PDA

View Full Version : Outside the Lines Hits UFC on Fighter Pay, Dana White Vows to Hit Back



Kemal
13-01-2012, 22:55
ESPN's Outside the Lines will air an investigation into the payment for UFC fighters on Sunday morning that already has UFC President Dana White steamed, even before he's seen the report in full.

A portion of the Outside the Lines segment is available at ESPN.com, along with an article headlined, "UFC fighters say low pay simply brutal." White wasn't pleased with that, and he wrote on Twitter on Thursday that he'll have a public response to the show after it airs. He added that his people also taped ESPN's interview with UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta, and that the UFC will show fans the complete, un-edited interview.

ESPN wasn't able to get any active UFC fighters to complain about their pay on the record, and the only former fighter quoted on the record criticizing the UFC is Ken Shamrock, who has lost legal battles with the promotion. So the report is lacking any fighters who can specifically document how they've been treated unfairly by the UFC.

Where ESPN's report appears strongest is in its presentation of how much more the top fighters make than the lowest-paid fighters: It notes that the biggest stars can make seven-figure paydays for each fight, while the lowest-paid fighters make four figures per fight. There's no question that at the bottom, UFC fighters aren't making a lot of money.

However, some of the numbers presented both on the Outside the Lines broadcast and in the accompanying ESPN.com report don't seem to add up. For instance, the report refers to the median pay of UFC fighters as between $17,000 and $23,000 a year, and yet an unnamed "Fighter X" who is quoted as saying, "I'm in the middle tier of fighters," reveals that he has made as much as $80,000 in a year. If a middle-tier fighter makes $80,000, then the claim that the median pay of UFC fighters is $17,000 to $23,000 a year is bogus.

And even though it is true that some UFC fighters make less than $10,000 a fight, those are the largely interchangeable fighters who fill up the bottom of the undercard on UFC shows. Those fighters would be comparable to NFL practice squad players, who are sometimes signed for as little as a week at a time and paid as little as $5,700 for their week on an NFL team.

The Outside the Lines piece also would have benefited from exploring what has happened to rival promotions that have paid fighters more money than the UFC pays. The most notable example is the clothing company Affliction, which made a splash as an MMA promoter by signing several high-profile fighters to contracts that paid them significantly more money than they could make in the UFC. Affliction, however, went belly-up after promoting just two events.

So while it may be true that some low-paid fighters consider the UFC's pay scale to be "brutal," the UFC's business model is also the only one that has proven to be a viable way for MMA fighters to remain employed and for an MMA promotion to remain in business.

Outside the Lines is a well-respected show that often stirs up important debates inside the sports world. We'll see with Sunday's episode what kind of debate about fighter pay begins. And what kind of response White offers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_AmZDsEqc4

SpelPlan
13-01-2012, 23:42
Benieuwd naar. Valt me altijd op dat die payouts die openbaar worden gemaakt behoorlijk laag zijn. Maar alle sponsor bedragen en PPV deals etc etc zijn compleet ondoorzichtig voor mij. Ik hoop dat ze daar ook wat van op een rijtje zetten.

blackadder
14-01-2012, 20:14
http://mmajunkie.com/news/26971/ufc-boss-slams-espn-piece-ken-shamrock-promises-thorough-video-reply.mma

Kemal
15-01-2012, 21:06
Outside the Lines Investigates UFC Pay, But Questions Remain

Sunday morning marked the airing of an Outside the Lines segment on ESPN that was denounced by UFC (http://www.mmafighting.com/ufc) President Dana White before he had even seen it -- a show that presented the UFC's pay model as one that richly rewards a handful of favorite stars while paying the majority of fighters as interchangeable drones.

White has already promised a response, and he'll surely say that ESPN's report contained incomplete information about how much the company pays its fighters. And he'll surely be right, for the simple reason that the UFC, like many private businesses, keeps what it pays its workers confidential. ESPN deserves credit for attempting to uncover the closely guarded secret of how much UFC fighters actually make, but specific dollar amounts were lacking in this report.

For all the work that went into the Outside the Lines report, we still don't know how much the UFC really pays its fighters.

"Outside the Lines has spoken with more than 20 current, former and potential UFC fighters, as well as agents and promoters," ESPN's John Barr said as he strolled around a cage in the televised segment. "To a person, they say UFC fighters have not received their fair share of the company's rapidly increasing revenue. Nearly all of them also refused to speak on camera, for fear the UFC would blackball them."

