive last night and has been in general at 135 other than the Yan fight. Him dropping down in weight after how tough the cut was at 145 just seemed really desperate but he looks really good and I couldn't have been more wrong about the decision. I don't think he can compete with the very best but he might beat everyone else in the top 10.

Does Font have a fight scheduled? I think that makes more sense for Dillashaw if he wants to stay busy. I wouldn't be opposed to Dillashaw/Aldo though.

Yeah agreed all-around.

135 is so good, pretty much any of those fights are fun for Aldo.

My only real issue with Aldo is that I don't think he has the finishing ability he used to have so he's going to lose decisions to some of these guys at the top.

 

[Egg]

But the player/fighter uses the leverage they have to get themselves a better deal.

I have zero issue with this. Its like any regular job.

The issue to me, is someone overestimating their worth. In the other major sports, such an athlete would often get over paid for under performing.

IE a fighter coming off losses, making bold demands.

In any other workplaces, your bosses would smile and let you know where the door is.

To me, rightfully so.

Jones can think he is worth the same as say, Floyd Mayweather, but looking at their PPV numbers, they aren't even on the same planet.

Also, he does his own promotion. The UFC is responsible for promoting Jones, out of pocket, may I add.

Its not even the same thing.

Honestly. You're better off using your star power, to get product placement deals, start your own business, etc.

Let's not forget it here. The UFC is a business. The fighters are contractors.

If they aren't smart and don't hire someone who is to represent them, then to me they have zero business in the sport. All they will do, is starve.

They know how to fight, but know nothing about the business. Blaming the UFC for this, is like someone blaming their electrical provider for sticking a fork into an outlet.

 

[pistolpete11]

That's interesting. Fighters are doing the exact same job in either promotion. Fighters are currently making comparable salaries in both promotions, even with 50% vs 20% or whatever it is.

Hypothetically, lets say the UFC doubled all of their salaries and now their fighters are making twice as much in the UFC as in Bellator. Now they are paying 40% in the UFC. revenue vs 50% revenue in Bellator.

50% still better than 40%? How is it "fair" to pay fighters half as much to do the exact same job?

That's why I don't care about "fair". It's a lazy and meaningless premise.

They are doing the same job with vastly different results (i.e. the revenue they are helping to generate). Miley Cyrus is doing the same job as Taylor Swift. Should they be compensated the same? Of course not. Taylor Swift is generating far more album sales, streams, and ticket sales than Miley Cyrus is. Thus she makes more money. (I didn't fact check this, but I think you get the point.)

I don't understand why you're objecting to using percentages to talk about revenue splits. Literally every one of the major sports leagues does this despite their different annual revenues and other differences. The UFC might not be the same percentage as the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, or maybe even Bellator...but it's more than 18%.

I doubly don't understand why you're arguing this when you say you want the fighters to get paid more. If they got paid more like you and I wish, what does that do to the revenue split?

 

[pistolpete11]

Yeah, hopefully it happens before the end of the year. Nov/Dec would give him some time off and still work.

Aldo was really impressive last night and has been in general at 135 other than the Yan fight. Him dropping down in weight after how tough the cut was at 145 just seemed really desperate but he looks really good and I couldn't have been more wrong about the decision. I don't think he can compete with the very best but he might beat everyone else in the top 10.

Does Font have a fight scheduled? I think that makes more sense for Dillashaw if he wants to stay busy. I wouldn't be opposed to Dillashaw/Aldo though.

I think TJ would be more interested in Aldo than Font simply from a name recognition stand point.

I think he probably waits to see what happens with Sterling-Yan, though. He probably gets next from his own name recognition, so why risk losing and/or getting injured?

 

[m9]

They are doing the same job with vastly different results (i.e. the revenue they are helping to generate). Miley Cyrus is doing the same job as Taylor Swift. Should they be compensated the same? Of course not. Taylor Swift is generating far more album sales, streams, and ticket sales than Miley Cyrus is. Thus she makes more money. (I didn't fact check this, but I think you get the point.)

