Ah yes, the old Mark Coleman method
[quote]dhickey wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We know about what the UFC is worth. And that should tell you something. There are large equity groups willing to pay 1 billion for the UFC. Do you think those guys know how to figure profit/loss on a business? Ah, yep.
You believe the UFC is a billion dollar company?[/quote]
As you know there is a difference between revenue and what a company is worth. A business can be valued a number of different ways. That said I do think that the UFC is probably worth in the neighborhood of 1 billion, the potential alone is staggering, and their yearly revenue is in the hundreds of millions.
[quote]Comparing the UFC to other sports is the only real measure of worth relative to fighter salaries. If golfers, Boxers, football, baseball, hockey and tennis make far more than mma fighters and the popularity of mma is equal or greater to those other sports (which it is) then you know that the fighters are taking a royal screwing (which they are).
Simple.
The UFC is not as popular as the golf, boxing, football, baseball, hockey, or tennis. These other sports are on another level of sponsorship and veiwership. [/quote]
Popularity is an interesting word. Uncle Harry who is 72 years old loves to watch golf every sunday on TV, but he’s not spent even one thin dime supporting the PGA. On the other hand cousin Billy who is 29 years old likes mma and every time there’s a UFC fight on he’s paying his 40 bucks (or so) to watch it. Which kind of support do you think matters most?
Not that this has anything to do with the argument at hand, but since you continue to attack my ability to understand I want to clarify a few things. I have a degree in business from a very credible four year institution. I’ve also started and sold a few businesses. There are many others who have far more experience and education than I, but I do know how it all works as I’ve been there. Since we are talking about backgrounds please share with me your business background.
As for the debate at hand if you are reiterating your point that if the fighters were worth more then they would be paid more I can only say that this particular debate does not revolve around that issue. Dana White and company pretty much have a lock on big time mma, this we know. Hence, we also know that he is able to pay the fighers what ever slaray he thinks will keep them interested. At this point he feels that paying them less than every other athlete in every other major sport is a good idea. I’m not questioning his ability to do that. Are we clear on this? The argument is that Dana White can afford to pay them more but doesn’t. I’m not debating WHY he doesn’t. My main point is that he can afford to and doesn’t. And my greater argument is that underpaying the fighters, as he does, harms everyone including himself long-term, as I explained previously.
And you apparently do not understand what this debate is about, but stick around and I will continue to clarify it for you.
I think Silva is the one with the brain injury. Mir is 40lbs heavier than him. He would rip off Silva’s arm and then knock him out with it. Whats next? Anderson Silva vs Godzilla? Anderson Silva vs an M1 Abrams Tank? Anderson Silva vs Lesnar? I don’t care that Silva has laser targeted punches and makes The Flash look like an old granny, Mir would turn him into a vegetable.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Popularity is an interesting word. Uncle Harry who is 72 years old loves to watch golf every sunday on TV, but he’s not spent even one thin dime supporting the PGA. On the other hand cousin Billy who is 29 years old likes mma and every time there’s a UFC fight on he’s paying his 40 bucks (or so) to watch it. Which kind of support do you think matters most?
[/quote]
The PGA and the UFC are not that interested in the direct revenue (though it is nice) what they actually want is ad dollars. MMA is attractive to advertisers because it attracts the 18-24 demographic pretty well however Golf has a total viewership several multiples larger than MMA at the moment.
I love watching this argument over fighter pay…I’ve been saying this for years. No worries Zeb, dhickey and cockney blue have been toeing the UFC line for awhile now, counter-indoctrination is impossible
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Popularity is an interesting word. Uncle Harry who is 72 years old loves to watch golf every sunday on TV, but he’s not spent even one thin dime supporting the PGA. On the other hand cousin Billy who is 29 years old likes mma and every time there’s a UFC fight on he’s paying his 40 bucks (or so) to watch it. Which kind of support do you think matters most?
