In an interview with MMA Fighting, Scott Coker indicates that Bellator has been contacted by multiple UFC fighters and managers about its sponsorship policy in light of the revealed pay structure under the new UFC-Reebok deal. He also talked about Bellator business.
The Q&A with Luke Thomas hit all of the salient points although Coker remained neutral in the UFC decision to have Reebok as its sole clothing sponsor and the new pay which appears to negatively affect the pocketbooks of many UFC contracted fighters.
Notably, Coker indicated that Monster Energy Drink remains a Bellator sponsor despite its appearance in the Octagon. He also stated that the company looks to expand its schedule in 2016 which means more Bellator cards for next year. This likely means the possibility of more fighters being signed by the company.
When asked about the potential for a union, Coker was neutral once again about how it would affect MMA.
Payout Perspective:
The query by fighters and managers about Bellator’s sponsorship policy was a likely result after the Reebok sponsor pay tiers were released. But, the issue fighters and managers must decide is whether the sponsors that may pay them $50-$60K right now will pay the same in Bellator. Also, at this point is clear that the UFC, just based on the publicly reported purses, pays more than Bellator. A fighter that sees his sponsor income drop from $60K to $10K may also want to consider where he might be slotted within a Bellator pay structure before jumping ship.
At this point, when non-MMA fans think of the sport of mixed martial arts, they think of the UFC. Non-endemic sponsors know this and thus it seems it would make it a hard sell for a fighter going to Bellator. Even for brands synonymous with MMA, one would think that sponsor pay may be different (i.e, less) in Bellator.
Bjorn Rebney would have answered those questions in a much better way. Scott sucks. As bad as the sponsor pay is now in the UFC, with Scott Coker running Bellator I would stay in the UFC.
haha
Anyone who jumps ship is an idiot. I have seen it many times and laugh my ass off every time it bites them in the ass and it always does. Jens Pulver left and they black balled him for a decade as he begged to get it. Bustamente left and at UFC 88 no one knew who he was and his career sucked after he left. Penn, Rampage, etc. They all come crawling back. Those were the few who had the luxury of coming back.
Fighters have piss poor business sense. They jump for up front flashy pay and fade into obscurity. Being in the UFC gives you a status that pays for the rest of your life. If brings people to your gyms, gets you appearances and gives you advantages in everything you do in life. Being a bellator fighter gives you nothing.
Idiot fighters need to learn how to add value to their sponsorship while being in the UFC. The UFC didn’t ban fighters from having personal sponsors. But they are going to have to find ways other than the UFC to promote their sponsors. Its not hard to do. You have social media and your fans. You can work with sponsors with appearances and promotions. Even if you cant demands the amounts you did before you can definitely still get sponsors and it could very easily fill the gap left by the Reebok money.
The problem is the fighters have no sense and always complain because they can handle their problems. It was their constant complaining about not being able to get sponsors or low sponsor pay that got sponsors 86’d. Fighters need to grow up and learn to handle their shit or they will be going down the same financial ruin that so many boxers have.
nice, brutal, and underscores the pure testosterone larger-than-life high-action feeling that everybody associates with the UFC, Reebok and Johny Hendricks, here with this flagship peace of clothing:
http://www.reebok.com/us/johny-hendricks-racerback-tank/S49299.html
and I may add:
“MMA fans, whether you’re heading to cage or supporting your favorite fighter, this Johny Hendricks tank can’t be beat. The material is soft and fitted for comfort and mobility. And if you look close, you’ll see the Bigg Rigg’s family, wrestling wins, and other highlights curated within its fierce Reebok Delta graphic”
http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/11/boxing-legend-winky-wright-the-future-of-boxing-is-the-ufc/
HAHAHAHA!!! Winky Wright even acknowledges the public interest is much more focused on MMA.
Bahaha winky! Another idiot who cant read or count. The numbers clearly prove otherwise . He is also a client of reebok bahahha. Lets find more stupid people to quote. The ufc is non existent in the black and latino comunity. So I guess winky is speaking for his white boy friends hahahha
I knew that one would drive Sal nuts. Even the boxers see it. HAHAHAHA!!
1. All winky said is that boxing isn’t putting together big fights. When they do, 5 million. PPVs happen.
That’s what I love about the MMA model, we get marquee matchups.
2. Blacks and Latinos do know about MMA. But most don’t care unless they wrestled in HS
I can’t post in the other article for some reason…I’ll just make my last point here since we’re still talking about Reebok and fighter pay:
d,
If I went by only the disclosed salaries, not including POTN bonuses and backroom stuff, it’d be like 3% of revenue.
According to Fertita the fighters are getting like $40-50mm a year
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/UFCpay/ufc-fighters-say-low-pay-most-painful-hit-all
The UFC still had $110mm profit, that’s after paying for all their overhead costs.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-assigns-Ba3-rating-to-Zuffas-Ba3-CFR-new-bank–PR_265693
* According to Moody’s 12/2/2011 credit opinion, Zuffa had an EBITDA margin of 39% in 2010. That would mean the company had revenue of $419.1 million in 2010 *
40 / 419 = 9% of revenues going to the fighters.
Pretty much the league is trying to grow as much as possible on the backs on the fighters before they decide to get together and demand more pay.
S&P even mentions it:
***Zuffa could face increased labor costs in the future if fighters organize (union) and seek a higher share of revenue, which is the case for most major sports in the U.S.***
http://mmapayout.com/2011/11/zuffa-maintains-bb-credit-rating/
No sir, that is not all he said.
He also said that the UFC is so far ahead of boxing when it comes to public interest, that the only way to close the gap … is to rip off their swag.
5m ppvs never happened by the way. Why do people get their statistics from promoters?
That may be the case. But if it is it’s because boxing isn’t putting together big matchups like the UFC is.
That’s the crux of the issue.
Also, I made a post that you can’t see cause it’s awaiting moderation. If it ever gets approved you’ll see it 3 times cause I wasn’t sure if it was something I was doing wrong.
No, that’s part of the case. The other part is the fact that more people in the US are interested in mma than boxing because there is more action in the fights than boxing at a championship level.
