2010 UFC Salaries

I can't stand Bisping but you can't deny the dude puts asses in the seats in the right venue. He deserves to be paid for that.

 

So you're saying that if the UFC now that they have no real competition came back and said Cain, Carwin, A Silva, Bj, and etc. Were all getting massive pay cuts to 8k per fight you'd have no opinion? Or better yet any fighter who DW doesnt like such as Fitch, Rashad or whoever are going to have their contracts reduced to one third of what they or their peers make, you wouldnt care what so ever? You believe compensation level has nothing to do with the so called "good fights" you want to see? I'm just saying pay has a lot to do with the performance of fighters in MMA and the overall caliber of fights we get to see.

 

exactly. He's not an elite fighter, but he is a main event fighter...and when it comes down to what he's worth, that's by far the bigger factor. Bisping vs whoever draws 20,000 in the UK. There's only a handful of fighters who can do that throughout the sport and they are sitting at the top of the list with him.

 

Yeah I guess to an extent I agree with that for the UK shows. But I find it hard to believe a co-main event guy gets paid better than A Silva, BJ, Brock, and Rampage; all main event draws. Then again he may be the only one in that group that doesn't receive PPV cuts?

 

....also, Bisping had three 2010 fights. Silva only had two.

 

Godfather Always Gets DEFENSIVE when the Topic of MMA Salaries Comes Up....



REED:hammert:

 

U Don't Find it Interesting to Compare & Contrast Fighter Salaries with What the Organization that Pays them Generates???...U Don't Think MMA Salaries R Somewhat LOW, Given the Level of VIOLENCE in the Sport???...



REED:hammert:

 

:Thumbs:

Exactly!

 

I say this about boxing, MMA, football, etc. If a fighter/player doesn't like the risk/reward ratio, then do something else for a living. These are not indentured servants without a choice. They are free men and women that can choose NOT to fight it the pay sucks.

 

Are you kidding me? These dude generated a live gate of better than $2.5 million at the 02 Arena against freaking Akiyama on a card not even worthy of Spike TV in my opinion.

Again, I hate the dude, but he is without a doubt the primary reason the UFC has skyrocketed in popularity in the UK.

Try flashing back to UFC 38, which was the first UFC event in England, and compare the barely 3800 people that bought tickets to watch Matt Hughes in relation to the 18,000 that bought tickets to watch Bisping beat Akiyama.

Everytime this guy gets close to a UFC card in England the ticket start flying.

And don't think Bisping wasn't one of the main reasons that the recent UFC card in Sydney did so well.

Bisping's run on The Ultimate Fighter was the best thing that ever happened to the UFC expanding in Europe. And he has been rewarded fairly for that.

 

The total amount shown in the OP is...

wait for it....

a whopping $22,500,000 (22,499,200 exactly)

so then I wonder what they took in for gross revenues in 2010. It seems this was already done on Sherdog: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/want-know-how-much-ufc-took-gross-revenue-during-2010-a-1493243/

That post links to the full payouts for all ufc fighters in 2010: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/comprehensive-list-ufc-fighter-salaries-2010-a-1493189/

So to answer the questions: UFC took in "It was a banner, record-breaking year for the UFC at the pay-per-view box office in 2010. Its 15 PPV offerings garnered a record 9,305,000 buys, for an average of 620,333 buys per event (another record). That means, at the very least, the UFC generated over $465 million in PPV revenue."

and paid out "Total $26,778,900"

The UFC is a fucking disgrace, but they are not as bad as the people who stick up for their financial screwing of their fighters. This kind of disparity should be uniformly condemned, not commended.

I am pro capitalism, pro free-market, libertarian...but I do believe that regulation of monopolies and concerns about windfall profits have their place in a market. The UFC is a perfect example of why.

 

I think you are overestimating Bisping's worth. Maybe not, but I particularly don't like the UFC 38 comparison to Bisping/Akiyama. The UFC has a much greater presence throughout the world now compared to then, regardless of Bisping.

 

Bullshit. You can't be pro capitalism and then get pissed off when it works in favor of the 'Capitalist' or owners. That's just silly.

I guess in your opinion the guy working the register at the local Exxon station should get paid more simply because ExxonMobil turned a record quarterly profit.

The fucking very essence of capitalism is that workers get paid a wage and the owners get the profits.

Yeah let's change that because an MMA fighter isn't making enough. By all means don't let the market dictate what a fighter should earn. That would be way too Capitalistic. :wack: No one would have bailed the Feritittas out if the UFC failed and they lost their investment. Hell no, that would just have been the way business goes.

And the UFC doesn't have a monopoly just yet. But even if they did, I am 100% against regulating any monopoly unless it's an entity providing an essential good or service.

Buying a ticket to the UFC or the PPV is an option for every single consumer. They can choose NOT to purchase anything and it would not impact their lives.

Nothing pisses me off more than people crying about what workers make just because the company is very profitable. That was the same crappy ass logic the Auto and Steel Unions used to exact better wages for unskilled laborers. And guess what? Those industries and business were no longer profitable and suffered catastrophic long term affects.