The PGA and the UFC are not that interested in the direct revenue (though it is nice) what they actually want is ad dollars. MMA is attractive to advertisers because it attracts the 18-24 demographic pretty well however Golf has a total viewership several multiples larger than MMA at the moment.[/quote]
Actually the exact demographic that the UFC attracts strongest is 18-34 year old males. According to Advertising Age: â??this is the demographic that is seen as the most important by Spike TV and the UFC due to the fact that it is highly coveted by advertisers.â?? As we all know that means more money for Dana White and company to NOT share with the fighters. Anyway, the UFC is also strong in the broader and equally important among 18 to 49 year olds. This too is great news for the UFC,
Golf on the other hand has a totally different situation to contend with. It seems that Tiger Woods is known by about 90% of the population, thatâ??s a good thing. The bad thing is that when Tiger is not playing viewership for Golf is negatively effected. In addition to this Golf viewers are older and many are not in the coveted 18-49 group. In fact, the more traditional sports such as Golf, and many others, are losing followers to sports like mma. That’s one more reason Dana White and company are not in a hurry to sell the UFC for 1 billion to a private equity group. The momentum is in their favor in a big way.
Here’s an interesting article that which talks about this very thing:
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/jan01/jan22/4_thurs/news3thursday.html
[quote]slimjim wrote:
I love watching this argument over fighter pay…I’ve been saying this for years. No worries Zeb, dhickey and cockney blue have been toeing the UFC line for awhile now, counter-indoctrination is impossible[/quote]
Probably true, but the debate is still fun. I think that they’re both knowledgable guys we just happen to see things differently, that’s what makes a good debate.
By the way, I see that you’re still giving insightful comments on the sport. I’d be interested in hearing your opinion on which way mma is going to go over the next 3 to 5 years. Do you see another organization challenging the UFC? Mark Cuban and Donald Trump certainly had the capital but zero experience. They needed a good operator, a hands on guy who could talk to the fighters, someone who actually understood the game.
What say you?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Popularity is an interesting word. Uncle Harry who is 72 years old loves to watch golf every sunday on TV, but he’s not spent even one thin dime supporting the PGA. On the other hand cousin Billy who is 29 years old likes mma and every time there’s a UFC fight on he’s paying his 40 bucks (or so) to watch it. Which kind of support do you think matters most?
The PGA and the UFC are not that interested in the direct revenue (though it is nice) what they actually want is ad dollars. MMA is attractive to advertisers because it attracts the 18-24 demographic pretty well however Golf has a total viewership several multiples larger than MMA at the moment.
Actually the exact demographic that the UFC attracts strongest is 18-34 year old males. According to Advertising Age: â??this is the demographic that is seen as the most important by Spike TV and the UFC due to the fact that it is highly coveted by advertisers.â?? As we all know that means more money for Dana White and company to NOT share with the fighters. Anyway, the UFC is also strong in the broader and equally important among 18 to 49 year olds. This too is great news for the UFC,
Golf on the other hand has a totally different situation to contend with. It seems that Tiger Woods is known by about 90% of the population, thatâ??s a good thing. The bad thing is that when Tiger is not playing viewership for Golf is negatively effected. In addition to this Golf viewers are older and many are not in the coveted 18-49 group. In fact, the more traditional sports such as Golf, and many others, are losing followers to sports like mma. That’s one more reason Dana White and company are not in a hurry to sell the UFC for 1 billion to a private equity group. The momentum is in their favor in a big way.
Here’s an interesting article that which talks about this very thing:
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/jan01/jan22/4_thurs/news3thursday.html
[/quote]
I know, which is why that is exactly what I said. Point is that the PGA still has ad sales several multiples larger than the UFC due to the fact that it’s audience absolutely dwarfs the UFC.
Times are changing but have not changed yet.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Popularity is an interesting word. Uncle Harry who is 72 years old loves to watch golf every sunday on TV, but he’s not spent even one thin dime supporting the PGA. On the other hand cousin Billy who is 29 years old likes mma and every time there’s a UFC fight on he’s paying his 40 bucks (or so) to watch it. Which kind of support do you think matters most?
The PGA and the UFC are not that interested in the direct revenue (though it is nice) what they actually want is ad dollars. MMA is attractive to advertisers because it attracts the 18-24 demographic pretty well however Golf has a total viewership several multiples larger than MMA at the moment.