Hahah why aren’t we talking about this ghetto reebok deal? Lol
Who gives a rats ass what punchy i mean winky has to say. There isn’t a number in the world that back it up. Oh boy another boxing thread bahahahha
@ Random Dude “The UFC didn’t ban fighters from having personal sponsors. But they are going to have to find ways other than the UFC to promote their sponsors. Its not hard to do. ”
Sponsors will never pay good money to be shown everywhere except where it really matters: the octagon and fight week,. Case in point: Reebok agreed not to have exclusivity on those terms. If there was any money to be made there, you can bet your ass it would have been covered one way or another.
Hahaha. Sal in full spin mode. HAHAHA!!
You are right D all those new TUF numbers sure prove your delusional point! bahahahah bahahahha please spin that!
The Contenders numbers are much better. Hahaha.
Ppv of mayweather vs pac is so high….rematch will be ordered by people who made money from the first one….may could end up with 200 m is just overwhelming….boxing industry can generate that kind of money….35 mil from tv rights internationally global,truly global even the president of cambodia participated publicly that he bet on pacman….amazing
Hahaha. Kevin Iole numbers. Hahaha.
JF, they don’t have to pay good money. Any money is extra money. I know for a fact some fighters are doing it and keeping sponsors. Paige Van Zant and Felice Herring are constantly give shout outs and promoting their sponsors on facebook. The mid level and bottom guys can easier get a few grand each any get a handful of sponsors to cover any sponsor money they lost. Top guys might not be able to lock up big money deals this way but once with large followings can demand bigger pay if they are willing to work with sponsors. Fighters acting like there is a total sponsor ban and they had money stolen from them is misleading on their part and to be honest greedy and lazy of them to be making such a fuss. It’s times fighters started appreciating the sponsors and start having some loyalty to them. rather than just taking their money. It should be a mutual relationship with both respecting each other and both wanting to do everything they can for the other. That’s what I see from the woman of the sport. They are passionate about their sponsors and creatively include them in their social media posts and pictures. Like Misha Tate does with Fit Mate. She is making use of her hundreds of thousands of followers.
Boxing knows when to bail! the UFC just keeps sinking and sinking and sinking! Show me one number that is up???? hahaha Oh I know a number that is up… The UFC debt bahahahahha
Sal ranting again like the nut he is.
Canelo vs kirkland the two made millions i think kirkland got 1.5 m……boxing where the moneys at hahahaha
How much did they get from the ppv points? HAHAHAHAHA!!
Yes some Boxers make millions, a few make hundreds of millions, but don’t worry the UFC fighters get ppv points from ppv’s and all the fighters make a fortune off of tuf and fox fights! and don’t forget the big money ufc fighters get from the reebok deal bahahahah bahahahhaha the UFC pays fighters what NFL players got in the 1960’s and what boxers got in the 1860’s. Oh boy
And theyre locker room bonuses that dw makes it sound mysterious so people would assume its big hahahahahaha
0 PPV Points for both. HAHAHAHA!! They can’t sell shit on ppv with the exception of 2 boxers who are going to retire shortly.
Joe, your math is contradictory, doesn’t add up and you just made up fictitious quotes of Lorenzo Fertitta. He never made any statements about how the fighters making 40-50m. He said the following:
When asked what percentage of that revenue goes to fighters, Fertitta said it’s “not far off what the other sports leagues pay as a percentage of revenue.”
Revenue-sharing formulas in the NBA, MLB, NFL and NHL give athletes about 50 percent of revenue. “[It’s] in that neighborhood, yeah,” Fertitta said.
That quote alone destroys your entire equation.
“If I went by only the disclosed salaries, not including POTN bonuses and backroom stuff, it’d be like 3% of revenue.”
First off, that is false, and even if it wasn’t the majority of fighter pay comes from ppv points anyway.
The source you gave for Moody’s also doesn’t exist.
If you also bother to read the ESPN article, their focus is on how frustrated low ranked fighters are and how they are underpaid. The focus isn’t on the top tier fighters. But if one is to be critical of the low ranked ufc fighters, why aren’t they of their boxing counterparts who often pay to fight on a major ppv undercard and receive far less than UFC fighters.
Also, “Joe” another thing to point out- you are saying that the fighters are paid 9% of the gross. Do you see what the issue is with that? Even if that number were correct, which it isn’t, 9% of the gross is a lot different than 9% of the net. You do realize that pro athletes in the 4 major sports leagues in the US split the NET, not the gross, right?
d,
“Among items Fertitta noted:
• Since 2005, the first year the UFC became profitable, the company has paid more than $250 million to its fighters.”
The league paid $250mm to athletes in a 6-7 year timespan. Divide that you’ll get a ballpark of what they’re paying annually.
250 / 6 = $41mm
250 / 7 = $35mm
I gave them the benefit of doubt and said they’re paying $40-$50mm
Fertita says they’re in the 50% ballpark when they’re really in the 10% range.
Try the link again or google the info using keywords. It should work.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-assigns-Ba3-rating-to-Zuffas-Ba3-CFR-new-bank–PR_265693
4.6 leverage / 510 debt = $110mm EBITDA
My focus is on all the MMA guys. They’re all underpaid by the UFC as a league if typical league pay in major American sports is about 50% of revenue.
Baseball grossed $8 billion dollars:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/12/17/major-league-baseball-sees-record-revenues-exceed-8-billion-for-2013/
The player salaries were $3.2 billion dollars.
http://deadspin.com/2014-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1551868969
That’s a 40% share. And the players get to renegotiate it in 2016.
UFC is at a 10% share. They are not in the neighborhood.
Joe, that is some interesting math you have there.
You are taking years like 2005 and saying those numbers are on par with a year like 2010? In 2010, the did probably 4x what they did ppv buys wise in 2005. They aren’t the same. You are cherry picking stats.
I guess you didn’t bother to read this quote in your own source about baseball salaries:
“These numbers are not exact, because precise contracts are closely guarded secrets. But this is as good as we’re going to get.”
If that number of 3.2b is correct, that would mean the players are getting considerably more than 50%. It would mean they were receiving without question over 75% of the net and I don’t believe the owners would stand for that for a minute. Again, these are cherry picked statistics that do not add up.
Most analysts would tell you that the 4 major sports leagues split the profits up around 50%, not the gross- the net. That is more than the UFC without question which is why there should be improvement, but nowhere near where you are claiming they should be.
