Conor thinks he doesn't get paid to promote?

[Zeph]

Every other sport owner provides the capital to put on the events, but through legislation and collective bargaining we, as a culture in the west, have come to the general, accepted, agreement that a roughly 50% split of revenue between talent and capital is the optimal revenue share.

Source?

MMA is not boxing, or any other league, so Zuffa deserve to take 85% of the revenue. Get out of here with that bullshit.

Your thoughts on Viacom's revenue distribution? The International hedge fund billionaire that controls the ownership group pf WSOF? Thai business dude that runs One? I accept your critique on Zuffa splits, it needs improvements, and that is occurring, your thoughts on the others?

It's hard to know the revenue split with Bellator because they are a Viacom product on a Viacom channel, however, Scott Coker has gone on record saying that when he ran Strikeforce he, and his co-owners, aimed for a 50% split because that is what they were used to from running a Pro-Hockey team.

It is no surprise that many Strikeforce guys had significantly larger contracts than their UFC compatriots when the merger happened. This is all while having a significantly lower overall revenue intake. Bellator have a much lower overall revenue intake than the UFC currently,because they are not a ppv entity, do not have the same international reach, or the types of sponsors deals that the UFC have.

All of which will leave them with much less money to spread around to fighters. Could they do better? Yes, most likely they could, but the fact that they are even comparable with the UFC while not having any ppv revenue at all, shows that they have a better split than the UFC.

WSOF are in the hole as a promotion, undergoing several lawsuits from internal business deals, and generally are a mess. Pointing to them as a comparison for the UFC is a joke. One are an Asian regional brand, who knows what their split is, I would hope it is 50%, if it's not their fighters are getting fucked too.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

or the types of sponsors deals that the UFC have.

LOL. Sorry, that's not at you. I just still chuckle every time I think of the Reebok deal.

 

[Psychotropic Wanderlust]

He is either intentionally Lying or horrifically stupid, no other possible explanation for that statement.

look at his tattoo's and then read this sentence again if you need clarification.

 

[DFW4L]

It's hard to know the revenue split with Bellator because they are a Viacom product on a Viacom channel, however, Scott Coker has gone on record saying that when he ran Strikeforce he, and his co-owners, aimed for a 50% split because that is what they were used to from running a Pro-Hockey team.

It is no surprise that many Strikeforce guys had significantly larger contracts than their UFC compatriots when the merger happened. This is all while having a significantly lower overall revenue intake. Bellator have a much lower overall revenue intake than the UFC currently,because they are not a ppv entity, do not have the same international reach, or the types of sponsors deals that the UFC have.

All of which will leave them with much less money to spread around to fighters. Could they do better? Yes, most likely they could, but the fact that they are even comparable with the UFC while not having any ppv revenue at all, shows that they have a better split than the UFC.

WSOF are in the hole as a promotion, undergoing several lawsuits from internal business deals, and generally are a mess. Pointing to them as a comparison for the UFC is a joke. One are an Asian regional brand, who knows what their split is, I would hope it is 50%, if it's not their fighters are getting fucked too.

Do you think the fighters should share 50% of the financial burden/loss in a promotion losing money?

Seems equitable under the idea they would get 50% of any profit.

 

[DFW4L]

...and the way this forum fades out most of a quoted post is brilliant, walls of text on the UG are horrific...

now if this site could just get morons to stop calling anyone they disagree with a paid poster and 'voting them down' that would be +2 points over UG, lol

 

[Zeph]

Do you think the fighters should share 50% of the financial burden/loss in a promotion losing money?

Seems equitable under the idea they would get 50% of any profit.

Do any other athletes in any other sport? They are the product the promotion is selling, and the workforce, this is the common accepted norm across sports.

It's the same tired talking points.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

...and the way this forum fades out most of a quoted post is brilliant, walls of text on the UG are horrific...

now if this site could just get morons to stop calling anyone they disagree with a paid poster and 'voting them down' that would be +2 points over UG, lol

I've been here quite sometime and I've only ever seen someone called a paid poster a handful of times. There also isn't any vote downs.

