UFC 141 Lesnar vs Overeem

Well, personally I thought $30K for Cerrone, as the co-main event, was crappy.

But then I have to keep reminding myself that the UFC fighters are under contract and they really don't get paid per fight per se.

Cerrone, for example, signed a $250K contract which includes 5 fights and is exclusive of any bonuses.

It's not great but it was probably lightyears better than his WEC pay.

 

Thrown like a ragdoll by a midget!!! Don't lie.

 

Before I point out how f'ing insincere and ridiculous it is to compare these fights/fighters to Brock Lesnar, where did you get the numbers?

 

Trp keeping it real :bears:

I like GF, but he really needs to remove his Danavision goggles.

Lest we not forget, Cerrone isn't some unknown fighter fighting in some small town somewhere, he was the co main event for a UFC PPV.

Like I said UFC pay has definitely improved from even a couple of years ago, but instances like this show it still has a way to go before being fair IMO.

For the record I think some elite boxers actually get paid a bit TOO much which probably exacerbates their reluctance to fight all comers. I think somewhere in between would be good.

 

Red herring much or do you believe this drivel?

The UFC is the focal point, not the fighters. The UFC deserves the bulk of the revenue because they own the sport. The UFC deserves to be worshipped and everyone who fights for them should be glad that they are even getting paid for the privilege.

This about right?

 

Light years better than most boxers than co headline PPV's, or even support a main event?

You're talking utter shit.

Even guys like Rios make much more than 30k a fight.

 

Shit yeah, light years better.

Out of your cherry-picked list, Cerrone made more than Hussein Hussein, Adrian Kaspari, and Hugo fucking Soto did when they were co-main events on Floyd and Pacquiao undercards. Cerrone is living the high life.

 

Let's assume you are correct. What are the real numbers and how do you know they are real?

Let's assume you are correct. It's interesting that the requirements for disclosure of salaries are so flawed that they are basically meaningless, isn't it?

Let's assume you are correct. Do you not have a problem with 'you only know what the FUC wants you to know'?

Otoh, let's assume you are incorrect and the numbers are correct. What is your position then? Do you stand by the numbers of boxers you put forth earlier in this thread? Are you going to say where you got those numbers from? Are you going to argue that they are relevant and if so, how? Are you at least a little bit concerned that you chose some boxers who would not make the top 1000 list of boxing's most known to compare to co-headlining UFC fighters when looking at compensation?

 

Then what are the real numbers?

As to there being 'main event fighters' on your list, then why don't you show us numbers from their ppv shows that had Brock Lesnar buy rates for comparison instead of vs Randall Bailey and Lovemore N'dou?

 

I didn't say any of that. So it's an utterly pointless response.

My stance is simple. The UFC does what ANY corporation does. They maximize revenue for the owners/shareholders.

It's not brain surgery.

And again, it's pointless to beat this dead horse for 2 reasons:

1) We have ABSOLUTELY no idea of the total compensation for UFC fighters.

2) We have ABSOLUTELY no idea of the UFC's total corporate expenses.


So speculating on what a UFC fighter SHOULD make by comparing it to a failed boxing model is probably the most moronic stance possible. Well, unless of course you're entertained by "60/40 and I'll kick your ass" comments and fights that DON'T happen.

 

[1] Then why do the commissions require disclosure?

[2] You're just being dense. There is a baseline UFC ppv and there are a few fighters who can double or triple that and it sure as hell isn't doubled or tripled because of a few good supporting matches. Lesnar does pull those numbers by himself. Cripes, look at the crap you used as supporting evidence for UFC 121.

[3] It's obvious you don't have a concern because you are just being a self-centered fan. If the product is good enough, if the fighters are willing to fight for it, then everything is A OK. Personally, I don't mind that sentiment until you start defending the UFC for what they do. Them sweatshops ain't so bad. What else is dem illegals gonna do for work? If they don't like it, they can move back to where they came from. As long as my clothes are cheap, I'm just fine with it.

 

[1] This isn't true. Many companies/corporations have other goals and they aren't all blood sucking pieces of shit, especially at the expense of their employees. Personally, I don't have a problem with the vast majority of companies trying to maximize their profits. The difference is that the UFC has a monopoly and has consistenly acted in a manner to thwart competition so that their repeated and insidious fucking of fighters cannot be corrected as it would be in a free market.

[2] The boxing model isn't failed. It is the result of free enterprise combined with a little bit of government regulation. And despite its problems, it does work and it is far more defensible than the bullshit UFC model.