But the fact that ESPN couldn't get any active fighters to speak -- and especially to reveal specific dollar amounts -- was the biggest flaw in the report. The report did make a strong case that highly paid UFC fighters make far more than low-level fighters make. In that respect the UFC follows a pay model similar to that of Hollywood studios, where a handful of stars make the bulk of the money, and the bit players are left with much less.

And while UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta claimed that the UFC pays its fighters in the neighborhood (http://realestate.aol.com/neighborhood-index) of 50 percent of all the promotion's revenues, ESPN's investigation made a convincing case that the UFC actually pays less than that.

However, there were also some weaknesses of ESPN's reporting, which pegged the actual amount the UFC pays its fighters as "roughly 10 percent of the revenue."

ESPN.com initially reported that the median annual income for UFC fighters was $17,000 to $23,000 a year, citing figures compiled by Rob Maysey of the Mixed Martial Arts (http://www.mmafighting.com/) Fighters Association. ESPN later corrected that report and said the $17,000 to $23,000 figure was actually the median pay per fight, not per year. However, even those corrected numbers do not appear to include sponsorships, bonuses and other forms of income that UFC fighters make.

And median pay per fight isn't necessarily a particularly telling statistic. Consider a low-level UFC newcomer who signs a contract that guarantees him $6,000 to show, and another $6,000 to win for his first fight, then $8,000 for his second fight and $10,000 for his third. If that fighter fights three times, wins all three fights and earns a $75,000 Knockout of the Night bonus in his third fight, his median pay per fight would only be $16,000. But his total pay for the three fights would be $123,000, for an average of $41,000 a fight.

For an example of an entry-level fighter who has cashed in big time with bonuses, look at Edson Barboza (http://www.mmafighting.com/fighter/edson/barboza/1657/), who signed with the UFC in 2010 after having six pro fights in small regional promotions. Barboza's "show money" is reportedly just $6,000 a fight. But Barboza has won all four of his fights, meaning he also got a $6,000 win bonus for all four fights, and Barboza has received three Fight of the Night bonuses and one Knockout of the Night bonus (including both Fight of the Night and Knockout of the Night on Saturday at UFC 142 (http://www.mmafighting.com/tag/UFC+142/)). Thanks to the UFC's bonus-heavy pay structure, Barboza's total take for his first four UFC fights is at least $348,000, even before any sponsorships or other sources of income.

Even without bonuses, entry-level fighters aren't necessarily doing too badly. One such fighter is UFC featherweight Jim Hettes. Hettes was an unknown in MMA (http://www.mmafighting.com/) circles, fighting on the regional scene, until he caught a break in August and signed with the UFC on a deal that paid him $6,000 to show and $6,000 to win on his first fight, and then $8,000 to show and $8,000 to win on his second fight. Hettes won both fights, for a total take of $28,000, and is now looking like one of the brightest young prospects in the featherweight division.

For a 24-year-old like Hettes, making $28,000 in five months while fighting in the UFC, with a good chance of making a lot more than that in the future, is a dream come true. ESPN didn't quote any active fighters complaining about their pay on the record and indicated that the inability to find such fighters was a sign that fighters were scared to speak out. But maybe the reality is most UFC fighters are OK with what they make.

In fact, when low-level fighters are released from the UFC because of losses they suffer in the Octagon, they almost universally express a desire to win enough fights in other promotions to earn the right to return to the UFC -- which strongly suggests that they don't view the contracts they've just been released from as onerous.

The handful of mid-level fighters who have been released from the UFC for reasons having to do with issues outside the Octagon (fighters like Jon Fitch, Nate Marquardt and Miguel Torres) also generally apologize for their transgressions and ask to return to the UFC. Again, that suggests that the contracts they were released from were better than the contracts they could earn in other promotions.

And the few prominent fighters who have become free agents, like Tito Ortiz, have generally decided when the dust settled that the grass was greener inside the Octagon than out of it. UFC Hall of Famer Ken Shamrock appeared in the Outside the Lines report, and it may not have been clear to viewers who aren't MMA fans that Shamrock made millions of dollars in the UFC, or that Shamrock left the promotion because he wasn't good enough to win inside the Octagon anymore, not because he objected to the terms of his contract. That was clarified, however, in the panel discussion that took place after Barr's taped Outside the Lines report.

It is true that a handful of well-known fighters have been able to leave the UFC and make more money elsewhere. That includes former heavyweight champions Andrei Arlovski and Tim Sylvia, who both left the UFC to sign with Affliction in 2008. But Affliction fell apart after putting on just two fight cards, which suggests that its higher-paying business model didn't work.

