Salary talk
by Zak Woods on Sep 16, 2009 9:21 AM EDT
Email
PrintIt looks like we are in store for another round of bloggers harping on the UFC's salary structure.
Michael Rome made the case yesterday and MMA Payout echoed these sentiments. Both pieces encapsulate a problem that was described by Slate in August during the Fedor sweepstakes; a fighter's financial worth is not based on his skill but his ability to generate pay-per view buys.
The economic model is fundamentally backwards. Think of it as an NFL team paying players based upon ratings as oppose to production on the field. Fighter's who are a popular draw are more important than Octagon production and wins. This economic pressure led to the fracturing in boxing, something the UFC is attempting to stonewall at all costs. The problem is that even as Zuffa clamp's down with contractual obligations and championship clauses fighters still have to sign on to a fight and the fighter's will try to optimize their financial compensation.
Some may argue that a fighter's skill is proportional to the pay-per view numbers. Sadly, we know this is not the case. Anderson Silva and Fedor Emelianenko, arguably the two best fighters of our generation, can't break through the 400,000 threshold.
Reform is needed to prevent the roller coaster of card quality we have seen this year.
1 comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
TV deal
The model doesn’t work inside the current premises, but if the long discussed TV deal goes through the whole thing works in my opinion. The minute Anderson Silva destroys anybody on network TV in front of 10 millions for free, he will sell a whole lot of pay-per-view afterwards. Exposure is the key, and the more these fighters. I mean you headline a TV card with a garbage fight between AS and, say for the sake of argument, Keith Jardine: Hello pay increase.
Plus, with steady revenues from free fight cards on network TV, the UFC will have a much more flexible revenue stream to tap into. As much as everybody is freaking out about Dana saying that they will put 3 cards a month… I am not so concerned. using a model like Strikeforce Challengers and occasionally making a numbered card (say twice a year) with a proper card or a much needed boost for an unpopular fighter and you are golden. As it is, the UFC puts on a card a month or so, add to that some Fight Night cards on Spike and a Challengers-type show on Network TV, they will finally give 3-4 fights a year to everybody on the roster with minimal recruiting. Plus, heck of a whole lot of revenues for everybody to share (mostly the Fertittas).
