The Fighter Pay Debate

Most MMA fans are probably aware of the recent debate about fighter pay in the UFC provoked by a critical episode of their OutsideThe Lines programme. Here's my take;

1. You may criticise me for being overly pro-UFC but I really don't think that Dana and the Fertitta's are in it for the money. It's clear these guys love the sport and if anyone can help MMA grow into the sporting mainstream it's them. The Fertitta's sunk millions of dollars into the UFC when it wasn't making money, they didn't do that so that they could rip off fighters for a few thousand later on.

2. As discussed in the UFC's official response to the programme, not all fighter pay is disclosed, discretionary bonuses are common, the bottom line is that if you perform you make money, who can argue with that?

3. The top guys get percentages of pay per views and earn millions, exactly as it should be, it's a meritocracy, but even middle ranking fighters can make money. Chris Lytle earned 10 fight bonuses in his career, that's over $700k just in disclosed bonuses and this guy never fought for a title.

4. Being part of the UFC gives fighters incredible exposure. The millions of dollars spent on marketing does filter down to the men in the ring. It allows them to sell banner and clothing sponsorship for thousands of dollars. It gives them access to deals with clothing companies like Tap Out and Affliction. How many fighters own their own gyms or schools? What better publicity for your gym then being a current UFC fighter.

5. UFC fighters get paid for publicity and PR events. Matt Mitrione talked on the MMA hour about getting a cheque in excess of $10000 (which he accidentally left in a taxi) from a UFC corporate event.

6. The UFC has just introduced free health care for all fighters, purely at their own expense. Is this the move of a ruthless corporate giant that takes advantage of its employees?

7. The report claimed that they spoke to 20 UFC fighters (none of whom wished to be identified) who criticised UFC pay. Firstly, even if this is true you can get someone to "criticise" almost anything depending on how the question is phrased. Secondly I work in recruitment, and I guarantee you that every company I deal with has at least 25% of its employees that feel they are underpaid. It's human nature

8. They used Ken Shamrock to validate their argument.....enough said.


Don't get me wrong I think that it's an interesting debate, but this programme seemed vindictive and half assed.