ESPN's report would have been strengthened by addressing other promotions' business models, including not only Affliction but also Bellator and other smaller American MMA organizations. The UFC is by far the biggest MMA promotion and therefore deserves to have by far the greatest scrutiny, but a comparison of the UFC's pay scale with other promotions' pay scales would have provided some valuable context.

Ultimately, as former UFC heavyweight champion Ricco Rodriguez said on Outside the Lines, "The UFC gives you the best opportunity." It would be great to see more opportunities for more fighters, but at the moment, even if UFC pay is lacking, it beats the alternatives in MMA.

Biiyen
16-01-2012, 00:34
Reactie van Dana op ESPN en Ken Shamrock: Denk dat Dana een punt heeft in deze.

"This thing started making money in 2005, 2006," White said of the UFC's growth. "It's 2012. If you look at the money the guys made from 2006 to 2012, it's phenomenal what we've done. These guys are coming out, and they got Ken Shamrock. Are you [expletive] kidding me? You know how much money Ken Shamrock owes me?

"Ken Shamrock filed a bogus lawsuit against us and lost. He owes us that money. Do you know what I've done for Ken Shamrock? Ken Shamrock, when I brought him over, he was broke – flat [expletive] broke. He was in income-tax trouble. His knee was shot. I rebuilt his knee. I got him out of income-tax trouble, fronted him a [expletive]-load of money. We gave him money – literally gave him money – $60,000. We gave him $60,000 just to get him back on his feet. You know how much money he made in the two fights he fought with us? $2.5 million.

"[Expletive] you Ken Shamrock."

Kemal
16-01-2012, 18:24
UFC Owner Lorenzo Fertitta Hits Back at ESPN Over Fighter Pay

Hours after ESPN's Outside the Lines aired an investigation of the way the UFC pays its fighters, the UFC released its own video of a portion of UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta's interview with ESPN -- a portion that didn't make it on the air, in which Fertitta said UFC fighters make better money than boxers who fight on ESPN.

In that interview, Fertitta points out that ESPN is in a better financial position than the UFC, and yet boxers who appear on ESPN's Friday Night Fights make less money than fighters who appear on basic cable fight cards in the UFC.

"ESPN's gonna make $2.8 billion," Fertitta said. "ESPN -- do you know what fighters make on ESPN fights? There was a guy who walked away in this last fight here in Vegas. ... He walked away with $275 for a four-round fight."

Fertitta said that compared with what those boxers make, the UFC's typical entry-level fighter pay of $6,000 to show and another $6,000 if they win is a good contract.

"I think six and six is pretty good compared to that," Fertitta said. "There's multiple guys on those ESPN cards that make in the hundreds of dollars. I can tell you that our fights that we put on cable, on Spike TV or on Versus, we pay ten times to the fighters what ESPN pays to their fighters. Ten times. And we don't make $2.8 billion. I can tell you that right now."

ESPN and the UFC aren't completely comparable, as the UFC is a promoter, while ESPN is a broadcaster that pays a license fee to boxing promoters. And ESPN reporter John Barr acknowledged in the Outside the Lines piece that entry-level UFC pay is "far in excess of the paydays for many boxers who, at the lowest levels, fight for hundreds of dollars a night."

But Fertitta makes a fair point: Will Outside the Lines also investigate how much the boxing promoters who do business with ESPN are paying their boxers?

Fighter pay is an important issue that should be tackled by journalists. But it's an issue in both boxing and MMA, and ESPN's report could have been strengthened by providing more context by contrasting the pay of UFC fighters with the pay of boxers.

UFC President Dana White said that his company taped Fertitta's entire interview. It remains to be seen whether the full, uncut interview will be made available to the public, either by the UFC or by ESPN.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbbs5nKXliU&feature=player_detailpage

blackadder
16-01-2012, 19:52
ESPN is toch een zender en geen promoter? Die hoeven de vechters helemaal niks te betalen.

blackadder
16-01-2012, 19:58
En de langere versie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck0Lb8pDmVg&feature=player_embedded

Kemal
16-01-2012, 20:01
Dana White Calls ESPN Report 'Piece of Trash' As UFC Releases Its Own Report

UFC President Dana White promised before ESPN's Outside the Lines reported on fighter pay that the UFC would release a video of Lorenzo Fertitta's full, uncut interview with ESPN. But what the UFC actually posted online on Monday was something more than that -- it was a full-on rebuttal of the Outside the Lines report that featured not only Fertitta's comments but also comments from White and some of the UFC's fighters.

