UFC corruption makes Don King look like Santa Claus, MMA fighters tell ABC

[duke_droese]

But the sport is growing. Look at the last 15 years of growth the UFC has been instrumental in with no signs of slowing down. It's actually pretty insane how much it has grown. Not just UFC but the sport in general largely do to the exposure of the UFC.

But anyways, it sounds like you would prefer a structure more like boxing. I think that could be beneficial for the top 1% of fighters since the promotions would have to compete for star power and build cards around it for marketing, but developing under-card fighters not so much.

Bankrupting the UFC would lower the price of fighters initially since the entire roster would be on the market looking for work, and the UFC marketting machine would die, lowering the profile of the sport in general, but over the long term it's pretty speculative.

The strategy of burning it all down and assuming something better will rise in the ashes is an easy strategy to take if you aren't accountable for the damage and aren't affected by the outcome.

Dana's keep fighters hungry approach has been a gift and a curse for the sport's growth.

The gift is that good fighters from the 2000s and 2010s were forced to coach as they made nothing from fighting, so needed to coach to make a living. This has been similar to wrestling. In boxing, good fighters (domestic level and above) made enough from the sport to get comfortable, so they rarely go into coaching.

The curse is that good athletic talent (not just world class level, but top domestic talent level) will rarely choose MMA. For example, an average level domestic UK boxer called Anthony Fowler made enough to retire at 32 with a few properties on rent. Whereas I know quite a few top level (Euro to fringe World class level) MMA fighters from my city at the same age who made literally nothing from the sport.

 

[acannxr]

As others have point out, the MMFA are doing a terrible job making their case because of the cherry picking.

In 2015 the UFC generated $609 million in revenue. The promotion shared around 19% of that revenue with fighters.


In 2022 the UFC made $1.14 billion. Despite that massive jump in revenue, the percentage fighters received that year fell to around 13%.

The MMAFA also shared (citing Bloody Elbow’s John S. Nash) that UFC fighter pay in 2016 was around $148 million and that this actually decreased in 2022, with an estimated $146 million going to fighters.

McGregor and Rousey fought in 2015-2016, which is going to skew the percentage; in 2022 McGregor didn't fight and Rousey had long since retired.

The MMAFA told the ABC that the UFC made a net profit of $387 million in 2022 and that this is likely more than all other MMA and boxing promotions combined. In that claim they reported that Eddie Hearn’s Macthroom Boxing made $14 million in profits for 2022.

Why are they comparing the UFC to Eddie Hearn? DAZN would be a more appropriate comparison.

The slideshow also made the claim that UFC President Dana White, Endeavour CEO Ari Emanuel and former ZUFFA owners Lorenzo Fertitta and Frank Fertitta “have made more [money] than all fighters in UFC history combined.”

With the exception of Dana, they were all millionaires/billionaires before getting involved in the UFC and the Fertittas are the ones who took the financial risk of trying to revive a dead brand.

You could also say that the fighters in the 8 years after Zuffa purchased the company all made multiple times more money than the fighters who competed in the 8 years preceding Zuffa.

How the UFC ‘corrupted’ MMA

MMA was far more "corrupted" before Zuffa, it was considered nothing more than human cockfighting and a blood sport.

The most obvious corruption that they should be pointing out is the fact that Lorenzo blocked the UFC from getting sanctioned in Nevada, which effectively devalued the company even more, and then Lorenzo later bought the UFC for a fraction of what it could've been worth had the company gotten sanctioned.

There was additional quid pro quo going on between the UFC, NSAC, and TV officials but at that point in time there weren't any other MMA organizations in the picture outside of Pride so it's not as though that monopolized anything.

The UFC's restrictive contracts should be what the MMAFA focuses on because it has a level of control over the fighters as if they're employees even though they're independent contractors.

 

[cade187]

US median household income was $55,775 in 2015, it was $70,784 in 2022, so it's up almost 30%, if you're not worried about methodological differences between the census and community survey. I'm too lazy to check individual income.

My point is, your napkin math was glossing over that by nearly every metric financially, UFC fighters are more productive in 2022 than in 2015. Yet they've seen effectively no real growth in compensation.

I don't know what line of work you are in, but I'm gonna wager that you and your fellow employees, like most employees, are nowhere near as economically productive as fighters are collectively, yet probably receive a higher wage share.

That's a growth of 26.9%, less than the increase for UFC fighters in that same time span, and like I've already said, Conor and Ronda fighting 3 times in 2015 warps the numbers. The biggest star that fought in 2022 was Adesanya, and his drawing power is not close to Conor or Ronda. If you ignored the wages for Conor and Ronda, the wage growth for the rest of the roster is probably closer to 40% (if not more) in that period.