I don't understand why you're objecting to using percentages to talk about revenue splits. Literally every one of the major sports leagues does this despite their different annual revenues and other differences. The UFC might not be the same percentage as the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, or maybe even Bellator...but it's more than 18%.

I doubly don't understand why you're arguing this when you say you want the fighters to get paid more. If they got paid more like you and I wish, what does that do to the revenue split?

Because I fundamentally disagree with the premise that 50% in Bellator is good but 20% in the UFC is bad. The fighters are independent contractors and can go to wherever they get the best deal. The reality is that that 20% in the UFC ends up to around the same as 50% in Bellator, which is why guys will land in either spot. The only difference is that one company is a fantastic business while one isn't so people think "big number good, small number bad". I can go work for my Dad and make 50% of the revenue. Or I can work for a big company and make 10%? Does the percentage matter or does the $ matter? To me, the money does. That's where we are at with MMA right now. There's nothing to suggest Bellator actually pays their fighters more than the UFC.

If the UFC paid fighters 50% of their revenue they would probably put Bellator out of business because most good fighters would go there since they could make 2-3X what they are making in Bellator. And then the UFC would make less money because of their increased costs, so would then would start cutting costs and you're back to square one.

Long-term, to get that high-percentage in the UFC you either need a) a union or b) actual competition. If Bellator could run a more successful business while still giving 50% to their fighters it would force the UFC to up the ante because that would mean the fighters are getting paid more.

I understand that my view on this is different than what other fans/media think. I just think people are looking at it incorrectly.

 

[CDJ]

Bellator is running a successful business, just because they’re not overtaking the company that literally started the sport in this country and gets interchangeably used with “MMA” doesn’t mean they’re not successful.

 

[pistolpete11]

Because I fundamentally disagree with the premise that 50% in Bellator is good but 20% in the UFC is bad. The fighters are independent contractors and can go to wherever they get the best deal. The reality is that that 20% in the UFC ends up to around the same as 50% in Bellator, which is why guys will land in either spot. The only difference is that one company is a fantastic business while one isn't so people think "big number good, small number bad". I can go work for my Dad and make 50% of the revenue. Or I can work for a big company and make 10%? Does the percentage matter or does the $ matter? To me, the money does. That's where we are at with MMA right now. There's nothing to suggest Bellator actually pays their fighters more than the UFC.

Just because they are being paid similarly or even more than Bellator fighters doesn't mean they are being paid their worth. These aren't interchangeable hourly employees. They ARE the product and deserve to be compensated as such. Just like the athletes in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.

As CDJ said, Bellator is a successful, profitable company. The whole point of comparing the UFC to Bellator is to say that you can be a profitable MMA promotion even with paying your fighters more than 18%.

If you think it's all good as long as the UFC is comparable or slightly more than Bellator and that if 18% is the number that gets them there then so be it, then just say that. But you'd be carrying water for a multibillion dollar corporate conglomerate over people who are putting their long term health on the line for our entertainment.

If the UFC paid fighters 50% of their revenue they would probably put Bellator out of business because most good fighters would go there since they could make 2-3X what they are making in Bellator. And then the UFC would make less money because of their increased costs, so would then would start cutting costs and you're back to square one.

Yeah, I don't think any of that is true. Well, other than the UFC making less money.

Fighters can't just decide to go to the UFC. The UFC has to want them. Bellator would more or less be in the same position of finding and investing in young talent, guys that slip through the UFC's cracks, and guys that the UFC no longer wants. They might be more of a feeder promotion to the UFC and not be able to keep guys like Chandler as long, but there's nothing wrong with that either. Outside of a few guys, that's basically what Bellator is now. They put on nostalgia fights and "how would this guy do in the UFC?" fights. The UFC already has the vast majority of talent in the world. Shifting a few guys here and there wouldn't really change much.