White introduced the UFC's video by referring to the Outside the Lines report as a "piece of trash" and "one-sided." And while Outside the Lines is generally well-respected for producing high-quality sports journalism, White also said he doesn't respect the kind of journalism that ESPN does.

"They're dirty, they lie, and they never really give you all the facts," White said.

The UFC's response makes the case that the pay scale in the UFC is better than the ESPN report would have had viewers believe, noting that many UFC fighters have become rich for what they did inside the Octagon. However, the Outside the Lines report didn't dispute that -- Outside the Lines acknowledged that the UFC's best draws are doing well financially. Outside the Lines was more concerned with how much the entry-level fighters are making.

Where the UFC's rebuttal report is lacking is in offering any specifics about how much money the low-tiered fighters are making. Fighters like Chuck Liddell, Forrest Griffin and Matt Serra are featured saying they're satisfied with their pay, but those three guys are popular former champions. There still isn't a lot of information available about how much entry-level fighters are making. Fertitta says specific payroll numbers are not something the UFC is interested in revealing.

"We're not hiding anything from anybody, it's just that we don't publish it for everybody to see," Fertitta says. "We're not a public company. There's no reason for us to do that."

The strongest part of the UFC's response comes at the very end, where Ken Shamrock is shown after his final UFC fight talking about how much money he made in the UFC. Shamrock was featured on ESPN talking about how fighters don't get paid enough by the UFC, so that quote from Shamrock is a strong rebuttal.

But featuring Shamrock is something of a distraction from the real issue at hand. The issue isn't whether well-known fighters like Shamrock are making good money, it's whether the undercard fighters are making good money.

The UFC has also chosen not to release information about how much fighters are making from sources like sponsorships and pay-per-view bonuses. For some fighters, those sources of income represent more than what they make in their purses. But we don't know for sure which fighters are getting those kinds of bonuses because the UFC has chosen to keep that information private.

Ultimately, Outside the Lines and the ESPN response offered two sides of a story. And neither side has told the whole story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7neKshmjzI&feature=player_detailpage

ijsbier
16-01-2012, 22:57
ufc moet of gedwongen worden concurrentie van andere orgs toe te staan (zoals bij het boxen), of er moet een spelersvakbond worden opgericht, zoals bij NFL en NBA.

The Company
16-01-2012, 23:22
ufc moet of gedwongen worden concurrentie van andere orgs toe te staan (zoals bij het boxen), of er moet een spelersvakbond worden opgericht, zoals bij NFL en NBA.

Er is toch concurentie van Bellator. Volgens mij worden de UFC vechters helemaal niet zo slecht betaald. Het is bij lange na nog niet mainstream in Amerika. Volgens mij denkt 99% van de mensen nog steeds dat Kimbo de beste MMA vechter ooit is.

blackadder
16-01-2012, 23:26
Er is toch concurentie van Bellator.
Nog niet echt. Hebben ze gewoonweg niet de highprofile vechters voor.

Volgens mij denkt 99% van de mensen nog steeds dat Kimbo de beste MMA vechter ooit is.
Nee man. Butterbean.

Biiyen
16-01-2012, 23:29
Wat de UFC nu doet is wel het ultieme wapen tegen dt soort azijnpissers. Zou iedereen moeten doen, is het heel snel afgelopen met dat soort riool-journalisme.

SpelPlan
16-01-2012, 23:48
Er is toch concurentie van Bellator. Volgens mij worden de UFC vechters helemaal niet zo slecht betaald. Het is bij lange na nog niet mainstream in Amerika. Volgens mij denkt 99% van de mensen nog steeds dat Kimbo de beste MMA vechter ooit is.

Ik denk dat de meeste mensen het grootste probleem hebben met de verschillen in verdiensten tussen de lagere undercard vechters en wat de main event verdient.

Maar als je een vechter al meteen financieel onafhankelijk maakt ben je de meeste al vrij snel kwijt. Op deze manier hou je ze eager om een tijd lang alles erin te leggen met de hoop om aan het eind van de rit binnen een paar gevechten je pensioen bij elkaar te rammen. En ik denk dat dat is hoe het moet zijn. Eigenlijk net als een entry level job versus wat de top tier managers verdienen. Alleen dan met een veel kleiner verschil.:)

Als je ziet hoe belachelijk veel mensen in Amerika geen ziektekostenverzekering hebben, en hoe schofterig duur het is, is alleen dit al een vrij goede reden voor veel vechters om onder contract bij de UFC te staan: http://mmapayout.com/2011/05/ufc-offers-fighters-health-insurance/

Harrie Nak
17-01-2012, 15:43
Sean McCorkle heeft zich hier op het UG forum ook maar eens over uitgelaten:


I keep hearing so many things back and forth on the issue I thought I'd give the UG the real story on UFC pay. At least as it pertains to me.