The UFC is splitting the profits closer to 30% most likely with the fighters.
D,
Do you have some numbers to back up your 30% split claim or are you pulling that out your butt?
Also, the MLB numbers are what they are. They’ve got a great union.
NBA revenue for 2014 was $5b
NBA salaries for 2014 was $2.1b
42% going to players and they get to renegotiate in 2017
MMA guys are getting hosed.
Joe, all of your numbers are being pulled out of your butt. I just literally proved that. You can’t even contradict anything I pointed out because you know how ridiculous what you claimed was. If those numbers were true- the MLB owners could arguably be making nothing depending on what their overhead is. Same goes for the NBA. These numbers you are throwing out there are completely false.
Based on your numbers, it would actually be higher if they were being paid 40m and EBITDA was $110m.
D,
You haven’t disproven anything. You’re just saying what you hope is so. I’ve provided sources while you just talk out your butt.
Now, what was that last thing you said? I don’t understand your last sentence, please rephrase it for me.
Joe, I proved your sources wrong. I pointed out your own source claiming those numbers were just their estimations-which means THEY were literally pulling their numbers out of their butt. You source was deadspin which is a gossip column and you claim I am fabricating numbers? I pointed out the logic that 3.2b in payouts to the players out of revenues at 8b would leave the owners penniless. You do realize they have massive amounts of overhead, right?
My last comment was that according to you, the percentage of net revenue the UFC fighters were making would be higher than 30% seeing how they were paid $40m and EBITDA was $110m. That of course would be considering the fighters were only paid 40m which is highly unlikely- it was much more seeing how that was one of their biggest years ever and you averaged it out including years like 2005 where their biggest ppv drew a measly 280k buys.
d,
Yes, they’re estimates based on publicly available available information, Moody’s reports, and Lorenzo Fertita. Given those sources we can come up with a pretty good estimate.
Why are you launching ad hominem attacks against DeadSpin. You can easily corroborate the information by using Google. But you rather not seek the facts.
Show me some data proving that $3.2b in payouts to the players out of $8b in revenue would leave the owners penniless.
And while you’re looking that up, do the same for the NBA cause they have a similar revenue split.
Finally, the $110m is the profit after fighter pay and overhead is covered.
The fighters would not be getting more than 30% of the net revenue as you claim.
The net revenue w/o fighter pay subtracted already is $150mm
40 / 150 = 26% of EBITDA.
Anyway, that’s not what we should be debating because the other sports leagues are paying 40% of gross revenue! I’ve shown you those numbers.
The UFC grosses over $300m (lowball number).
d,
You want it to me one way…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY
But it’s the other way.
Honestly the UFC is growing too fast, imo. They should’ve done it more organically. But I understand that they didn’t want to risk another promotion coming in and stealing of of their thunder.
The problem though is you are cherry picking the statistics from different sources and using the numbers that best suit your argument.
Show me some evidence that proves first off that the mlb players are making 3.2b other than something claiming estimates or what their profit margin is. Your entire argument is theoretical and you are accusing me of just throwing out numbers.
“The fighters would not be getting more than 30% of the net revenue as you claim.
The net revenue w/o fighter pay subtracted already is $150mm
40 / 150 = 26% of EBITDA.”
First off, I didn’t say they were making over 30%. I challenged your statements that the UFC fighters were making around 10%. My point which I said clearly was that they were making 25-30% of the net. Then it seems like you altered your argument to the ufc fighters were making 10% of the gross, which may be true and wouldn’t be that unreasonable seeing how much overhead the UFC has. This delusion you have where pro sports teams are paying their athletes over 40% of the gross is delusional. The owners would be making a fraction of the profits. Again, are you aware of how overhead works? You have yet to provide the numbers. You use tabloid journalism who admit they just guessed basically at what the numbers were. You didn’t account for overhead which is why this is completely illogical argument you are presenting. So what are you claiming the costs are to operate in MLB? Only 20%? Then it would be a 50-50 split, right? If so, you need to really reevaluate overhead. They massive amounts of costs. How about the NFL? The players and the league split revenues approximately 50-50 from any source who has analyzed the numbers. Are you claiming the NFL has only 20% in operational costs also? This is such a silly argument. There is no way your math adds up.
Also, something to point out, if your numbers are correct, and MLB and the other major sports franchises are only carrying operating costs of roughly 20% of the revenue, that is not the same as the operating costs of the UFC according to your source if they are generating 400m and only netting 150m.
Either way, your analysis is off because on one hand if your math is correct, that means the operating costs percentage wise, for the 4 major sports leagues are a fraction of what they are for the UFC. Thus making your analogy flawed. And if your math is off and the operating costs are high like they are in the UFC, then the split is similar to those sports leagues.
d,
Let’s start from the top:
MLB grossed $8 billion:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/12/17/major-league-baseball-sees-record-revenues-exceed-8-billion-for-2013/
MLB Payrolls were $3.2 billion:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/2015-payroll-obligations-by-team.html
That’s 40% going to the players. It’s not rocket science, D
” I challenged your statements that the UFC fighters were making around 10%. My point which I said clearly was that they were making 25-30% of the net. Then it seems like you altered your argument to the ufc fighters were making 10% of the gross”
My argument was always that fighters needed 40-50% of gross to be on par with the other leagues, D.
You didn’t think it could possibly be true and claimed that the other leagues were splitting the Net. But I’ve proven you wrong when it comes to that as well.
Remember when you said this:
“Also, “Joe” another thing to point out- you are saying that the fighters are paid 9% of the gross. Do you see what the issue is with that? Even if that number were correct, which it isn’t, 9% of the gross is a lot different than 9% of the net. You do realize that pro athletes in the 4 major sports leagues in the US split the NET, not the gross, right?”
Then I gave you the MLB numbers above and the NBA numbers seen below and proved my point.
NBA revenue for 2014 was $5b
NBA salaries for 2014 was $2.1b
42% going to players.
All you’re doing is asking a bunch of questions and not providing any actual information.
D, the numbers are above. If you don’t agree with the numbers, provide some evidence of your position.
If the UFC wants to claim it’s in the big leagues, it’s got to split that gross.
Hell, even if the UFC only split the profits 50/50 it’d be an upgrade. The fighters would go from $40mm to $75mm
So recap:
We agree that the fighters are underpaid.