And if the UFC can't pay their fighters something more in line with Bellator's percentage of revenue without turning a profit, then they are a shitty company who needs to ask themselves where the hell their money is going.

Long-term, to get that high-percentage in the UFC you either need a) a union or b) actual competition. If Bellator could run a more successful business while still giving 50% to their fighters it would force the UFC to up the ante because that would mean the fighters are getting paid more.

Or c) legislation.

Yes, other than what the actual percentage should be, this is the only conversation worth having. The debate is over. The question is how to meaningfully change it because the UFC is not going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts (despite giving out a few extra performance bonuses lately). That's basically Luke Thomas's stance and it's up to the fighters on which direction to take.

The only people who don't think they are underpaid are the UFC, people who have a vested interest in being on the UFC's good side, are uninformed, or who simply don't care about the fighters getting paid more. Which is why I can't believe you are making some of these arguments. You say you want the fighters to get paid more but then have some strange objection when people suggest they should be paid more than 18%.

 

[Moncherry]

The UFC is under no obligation to.

If you don't have drawing power, or aren't a "needle mover", your case will be rather weak.

A McGregor drawing millions of buys, puts heavy handed pressure on his bosses to ensure he doesn't leave the promotion.

Ngannou while a beast, doesn't have that negotiation power. Nor does Jones.

Jones leaving the promotion, wouldn't hurt it in the slightest.

His name alone, will benefit him a few more dollars sure, but if he is comparing his name to say McGregor, then he is delusional.

The UFC to me, is in the healthiest position.

They pay for their own promotion, pay their athletes in full even during an outbreak, and are constantly growing.

To me, the power should be in the hand of the owners.

Only thing that should change in my opinion, is that some health insurance should be provided to these athletes due to the high risk to their health that they take.

Jones absolutely moves the needle for the UFC. If he didn't, they wouldn't bend over backwards for him getting drug-testing exemptions and moving an event last minute to another state just to keep him on the card. His PPV numbers do well above the average. Just because he doesn't do McGregor's numbers, who is far and away the biggest draw they have, doesn't mean he's not a draw for them. It's also ironic you bring up McGregor, because that guy is being robbed blind by the UFC and is probably the most underpaid fighter relative to the revenue he brings in for them. $3 million fight purses? Utter joke. There are boxers you've never heard of who make more than that. Although maybe since then, it's increased a little.

People like you who side with the UFC when it comes to fighter pay, like to say that the fighters aren't forced to sign their contracts (even though the UFC uses a variety of underhanded tactics where they hardly have a choice), and yet when fighters like Jones play hardball and sit out, you criticize them for that too.

And shorting fighters on their purses apparently isn't enough, because the UFC goes out of their way to limit their earning potential by removing sponsors and reducing their PPV points through things like the ESPN deal.

 

[m9]

Just because they are being paid similarly or even more than Bellator fighters doesn't mean they are being paid their worth. These aren't interchangeable hourly employees. They ARE the product and deserve to be compensated as such. Just like the athletes in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.

As CDJ said, Bellator is a successful, profitable company. The whole point of comparing the UFC to Bellator is to say that you can be a profitable MMA promotion even with paying your fighters more than 18%.

If you think it's all good as long as the UFC is comparable or slightly more than Bellator and that if 18% is the number that gets them there then so be it, then just say that. But you'd be carrying water for a multibillion dollar corporate conglomerate over people who are putting their long term health on the line for our entertainment.


Yeah, I don't think any of that is true. Well, other than the UFC making less money.

Fighters can't just decide to go to the UFC. The UFC has to want them. Bellator would more or less be in the same position of finding and investing in young talent, guys that slip through the UFC's cracks, and guys that the UFC no longer wants. They might be more of a feeder promotion to the UFC and not be able to keep guys like Chandler as long, but there's nothing wrong with that either. Outside of a few guys, that's basically what Bellator is now. They put on nostalgia fights and "how would this guy do in the UFC?" fights. The UFC already has the vast majority of talent in the world. Shifting a few guys here and there wouldn't really change much.