During my 3 fight stint with the UFC the paid me exactly 150% what they were contractually obligated to pay me. That is without a KO/Sub/Fight of the night bonus of any kind. That is even though I lost 2 of my 3 fights.

I got a discretionary bonus after all 3 of my fights, even an amount equal to my what would have been my win bonus after my embarrassing performance against Stephan Struve. I was told that was given to me based strictly on the effort I put in to promoting the fight, and not because of how I performed.

I am currently unaware of any pro sports franchise that pays any player more money than they are obligated to do so.

Sponsorship wise during those 3 fights I made an average each fight of about 75% of what I was contracted to be paid by the UFC. So if my purse for fighting was $10,000 I made approximately $7,500 in sponsors on average.

Take an average fighter's reported pay for a televised fight, and double it, and you'll have a rough number of the amount he made on that fight. So if a guy is reported at $12,000 to show, and $12,000 to win, chances are he'll make around $50,000 by the time it's all said and done for that fight.

As far as the main event fighters and big stars like Brock, GSP, Anderson Silva, who share in the PPV revenue, the reported numbers are not even in the ballpark. GSP might be reported to make $250,000 when he in fact made $3-$4 million.

To give you some more perspective on how fighting in the UFC compares to other organizations, this is how my career pay breaks down ranked dollar wise.

1. Stefan Struve
2. Mark Hunt
3. My other 12 non UFC fights all combined
4. Christian Morecraft

So I made more in each of 2 of my 3 UFC fights than I did in all of my 12 non UFC fights combined. I made barely less against Christian Morecraft than I did in the other 12 combined.

I've owned my own business in the past and had over 130 employees at one point, so I've been on both sides of the coin. This is how I see it. The Fertittas risked millions of dollars of their own money on a sport that nobody would touch, and have turned it into a billion dollar business. Those who take the risk, deserve the reward no matter how astronomical it may become.

As an employee, you are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay you. If guys are unhappy in the UFC and someone is offering them more money, then by all means they should jump all over the opportunity. Affliction paid Tim Sylvia $800,000 to fight Fedor, when his contract at the time with the UFC was around $100k to show, and $100k to win. Who could blame him for taking the Affliction offer? I know that's what I would have done. Andrei Arlovski got $600,000 to fight Ben Rothwell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ben%20rothwell) so he left the UFC when he also was making approximately $100k/$100k.

Now I realize I'm going to get hit with "you're just kissing the UFC's ass because you want back in", and that's fine. Because if I said negative things about them, it'd be "you're just mad that they cut you, so you're trying to settle the score." I lose either way, so I might as well be honest.

After I was released from the UFC they have since began providing health insurance for their contracted fighters for injuries incurred during training, as well as twitter bonuses, so the money just keeps getting better.

On the issue of a fighter union, I've never really seen that as a positive thing. Unions are, it seems, always corrupt and normally, like everything else in life, are set up and ran for the benefit of a very few. Unions might mean higher fighter pay, but that in turn will result in higher PPV, merchandise, and ticket prices for the fans. Unions also mean the possibility of work stoppages, which are disastrous for any sport.

Part of the solution to the entire issue would be fighters fighting more often. I realize that time is needed between fights for a lot of the headlining guys in order to market and promote the fight, but under card and lower level guys could fight 5-6 times a year easily barring major injury. The beatings you take in the gym on a weekly basis are often times as bad or worse than what you endure during a fight. NFL players play once a week every week for 4-6 months straight. NBA players play 3x a week for 6 months straight.

As the sport continues to grow, the fighter pay will as well. Until the UFC has a complete monopoly on the industry and there literally is no other option, like the NFL has on football, then the discussion of fighter pay is irrelevant. If guys are worth more than they are being paid, then they should go out and get it. I always told that to my employees, and I never begrudged even one of them for taking a better job somewhere else. That's life.

