Please choose one: Based upon everything you know, do you believe the UFC 1. Underpays its fighters 2. Overpays its fighters 3. I don't know enough to guess 4. Pays its fighters accordingly 5. I don't give a fuck. Since the people who can make a poll won't, let's keep discussion out of this thread and just vote 1, 2, or 3, at least for a while.
I agree with Boss, the stars a bit overpaid. But I believe in Capitolism. If GSP can rake in the cake, good for him. If the guys at the bottom were fighting at local orgs, they would make less, I know, I train with many guys who fight in local orgs. They make the same as guys who box in local events do, maybe slightly more. Until you make a name, you don't get paid. Thats a life lesson, kids.
For me it depends fighter by fighter and what that fighter generates. ESPN complained that some guys where making 6g's for a fight. These guys on the perliminary's don't make the ufc 6 g's. So these guys are overpaid. For me it's the elite guys that are underpaid. If they are really doing a million buys on ppv and your paying main event fighters 6 figures then that is way below what they should be getting.
It still chocks me that GSP is the top draw. I mean seriously? Anderson Silva I can see that. Has an exciting style. Imagine if Anderson could speak English and had a personality of Ali. Damn that would bring UFC to a whole new level but GSP ? He's as boring as it gets. We say something is as exciting as watching paint dry. Drying paint says something is as exciting as watching GSP fight. And his personality ? Well it at least matches his fighting style. Who pays to watch his fights ????? Besides the whole province of Quebec..seriously who????
Where is the option for I don't give a fuck what anyone makes since it has absolutely no impact on me personally?
3. According to Anthony, the published figures are misleading because it doesn't include the ultra secret under the table payments that the UFC provides its fighters.
It's not just me. I would recommend reading the Wladamir thread if you havent already. I think that will shed some insight on many aspects with regards to fighters pay.
Why publish a confusing figure? Why publish x amount but have this 'understanding' that guys make much more? I am seriously asking this question, not being a smartass.
I believe it's required to put down how much one gets to actually just get in the ring and fight. However, what a fighter makes in PPV, Bonuses, Sponsers, attendance, merchandice, etc. Sometimes all of that is established later. And since it's a private company and doesnt have to disclose that information, they just dont.
Knowledge is power. If you keep all of your slaves in the dark, you can pay some slaves more than you say you are, but point other slaves at the reported figures to try to get them to accept less than they deserve. Also, you can get shills like Anthony and Trplsec to focus on the trees--we don't have exact numbers--and ignore the forests--even if the pay is substantially higher than reported, it's a lot less than similar markets indicate is appropriate.
Compared to others major professional sports, it's undeniable that the UFC pays it's athlete a lot less, in proportion to their revenu. I don't think it's even debatable. Wether this means UFC fighters are underpaid or other athletes are overpaid is another question
The UFC has only been profitable for the last few years. When Zuffa purchaced it, they were losing money big time. The invested a shit load of money to get them to where they arer now. It's a young sport, it cannot be compared to sports that have been around as long as MLB, NFL or even boxing. The pay HAS been getting better, there is no debate about that, if the trend continues it will only get better with time. When the UFC first started nobody made any money unless they won the whole damn tournament and the winner got 50K for winning 3 fights in an 8 man field. The point is, it's come a long way in a short time.
And as long as the brand is bigger than the fighters, the fighters are just interchangeable parts anyway.
That's very true of the UFC I think. To be fair to them they've worked hard on creating a brand, that has essentially monopolised the MMA world, and they've done a brilliant job of marketing it. The UFC isn't reliant on a select few fighters like boxing, they are just interchangeable parts. You could replace the UFC's entire roster and after a brief breaking in period of people getting used to the new faces, it would be just as popular/profitable. The brand is bigger than the fighters for sure.
When you say mma pay isn't comparable to that of Boxing, are we just referring to the top elite fighters? I know several entry level boxers and several entry level mma fighters, entry level boxers are paid horribly. I have a guy at the gym who just made his professional debut in MMA, his fight was 500 to show, 500 to win, and if he won by ko/tapout he earned another 500. Which he did, so he made 1500 for his pro debut. Same guy at the same Casino last year made his boxing pro debut. He received 500. done. And he won too.
Well you guys have to also understand that UFC also invests in fighters. They give fighters that have absolutely no drawing power, with basically very little experience and pay them to fight. And they have the ability to get bonuses. The UFC invest in these fighters hoping they get better and attract a fan base that will one day increase their earnings and also help make the UFC money. So it's not like they just throw fighters away. And no way the UFC is a monopoly. Bellatar alone proves this. They are owned by Viacom and have a regular TV show on major cable networks and soon will be inking a huge deal with Spike TV.
You asked me this question above and I intend to answer it, but one important fact that needs to be taken into context...we aren't talking about non-UFC mma fighters. The UFC is the major leagues of mma and they get to cherry pick the cream of the crop for their fights and they don't have to expend ANY money developing prospects. Sure, they have some prospects, thanks to TUF, but those don't cost them any money and they can and do discard them if they suck. In fact, I'm sure they make significant money off of TUF. The bulk of their roster is top 20 guys and that's the fair comparison to boxing.
Same as any boxing promoters. And of course UFC(Zuffa) is a effective monopoly. Ask the average person on the street wath is Bellator and my guess is fewer than 1% would even know about them
Name a promoter that has as many fighters as zuffa does? Strikeforce & UFC And the average person not knowing there is a rival orginazation owned by a company that dwarfs the UFC isnt the definition of a monopoly. THAT being said, ask the average MMA fan and they will tell you what bellator is.
For me it's 3 choices: 3) I do not know enough to make a guess. None of us do. 4) The UFC pays their fighters enough to keep them fighting so it is enough? 5) If the fighters are happy, the product is great, then I don't give a fuck. The only thing I know for a fact is that anyone that willingly signed a contract stipulating HOW MUCH THEY WOULD GET PAID is neither overpaid or underpaid. They are getting paid what they agreed to. It is retarded to argue otherwise.
You usually define an effective monopoly by the market share they hold. Herfindahl ratio would be a decent indicator. In the MMA market, the ratio would be well, well, over .25, probably above .9, because of the UFC
This is genius stuff, hundreds upon hundreds of labor economics studies crushed by 3 simple sentences. You my friend, are a scholar of the highest order. :bears::bears::bears:
Sorry, it' a simple stance but let me hear an argument against it as it pertains to pro sports. Please. Personally I think athletes should be required to live up to their contracts. Very simple.