The moronic stance is trying to say that the sports are not similar enough to warrant comparisons.

 

I honestly don't know anyone that does games developement for a hobby (not saying they aren't any) and even if there,s more than I think there is, it's still one of the few example where a situation like this occur. I usually always side with the employee in work conflict, but
I honestly don't really care how much any artist / pro athlete / celebrity makes. If they're not happy with the pay, they can get a real job.
They're lumpenproleterian not proleterian

 

1) Well, the UFC does NOT have a monopoly. And it's a common practice among big corporation to buy, absorb or run their competition out of business. It is also incredibly naive or ignorant to believe that a company, operating for profit, has any goal larger than maximizing income for it's owners or shareholders. Are there exceptions? Sure, but the UFC doesn't claim to be a philanthropic organization formed to better mankind. The owners took a failing organization and turned it into the fastest growing sport in the world. And guess what, as a result, it is now profitable. Which was kind of the goal. Duh!

2) Again, you can be naive and sit back and cheer the boxing model. Unfortunately I've been a boxing fan for far too long to do that. If you're OK with splintered titles, fights that DON'T happen, bullshit rankings, and unjustified title challengers, then keep on loving it dude. But for me, it blows.

And you can continue to compare the two sports as if it's an apples to apples comparison. Unfortunately that's just insane. As soon as you can show me a boxing promoter or organization that has over 700 fighters under contract with guaranteed compensation and insurance against injuires while under contract; and show me a boxing promoter that is spending his OWN profits to expand the popularity of the sport to other parts of the world; and show me a boxing promoter that is spending his OWN profits to lobby to get the sport legalized in New York; and show me a boxing promoter that spends his OWN profits sending his 700+ fighters to classes on money management, nutritional health, training seminars, etc, THEN you can intelligently make the comparison.

I'll be waiting for the name of THAT boxing promoter.

Oh, and it is really, really amusing to hear a guy that supports the boxing model call the UFC blood sucking pieces of shit. Seriously, could you possible be the only boxing fan in the world that's never heard of Don King and Bob Arum? The things Don King has done to boxers financially over the last 40 years makes the UFC look like a charity organization. Unreal.

 

[1] They have an effective monopoly in that they enjoy monopoly power in the marketplace. A monopoly doesn't have to be a literal monopoly. Please reread that last sentence as you seem to consistently nitpick when it's inappropriate and/or disingenuous. They further this position by acting in a manner that completely thwarts competition. They take advantage of this position by actively and consistently screwing their employees financially. They do this, but because you, as a fan of the sport, reap benefits by other things they do, you stick up for them blindly and naively. Or you do it with eyes wide open and with conscious disregard for fairplay. Take your pick.

[2] I only 'cheer' the boxing model because it is far more of a free-market model than mma and I support free markets. [This is when loadedgloves pipes in with his dipshit 'oh that figures' crap despite the fact that logic, common sense, and history shows that a (primarily) free market system is preferable to a controlled market.

Boxing promoters are NOT allowed to corner the market like the UFC does because they don't and can't own the sanctioning bodies. The UFC gets to play multiple and conflicting roles and rather than being even remotely generous with this unfair position, they take advantage of it ad nauseum, particularly when it comes to how they treat their fighters financially. If this isn't the case, then let's hear why not AND with numbers to back it up. Otherwise we are left with what they report.

 

OK so let me recap.

First, you now change your stance from the UFC "has a monopoly" to now read the UFC "have an effective monopoly in that they enjoy monopoly power in the marketplace."---------The truth is they DO NOT have a monopoly by definition because there are sources to 'fill demand' from consumers outside the UFC. M-1, Dream, Bellator and countless other organizations are still operational and selling the MMA product. So again, spin it or change your wording but it ain't a monopoly. PERIOD.

Second, now you change from your stance that "The boxing model works" to a new stance of "I only 'cheer' the boxing model because it is far more of a free-market model than mma"


Lastly, since you failed to name a boxing promoter or organization that has over 700 fighters under contract with guaranteed compensation and insurance against injuires while under contract; and show me a boxing promoter that is spending his OWN profits to expand the popularity of the sport to other parts of the world; and show me a boxing promoter that is spending his OWN profits to lobby to get the sport legalized in New York; and show me a boxing promoter that spends his OWN profits sending his 700+ fighters to classes on money management, nutritional health, training seminars, etc.....

then I guess I'll take that as evidence of your understanding that you are comparing apples to oranges, which was my point all along.