I'm not arguing against paying fighters more. I'm just pointing out the misleading use of data. It's hard to drive change when you need to twist the data to support your argument (the article in the OP, not you).

 

[mudrubble]

It's ambiguous wording that provokes people into making that assumption: "The UFC are making more money and paying fighters less." It's the headline of their presentation. "13% share? UFC fighters paid even less, profits skyrocket over every fight promoter combined."

Got you. That's fair. You are officially onside. Thanks for the response.

 

[nostradumbass]

What's with the weird hand selecting individual years to compare? Well that's easy to answer, it's because Conor fought 3 times in 2016, and 0 times in 2022, so they use those years to pretend fighters are getting paid less.

The UFC don't pay fighters by percentage of revenue, and certainly not of the entire company's yearly revenue that they don't even know until after the year is over. I don't think the fighters would much like fighting, and then not getting paid until after the year when they find out what profits are, nor would they like to have percentage of revenue from each event as their payment, because they have gone into the red for some events, and they wouldn't want percentage of event profits, because everybody would only want to fight on Conor, Jones and Izzy cards. They already kind of do it with PPV points, but they still get their contracted purse as well.

 

[avenue94]

You said that the UFC had to die in order for the sport to grow.

I did not.

The UFC clearly has been and is growing and the sport itself benefit by the UFC marketing machine exposing MMA to larger audiences in the main stream.

Which market will produce better products for a consumer? The market with one firm that has no incentive to produce a better product, or a market with multiple firms pressuring each other to fight for consumers with better products? I don't know why mma fans tend to think the sport is somehow the sole exception to economics.

I don't think the argument is about what fans want though it's more about what is best for fighters. What is best for fans may not be best for fighters.

Somewhat true. I'll just point out that again, it's not either the boxing model or the UFC model., You can take what works from each, assuming there is enough competence. But that's another discussion.

In boxing, good fighters (domestic level and above) made enough from the sport to get comfortable, so they rarely go into coaching.

That's not really the case. Being a good boxer is not the same as being a good coach. In athletics, those who are the best tend to not be the most knowledgeable or the best teachers because they are such good athletes they can take shortcuts.

MMA was far more "corrupted" before Zuffa, it was considered nothing more than human cockfighting and a blood sport.

You mean before the Fertitas used their influence on the athletic commission to sabotage SEG and purchase the UFC at a fire sale price? Or are we talking about that time the Fertitas got sued for using Xyience in a shady manner?

 

[avenue94]

I'm not arguing against paying fighters more. I'm just pointing out the misleading use of data. It's hard to drive change when you need to twist the data to support your argument (the article in the OP, not you).

What do you attribute the UFC's massively increased value to if not fighters? I don't know if it's misleading, but wage share is the primary talking point in sports.

 

[cade187]

What do you attribute the UFC's massively increased value to if not fighters? I don't know if it's misleading, but wage share is the primary talking point in sports.

The fighters have contributed very little to the increased value. Fighters aren't fighting more in 2022 than they did in 2015, or fighting harder. The product in 2022 is essentially the same product they were selling in 2015. The massive boost to revenue is because the UFC continues to find new ways to sell their product to a global audience. When WME bought the UFC, everyone on here laughed at the 4.4 billion dollar estimation and said they were idiots, the Fertitas conned WME, that the estimation was ballooned, and it was going to fail because all of their stars were retiring. The next year when the new evaluation said the UFC was worth 7 billion, everyone on here laughed and said it was fake news. Today the UFC is estimated to be worth over 12 billion. The product never changed; the UFC just got better at selling it.

 

[blaseblase]

Sickening.

It doesn't matter what data or evidence you show either, some people will still take the company & the corporate bastards side.

We call those people neoliberals

 

[IDL]

I did not.

Which market will produce better products for a consumer? The market with one firm that has no incentive to produce a better product, or a market with multiple firms pressuring each other to fight for consumers with better products? I don't know why mma fans tend to think the sport is somehow the sole exception to economics.

Ah, apologies I got you mixed up with another poster

As for markets, I don't think it's that simple. Personally I find having the best fighters under one banner good for me as a consumer. Much less complicated than having 10 belts in the same weight class across any number of organizations and having multiple world champions just not unified, like boxing. It would water down the entire sport and make it less impactful IMO. That's just my perspective though I don't know what the general populous would respond to.

But in any case, it remains speculative as to what it could look like and function more effectively than the UFC, whereas what is not speculative is that the UFC is doing extremely well in terms of growth and appeal, so clearly their product is resonating with consumers.