Actually the exact demographic that the UFC attracts strongest is 18-34 year old males. According to Advertising Age: �¢??this is the demographic that is seen as the most important by Spike TV and the UFC due to the fact that it is highly coveted by advertisers.�¢?? As we all know that means more money for Dana White and company to NOT share with the fighters. Anyway, the UFC is also strong in the broader and equally important among 18 to 49 year olds. This too is great news for the UFC,
Golf on the other hand has a totally different situation to contend with. It seems that Tiger Woods is known by about 90% of the population, thatÃ?¢??s a good thing. The bad thing is that when Tiger is not playing viewership for Golf is negatively effected. In addition to this Golf viewers are older and many are not in the coveted 18-49 group. In fact, the more traditional sports such as Golf, and many others, are losing followers to sports like mma. That’s one more reason Dana White and company are not in a hurry to sell the UFC for 1 billion to a private equity group. The momentum is in their favor in a big way.
Here’s an interesting article that which talks about this very thing:
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/jan01/jan22/4_thurs/news3thursday.html
I know, which is why that is exactly what I said. Point is that the PGA still has ad sales several multiples larger than the UFC due to the fact that it’s audience absolutely dwarfs the UFC.
Times are changing but have not changed yet.[/quote]
Would you mind giving me the total ad dollars for Golf relative you’re talking about? I couldn’t find any figures that would back up what you’re saying. We do know that the UFC generates more ppv buys than either boxing or theatrical (fake) wrestling. Yet, for some odd reason the stars of both of those other two sports make much more than UFC fighters. But then I’ve already pointed this out, sorry to bore everyone with it again.
Here’s more information about the incredible drawing power of the show “Ultimate Fighter”.
"Led by a fight between Internet sensation Kimbo Slice and Roy Nelson, the Sept. 30 edition of The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights became the most-watched original series in Spike’s history and its top show ever among men 18 to 34 and 18 to 49.
The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights averaged a 3.7 household rating and 5.3 million viewers during its one-hour telecast, peaking with 6.1 million watchers, according to Nielsen data. Among that total were 2 million men 18 to 34 (a 6.9 rating) and 3.1 million men 18 to 49 (a 5.4 rating).
The show, according to Spike officials, was the top-rated program on television on Wednesday among men 18 to 34, 18 to 49, 18 to 24, and 25 to 34. It also was the most-watched program among persons 18 to 34 with a 4.7 rating and 2.7 million.
The episode drew more men 18 to 34 than anything program on TV this week thus far, except ESPN’s Monday Night Football. According to Spike officials, only seven series in all of television this fall season have attracted more men of that age group, even though The Ultimate Fighter is now in its 10th campaign.
Viewership peaked with 6.1 million watchers in the 9:45 p.m. quarter hour for the Slice- Nelson bout, which now ranks at the network’s top UFC telecast. The previous mark was 5.9 million viewers for Rampage Jackson-Dan Henderson fight at UFC 75 in September, 2007.
An encore at 11 p.m. garnered 1.5 million viewers, bringing the combined audience for the telecasts to 6.8 million."
When the only show that outdraws you (one week) in the 18-34 male age group is Monday night football you know you have a gigantic success on your hands. I don’t have the exact dollar figure but I bet that the Ultimate Fighter generates huge advertising dollars. I wonder where all of that money goes? We know it’s NOT going to the fighters.
Here’s one more way that the UFC has decided to raise revenue. Remember all the advertising that you see on fighters shorts? Well, Dana White and company have decided that the UFC should get $100,000 each time that someone shows up with a businesses ad on their shorts or even a tattoo. That means that instead of paying the fighter for advertising the business name the money now goes right to the UFC and the fighter will get far less. I wonder how much that generates in one years time for the UFC?
http://www.cagepotato.com/ufcs-sponsor-smackdown-it-ethical
“A couple weeks ago we mentioned the UFCâ??s new stance on fighter sponsors heading into UFC 100 â?? particularly the part where they are now requiring certain would-be sponsors to pony up $100,000 for the privilege of paying a fighter to plaster â??Condom Depotâ?? across his ass â?? and we noted that since few of the smaller sponsors were likely to agree to this, it seemed like a real screw job for the fighters. But $100,000 only buys you six months worth of potential sponsorships in the UFC, so the real cost is $200,000 a year, and thatâ??s before you pay a single penny to a fighter. And already guys are feeling the pain in their pocketbooks. At the same time, the UFC is essentially taking money out of fightersâ?? pockets, and they know it. If they can convince all sponsors to go through them and not fighter agents, they will have turned a fighter revenue stream into a UFC revenue stream, while at the same time gaining more control over both fighters and sponsors.”