And if the UFC can't pay their fighters something more in line with Bellator's percentage of revenue without turning a profit, then they are a shitty company who needs to ask themselves where the hell their money is going.


Or c) legislation.

Yes, other than what the actual percentage should be, this is the only conversation worth having. The debate is over. The question is how to meaningfully change it because the UFC is not going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts (despite giving out a few extra performance bonuses lately). That's basically Luke Thomas's stance and it's up to the fighters on which direction to take.

The only people who don't think they are underpaid are the UFC, people who have a vested interest in being on the UFC's good side, are uninformed, or who simply don't care about the fighters getting paid more. Which is why I can't believe you are making some of these arguments. You say you want the fighters to get paid more but then have some strange objection when people suggest they should be paid more than 18%.

My objection is people clinging to a percentage like it is important when I believe it's not important.

If the UFC held a ceremonial money-burning before every PPV their fighter pay revenue percentage would go way up and the fighters wouldn't make a penny more. I just don't believe Bellator should be put on a pedestal because they put out cards nobody watches while the UFC is villianized because they run their business better and make tons of money.

It's also hard to tell if Bellator's business model actually works. By most reports they've lost money for the majority of their run, though the data is a bit hard to confirm there.

Anyways, I'm obviously great with fighters making more money. I just dislike how the conversation is often framed. It's also funny that this got discussed because of Ngannou not fighting on this card when it doesn't sound like money was even the issue.

 

[m9]

Jones absolutely moves the needle for the UFC. If he didn't, they wouldn't bend over backwards for him getting drug-testing exemptions and moving an event last minute to another state just to keep him on the card. His PPV numbers do well above the average. Just because he doesn't do McGregor's numbers, who is far and away the biggest draw they have, doesn't mean he's not a draw for them. It's also ironic you bring up McGregor, because that guy is being robbed blind by the UFC and is probably the most underpaid fighter relative to the revenue he brings in for them. $3 million fight purses? Utter joke. There are boxers you've never heard of who make more than that. Although maybe since then, it's increased a little.

People like you who side with the UFC when it comes to fighter pay, like to say that the fighters aren't forced to sign their contracts (even though the UFC uses a variety of underhanded tactics where they hardly have a choice), and yet when fighters like Jones play hardball and sit out, you criticize them for that too.

And shorting fighters on their purses apparently isn't enough, because the UFC goes out of their way to limit their earning potential by removing sponsors and reducing their PPV points through things like the ESPN deal.

Jones has always been a bit underrated in terms of PPV buys, he's consistently a very good draw.

Where have you heard they reduced PPV points under ESPN+? It would be interesting to me given the possible similarities to Scarlett Johansson suing Disney.

I do think you're way off on the Conor numbers. I wouldn't be following disclosed purses in MMA, they're nowhere near actual paydays for the top PPV draws.

 

[CDJ]

My objection is people clinging to a percentage like it is important when I believe it's not important.

If the UFC held a ceremonial money-burning before every PPV their fighter pay revenue percentage would go way up and the fighters wouldn't make a penny more. I just don't believe Bellator should be put on a pedestal because they put out cards nobody watches while the UFC is villianized because they run their business better and make tons of money.

It's also hard to tell if Bellator's business model actually works. By most reports they've lost money for the majority of their run, though the data is a bit hard to confirm there.

Anyways, I'm obviously great with fighters making more money. I just dislike how the conversation is often framed. It's also funny that this got discussed because of Ngannou not fighting on this card when it doesn't sound like money was even the issue.

well *you* can believe it’s not important, but every sports league, owner, and athlete think the revenue number and their share of it is important

there’s no other way for it to be framed. You’re not comparing equal entities

 

[m9]

well *you* can believe it’s not important, but every sports league in the history of sports think it’s important….