THE END BITCHES

Asura
17-01-2012, 17:21
ESPN is toch een zender en geen promoter? Die hoeven de vechters helemaal niks te betalen.

x2
Gaat nergens over, maar je hebt altijd sukkels die het geloven en daar gaat het om. Het inkomen van ESPN welke Fertitta noemt komt ook nog eens vooral uit vele andere sporten dan boksen en advertisement.

Dat zijn dezelfde mensen die denken dat een bedrijf pas een monopolie heeft als ze 100% marktaandeel hebben. Bellator kan je ook onmogelijk concurrentie noemen, dat is zeggen dat Shell concurrentie heeft van iemand die ergens een paar honderd liter benzine op marktplaats zet.

blackadder
17-01-2012, 17:29
The Unionization of UFC Fighters: Fair Fight or Punchy Argument?


http://blogs-images.forbes.com/prishe/files/2012/01/215x300.jpg (http://www.daylife.com/image/0aej6Lt3xoaH8?utm_source=zemanta&utm_medium=p&utm_content=0aej6Lt3xoaH8&utm_campaign=z1)
Image by Getty Images via @daylife


To the victor goes the spoils.
And in tournament style competitions, incentive structures typically exist that try to elicit maximum effort from a sport’s competitors.
But when a sport rakes in significant windfalls of cash while exposing its athletes to significant health risks, don’t those athletes have the right to collectively fight for their short-term and long-run financial best interest?
The issue of athlete unionization in the sport of mixed martial arts gained significant exposure recently following (1) an ESPN Outside the Line (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/UFCpay/ufc-fighters-say-low-pay-most-painful-hit-all) piece on the subject and (2) Dana White’s response (http://theflyingkneemma.com/2012/01/16/news-dana-white-and-the-ufc-respond-to-espns-outside-the-lines-accusations/) to the ESPN piece. Mr. White is the President of the UFC Tour.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/01/16/the-unionization-of-ufc-fighters-fair-fight-or-punchy-argument/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/01/16/the-unionization-of-ufc-fighters-fair-fight-or-punchy-argument/)

Roque
17-01-2012, 17:48
Nog niet echt. Hebben ze gewoonweg niet de highprofile vechters voor.

Nee man. Butterbean.

Hulk Hogan

Kemal
17-01-2012, 19:23
What We Talk About When We Talk About UFC Fighter Pay

It probably tells us something that UFC president Dana White knew he hated ESPN's Outside the Lines segment on fighter pay well before he saw it. One gets the sense that he hated the topic more than the source or the approach, and the UFC's heavy-handed response to the story only confirms that this is a conversation the UFC would probably rather stop before it starts.

ESPN tells us that many UFC fighters are practically despondent about their pay, even if it can't name any of them or produce any meaningful, verifiable financial figures that make the case. The piece questions Lorenzo Fertitta's claim that the UFC pays somewhere "in the neighborhood" of half its revenue to fighters, as most major sports leagues do, but it can't disprove it. And when ESPN's John Barr says he's spoken with "more than 20 current, former, and potential UFC fighters," the savvy viewer is right to stop and ask just what he means by "potential" UFC fighters, and how many of the former fighters are guys like Ken Shamrock, who is the only fighter quoted in the piece, and who is, shall we say, not the most reliable or unbiased of sources on the topic.

In response, the UFC crafted a clever little piece of propaganda featuring interviews with fighters Forrest Griffin, Chuck Liddell, and Matt Serra, all of whom have nothing but positive things to say about how the UFC compensates its fighters. Shocking right? And here I thought that when the UFC showed up at Griffin's house with a camera he'd have used the opportunity to unload on his employers with one bitter complaint after another. And who could have guessed that Liddell, who was given a cushy, do-nothing corporate gig with the UFC once his fighting days were finished, would be so supportive? Never saw that one coming, I tell you.

The UFC loves to tout its post-fight bonuses, all that off-the-books money that it gives away out of sheer generosity and appreciation, and it does so again in its video rebuttal. It's true that the UFC literally gives away money that it doesn't have to. I've talked to dozens of fighters who have told me stories of White writing them a check that they didn't earn, contractually speaking. I've also talked to fighters who thought they went out of their way to hype a fight or put on a great show, only to have the UFC pat them on the back and send them on their way without the extra monetary appreciation they were expecting.

The current bonus system keeps fighters in a constant state of financial anticipation. They know the big money is out there somewhere, but unlike in most employer/employee relationships, it isn't laid out in print anywhere exactly what they need to do to get their hands on it. In that sense, fighters are like a primitive tribe of people worshipping inscrutable gods. They keep putting different offerings on the altar, trying different dances to make it rain. Sometimes it rains, and sometimes it doesn't. Some guys are thirstier than others. Some guys are better dancers.