I bet no one would favor fighters giving back part of their earnings if a UFC event didn't do as well as expected, would they. No, so the owners risking the capital on the chance that an event is successful should reap the profits.

 

How Many People Go to Exxon Because of a Particular Guy Working the Register???...How Many People Frequent UFC Events Because of a Particular Fighter(s)...In UFC, the Fighters ARE the Product...That ISN'T the Case w/the Cashier...

REED's Going Thru a Similar Debate about the NFL & it Never Ceases to Amaze REED How Many Try to COMPARE NFL'ers & Fighters to Regular, Everyday, 9 to 5 Employee's....That's a FAULTY Analogy...Regular People ARE NOT the Commodity in their Work Places, they Assist in the SALE of a Particular Commodity (Insurance, Food, Merchandise, whatever)...In Combative Sports the Fighters ARE the Commodity...

If Mike's #'s R Even REMOTELY Accurate, the UFC Came Out + 440 MILLION in PPV Revenue...But YOU Think the Fighters Should just Shut Up & CONTINUE Taking it Up the Ass???...



REED::

 

Yeah Triple I think your comparison is flawed. Tell me when in the last two years that the UFC came to the 02 or any other place in the UK or Ireland where they didn't sell out. They always sell out there Bisping or not. Besides that only continues proving my point that he may be worth something for the UK shows but he only fought there once in 2010 right? All I'm saying is I'm trying to figure out how he's valued so high compared to guys who really draw no matter where the card is held.

And as far as Capitalism is concerned you have failed to recognize one of the two flaws in the theory of true capitalism and free markets. Adam Smith the guy with the invisible hand;) and just about every respected capitalist believer notes that a monopoly breaks the machine of a free market. The only time a market should be interfered with is in the case of a monopoly or in the case of public works such as roads or military. So I can understand your opinion but it's not one of a true capitalist as we know them today.

 

Ok, in the last two years, the UFC held an event (Henderson-Franklin) at the 02 in Dublin and sold under 9200 tickets and I believe the place has a 14,000 person capacity. Maybe one of our British posters can confirm. Meanwhile in the same 2 year span, there were two events in England involving Bisping which sold over 16,500 tickets each. The bottom line is if you look at all 9 UFC events held in the British Isles, those with Bisping has ALWAYS sold more tickets. Period. End of discussion.

Except seriously, fuck the numbers which are obvious. Only a truly argumentative person would debate whether or not Bisping has jump started the popularity of MMA in England. Honestly, I can't believe anyone would even debate that.

Regarding capitalism, I haven't failed to recognize anything. I fully understand the issue with monopolies upsetting free market economics. So why don't we actually cross that bridge before we discuss it. Because as far as I know, there are many fighters making a living for MMA organizations other than the UFC. They do not have a monopoly and the system is working just fine. If a fighter doesn't like the UFC, they can get a job with Bellator, Dream or any one of a hundred local promotions.

So let me throw this back on the economic professors. Are you really supporting some regulation that would dictate what the UFC pays their fighters? If so, don't even talk to me about flaws in my stance regarding capitalism because you don't have a clue.

 

No, if they aren't happy with their compensation, they can seek employment elsewhere. If MMA isn't as rewarding as they think it should be, they can do something else.

And I always get a kick out of people that put the players above the game. The UFC isn't selling Shogun Rua, they are selling their brand of MMA which will continue LONG after the Rua's and GSP's are gone. The same is true in the NFL. People bought tickets before Randy Moss was in diapers and they will buy them long after he is back in diapers again. The game is what is popular. The players are only part of that equation and they get compensated very well for it.

The UFC has lost many fighters over the years due to disputes over what they should be paid. And somehow the UFC has continued to grow despite losing marquee names. Amazing how for every Henderson or Ortiz they lose, they find a Jones or Velasquez. Keep thinking it's the fighters that make the sport and make the UFC.

 

exactly. I'm an extreme left guy and usually almost always sidewith the workers, but in this case I agree with you.

A lot of people do mma and violent sport for leisure. The fact that they even get paid is good enough. Those guy aren't exactly proletarians who have no other choice and get exploited by big corporations. They decided to do this ''job'' cause they like it.

 

It IS the fighters that make the UFC. Sure, the UFC does sell their brand and has value in their production. However, without these fighters, it means shit. A brand is worthless without the big names behind it to pack the house. How many UFC main events are you going to order if they are headlined by Alessio Sakara vs. Stephan Bonner?

 

Dude, you miss the point. If Silva, Rua, etc left, then new stars would take their place. And whomever took their place would be the ones packing arenas.

Bottom line, I'm still watching MMA even if those guys aren't around.

Just like I continued watching the NFL when star after star after star retired.

The game is far bigger than any individual fighter or player. And again, the UFC is living proof. It's not like fighters haven't left due to salary disputes. And the UFC hasn't folded yet.