Compared to other sports leagues’ revenue splits, I’ve proven that they are severely underpaid.
A 50/50 split of gross as in other leagues, or net revenues as you desire, would more than double fighter pay.
Let’s you and I fight together for better fighter pay, D
d,
I posted a reply. I’m just waiting for it to get approved
Joe, you just proved my point. You’ve already altered your original argument, which is devolving as we speak. Now your argument(which I still disagree with because you are sourcing tabloids that even admit they are guesses at best), is that the players split the gross at 40% of the gross. So again, I will make this very clear and I know you will dodge my point, because it destroys your entire argument- if that is the case, that would mean one of 2 things-
1. the owners are not profiting at all which we both know would create a league lockout.
2. The league’s overhead cost are extremely minimal- like 10-20% minimal. (Considering the players do not assume any of the overhead, I find this insanely impossible to believe. They don’t pay for stadiums, they don’t pay for referees, they don’t pay league commissioner’s salaries like Goodell’s 44m salary, the only thing they pay for are union dues and taxes.)
And if it is that low of overhead costs and I am wrong about the gross, to compare the gross of the UFC which you even admit based your numbers is considerably higher makes your entire argument completely flawed and the fact that you continue to argue this makes you look very silly.
I’ll wait for you to dodge my last point again.
*split the revenue at 40% of the gross*
D,
Player salaries in the major league sports are made public and the media report in them regularly. If you choose to pretend my numbers aren’t accurate, please provide some that are.
1. The NBA and MLB have had lockouts in the last 20 years, I believe. When the owners feel like they’re losing money they do what they must.
2. And, no, it’s not flawed. Just because the UFC Chooses to spend its money on things other than fighter pay doesn’t mean they don’t generate enough money to properly pay their fighters.
It just proves that their priorities are not the athletes
Even if they just split the net ebitda like you’d like it would double the fighter pay.
Joe, player’s salaries are made public, but the revenue the MLB makes is NOT! So again, you are just using people’s guesses about the figures coming in.
Yes, they locked out the leagues, 20 years ago in the mlb and balanced the revenue out. Are you arguing that the owners aren’t making any money? They aren’t operating at a profit and are just giving the players 3b while they are running a charity? The league wouldn’t exist if the owners weren’t making at least a 50-50 split with the players.
What are you saying they are spending money on? You do realize the international expansion and the money they used to buy out the other leagues came from that massive 500m loan right? That is debt that is still being carried. Has nothing to do with this equation and isn’t affecting fighter’s pay at all.
I knew you would dodge my point. You can’t have it both ways. Your math can’t add up.
I’ll ask you one more time to see if you have any integrity on this matter- if the mlb and other sport’s leagues are getting paid 40% of the gross, then that means the league is only carrying overhead costs in the 10-20% range, unless the owners aren’t making money- in which case there would be no sports league. So with that being the case, how can you compare a sport where the overhead costs- (by your own statistics) are at over 60% to sports where their overhead is only 10-20%(based on your numbers again)?
Can’t be rationalized.
d,
I’m not going to continue going back and forth with you about the other sports leagues. You said the players weren’t getting 40-50% of gross, I’ve provided evidence to the contrary, that point is proven.
D,
When the owners feel like they’re losing money, they lock the players out to renegotiate the CBA. The NBA, MLB and recently the NHL have all done this. Hell, hockey players were getting 75% or the revenue until this new CBA got done.
The point I was making in my previous post was that even though the players are getting 40% of revenue, the owners are indeed still doing ok. When they’re not, we know about it.
d,
I’m not going to speculate specifically what the revenue is being spent on. But there is strong evidence that it’s not going towards the fighters. I really think it’s just a case of the league expanding too much too soon.
I really don’t know what point you were trying to make by bringing up their loan. Please explain.
Why are you ASSuming that the MLB overhead is in the 10-20% range? The only information I’ve posted is the fact that the players are getting 40% of the revenue in those leagues. If you have more detailed info please post the sources for us.
And I’m not the one comparing the UFC to these other sports. Dana is.
Even compared to the MLS the UFC looks bad:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/7/8/4503598/examining-dana-whites-ufc-pay-claims-mls-comparisons
Pay the fighters, Dana!
I know you’re with me on that, d B-)
No, you have yet to prove anything about how much the league is bringing in. You can keep repeating you proved it while not proving it, but that doesn’t mean you are correct. Unless of course you do not know what the word “prove” means. You can’t prove what they are grossing, because those figures are not released. All of your sources are even acknowledging they are estimates or are not providing sources and are just making claims that are unsubstantiated. With that being said, your logic is still wrong and you once again, are attempting to spin the math that makes your argument impossible to be correct.
I am going to lay this out as basic and elementary as possible so it is impossible for you to dodge.
Since neither of us can prove the gross being brought in, I don’t even care about that, let’s say for argument sake you are correct about 40% of the gross being paid out. So for mlb, 40% or 3.2b of the gross goes to the players. That means that 4.8b or 60% goes to the owners before any overhead costs. So of that 60% that goes to the owners.
Now, according to YOUR NUMBERS, the UFC’s figures(even though you cherry picked them equating ’05 numbers to ’10 numbers) are as follows: The net revenue w/o fighter pay subtracted already is $150mm
40 / 150 = 26% of EBITDA.” So, your claim is that the net is 150m and 40m is going to the fighters. You ballparked a figure of 419m in 2010. Claiming they received 9% of the gross(even though we know you cherry picked this number and the fighters without question were paid more than this in 2010), But the issue is that the UFC only netted 110m that year. So, the overhead costs were 64% and 269m of the gross, just based off of your figures. This means they only have a gross margin of 36%.
Now, your spin to this is that you don’t know what they are spending on overhead speculating that they could be misusing the revenue on other ventures. But the issue with that is, that money does NOT go towards the debt they are carrying which paid for the international expansion or purchasing of Elitexc, etc. Now if you attempt to spin that and claim those remaining revenues went somewhere else, please provide some evidence of it or just acknowledge you are pulling that shit out of your ass. By that same analogy, we don’t know what MLB is spending their overhead on-maybe they could be spending it on gold toilets for the clubhouses. The only difference is we know that the UFC has a 500m debt that they used to expand internationally on.
