Fighter Salaries: The Problems With Revenue Linking » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Fighter Salaries: The Problems With Revenue Linking
6/16/08 2:18:35PM
There exists a critical assumption within the business world that most of our theories rely on: the concept of rationality. A rational or "greedy" individual is said to prefer more than less and it is this preference that can be seen in all walks of life. Investors are expecting greater wealth generation, creditors want higher interest rates, buyers want a cheaper price, and sellers want more for their goods. The same can also be said for the relationship that exists between a firm and its employees; no matter how much you pay someone, they're always going to want more.

This is human nature. This is rationality.

Very, very interesting: LINK
6/16/08 2:22:40PM
Read that one Tito.

I think if MMA became as commonly nationally televised sport like NFL, NBA, MLB, the fighters at that point would have to go get a union but right now it would only stunt the growth.
6/16/08 2:52:01PM
At some point the federal gov could say that UFC is subject to anti-trust laws, since they control 90% of the market. UFC would be dealing with a union then.

I understand that to actually pay 30% would be tricky. I always saw that number as evidence that the fighters might have a legit gripe on pay.

A quote from the article...

"So, just for one moment let's assume that an MMA organization's average ballpark cost for one show is $1,000,000 before payouts. Then let's entertain two scenarios:

A.) Revenue for the event is $1,000,000. Thus, fighter payouts are valued at $300,000.
B.) Revenue for the event is $20,000,000. Thus fighter payouts are valued at $6,000,000.

Under Scenario A, the firm loses $300,000.
Under Scenario B, the firm makes $13,000,000."

Has the UFC had a show gross $1,000,000 this millenium? We are talking UFC pay not some hypothetical scrub org.

The first part of the article was logical and I can't argue with it. Point 3 on however...not so much.
Related Topics