 

Alright by the amount of F-bombs you throw around I can gather that your serious. But flat-out I have to disagree that Bispings is the driving force behind MMA's and most especially the UFC's success in the UK UFC 75 sells out and sets the live ate record with no Bispings on site. A whole 45 events and 3 years later, the record is still not broken. And UFC 105 I would say if there was a driving force it was Dan Hardy not Bisping who barely made it on to the televised portion. Was the attendance higher from 120 to 105 or 75?
Yes because they added more seats. So like I said at the beginning of this conversation, I CAN SEE HOW BISPING IS VALUED FOR UK Shows. Which he only fought in once in 2010!

Now I don't want to get into an argument of what a monopoly is with you but it doesn't mean one entity as youre describing. It means one unit controls the market which means values, entries, and exits an the UFC at this point certainly does.

Lastly I can't see why you would stick so firmly behind Bisping being paid so much and then in the next breath say it doesn't matter what any fighter makes. The UFC is where the value is and they will perform well no matter who is fighting. Do you see how your two points contradict each other? If I followed your argument we could put cabbage against akihami in the UK an the UFC would sell out?

 

I am a person with a sense of fair play.

The amount of money the fighters get is a fucking pittance compared to the money being made, and that's fucked up.

The fighters are the product, they are the ones risking their arses in the ring, and quite simply, good MMA fighters deserve more than they get.

Good boxers DO actually get the lion's share, just like they should. Afterall it is all about THEM.

Without the fighters you're left with Dana and his contrived swearing/tough guy act, Joe Rogan splooging in his pants for no reason, and Mike Goldberg being a fucking retard.

Guess what? That's not going to make money.

Forget about "new stars taking their place", what if every MMA fighter decided the pay was too low? The UFC wouldn't exist.

 

I´d love to know how much money the top fighters make in PPV percentages.

Per minute James Toney is the highest paid MMA fighter. ::

 

Good points Mex.

 

Dude, come back when you're ready to be factual. Bisping beat, and I use the term loosely, Matt Hamill at UFC 75. It was the co main event and was heavily hyped by both guys being on Season 3 of the Ultimate Fighter. Again, you seriously don't have a clue if you think Bisping hasn't helped MMA's growth in the UK. Unreal that you can't even check a fighter's record yet want to argue facts with me.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning all the records that event broke. It kind of strengthens my point about Bisping. Was that your intent?

And my stance is very simple about Bisping or any other fighter being paid. If the UFC decides to pay them more or less money based on value to the company, that should be 100% at the discretion of the UFC. There is no contradiction. That will be my stance about privately owned companies until the day I die. No one should tell a business owner what he should pay his employees. PERIOD.

 

Says who? The UFC would exist, but it wouldn't be nearly as profitable. And if those departing stars all went to another organization because they paid better, then the UFC COULD be run out of business.

And the new upstart MMA organization that signed all these stars with promises of improved salaries would probably struggle mightly because they couldn't actually afford what they promised as they didn't yet have the marketing power or brand recognition of the UFC.

At that point, guess what, free market economics worked perfectly.

 

Hahaha I must say I appreciate your ability to pick and choose your arguments. Look if you think Bisping us worth that fine. Im telling you based in the facts the UFC does plenty fine whether he's there or not. I agree he's popular in the UK but once again pal HE ONLY FOUGHT THERE ONCE IN 2010, which is what this post is all about? Can you grasp that point after my thirdattempt or will you continue to argue whatever suits you at the moment.

And I am in no way arguing against free markets. But I don't think you fully grasp the theories other than what you might hear on Beck or Limbaugh. Capitalism based on maximizing the return and minnimizing the cost for the individual not the company. So if you were a true capitalist then anything that caused you to pay more with less returns you would be against. Like one group the UFC controlling the market.

Now I'll concede Thar I didn't catch that he was on 75. We were arguing the point of how valuable he was for selling tickets in the UK. He was so valuable they surely had him on the marketing material right???? Wrong! So if you think he's the main reason they make money there, I hope your job is working for someone else who understands marketing and returns because u kind of give me that Joethe plumber vibe. You have a few vocabulary words but your ignorant to their correct usage.

 

You're going to slam my intelligence despite looking like an absolute fool about UFC 75? That may be the most moronic thing I've ever seen.

And seriously, I know how many times Bisping fought in England in 2010. Surely you can't be so dense as not to understand that the UFC derives revenue from sources other than live gate. So it would stand to reason that Bispings impact on UFC revenues extend beyond just folks in England buying tickets to a live event.

And please show me ONE single event held by the UFC in England without Bisping that did "plenty well" compared to those WITH Bisping. Good luck with that one.

By the way, you also said

Do you just like being wrong:




:atu::atu::atu::atu::atu:

 

And here's a little more education for your next misguided post.A fights not a co-main event because its second to last. It's a co-maintain event when marketed as such to help sell viewers.Not the case at 75. Glad I could be of assistance;)

 

You're being condescending to someone that is making you look like a complete tool.

I'm still waiting on the UFC event in England that did BETTER without Bisping.

Come on genius.