ZEB, the UFC’s secret money is just so much more lucrative and rewardingly cozy, c’mon you just have to believe it.
Also, I’m gonna paraphrase this in my other thread
[quote]
"Led by a fight between Internet sensation Kimbo Slice and Roy Nelson, the Sept. 30 edition of The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights became the most-watched original series in Spike’s history and its top show ever among men 18 to 34 and 18 to 49. […][/quote]
-thanks
Ad spend is dictated by eyeballs. Golf currently has hugely more eyeballs than MMA (I have no idea why, watching golf on the television is excruciatingly boring to me.) Therefore golf gets more ad dollars. Also Golf has been around a lot longer therefore it has more ingrained relationships with it’s advertisers and is better able to screw the money out of them.
For a boxing event, normally these days the fighters are also co-promoters. This is why they make so much money. Also as I have repeatedly stated these huge payouts are killing the sport.
Most of the headline fighters in the UFC are on a PPV cut in addition to the figures that you see posted. The more the UFC sells, the more they make.
Wages have increased significantly over the last 10 years and will continue to go up over the next 10. This will lead to problems and the eventual splintering of the organisation as the top fighters decide to follow a boxing model.
This will lead to even greater confusion as to who the champ is at any given weight.
This will cause popularity to drop.
Everything has happened before, and will happen again.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Ad spend is dictated by eyeballs. Golf currently has hugely more eyeballs than MMA (I have no idea why, watching golf on the television is excruciatingly boring to me.) Therefore golf gets more ad dollars. Also Golf has been around a lot longer therefore it has more ingrained relationships with it’s advertisers and is better able to screw the money out of them.[/quote]
And what does the top golfer in the world make? Tiger Woods made 10.5 million dollars just from PGA prize money last year. And another 90 million or so in endorsements. You see he owns his own image, the PGA cannot claim it, as the UFC has done with many of their top fighters
http://golfblips.dailyradar.com/story/forbes-tiger-woods-is-first-athlete-to-reach-1-billion/
Yes, but this is a more recent phenomenon. Way, way back in 1971 Ali/Frazier I believe that they each made 1 million dollars (someone look it up). For Ali/Frazier II they split 5 million dollars. This is over 35 years ago! From there boxers made even more money, and they deserved it, and this is long before fighters were controlling any purse strings. Why is it hard to understand that mma champions should be paid at least what the best boxers were paid over 35 years ago?
[quote]
Most of the headline fighters in the UFC are on a PPV cut in addition to the figures that you see posted. The more the UFC sells, the more they make.[/quote]
Yes, that’s been said before, the magical secret money that makes everything okay is paid to only a select few fighters and is rarely talked about. What a wonderful system Dana White and company have set up, FOR THEMSELVES!
Not if Dana White and company feel that they can continue to get fighters for bargain basement prices.
[quote]
This will lead to problems and the eventual splintering of the organisation as the top fighters decide to follow a boxing model.[/quote]
One can only hope.
Perhaps, but some things are more important than you or I knowing who the greatest is, that is fair and equitable treatment of the greatest athletes in the world. By the way can you tell me right now who the HW champ is? Is it Lesnar or Fedor? So, there you go, even with the iron hand of the UFC rule there is still some confusion.
As long as there are blood suckers like Dana White and company around there will always be big ticket mma. They will never kill the golden goose as long as it bears golden eggs. However, they need to be pushed and pushed hard soon so that there can be fair financial treatment of the fighters.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
I love watching this argument over fighter pay…I’ve been saying this for years. No worries Zeb, dhickey and cockney blue have been toeing the UFC line for awhile now, counter-indoctrination is impossible[/quote]
Good, another dimwit that doesnâ??t have even a passing knowledge of economics or how prices (wages) are set in a free market. I must be toeing the Strikeforce, Affliction, Dream, Pride, Sengoku lines as well. I have never commented on what they pay their fighters.