It will be important if/when there's a union. Until then, the free market & competition are what's important.

 

[CDJ]

Wait did I just read that if they had a ceremonially money burning performance before each show “their fighter pay revenue % would go way up”? What are you even talking about? No it wouldn’t, because fighters didn’t get paid. The promotion would be burning another part of their budget, which would be their own prerogative


Pay the fighters more than 18%. It’s not a lot to ask!

 

[Moncherry]

Jones has always been a bit underrated in terms of PPV buys, he's consistently a very good draw.

Where have you heard they reduced PPV points under ESPN+? It would be interesting to me given the possible similarities to Scarlett Johansson suing Disney.

I do think you're way off on the Conor numbers. I wouldn't be following disclosed purses in MMA, they're nowhere near actual paydays for the top PPV draws.

It's not that they reduced the percentage the fighters get, it's that the deal made it so that you could only order the PPV through ESPN+ in the United States. This has predictably lead to a decline in PPV buys, which was already a dying model to begin with. You're giving people even less incentive to purchase it legally by putting a paywall behind a paywall. But the UFC doesn't care, because any loss in regards to a slight decline in PPV buys is offset by the healthy deal they got from ESPN, however the fighters get screwed over because to my knowledge they don't see any of that money, and their biggest meal ticket in PPV points continues to shrink.

I've frequently heard the story about how the fighters actually make way more than the disclosed purses, but I've never come across any evidence that it's actually true. If this was the case, why are so many unhappy with their pay? The only fighter I've ever heard say they were paid more than reported is Chael Sonnen, a patented company shill who spews bullshit every time he opens his mouth.

 

[m9]

It's not that they reduced the percentage the fighters get, it's that the deal made it so that you could only order the PPV through ESPN+ in the United States. This has predictably lead to a decline in PPV buys, which was already a dying model to begin with. You're giving people even less incentive to purchase it legally by putting a paywall behind a paywall. But the UFC doesn't care, because any loss in regards to a slight decline in PPV buys is offset by the healthy deal they got from ESPN, however the fighters get screwed over because to my knowledge they don't see any of that money, and their biggest meal ticket in PPV points continues to shrink.

I've frequently heard the story about how the fighters actually make way more than the disclosed purses, but I've never come across any evidence that it's actually true. If this was the case, why are so many unhappy with their pay? The only fighter I've ever heard say they were paid more than reported is Chael Sonnen, a patented company shill who spews bullshit every time he opens his mouth.

Has it led to a decline in PPV buys? The PPV estimates that have been released seem fine but they're hard to confirm. And is it known that fighters weren't compensated for a change in structure if it cost them money? It seems like you're just making some assumptions here. I really don't know, I'm just asking as I haven't read/heard any of this being confirmed.

And yes, the top-end fighters can make much more than their reported payouts. It was reported that Conor made an estimated 23 million for this last Poirier fight. The estimates for Poirier were over 5 million but only 1.5 reported. Often this is tied to PPV points that the champs/stars get.

 

[Egg]

Jones absolutely moves the needle for the UFC.

I never said he didn't. I am saying the pay day he is looking for, will never happen, because he isn't bringing in those kinds of numbers.

$3 million fight purses?

That's not the full amount he gets paid. PPV buys aren't factored into those numbers, nor are sponsorships.

underhanded tactics

Nobody puts a gun to their head. Fighters highly unhappy with their pay, have left the promotion before. Again. Nobody is forcing them to sign.

There are boxers you've never heard of who make more than that.

You're not comparing apples to apples, my friend. Pointing to Mayweather as an example, ignores why he makes so much money. He takes care of his own promotion. He is the true definition of an entrepreneur athlete.

Jones play hardball

I never criticized him for playing hardball. I simply pointed out the fact that some fighters are delusional to their actual value. He can play hard all for a decade. He will be the one wasting his talent, and not getting paid.