One thing the ESPN piece and the UFC response have in common is a lack of detailed financial information. For a conversation entirely about money, there aren't a lot of numbers being thrown around here. ESPN would probably blame the UFC for that, arguing that because it doesn't release information about how much it makes and how much it pays out, we can't really know whether Fertitta's claims are accurate. That's true, but as Fertitta points out, the UFC doesn't have to release any of that information, and it's definitely not going to invite a closer scrutiny of its books if it doesn't have to. What company would?

But this argument gets us nowhere. ESPN says fighters want more money, which isn't at all hard to believe. So do NFL and NBA players. The difference is how they go about getting it.

It's easy to swat the UFC upside the head about fighter pay and ask why it isn't sharing a bigger slice of the revenue pie with fighters, but it's also naive. Why should the UFC be the lone company in this capitalist dogfight of ours to simply decide, out of sheer altruism, to give more and take less? If fighters are really unhappy with the deal they're getting from the UFC, they need to do what athletes in every other major pro sport have done: form a union.

What would it take to form a fighter union? The same thing it takes in any industry: a willingness to stand together, and the participation of a few key people. If Georges St. Pierre, Jon Jones, and Anderson Silva banded together with a few of the lower-tier fighters, the UFC would have little choice but to recognize their union. If it didn't -- if it decided instead to cut its top three champions for daring to organize -- it would bring such an avalanche of bad publicity down upon itself that it would wish it had signed a blank check instead. A mess like that could easily end in congressional hearings and a sponsor exodus, and no one at the UFC wants either.

Then again, what do GSP, Jones, and Silva need a union for? They're doing fine as it is. They're rich and well taken care of by the UFC, so why speak up and potentially cost themselves money? Why should they care what Octagon newbies are getting paid?

In other words, the people who are most capable of creating a union and addressing issues like fighter pay and general transparency are the people who need it least. It's pointless to address these complaints to the UFC, which isn't going to simply decide to give away more money just to keep reporters away. Instead, bring it up with GSP. Bring it up with Dan Henderson and Frankie Edgar. Ask them if they're willing to do what's necessary to secure a better future for the fighters of tomorrow, even if it means angering the UFC brass today.

That might be a harder sell in the fight business than it is among pro baseball or football players. Those guys are used to working together against a common foe, and maybe that makes it easier to unite them against greedy owners. MMA fighters, on the other hand, are more accustomed to a certain brand of self-reliance. They're used to a world where there's only one champ in each division, one man sitting at the head of the table and eating his fill for as long as he can hold on to the chair. They're all certain that they'll be that man some day, so none are eager to complain that he's the only one getting a decent meal. You come into that world and tell them to unite in service of the fighters they either don't know or don't care about, and you might not get such a warm reception.

But this is how it's gone in every pro sport. The NFL players of today might enjoy great salaries, solid pension plans, and health care for their later years when the bill for all they've done to their bodies comes due -- all things that UFC fighters need and deserve -- but they didn't get it by waiting around for the owners to give it up voluntarily. It never works that way. Not in any business.

If fighters want to do something about their pay and their treatment in the UFC, it's up to them to join together and make it happen. For that, they need powerful leaders who don't need them. If those leaders decide it's not worth it, that they're doing just fine on their own, then at least we'll have our answer. But asking the UFC when it's going to fork over more money to fighters is like asking a CEO when he's going to give himself a pay cut so factory workers can get a raise. Change won't come on its own, via some self-imposed sense of fairness. It's going to take a struggle, and that struggle is going to have to begin with the fighters.

Kemal
18-01-2012, 18:09
Michael Bisping: Criticism of UFC Fighter Pay Makes Me Mad

Michael Bisping doesn't mince words when you ask for his take on the thorny issue of fighter pay in the UFC.

"I'm absolutely ecstatically happy with it," the British middleweight told MMA Fighting earlier this week. "Words cannot describe."

Then again, when you look at what the six-year UFC veteran is making every time he steps in the cage, it's not hard to understand his enthusiasm. In his most recent bout against Jason "Mayhem" Miller in December, for example, Bisping pocketed a cool $425,000 for his TKO win, according to the official payouts reported by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. That figure included a win bonus of $150,000, but didn't factor in any money he may have earned through sponsorships or undisclosed bonuses.

In other words, Michael Bisping is doing just fine these days. That's why, when he saw the recent ESPN report and the ensuing online discussions about fighter compensation in the UFC, he found himself getting more than a little worked up about all the criticism he was hearing, he said.