So, now if MLB is paying the players 40% or 3.2b of their gross and are taking in 60% or 4.8b of the gross(according to your numbers), and we compared this to the UFC’s percentages, there is a bit of a conflict. Do you see what it is? If the UFC is carrying overhead costs of 64% of the gross(again your numbers), and they paid the fighters 40% of the gross, they would be operating at a loss in order to pay their fighters more than they deserved.
Now, your only angle after reviewing YOUR NUMBERS is to say that the UFC spends their money on things that aren’t beneficial to the league and solely for their own miscalculations, selfish benefit, etc., which is as absurd as saying the same thing about MLB because you have ZERO EVIDENCE to draw that conclusion. Yet demand evidence from others.
So to be clear, again, your math doesn’t add up. You are claiming(again through your numbers) that the UFC should be paying the same percentage you claim the MLB is, where if they did that, they would be operating at a loss based on….wait for it……..YOUR NUMBERS! If you dodge this point again, you are clearly trolling.
So to be clear, should they pay their HEADLINERS somewhat more? YES. Should there be changes to the contracts like the champion’s clause and a fighter’s ability to secure sponsorship on their own? YES. But to expect the salaries to bankrupt the league is insane.
By the way, I completely disagree with your assessment of the gross being brought in, in 2010. The ppv revenue alone was over 419m based on the buyrates estimated by Meltzer who has no bias at all. Unless of course that figure was based after the ppv companies took their cut. Either way, this was before the UFC secured the FOX deal and several other tv contracts so they are bringing in more revenue and they are also paying out far more these days in fighter pay according to reputable sources notably fighters/trainers/managers discussing how fighters are acquiring lower goals on their ppv contracts, more fights are added to cards and more cards overall- in 2010 there were a fraction of the events they have now. More cards= more fighter pay.
By the way, that Bloody Elbow sourcing was a joke. They sourced their figures from the guy at mmasentinal.
This is what kind of idiot you sourced-
“Calculating Event Revenue: I went through every UFC event in 2011 and noted the Gate Receipts and PPV buys for each event. I assumed each PPV buy was worth $30 to the UFC.”
Really? How did he come to that conclusion seeing how the cost of a ppv back then was $45/$55 and the cable providers like Verizon and Comcast get 50% plus another 10% from In Demand. So the cable providers get 60% of that average $50 ppv buy. That would mean it was worth $20 per buy for the UFC. Even if you throw in the gate numbers which are a fraction of what the ppv brings in, it wouldn’t be close to $30 per buy. That alone should just flush this source straight down the toilet and gives bloodyelbow a black eye.
http://mmapayout.com/2008/07/inside-ppv-breaking-down-the-numbers/
Also, the real kicker is the formula this idiot used for determining ppv points. He was too stupid to realize that not everyone who has ppv in their contract has the same goals. He used Eddie Alvarez’s contract as the norm, where we already had Randy Couture’s contract disclosed prior showing considerably lower goals, more money per buy and proving they aren’t all the same. We’ve also seen fighters like GSP, Tito, Couture, Quinton Jackson(the latter 3 have zero love for the UFC) claim they’ve made far more than what this “investigator” claims for ppv points.
Plus, when doing his calculations, he averaged out the numbers which brought down the buy rate because the higher an event goes, the more the event generates for a given fighter with ppv on his contract. IE, when you attempt to average the ppv buys annually out and divide them by the events given, you don’t accurately determine the points paid out, because of the way the scale grows for a fighter’s points. He even acknowledges this, which goes to show how idiotic he is make these claims with this formula and then basically say, but we know this is false. Haha.
That again shows how poorly researched this study was and how inaccurate his figures were.
D,
Here’s what we know about MLB and NBA, and the other league sports of that ilk.
The players get a 40 – 50% split of the revenue.
We also know the player salaries.
The media also does research and has sources that provide information. It happens ALL the time.
We know that the information given to the media(the revenue) aligns with information that we have (the salaries).
Of course Forbes and the others have the attendance numbers, tv contract information, etc. And they are able to get a great estimate that way.
Now, according to the numbers about the UFC, the fighter pay can be Doubled and the league will continue to profit.
That’s been my position throughout. To get the athletes more money.
The fact that they’re spending money on global expansion and paying out dividends isn’t my focus.
The truth remains that the company generates enough revenue to greatly increase fighter pay, and it has enough profit left over to at least double fighter pay.
They’d obviously rather spend the money elsewhere, though. It’s just that simple.
If you’re going to accept the numbers that I’ve given then you have to accept that as well.
If you’re not going to accept my information, then source your own Moody’s and S&P articles and media research. I’ll wait.
I’ll say it again so it’s not lost on anyone:
the company generates enough revenue to greatly increase fighter pay, and it has enough profit left over to double fighter pay.
Scott Coker on his history of fighter pay:
“When I was in business with the Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment Group and half the company was owned by the group that owns the San Jose Sharks, we kind of set up our pay structure based upon like a hockey union would do. We paid minimum 68 percent of our gross income to our athletes pay structure. If there was a union, I don’t think that would take us off guard by any means because when we structured Strikeforce, we structured based around kind of like if there was a union.”
68% of gross going to the athletes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU ARE TROLLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You hate the fact that you know my point proves you dead wrong and you just can’t accept it. BASED ON YOUR INFORMATION- the UFC CAN’T double their pay and still even show a profit, yet you ONCE AGAIN DODGED THAT POINT!!!
Your sources are a joke by the way, I debunked one of them miserably above.
There is no point at attempting to debate this with you because you are clearly a troll. And you know it.
d,
Moody’s is not a joke.
They say the UFC profits were $110mm.
The estimated fighter pay is $40mm, but let’s make if $50mm for argument’s sake.
That means that the pay could DOUBLE to $100mm and the league(Dana, Fertitas and Flash Ent.) would still be able to split the other profit.
The money to pay the fighters is there.
d,
Strikeforce was paying a 68% of gross.
The other major sports leagues are paying 40 – 50% of gross.
Present to us some numbers that show the UFC paying that well.
Joe,
I never said Moody’s was a joke. I was talking about your source about UFC fighter payouts, etc. above. I will accept that the UFC’s profits were 110m from 2010.