Contracts are voluntary. No one is forced to sign a contract with a particular org or fight at all. They can play hockey, golf, go into accounting etc. Basic economic principal tells us that if they chose to fight over any other profession, and they chose to sign a contract with a clear pay structure, they are making a “fair” wage.
Everyone thinks they are worth more money. Dimwits with no idea how a free market operates will always attack those that took huge investment risk, if they chose to take a return on that risk. Even when not having a clue what that return actually is. Without that investment and risk, there would be no UFC. Evidently that is not worth much to the intelligencia here.
None of you are sure what they are making, what they should be making, or what they are paying fighters. All you know is that they are making too much and fighters are making too little. Logic and reason at its best.
Please educate us all. What has ownership invested over the years? What is “fair” yearly return on that investment? How does this “fair” return compare to their actual return?
Some real genius on this board.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
slimjim wrote:
I love watching this argument over fighter pay…I’ve been saying this for years. No worries Zeb, dhickey and cockney blue have been toeing the UFC line for awhile now, counter-indoctrination is impossible
Good, another dimwit that doesnâ??t have even a passing knowledge of economics or how prices (wages) are set in a free market. I must be toeing the Strikeforce, Affliction, Dream, Pride, Sengoku lines as well. I have never commented on what they pay their fighters.
Contracts are voluntary. No one is forced to sign a contract with a particular org or fight at all. They can play hockey, golf, go into accounting etc. Basic economic principal tells us that if they chose to fight over any other profession, and they chose to sign a contract with a clear pay structure, they are making a “fair” wage.
Everyone thinks they are worth more money. Dimwits with no idea how a free market operates will always attack those that took huge investment risk, if they chose to take a return on that risk. Even when not having a clue what that return actually is. Without that investment and risk, there would be no UFC. Evidently that is not worth much to the intelligencia here.
None of you are sure what they are making, what they should be making, or what they are paying fighters. All you know is that they are making too much and fighters are making too little. Logic and reason at its best.
Please educate us all. What has ownership invested over the years? What is “fair” yearly return on that investment? How does this “fair” return compare to their actual return?
Some real genius on this board.
[/quote]
While this was not addressed to me directly I’m going to comment none the less:
First of all, the debate is NOT about CAN the UFC underpay fighters. I think all of us know that they can, and we also know why. The fact is they are the only big mma fight organization therefore they have a lock on the industry. Everything you’ve stated above is predicated upon this fact. They’ve managed to be very crafty as they’ve built their empire. I admire good business tactics. Unfortunately, greed is never a good tactic and that’s what’s currently taken hold of Dana White and company.
We all get it. Every poster over the age of 21 understands what’s going on. Does this prevent us from watching and enjoying UFC fights? Not at all, but reality, being what it is, does seep in now and then and I (and many others) can’t help but feel sorry for this group of athletes who train as hard or harder than any other group and by comparison are paid quite a bit less.
The point of the debate is that while they CAN and DO underpay fighters, (yes we all know that no fighter has to fight for the UFC they can remain in oblivion) they shouldn’t! They shouldn’t for many reasons, it’s really not just a moral point. I will spell it out one more time.
-
By underpaying the fighters it causes those who have the talent to get involved with other professional sports to run away from the UFC, thus preventing even more and better talent from ever being discovered.
-
It’s bad for the image of the sport. Dana White and company literally brag about how much the UFC is worth (see my earlier post regarding Forbes magazine estimate) and then dole out relative minuscule amounts (by comparison) to their best fighters (sorry secret deals for a handful of fighters don’t really count).
So, please end this mindless game of claiming and reclaiming that it’s a free market system and the fighters don’t have to fight for paltry sums. I think we all understand exactly how free the mma system is. You sign with the UFC or you remain in utter obscurity, unless you’re Fedor or a few others.
Don’t be the guy who defends selling life jackets for $1,000 a pop on a sinking ship: “They could have swam to shore they didn’t have to buy one”.
It’s getting old.
While I appreciate the debate you should be expending your energy trying to figure out why Dana White and company feel that it’s alright to treat some of the worlds greatest athletes like a room full of chumps.