"To be honest, it makes me mad, because people don't understand," said Bisping. "I've worked hard, and I get [the amount stipulated in the contract], but when Dana comes into the locker room and gives me a check afterwards, they don't have to do that. Far from it. I was already very happy with the money I was getting, but then they'll hand you another check on top of that and say, 'Well done...good job,' and there'll be another huge check inside the envelope."

Of course, few fighters would complain about making what Bisping makes to fight in the UFC. His per fight guarantee is among the highest in the organization for non-title holders. It's the guys further down the totem pole -- those making just a few grand to show and a few to win -- who most critics of the UFC's pay structure focus on.

But according to Bisping, even those fighters have no cause for complaint the way he sees it.

"When I was an up-and-coming fighter I used to fight in these sh---y little shows and make no money," he said. "I used to sleep in my car. I couldn't pay my bills. I had to work on the weekends. So if I had to go out now [as an incoming UFC fighter] and I had to win a few fights, make six [thousand dollars to show] and six [thousand dollars to win], that's $12,000, plus maybe two or three thousand more in sponsors, and fight three or four times a way, that's not bad money. I'd be able to pay my bills and train full-time."

It's more or less the same argument put forth in the UFC's video response to the ESPN Outside the Lines story. The basic thesis is the UFC is a venue for up-and-coming fighters to show their talent and gain some fan recognition, so they should see the meager starting pay as an investment and an opportunity, which is exactly how it's worked out for Bisping, he said.

"If you win, and you start getting some notoriety with the fans and put on a good show, your pay's going to quickly go up. You start at six and six because the UFC is running a business. It's not, 'Oh, this guy's good enough to be in the UFC? Let's pay him a quarter of a million dollars.' It's not like that. They'll pay you a decent amount just for showing up, and even that's a big jump up from the regional show that you're used to. If you do well, they'll take care of you. They'll probably give you a bonus backstage and you'll quickly be in a new contract with a significant pay raise. If you put on good shows, you'll find success."

The way Bisping sees it, it's that 'if' that makes all the difference. If you win, and if fans want to see you fight again, more money is on the way. If not, then maybe you didn't belong in the UFC to begin with.

For Bisping, it's a formula that's worked out perfectly so far. Like other Ultimate Fighter winners, he started out on the lower end of the pay scale. Now he's clocking six figures just for stepping in the cage.

"From my initial involvement with the UFC on, the UFC has done nothing but take great care of me and my family," said Bisping. "They've always gone above and beyond the call of duty. They really have. With bonuses, with care, if I ever have injuries they give me access to the best doctors and then pay for everything. Myself and my family, we're living a great lifestyle. ...I'm making more money in one fight than I could have in 20 years of my old job. So you'll never hear a bad word come out of my mouth about the UFC's pay structure."

Kemal
27-01-2012, 08:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=czEUchz63Fc

Kemal
27-01-2012, 22:09
Dana White Thinks Revealing Fighters' Actual Salaries Would Be Harmful

UFC president Dana White believes revealing his fighters' actual salaries would be damaging to their lives.

On the same day first baseman Prince Fielder finalized a nine-year deal with the Detroit Tigers worth $214 million, White says people should not be envious of Fielder's seemingly magnificent position.

"You don't want to be Prince Fielder over the next three years," White told reporters on Thursday. "When people know -- his life is going to be horrible. His whole life is going to change. He thought is was bad before? With the s--t he had going in his life? Everyone and their mother is coming after that 214."

Since the UFC is a privately-owned company, they are not required to make their numbers public. They have to report the fighter purses to the commission, but those numbers don't tell the actual story of a fighter's final earnings once bonuses and possible pay-per-view cuts are factored in.

White recalled meeting FOX executives for the first time and telling them how much fighters actually make. FOX executives were blown away and questioned why White wouldn't discuss the salaries in public for good press.

"The FOX guys were like, 'Holy s--t, these guys make this much money? Why don't you plaster this everywhere? This is the thing that will put you guys over the top. This is the thing people love to see and talk about and all.'"

As the saying goes, "Mo' money, mo' problems" and White is refusing to put fighters in a position where they could attract negative attention.

"I've had these conversations with Mike Tyson," White said. "Mike said when his money was reported, his f--kin' life was miserable. I'm not doing it. So just because you don't know everything. You don't have to know everything. And to be honest with you, it's not your f--kin' business. They're making a lot of money."