And shorting fighters on their purses apparently isn't enough

Look. I side with the UFC for the simple fact that they are a business that markets itself. Paid all employees in full during the pandemic.

There is always room for improvement, but to say Jon Jones is a victim, is where we can agree to disagree.

 

[pistolpete11]

My objection is people clinging to a percentage like it is important when I believe it's not important.

If the UFC held a ceremonial money-burning before every PPV their fighter pay revenue percentage would go way up and the fighters wouldn't make a penny more. I just don't believe Bellator should be put on a pedestal because they put out cards nobody watches while the UFC is villianized because they run their business better and make tons of money.

It's also hard to tell if Bellator's business model actually works. By most reports they've lost money for the majority of their run, though the data is a bit hard to confirm there.

Anyways, I'm obviously great with fighters making more money. I just dislike how the conversation is often framed. It's also funny that this got discussed because of Ngannou not fighting on this card when it doesn't sound like money was even the issue.

Most (all?) promotions lose money when they are getting started, including the UFC. I thought I heard Bellator was profitable with the DAZN deal, but DAZN did seem to be throwing around money. Maybe that's not the case anymore, but I'd think Showtime would be a pretty good partner for them.

It doesn't matter, though. Bellator gets used because they are the closest comparable being that it is the same sport. But if you want to use NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL, they are all in the upper 40%. The UFC is the one outlier. That's why they are rightfully villainized for it.

How do you propose talking about fighter pay without discussing the revenue split?

 

[pistolpete11]

It will be important if/when there's a union. Until then, the free market & competition are what's important.

Nobody is talking about why it is like it is. We all know.

We are talking about what would be fair for the fighters and it's a lot more than 18%. It's that simple.

 

[m9]

Most (all?) promotions lose money when they are getting started, including the UFC. I thought I heard Bellator was profitable with the DAZN deal, but DAZN did seem to be throwing around money. Maybe that's not the case anymore, but I'd think Showtime would be a pretty good partner for them.

It doesn't matter, though. Bellator gets used because they are the closest comparable being that it is the same sport. But if you want to use NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL, they are all in the upper 40%. The UFC is the one outlier. That's why they are rightfully villainized for it.

How do you propose talking about fighter pay without discussing the revenue split?

Nobody is talking about why it is like it is. We all know.

We are talking about what would be fair for the fighters and it's a lot more than 18%. It's that simple.

Why are those the sports used? Wouldn't the UFC structure of independent contractors be more consistent with say the PGA or ATP? Maybe they're even higher, I have no idea.

I do wonder about Bellator's business side. We (somewhat) know they lost money the first 7-8 years and then were projected to make money in 2019/20. Obviously the pandemic probably hurt and now they aren't with DAZN anymore. Their Showtime #s aren't good and they put on fights for free in Canada. Anyways, not really the issue being discussed.

In terms of how to discuss fighter pay without percentages - good question. I don't have a good answer for that but I prefer to focus on the actual money paid out for similar fighters. Like if on average a UFC Fight Night main card guy is making 20k/20k but an average Bellator main card guy is making 50k/50k then that's where I would start. It's easy to say "everyone should make way more money" but I do think there are some specific situations/fighters who should get paid much more while some are pretty close to their value. I definitely don't have the solution or have ever claimed to, outside of the obvious ways we've previously discussed.

 

[pistolpete11]

Why are those the sports used? Wouldn't the UFC structure of independent contractors be more consistent with say the PGA or ATP? Maybe they're even higher, I have no idea.

I do wonder about Bellator's business side. We (somewhat) know they lost money the first 7-8 years and then were projected to make money in 2019/20. Obviously the pandemic probably hurt and now they aren't with DAZN anymore. Their Showtime #s aren't good and they put on fights for free in Canada. Anyways, not really the issue being discussed.