 

[Zeph]

LOL. Sorry, that's not at you. I just still chuckle every time I think of the Reebok deal.

The Reebok deal is $35 million in the UFC pocket, but mainly I was thinking of their ring sponsorships, along with the many broadcast sponsors for movies and the like. It all adds up, and being the premier brand they can charge more than anyone else, because they draw more viewers - on most shows.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

The Reebok deal is $35 million in the UFC pocket, but mainly I was thinking of their ring sponsorships, along with the many broadcast sponsors for movies and the like. It all adds up, and being the premier brand they can charge more than anyone else, because they draw more viewers - on most shows.

$35 million is an absurdly low sum for an exclusive deal in a major sport. Reebok pays the NHL $35 mil per season, and that's just for jerseys. No other equipment and players can wear whatever they want off the ice.

 

[Zeph]

$35 million is an absurdly low sum for an exclusive deal in a major sport. Reebok pays the NHL $35 mil per season, and that's just for jerseys. No other equipment and players can wear whatever they want off the ice.

Yes, but it is compared to other MMA orgs. Which is to compare it to very little, since apart from glove deals they don't have that sort of deal. The UFC is highly monetized compared to it's competitors, and, due to their place in the sport, have more revenue streams than their competitors, is my point.

 

[La Paix]

Do you think the fighters should share 50% of the financial burden/loss in a promotion losing money?

Seems equitable under the idea they would get 50% of any profit.

Wouldn't this be like asking if the promoters would be willing to get KTFO once and a while to share the short comings the fighters deal with?

 

[DFW4L]

Scott Coker has gone on record saying that when he ran Strikeforce he, and his co-owners, aimed for a 50% split

SF was sold due to financial weakness, not a solid example

Do any other athlete's in any other sport? They are the product the promotion is selling, and the workforce, this is the common accepted norm across sports.

It's the same tired talking points.

So basically you think the industry should operate like this...

Promoters / Fighters

Promoters provide 100% of capital

Profit is split 50/50

Loss is 100% on the promoters

....as for other sports, those leagues are dozens if not scores of years old and have orgs comprised of multiple dozens teams that are almost guaranteed some level of financial stability, no comparison to the <25 year old MMA industry that has a 95% organizational failure rate

 

[FadeToBlack]

Whether he gets paid to promote or not is irrelevant, he isn't being paid enough, so call the extra cheese whatever the fuck you want.

 

[La Paix]

SF was sold due to financial weakness, not a solid example


So basically you think the industry should operate like this...

Promoters / Fighters

Promoters provide 100% of capital

Profit is split 50/50

Loss is 100% on the promoters

....as for other sports, those leagues are dozens if not scores of years old and have orgs comprised of multiple dozens teams that are almost guaranteed some level of financial stability, no comparison to the <25 year old MMA industry that has a 95% organizational failure rate

Strike force was not sold due to financial weakness.

The Secret History of Strikeforce - Part 5: Business As Usual

 

[DFW4L]

Whether he gets paid to promote or not is irrelevant, he isn't being paid enough, so call the extra cheese whatever the fuck you want.

how much is he paid?

 

[Zeph]

SF was sold due to financial weakness, not a solid example


So basically you think the industry should operate like this...

Promoters / Fighters

Promoters provide 100% of capital

Profit is split 50/50

Loss is 100% on the promoters

....as for other sports, those leagues are dozens if not scores of years old and have orgs comprised of multiple dozens teams that are almost guaranteed some level of financial stability, no comparison to the <25 year old MMA industry that has a 95% organizational failure rate

Wrong. Strikeforce was sold due to the part owners wanting to sell not due to any weakness in the business. They got an offer which they deemed acceptable and sold to concentrate on hockey.

