Without a doubt the most contentious of all the fighter salary issues, determining a fair share of revenues for the fighters is no easy task. I’ve thought about the direction that I wanted to take this piece for some weeks and it has occurred to me that the best format for something such as this is to just put everything on the table and try to make some sense of it.
Defining Fair
There really is no other place to start than defining the word fair; and, in this case it’s a matter of multiple perspectives. Without a doubt, primary consideration must to be given to the opinions and viewpoints of both the promoters (and their organizations) and the fighters – they are the main actors. However, secondary consideration needs to be given towards creating a revenue sharing scheme that is fair to the sport and fair in the eyes of the fans.
It has been reported that the Fertitta brothers dumped close to $40 million of their own wealth into the UFC from 2001 until 2005 (the time before the company began to see a profit). From their point of view and that of other owners and promoters, those that take the financial risks ought to determine the amount of financial rewards they’re entitled to.
However, the financiers of the sport are not the only ones that have tolerated risks in order to grow the sport. The fighters jeopardize their immediate safety and long-term health every time they step into the ring or octagon in order to create the product that generates the revenue out of which financiers reclaim the capital they invested. Should the fighters not be entitled to a substantial portion of the rewards considering the risks they’ve undertaken?
The perspectives of the media and fans are important because they ultimately control the size of the revenue streams that the organizations and fighters are sharing. We’ve seen the result of media and fan support in labour or contract disputes in other industries – what the media writes and fans perceive is not to be ignored.
History has shown that the public generally sides with the labour in debates or disputes that involve wages or working conditions. The parallel history of Corporate America trying to take advantage of its employees at every turn is probably a place to start if you’re looking to justify sentiments of the general public.
Sports, however, has become a different animal of sorts in recent years. No longer are many athletes struggling to make ends meet. We’re now in the era of $125 million baseball contracts, $90 million Nike endorsements, and sports leagues that squabble over 1-2% of their annual billion dollar revenues. You could probably make the argument that MMA is the last sport on earth where a debate still rages as to whether the athletes are making enough money.
If it’s a question of where the moral, political, and purchasing support lies, it’s probably safe to say that the media and fans have fallen in line with history, supporting the underpaid worker fighting “the man.”
Finally, there exists an additional consideration that must be mentioned: what split of the revenues between fighter and promoter is fair for the sport? After all, a revenue sharing scheme deemed to be amicable for both the promoters and fighters might not be what is in the best interest of the sport. In other words, a choice has to be made; either the promoters and fighters milk this “fad” for all its worth now, or they ease their sense of entitlement in order to do what’s best for the future of the sport.
I’m quite confident, having thought about and investigating this topic for some weeks, that, at this stage in the game, there is no such thing as a precise definition of fair as it relates to revenue sharing between promoters and fighters. However, a very broad definition might look something like this:
A fair share of revenues for each party would be an amount that compensates and acknowledges each group for their respective risks taken while also allowing for money to be re-invested into organizations and the sport in order to further develop revenue-earning and profit-generating potential for the future.
Knowledge Is Power
A brilliant man by the name of Sir Francis Bacon once said “knowledge is power.” Few things in business — or life — are more important than this concept and it’s certainly relevant to the issue of fair fighter pay.
Forbes’ estimation that nearly 90% of the MMA industry’s revenue is generated by the UFC, which places Zuffa in a very strong power-position as it relates to establishing an idea of “fair pay;” the company responsible for an overwhelming majority of the revenue is also the company that refuses to share information necessary to determining what “fair” is.
The UFC is notorious for its meticulous control of information which allows them to shape their corporate image exactly as they see fit. Everything from their press credentialing process, pre-approved sponsorship list for fighters, or to the disclosure of financial information such as payouts or income statements is watched, monitored, and bent on the protection of the company.
At this point in time, there simply isn’t much incentive for the UFC to hand over information that could help establish guidelines for fair fighter pay; mostly because it could potentially shrink their margins even further.
Without the organizational-specific and industry-wide numbers necessary to get an accurate assessment of how much money they’re dealing with, the fighters will be forced to use the small information that they do have available in addition to creative substitutes in order to push for compensation that meets their interests.