In terms of how to discuss fighter pay without percentages - good question. I don't have a good answer for that but I prefer to focus on the actual money paid out for similar fighters. Like if on average a UFC Fight Night main card guy is making 20k/20k but an average Bellator main card guy is making 50k/50k then that's where I would start. It's easy to say "everyone should make way more money" but I do think there are some specific situations/fighters who should get paid much more while some are pretty close to their value. I definitely don't have the solution or have ever claimed to, outside of the obvious ways we've previously discussed.

Quick Google search and I saw someone say PGA is 33%, but they also allow the players to cut their own sponsorship deals which the UFC does not. I couldn't quickly find anything on ATP, but I believe they also allow the players their own sponsors. I'm not saying the UFC needs to be in line with those leagues. I don't know what the exact number should be, but when they are at nearly 50% and the UFC is only at 18%, something is off. The people that I've heard that have done a deep dive into the UFC financials all seem to agree that 18% is absurdly low.

Focusing on the actual money the fighters are making and ignoring the significantly more money their corporate overlords are stuffing into their pockets doesn't make any sense. That's why people use the revenue split percentage.

Where the additional fighter pay should go is a completely different discussion, one that I'm sure we would disagree on, but the fact remains...the fighters as a whole...are getting 18% (and if I'm not mistaken, like 2-3% is actually USADA which the fighters may or may not even want). In my view, a union would be the best solution and that would be up to them how to divvy up the additional pay. A union is also highly unlikely, though, so...

 

[member 51464]

One subtle change I'd like to see is one of the performance bonuses being guaranteed to the undercard. "Undercard Performance of the Night" or even a "newcomer bonus" for someone on one of their first X fights since some latter day big names end up on undercards and don't need that cash. I don't know, just a thought.

 

[m9]

Quick Google search and I saw someone say PGA is 33%, but they also allow the players to cut their own sponsorship deals which the UFC does not. I couldn't quickly find anything on ATP, but I believe they also allow the players their own sponsors. I'm not saying the UFC needs to be in line with those leagues. I don't know what the exact number should be, but when they are at nearly 50% and the UFC is only at 18%, something is off. The people that I've heard that have done a deep dive into the UFC financials all seem to agree that 18% is absurdly low.

Focusing on the actual money the fighters are making and ignoring the significantly more money their corporate overlords are stuffing into their pockets doesn't make any sense. That's why people use the revenue split percentage.

Where the additional fighter pay should go is a completely different discussion, one that I'm sure we would disagree on, but the fact remains...the fighters as a whole...are getting 18% (and if I'm not mistaken, like 2-3% is actually USADA which the fighters may or may not even want). In my view, a union would be the best solution and that would be up to them how to divvy up the additional pay. A union is also highly unlikely, though, so...

We agree on the union part, and at that time that is when the percentage discussion has relevance to me. People think it means something now and I will just agree to disagree and move on.

Until a union/legislation, everyone involved has chosen a situation that is more of a free market with independent contractors and part of that means how successful the business is as a whole is separated from the pay to independent contractors. I am comfortable with businesses being run this way but it appears many others are not. That does not mean I do not want fighters to get paid more - there are plenty of ways that independent contractors in all businesses figure out ways to get paid more.

Anyways, just my thoughts. I understand they are in the minority and I am mostly just summarizing here so we can move on.

 

[m9]

One subtle change I'd like to see is one of the performance bonuses being guaranteed to the undercard. "Undercard Performance of the Night" or even a "newcomer bonus" for someone on one of their first X fights since some latter day big names end up on undercards and don't need that cash. I don't know, just a thought.

I've always loved the idea of all finishes being rewarded. Incentivize everyone to finish fights. Even if the UFC just said they are still giving out the same $200k and then it's spread to all of the fighters who finish fights. Maybe you get 25k, maybe you get 200k. I hate when someone who is low on the totem pole finishes a fight and they don't end up getting something because their knockout was subjectively slightly worse than another guy/girl. I know the UFC hooks them up sometimes anyway, but still.