What loss? You are making up a strawman. Did Kobe Bryant share in any losses his basketball team produced? No, because the sums involved means those teams run at a nice profit while managing to revenue share at roughly 50% with the athletes. The UFC could easily revenue share at a similar level and turn a profit, but it would mean a smaller cut of the pie for the owners, four men who you are arguing deserve the largest share of everything, and that is why it doesn't happen because they are greedy.

 

[FadeToBlack]

how much is he paid?

We don't even need to know an exact figure to infer that Zuffa is using the lack of competitive options in the marketplace to dictate the price.

If you were Zuffa and you had marginal competition, how much would you choose to pay? Would you be a nice guy and give a generous wage? I think those 2 questions essentially say it all.

 

[DFW4L]

Strike force was not sold due to financial weakness.

The Secret History of Strikeforce - Part 5: Business As Usual

Strike force was not sold due to financial weakness.

The Secret History of Strikeforce - Part 5: Business As Usual

Cocker can say whatever he wants, it was common knowledge at the time that the disastrous Fedor investment put SF far enough into the red the mainstream sports guys unloaded, heck the only reason he had investors that could sell was because SF was weak financially (why he brought them in years prior)

Cocker got in bed with The Fink and lost his company over it

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

SF was sold due to financial weakness, not a solid example


So basically you think the industry should operate like this...

Promoters / Fighters

Promoters provide 100% of capital

Profit is split 50/50

Loss is 100% on the promoters

....as for other sports, those leagues are dozens if not scores of years old and have orgs comprised of multiple dozens teams that are almost guaranteed some level of financial stability, no comparison to the <25 year old MMA industry that has a 95% organizational failure rate

It's worth noting that the fighters provide 100% of the product.

I'd also be curious to see a source for the 95% failure rate.

 

[DFW4L]

Wrong. Strikeforce was sold due to the part owners wanting to sell not due to any weakness in the business. They got an offer which they deemed acceptable and sold to concentrate on hockey.

What loss? You are making up a strawman. Did Kobe Bryant share in any losses his basketball team produced? No, because the sums involved means those teams run at a nice profit while managing to revenue share at roughly 50% with the athletes. The UFC could easily revenue share at a similar level and turn a profit, but it would mean a smaller cut of the pie for the owners, four men who you are arguing deserve the largest share of everything, and that is why it doesn't happen because they are greedy.

You are comparing the professional basketball industry and the NBA to the MMA industry and the UFC...

nonsensical

 

[DFW4L]

We don't even need to know an exact figure to infer that Zuffa is using the lack of competitive options in the marketplace to dictate the price.

If you were Zuffa and you had marginal competition, how much would you choose to pay? Would you be a nice guy and give a generous wage? I think those 2 questions essentially say it all.

You do not know how much he is paid but you know its not enough.....ok.

 

[DFW4L]

It's worth noting that the fighters provide 100% of the product.

Yea, they could basically take their services elsewhere and hold their event in a grassy field in a public park and film it on their phones, I predict eleven buys for UFC 200!

 

[FadeToBlack]

You do not know how much he is paid but you know its not enough.....ok.

That was a pretty dismissive reply. I think my post pretty much invalidates that question, unless you're arguing that Zuffa is paying way above market prices just because they're nice. Is that your argument?

 

[Zeph]

You are comparing the professional basketball industry and the NBA to the MMA industry and the UFC...

nonsensical

How about Boxing? Many Boxing promoters get none of the ppv revenue, and only make their money on international tv deals. I would estimate them taking much less than 50% of the total revenue, due to ppv revenue being the largest part of most of their broadcasts. That's because of the Ali Act, which allows the boxers to know all the revenue streams an event generates and negotiate for a bigger share.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Yea, they could basically take their services elsewhere and hold their event in a grassy field in a public park and film it on their phones, I predict eleven buys for UFC 200!

So what you're saying is one group provides the product, and one group facilitates it being brought to the public? So it's almost as if each group is providing a half. Go figure.