Oh, and by the way, the biggest chuckle I've gotten from this whole conversation was your idiotic point about the UFC being unfair, blood suckers while comparing it to boxing saints like Don King, Bob Arum, the WBC, etc.

Seriously dude, trying being impartial and look at both sides. As a young fighter coming up, I'd far prefer the way UFC treats their fighters than the shit you'd have to go through as a boxer. Insurance, guaranteed pay, title shots when warranted, bonuses, career management training.....

Honestly, to me, it's not even remotely close.

 

Why, what did I say. I thought we were kind of on the same page.

 

I remember when I used to break posts down point by point. ::

Now, I prefer the lippy one liner.

 

And you are among the best/worst at it.

 

Thank you/Fuck you

 

You are just being dense when it comes to the monopoly that is the UFC.

With Strikeforce tapped out, UFC's monopoly may never be challenged

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/steven_marrocco/03/14/ufc.strikeforce/index.html

"For all intents and purposes, Zuffa LLC now has a monopoly..."

Refer to: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jeff_wagenheim/03/12/strikeforce-purchased/index.html

Zuffa, parent company of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, by far the leading promotional organization in the fast-growing combat sport, has purchased Strikeforce, the second-biggest (though far smaller) promotion,

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jeff_wagenheim/03/12/strikeforce-purchased/index.html#ixzz1icwpMOKt

Some in the MMA community might also use the word ominous or even dangerous. A sports consolidation of this magnitude naturally makes fans wonder about the impact on MMA of the UFC having essentially no competition

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jeff_wagenheim/03/12/strikeforce-purchased/index.html#ixzz1icx15odA

US vs Microsoft: Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

Now add in the UFC's propensity to buy competitors and it is far less defensible what the UFC has and what they do with it.

Not that you care. You are playing novice semantics.

The boxing model does work. It has flaws, but it works. And it is far more fair to the fighters than the UFC model.

The UFC doesn't spend money to help the sport, they spend money to help the UFC. They don't deny this, but you seem to.

As to your biggest chuckle...I never said what you supposedly chuckled at. Promoters aren't saints. They are capitalists playing in a relatively fair environment. Their goals are to make money. They aren't given the same opportunities to monopolize the sport because the government has prevented it.

If you would prefer it the way it is...with co headliners of $50 million dollar events being given $30,000 (PLUS THE CHANCE AT A WIN BONUS!!!), then more power to you...I think you are being a complete sycophantic sucker.


​

​

​

​

 

I figured you didn't have an original thought and were just rehashing the nonsense spewed by others WAY back when Zuffa bought Strikeforce.

I don't care how many sports writers call it "essentially a monopoly", it IS NOT. The definition is very simple and it doesn't fit.

And I'll be very clear with you here and I hope you read this slowly or have someone read it to you. I like 3 things about the UFC's model:

1) They have grown and have not folded or fallen apart like almost every other MMA organization that came along. This is due, in large part, to NOT over paying fighters like Affliction and Elite XC did. You fail to realize that the UFC was basically pulled from the ashes and turned into the profit machine it is now. To think that the people that staked the capital to make that turn around don't deserve to profit as much as possible is just crazy.

2) Unlike boxing, the top guys NEED to fight to make a living. There is no sitting back and WONDERING if a champion could beat a top challenger. We actually get to see it at almost every UFC event. This doesn't happen if $20 million paydays create prima dona fighters like Floyd Mayweather. Sure he gets rich but the sport suffers. To me that is unacceptable.

3) Every fighter under contract with the UFC did so with a very clear understanding of exactly what they would get paid. They have a contract, which they CHOSE to sign. Not one single fighter on the entire UFC or Strikeforce rosters was sold to Zuffa as a slave. If they don't like the pay scale they can QUIT the fucking sport.

And please don't hand me the horseshit about the UFC not spending money to help the sport. The benefits of fighter insurance helps the UFC minimally compared to how it helps the sport and the fighters. And expanding the sport to other regions of the world, and even lobbying to get it legalized in New York, is beneficial to both the UFC and MMA. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But I have to end this almost where I began. You, and those like you, always say "UFC fighters are getting screwed. They should get paid more."

Really? None of us have even the most remote idea of what the UFC's income or expense ledger looks like. We don't even have a clue as to actual PPV buys. So speculating on what they SHOULD pay fighter is just simply uninformed because you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE as to the UFC's finances. PERIOD.

Oh, and I can't believe anyone thinks the boxing model works. P.T. Barnum was right.