Slate on UFC salary structure
by Zak Woods on Aug 21, 2009 11:23 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
Print
You got to hand it to Slate's sports editor, Josh Levin, when they tackle a subject, they do it pretty damn well.
For instance, Slate's Tim Marchman, delved into the recent Fedor-UFC negotiations and accurately described the UFC's salary structure and its inherent deficiencies.
The sport's salary structure, and the secrecy around it-UFC refuses to release information on PPV sales or fighters' PPV bonuses-has helped mixed martial arts rise to the top tier of the American sports scene. Unlike in other sports, MMA chatter doesn't revolve around money, which makes the fighters seem easy to relate to and the sport seem more pure. The confidentiality also helps UFC in another way: Because the numbers aren't public, no fighter can be sure what kind of deals his rivals have cut. This is a method of controlling the locker room and reducing negotiating leverage that was pioneered by old-timey baseball owners.
The most important effect of MMA's salary silence may be that it perverts the idea of pay-for-performance. Much as in boxing, a fighter's earning power is tied to public appeal rather than athletic success.
That's not even mentioning the secret "locker room bonuses" the UFC doles out.
The overall lack of transparency is one of the principle reasons why WKR believes a fighter's union or guild is absolutely necessary. A collective bargaining agreement to provide fighter's with health care, retirement options and equal shares of overall revenue, like apparel deals, are desirable goals for any UFC fan.
Marchman also touches on the backwardness of the PPV model. While it is an effective way to raise money for a sporting event, the economic model doesn't reward the best fighters, simply the most popular.
This economic pressure can create two tiers of fighters --almost mini-divisions within one another-- those that generate revenue in one tier versus those that challenge for the title. Wanderlei Silva and Chuck Liddell are two such fighters that could be placed in the "economic viable division."
The economic reality of the PPV model is one of the principle forces that caused the fracturing in boxing, something that the UFC is guarding against at all costs and rightfully so.
One of the best things going for MMA is having a top promotion with clear world champions. But that dominance should not come at the expense of the middle and lower-tier fighters.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Last I checked, no one is forced to be an MMA fighter. You just had a story on the paradox of MMA success in the UK that displays the sport is not bulletproof yet. So, instead of maintaining the growth and stability the UFC brings to the overall effort, the idea is that it is somehow a good plan turning the whole system upside down for a fighters union.
Sure, low level and mid-level fighters would benefit, big whoop… I’m not fortunate enough to have a union job pushing a broom for $22 an hour but if I wanted one, I could go pursue it. If you want to be a fighter, you do it because you want to fight.
If you want to be an MMA fighter, then go for it. If just being an MMA fighter makes you a unionized broom pusher, then fighters are going to be about as useful as those people are.
Injury and low pay seem not to be a deal breaker for the fighters out there now, so why mess with the system. The health of the sport and the quality of the fighters are consequences rarely discussed when the chorus starts chiming in on a fighter’s union.
by ProCannonFodder on Aug 21, 2009 12:00 PM EDT reply actions
its really about pay for work and risk namely physical risk.
It is absolutely vital for MMA as a whole to have a single major promotion. This will help the sport enter the mainstream sporting world. I alluded to this at the end.
But that doesn’t mean the singular promotion shouldnt have a CBA to insure a equal revenue sharing.
Its the same thing with MLB, NFL, NHL or NBA there are tiers of players who get diff pay.
watchkalibrun.com
How many of those leagues had CBAs when they were building themselves into major sports?
It’s a feel good idea that the player should get a piece of the profit pie because, my God, they could get hurt or crippled. But that is true in many different industries and yet employees still do them for a regular salary irregardless of the profit made to the owners.
I wonder if any of those other leagues would have survived if their trailblazing owners didn’t get to keep all of the rewards for their incredible risks.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a profit collective is wonderful, (if I’m an employee) I just don’t think the sport is at the level the other major ones were when they adopted them.
by ProCannonFodder on Aug 21, 2009 12:23 PM EDT reply actions
It really wasnt until the 50’s that unionization began and it wasn’t until the 70’s that the players defeated the Reserve Clause.
Part of this is the natural fracturing which occurs in combat sports. For example what happened in boxing with 40 weight classes and 40 belths.
The UFC is trying to prevent the fighters/managers from fracturing off into their own weight classes and own mini-promotion and what not, which is great goal. But I think the UFC is attempting to achieve this goal through overly restrictive means that are not beneficial to their promotion in the long run.
I believe that if the UFC helped form a fighter’s guild, and help write the language of the CBA, it would be very beneficial to both Zuffa, and the fighters, while adding an extra layer of defense from individuals who want to go it alone. In other words incentivzing fighters to be in UFC outside of simple exposure/copeting against top talent.
watchkalibrun.com
So the one and only successful MMA brand is doing it wrong?
It takes a zealot to build something the right way and a politician to make everyone else happy. MMA is still in the zealot stage.
I can’t wait until Tito organizes the first MMA strike…
by ProCannonFodder on Aug 21, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
LoL,
No they aren’t doing it wrong per se. I am just fearful that they could be creating problems for themselves in the long run
watchkalibrun.com
If the UFC had a fighter’s union, would that have prompted Fedor to sign? If so, then I completely change my stance on the issue…
by ProCannonFodder on Aug 21, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
well it depends.
Let’s assume that a union means there a CBA and there is a 55-45% split of revenue between fighters and Zuffa. Part of that 45% that the fighter’s get deals with health care, 401k/pension and some other stuff.
Then perhaps it does make Fedor feel ok with signing with the UFC
watchkalibrun.com
Still no piece of pie for Vadim, so no way he signs. BTW giving 45% of revenue to employees in building stages is insane. Do it when the sport has 40-50 years and is bulletproof. Then the UFC could be held hostage and survive the CBA forced on them.
What is the incentive to build? Right thinking people would just go back to where ever their fortunes came from.
I maintain there would be no NFL if the original owners had to give almost half the rewards to the people not taking any financial risk. (physical risk is and has always been borne by the less wealthy)
by ProCannonFodder on Aug 21, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
The thing with the old time argument thats hard to justify is that the players were being paid nothing and were basically owned by the teams. Also the owners actually built their own stadium and there werent a lot of the modern revenue buildign options e.g. apparel, videogames etc.
Its hard to make the apples-apples comparison with other sport leagues because of the team model too.
But when you really think about the UFC as an operating institution their operating costs are really really low.
Its basically a small support staff, fighters, renting facility, PPV
watchkalibrun.com
If you’re starting a lemonade stand and you decide to cut your neighbors in on a revenue split because they are your customers and without them you’d be out of business, everybody might be happier to buy from you but you’d still lock yourself away from any chance of fiscal success.
When a startup league has a CBA in their groundwork and they prove that it doesn’t forestall the league from building to a next level, then I will believe. The problem is, as I see it, when it comes time to expand and literally grow the business, the collective reaps the rewards of the owner’s financial risk while offering none of their own. (how much did Michael Strahan donate to build up NFL Europe?)
by ProCannonFodder on Aug 21, 2009 1:43 PM EDT reply actions
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