The estimated fighter pay was not 40m in 2010 though. They had nearly 9m ppv buys. You attempted to lump that in the same year as something like 2005. Brock Lesnar probably made around 8 or 9m himself alone that year.
I’m glad you finally realized your math didn’t add up and now you are claiming they shouldn’t have to pay the 40% gross the other leagues were paying out. Because paying 100m out of 419m is less than 25% of the gross. So, to conclude, you can not compare this league to the 4 major sports leagues because according to your numbers, they have far less overhead. Consider this was the point of your entire argument, this kind of ends the discussion doesn’t it?
“My argument was always that fighters needed 40-50% of gross to be on par with the other leagues, D.”
Now the issue you are claiming is that they should have to pay out of the 160m net- 100m to the fighters. So according to you, the OWNERS, who took major risk, invested hundreds of millions of their own money into a company, dedicated their time- work 80 hrs per week, etc on this thing, should only take in 37% of the net?? Granted there is skilled labor involved, but that notion is absurd. The owners should be making around 60% of the net at least and that extra money should only go to headlining fighters.
D,
Lorenzo said they paid out $250mm in a 6 or 7 year span.
How much do you think the fighters got each year. Give me a break down.
The fighters can get 50% of gross if that’s what the league decides to invest in.
In the case of the UFC they’re focusing on other aspects yet still have a clean profit of $110mm
Even if we assumed the fighter pay was, no $40mm like the numbers suggest, but $70mm which doesn’t make sense based on what Lorenzo says, they could still DOUBLE the fighter pay and turn a profit.
The money is there to pay the fighters.
I don’t know the specifics of how much they paid out per year as a whole. Neither of us do. What I do know is how illogical it is to average out the figure that Fertitta claimed, where one year they do literally less than half of the ppv buys that they do in another year.
If the fighters got 50% of the gross in 2010, the UFC would be operating at a $49.5m loss. Again, your numbers. You are now backtracking what you just said above where you conceded that they didn’t have to pay out that 40-50% gross. I’m guessing because you recognized that it conflicts with your original statement about the thesis of your argument here.
“In the case of the UFC they’re focusing on other aspects yet still have a clean profit of $110mm”
You have ZERO evidence to validate this. This would be like me saying, the owners in MLB are focusing on other aspects with their expenses. You demand others to present evidence, yet never give any of your own.
“Even if we assumed the fighter pay was, no $40mm like the numbers suggest, but $70mm which doesn’t make sense based on what Lorenzo says, they could still DOUBLE the fighter pay and turn a profit.”
Again, your argument is evolving, and has shifted from your original focus. But to address this statement, the goal of a business isn’t to pay labor nearly double what you are profiting. Anyone who would do that is insane and idiotic. Do some research and check out throughout the business world- see how many businesses pay labor that much. Most businesses don’t pay a fraction of that.
d,
We already knew that the fighters weren’t getting 50% of the gross. But that’s not because the money isn’t there.
Moody’s says that their profit (ebitda) was $110mm. That’s the evidence.
I wish that the UFC would scrap their expansion strategy and better compensate their athletes. But I do enjoy the sport. I want to see them grow an do well.
So, I concede that they are well within their right to expand and invest. But even with that expansion, they have a profit of $110mm.
Your mistake is that you’re comparing the UFC to standard businesses. You need to be comparing it to sports business.
In sports leagues the athletes get 40-50%. In the UFC they’re not even getting half that.
Pay the damn fighters!. What kind of horrible owner funds expansion by underpaying their employees. You fund that with your profits. UFC is practicing bad ethics.
Strikeforce was growing while paying 68% of gross to the fighters.
I’ve never seen someone dodge blatant evidence like this before. It is clear cut.
Your numbers were 110m to promoter out of 419m. 40/50m to the fighters. If they paid out 50% of the gross to the fighters, they would be operating at a massive financial loss in the 50m range. This information is based on your data-which I don’t even believe the payouts for but I will play ball with you on because it still debunks your angle.
Their expansion strategy has nothing to do with the overhead in your figures. It isn’t coming out of the 419m. That is a fabrication that you are pulling out of your ass. The massive loan they have yet to pay back is where that money went for expansion/buying out Elitexc.
Are you going to continue to dodge this point that demolishes your argument?
At this point you know you are trolling. You are headed into territory of Sampson, Fightbusiness, Leon, Sal, etc.
By the way, just to add some more info for why your figures are off, observe:
The UFC had the following ppv buys from 2005-2011 annually:
-2005: 1.76m
-2006: 5.27m
-2007: 4.935m
-2008: 6.325m
-2009: 8.02m
-2010: 8.98m
-2011: 6.47m
Your analysis was to take the 250m figure that Fertitta stated and divided equally between 7 years. The issue with this is we know for those years, that ppv was generating around 75% of the gross for the UFC and ppv points were responsible for the biggest payouts for the fighters, not purses. So the amount of ppv buys in a given year back then, accounted for a major part of how much was being paid for the fighters- it was the overwhelming majority of the payouts based on disclosed contracts and surrounding info. So if we are going to look at that 250m number and come away with an accurate figure for what was paid out to the fighters in 2010, based on the ppv buys that year, the figure should be more like 46+m. Not 35, not 40 and that 46m+ is probably a low ball figure because it doesn’t include expansion from years prior.
d,
Here’s what we know.
in that 7 year window the UFC paid out $250mm
We also know that in 2010 they had an EBITDA of $110mm. Their best year of PPV sales.
If you proportionally slice the PPV numbers you gave me, plus $250mm paid out according to Lorenzo, here’s what we get
-2005: 1.76m = $10.5mm paid to atheletes
-2006: 5.27m = $31.5mm
-2007: 4.935m = 29.4mm
-2008: 6.325m = $37.8mm
-2009: 8.02m = $47.9mm
-2010: 8.98m = $53.7mm
-2011: 6.47m = 38.7mm
The $40-$50mm dollar estimate that we’ve been working with falls right in line.
So here we are again.
The UFC could have DOUBLED fighter pay and still had a good profit.
The money is there. Pay the fighters!
So again, you once again are proven to be a troll and are admitting the entire point of your argument was flawed. You said:
“My argument was always that fighters needed 40-50% of gross to be on par with the other leagues, D.”