 

[avenue94]

The fighters have contributed very little to the increased value. Fighters aren't fighting more in 2022 than they did in 2015, or fighting harder. The product in 2022 is essentially the same product they were selling in 2015. The massive boost to revenue is because the UFC continues to find new ways to sell their product to a global audience.

Right. The core product (fighters) is more valuable. The UFC has done a lot better with sponsor revenue because fighters are so valuable. Ditto with TV deals and guru anteed revenue there, that's attributable to fighters. More specifically, the lag from stars like McGregor and Rousey. I'll also point out that the big covid boom: that's from the fighters. Everything in the UFC is based off of, all its brand equity, it's based on fighters regardless of what way you slice it.

 

[avenue94]

Personally I find having the best fighters under one banner good for me as a consumer.

Again, fighters are usually the sticking point, it's promoters and networks. That's a separate issue effectively.

Much less complicated than having 10 belts in the same weight class across any number of organizations and having multiple world champions just not unified, like boxing.

Which as I mentioned, there doesn't need to be that many belts. You realize that part of the reason boxing has so much dilution is because the UFC helped lobby against strengthening the Ali Act?

But in any case, it remains speculative as to what it could look like and function more effectively than the UFC, whereas what is not speculative is that the UFC is doing extremely well in terms of growth and appeal, so clearly their product is resonating with consumers.

I think that's a logical fallacy. There's no reason that mma is the one economic exception to capitalism. That would just be bizarre to act like the sport doesn't respond to economic incentives and rational incentives the way any other economic actor would. The part your confusing here with the UFC's success isn't that what they are doing is resonating with consumers. That's part of it. But the bigger factor is they've eliminated any competition and raised barriers to entry for new competition. It's simply consumers don't know any better at this point and don't have any other major choices.

 

[Rationality]

No Dana is the devil!

You can not be rational here on sherdog. Dana needs more snow in his driveway!

420 blaze it111!!!!!

I can.

 

[Siver!]

I don't know where they came up with their math, but 19% of 609 million is 115.7 million. 13% of 1.14 billion is 148.2 million. As a percentage of total revenue, yes, that's less, but in actual dollar figures paid to fighters that's 32.5 million more. Plus it's already been pointed out that Conor McGregor has a warping effect on fighter pay because he's paid so much. Conor fought 3 times in 2015, and 0 times in 2022.

These articles are trying to make it sound like fighters took a pay cut, while almost everyone who was fighting for the UFC in 2015 that is still there now makes more money now. The percentage dropped because the UFC made more money, not because fighters' wages got cut.

I'm all for fighters making more money, but let's be honest about the data we're discussing.

You'll find the roster size is bigger than it was in 2015.

 

[Masturbin]

Joe telling Maynard to break his opponent's arm was an off the cuff remark by a scummy dude it was not the company's line lol

 

[cade187]

You'll find the roster size is bigger than it was in 2015.

From what I can see (good sources are hard to find for things like roster size at a specific point in time), the UFC had 560 fighters in February of 2015, as opposed to 594 today (I couldn't find a source for a specific point in 2022). That means, on average, fighters made $206,607 each in 2015, as opposed to $249,494 each in 2022 (based on today's roster size). The 2015 average also drops significantly when you subtract the earnings of Conor McGregor and Ronda Rousey from the pool.

Also, roster size is not that relevant. The important number would be how many times fighters fought, since some fighters are on the roster, but don't compete in a specific calendar year. I'm not going to put the effort into figuring out those numbers.

 

[HHJ]

LOL UFC will never outdo Don King

 

[HHJ]

Imagine being such a fucking lowlife that you side with the company and not the fighters on this.

Doesnt mean that UFC makes Don King look like Santa claus. It doesnt. Anyone saying that is not to be trusted.

 

[JustBleed69]

Stop watching it then or zip it. Non of my fucking business if fighters keep signing to the ufc that's on them.

It's like you guys can't comprehend capitalism or something.

They keep signing because it's the premiere organization with the most exposure.
Maybe you should STFU shilling out for billionaires Mr boot licker company man.

 

[Siver!]

From what I can see (good sources are hard to find for things like roster size at a specific point in time), the UFC had 560 fighters in February of 2015, as opposed to 594 today (I couldn't find a source for a specific point in 2022). That means, on average, fighters made $206,607 each in 2015, as opposed to $249,494 each in 2022 (based on today's roster size). The 2015 average also drops significantly when you subtract the earnings of Conor McGregor and Ronda Rousey from the pool.

Also, roster size is not that relevant. The important number would be how many times fighters fought, since some fighters are on the roster, but don't compete in a specific calendar year. I'm not going to put the effort into figuring out those numbers.

If we're working on sloppy averages, roster size and total number of fights matter.

If we're working things out more specifically, they aren't that important, but like you said, probably not gonna happen.