Now you’ve altered that argument to they should double their pay because you realized based on your numbers they would be operating at a massive loss if they paid out that type of revenue. Either way, that would still be unreasonable seeing how the owners should be making more of the profit. There should be a pay escalation. Arguably 10-15% of the profits more, but your expectations of what labor should be paid makes you sound like Karl Marx. By the way, the fighters are also insured by the UFC which is very significant seeing how what type of sport they are involved in. That is both in and out of the Octagon. Do you think boxing promoters offer that to their fighters who make pennies?
The biggest issue I see is the inability for fighters to seek free agency and the abuse of control over a fighter’s likeness, etc. That should be the focus, not expecting the owners to payout double to labor than they are paying themselves.
d,
the fact is that to be on par with other leagues (NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, MLS, WNBA, etc) the athletes should get 40-50% of gross. That’s what those other leagues are paying.
I haven’t altered that argument. It is what it is. They pay that, so if the UFC wants to be on par with them they’ve got to pay it to.
What I’m choosing to do is move our conversation forward and not get stuck debating in circles about things that we disagree on.
Where we disagree:
You say that if the UFC paid our 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.
I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.
Where we agree:
The UFC had an EBITDA of $110mm.
The fighter pay based on the info is about $50mm.
That means they can DOUBLE the pay across the board and still be very profitable.
When you search for stories about UFC and Fighter pay it’s overwhelmingly negative. Why not remedy the situation and just pay the athletes a better wage. Do you think the fighters would have had this uproar about the Reebok deal if their pay was better? Do you think the management teams are meeting in Las Vegas now by pure coincidence?
The shit seems to be hitting the fan and it is something that the league can ameliorate.
The benefit of sports ownership is in the growth in value of the league or franchise when it’s time to sell. Typically, the front office guys do make less than their stars in salary each year. Check out how much NFL execs get…
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/21715610/we-know-roger-goodells-salary-because-nfl-is-taxexempt-nonprofit
In summation…
Pay the damn fighters! The money is there!
Well, you can’t move this to not getting stuck in circles because you are creating them.
This is very simple- I will explain this once again-
“My argument was always that fighters needed 40-50% of gross to be on par with the other leagues, D.”
This was your argument. And if the UFC paid their fighters 40-50% of the gross, they would be operating at a loss of close to 50m per year based on your numbers.
End of debate.
Also, just so you know, the managers are meeting because they are going to become obsolete because one of their main job descriptions is to secure sponsorship. Plus, again, for the 10 millionth time, the fighters who are involved in this lawsuit and this uproar are undercard, low profile fighters for the most part, that have very little to complain about. They do not sell the fights and are completely replaceable. You do realize the big named fighters aren’t joining the lawsuit- even Tito Ortiz and Randy Couture who hate Dana White. They are the only ones who have a legitimate gripe about fighter pay. The current ppv stars in the UFC aren’t complaining about pay and they are the only ones who deserve to be.
Go check out what boxers make on an undercard. Even the lowest profile UFC card’s prelim fighters have an 8k/8k contract with possibility of securing a 50k bonus and are insured outside of the octagon. Major boxing ppv’s often have fighters making 2-3k with no insurance outside of the ring, and after training/managerial fees, these guys are literally paying to fight. Boxing is 10x worse, yet I don’t see you griping about that sport. Why? Just because the top 3 stars make crazy money because they co promote their events? And those guys aren’t even your focus- which is the undercard fighters.
Also, your comments about NFL execs makes zero sense to the topic at hand and was a poorly researched article anyway. What was the point of sourcing that? They are not owners, they are executives and Roger Goodell will make more than any player this year- he was paid 44m in 2012. So not only was this irrelevant, but you were incorrect.
d,
You say that if the UFC paid our 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.
I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.
—–
To be on par with the other leagues, you agree the UFC has to pay 40-50% of gross.
By doubling fighter pay, which is well within their abilities, they can get a little closer to what the other leagues are paying.
Again,
The UFC had an EBITDA of $110mm.
The fighter pay based on the info is about $50mm.
That means they can DOUBLE the pay across the board and still be very profitable.
—
I brought up the NFL execs to show you that typically the players make more than the executives.
The benefit of ownership comes when you sell, from the growth in value of the franchise
http://wagesofwins.com/2013/01/22/lebron-is-right-about-nba-owners/
Sports business isn’t like regular business
—
In summation,
If the UFC wants to be on par with the other leagues it should pay fighters 40-50% of gross.
If they choose not to, the least they could do is DOUBLE their pay.
The money is there.
Pay the fighters like the major league sport you pretend to be!
“But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.”
It isn’t a debate between me and you, these were YOUR NUMBERS!! I’m just going by what you are stating. I don’t even agree with your numbers with the MLB, but I accepted them just to point out how your argument doesn’t add up no matter how you attempt to angle it. This really should be the end of the discussion.
“To be on par with the other leagues, you agree the UFC has to pay 40-50% of gross.”
No, I did not agree with this. You just created that belief out of thin air.
“The UFC had an EBITDA of $110mm.
The fighter pay based on the info is about $50mm.
That means they can DOUBLE the pay across the board and still be very profitable.”
The goal of a business is not to make your laborers incredibly wealthy while minimally profiting. You may want to schedule a business class at your local Community College or invest in an into to business book and you may realize how absurd your approach to this is.
“I brought up the NFL execs to show you that typically the players make more than the executives.
The benefit of ownership comes when you sell, from the growth in value of the franchise
http://wagesofwins.com/2013/01/22/lebron-is-right-about-nba-owners/
Sports business isn’t like regular business”
But the issue is, your source didn’t prove you were correct and the execs aren’t the owners. That point not only is senseless, but it backfired. A fair analogy should be comparing the players to the actual owners. Goodell doesn’t own anything, he is the commissioner and he makes more than every player in the nfl by far.
I know sports business isn’t like regular business. If this were a regular business, the labor costs vary but can be as low as 1 or 2% of the gross.
So once again, you are trolling because you know your numbers for the ufc would create a massive deficit and can’t be compared to your numbers for the major sports-which of course you have zero concrete evidence of anyway.
d,
You say that if the UFC paid our 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.
I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.
—
check this out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/par
To be on par with the other leagues, the UFC has to do the same.
Lorenzo is the one saying that their pay isn’t far off from the others. 10% of gross is pretty far off.
Other leagues are paying 40-50% or gross. I’ve proven that. If you want to refute it please provide sources.
—
You didn’t even read the link. It’s talking about the OWNERS of the Sacramento Kings.
—
So in summation…
Lorenzo says that their pay is in the neighborhood of what the other major leagues pay.
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’m proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
“I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
Well then YOUR NUMBERS are wrong.
“But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.”
The same can be said about the mlb overhead numbers, not to mention you have zero evidence to verify your mlb revenue numbers either. The truth is though you have ZERO evidence to prove what you are claiming about the UFC’s overhead. You are countering your own numbers.
“Lorenzo is the one saying that their pay isn’t far off from the others. 10% of gross is pretty far off.
Other leagues are paying 40-50% or gross. I’ve proven that. If you want to refute it please provide sources.”
Lorenzo never said he was paying 40-50% of the gross. You have done a good job creating your own beliefs of what he has claimed.
Here is what he said:
“not far off what the other sports leagues pay as a percentage of revenue.”
He didn’t say, it was 50% of GROSS, he just said revenue. That could mean he meant Net. Considering once again ACCORDING TO YOUR NUMBERS, MLB paid out 40% of the gross, it seems like they were discussing NET, not GROSS. Because if you were correct about your numbers, and they were discussing gross, wouldn’t they have said 40% rather than 50%?
Again, your numbers prove you wrong. Also with the exception of the Moody’s, I have proven all of your sources to be a joke. The articles you are throwing out there are hit pieces and poorly researched articles with delusional statistics that are done by two bit bloggers.
In conclusion, you’ve proven nothing that you claim. You haven’t presented any hard evidence of what is generated revenue wise in any of the leagues, just what tabloids are guessing they are. You only prove that you are a troll who is desperately grasping for straws because you realized your theory was proven dead wrong based on your own numbers.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Another thing to look at-
The UFC’s was BB- in 2010 until December where they secured the 100m plus a year FOX deal. BB- isn’t a really bad rating, but it is definitely not great. Compare what the other 4 major sports credit ratings are and then get back to me.
“The company also has a $425 million term loan due in 2015.
S&P is confident that Zuffa, LLC will be able to meet its loan obligations over the near-term. ”
“Why does the UFC have an outstanding $425 million loan? Due to their private structure, the UFC doesn�t have to tell us, but you can guess that it likely has something to do with the purchases of rival promotions such as PRIDE, WEC and Strikeforce over the past number of years. Thanks to these purchases, the UFC basically has zero competition at this point. ”
Show me any evidence what so ever that they paid any of this back in 2010- which was when you gave your numbers.
http://www.davemanuel.com/a-look-at-the-ufc-debt-finances-and-future-growth-133/
In conclusion, you like comparing apples to unicorns.
*The UFC’s credit rating was BB-*
d,
How the monies are being allocated is very important for us to have that continued debate. Maybe with these pending lawsuits we’ll get a more detailed glimpse at the financials. In the meantime, we’re at an impasse.
You say that if the UFC paid our 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.
I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.
—-
Lorenzo Fertita said:
***When asked what percentage of that revenue goes to fighters, Fertitta said it’s “not far off what the other sports leagues pay as a percentage of revenue.”
Revenue-sharing formulas in the NBA, MLB, NFL and NHL give athletes about 50 percent of revenue. “[It’s] in that neighborhood, yeah,” Fertitta said.***
If he meant net, he should have mentioned it. They were obviously comparing it to the current payment structures and he went right along with it.
The only problem is that 10% of gross isn’t any where near the 40% others are paying. It’s not in the neighborhood.
—
Forbes and Moody’s are pretty good when it comes to financials. Notice that there’s a section for Revenue and Operating Income.
http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/
Notice that the player expenses are higher than the ebitda. This is very typical in sports.
____
What exactly is your point with Dave Manuel’s article? What are you trying to prove or disprove?
btw, Zuffa already had that debt back in 2010
http://mmapayout.com/2010/12/zuffa-credit-rating-upgraded-to-bb/
—
Thanks for your reply, but nothing you offered changed this:
Lorenzo says that their pay is in the neighborhood of what the other major leagues pay.
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
D,
I posted a reply. I’m just waiting for it to get approved.
“You say that if the UFC paid our 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.”
Given the number You’ve Got. Exactly….End of argument.
D,
Given the numbers I’ve got they can also DOUBLE their pay and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
Thanks for acknowledging your argument was debunked.
d,
How the monies are being allocated is very important for us to have that continued debate. Maybe with these pending lawsuits we’ll get a more detailed glimpse at the financials. In the meantime, we’re at an impasse.
You say that if the UFC paid out 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.
I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.
—
Thanks for your reply, but nothing you offered changed this:
Lorenzo says that their pay is in the neighborhood of what the other major leagues pay.
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
“You say that if the UFC paid our 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.”
Given the number You’ve Got. Exactly….End of argument.
d,
How the monies are being allocated is very important for us to have that continued debate. Maybe with these pending lawsuits we’ll get a more detailed glimpse at the financials. In the meantime, we’re at an impasse.
You say that if the UFC paid out 40-50% of gross they would operate at a massive loss given the numbers we’ve got. Which is correct based on those numbers.
I say they can pay the fighters 40-50% of gross and still be profitable. Which is definitely doable being that Strikeforce was paying out 68% of gross and other sports leagues pay out 40-50%.
But without the detailed breakdown of what the UFC spends its money on, it’s going to be your opinion against mine. We don’t have enough info there.
—
Thanks for your reply, but nothing you offered changed this:
Lorenzo says that their pay is in the neighborhood of what the other major leagues pay.
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
Joe is a lesbian.
D,
Thanks for the reply. But the nothing you offered changes this:
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
Joe has lesbian qualities.
🙂
D,
Thanks for the reply. But the nothing you offered changes this:
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!
Joe likes the lesbian life style.
D,
Thanks for the reply. But the nothing you offered changes this:
I’ve proven that other major leagues pay 40-50% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC is paying around 10% of gross.
I’ve proven that the UFC could DOUBLE what they’re paying the fighters and still be profitable.
Pay the fighters!