Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by TLC, Jul 31, 2010.
I'm referring to main event fighters since they are the primary draw. Show me a UFC PPV that paid out more to its main event fighters than a comparable boxing PPV.
I'm guessing for the same reason the WWE can have an event that grosses the same as a boxing PPV but pays their wrestlers 100x less. They get paid what the market dictates, and right now the market dictates that elite boxers get ridiculously overpaid. And because of a certain few overpaid boxers, the whole sport suffers.
There you go with the wrestling comparison again. How many times do I have to say that WWE has much more people on a PPV card than boxing or MMA?
WWE is a monopoly and the UFC is trying to emulate that, yet you find no fault in that?
WWE isnt a monopoly...the fuck?
Theres another major org in America alone.
Learn to know of what you are speaking. Also, much mor guys?
Let's take, say Summerslam has always been a big one, one of the few still around since I was a kid.
1 Rey Mysterio (c) defeated Dolph Ziggler Singles match for the WWE Intercontinental Championship 12:26 2 Montel Vontavious Porter defeated Jack Swagger Singles match 06:22 3 Chris Jericho and The Big Show (c) defeated Cryme Tyme (Shad Gaspard and JTG) Tag team match for the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship 09:42 4 Kane defeated The Great Khali (with Ranjin Singh) Singles match 05:56 5 D-Generation X (Triple H and Shawn Michaels) defeated The Legacy (Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase) Tag team match 19:02 6 Christian (c) defeated William Regal (with Vladimir Kozlov and Ezekiel Jackson) Singles match for the ECW Championship 00:08 7 Randy Orton (c) defeated John Cena Singles match for the WWE Championship 20:44 8 CM Punk defeated Jeff Hardy (c)
So 20, performers, most getting paid under a million dollars per year, despite working 300+ days per year.
UFC cards are 10 on the main, 10 or 12 on the prelim.
So just about the same.....again, stop using erroneous facts in a debate, you will lose every time.
I don't even want to talk about wrestling because the businesses are totally different but here goes.
TNA hasn't been around that long as a major competitor. After WCW the WWE was the only game in town and a monopoly. Yeah there were 20 "combatants" on the Summerslam card but that doesn't include on camera managers and valets, booking agents, a whole host of other people involved in the event which is scripted. That's why the comparison isn't valid. I already said that I believe that WWE wrestlers are underpaid to a degree.
Let's talk about combat sporting events instead of scripted productions. Unless the UFC has storyline writers on their payroll.
No sir thats incorrect. Elite Boxers are not ridiculously overpaid. Their pay is dictated by how many people watch them perform and how much those watching them perform are willing to pay. Boxers were the first athletes to participate in revenue sharing. The very first were Jack Johnson and Jim Jefries who along with their purses for their encounter split a total of $116,666 from motion picture rights which is the same as what PPV is today, Johnson and Jeffries also were the first fighters and athletes in American sports to recieve signing bonuses for signing contracts $25,000 for Johnson and $75,000 for Jeffries. I use Johnson and Jeffries as an example because that was exactly 100 years and 31 days ago and is the model of how Boxers are paid and how big fights are negotiated from then until today and it's a wonderful study as I have all the accounting paperwork from that fight in my collection. Athletes must get paid based on the number of people who pay to watch them perform and must be paid proportionately and UFC fighters aren't. Tex Rickard who promoted Johnson-Jeffries made a grand total of $215.00 profit, yes thats a decimal point not a comma. He put up $120,000 in gold and after paying the fighters $337,666.00 he was left with $120,215.00
That's a huge generalization and not true.
Most athletes, including UFC fighters, sign contracts that stipulate what they will be paid long before anyone knows "the number of people that pay to watch them perform". Boxing promoters can contract fights based on forecasting the popularity of a PPV bout. But that is almost singular to boxing.
We could talk about how revenue sharing in the NFL makes your comment untrue. We could talk about collective bargaining in MLB making your statement untrue. We could talk about incentive or pay-for-performances clauses in all major team sports making your comment untrue.
I love your research and knowledge on boxinng finance but your statement was a false over generalization.
No it is not singular to Boxing. MLB,European Soccer,NBA,NHL and NFL. all those teams know up front how much money they are recieveing from television contracts and radio rights years in advance not only as a form of revenue sharing but what their home town markets pay to broadcast their games/seasons. The Kansas City Royals and the radio station that does their games knows exactly what that stations market share is, how many listeners it reaches etc and they know that years in advance. Same with the Cubs and the Lakers and Mancherster United, they know exactly how many people are going to be watching and listening for the next five years and all that is factored into how much money the athlete who signs for that ballclub is going to make and how much they can afford to pay based on the money that is coming in from revenue streams. There is a very good reason Wrigley Field got lights and thats because they were getting the short end of the stick on radio and television rights because a lot of their games were weekday afternoons when viewership and listenership were at 24 hour lows. The Cubs know exactly how many people listen to them on a Sunday afternoon and Tuesday evening and who watched them on late game on the west coast. Get people calling here every couple of months "do you listen to redskins game", "do you watch the Wizards pre-game show" and on and on, if you do watch it thats cool and if you don't they tell you should so they get a grip on how popular it is so three years from now they can negotiate a new contract and use that to payroll for the next five. so again most other athletes perfrom in an envirion where how many people watch and listen is carefully researched and forecasted in increments of anywhere between five and ten years. So once again it is not singular to Boxing and as I pointed out in an above post Boxing itself was the model of how athletes of today are paid and how that same formula determines the pay structure for baseballers,basketballers,soccer players etc. So despite the best efforts of some to bluster "well Boxing is different". No sir Boxing is no different from any other sport that pays it's athletes based on who pays to watch them. Whats different from all others is the pay structure of the UFC.
Oh yeah, because I'm sure Mr.Fuji is rolling in the dough. Your argument fell flat on its face.
Dude, that's 50000 words on nothing. You said: Athletes must get paid based on the number of people who pay to watch them perform as if nothing else needs to be considered.
Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals was the 4th highest paid player in the NFL last year. The Cardinals market, according to NFL, is less than half the size of the NY Jets which means far fewer people WATCHED Warner play than watched Jets QB Mark Sanchez. Using your logic, Sanchez MUST be paid more because of the number of people that watch him. Right??????????
So in that simple, grade school example, your generalization is shown to be horseshit.
But I'll go further, this year Brian Hartline and Brandon Marshall will likely be the two starting WR's for the Miami Dolphins. The same number of people will "pay to see them play". Based on your simplistic rationale they should be paid the same amount. Again, the rationale is absolutely moronic.
You also said "The Cubs and the Lakers know exactly how many people will be watching for the next 5 years."
Seriously, do I even need to show how ridiculous that is? You could say they use safe estimates or forecast. But they have no idea 'exactly' how many people will watch and listen. And in sports with revenue sharing it's pointless anyway.
It's not horseshit. On a whole, come on now, team athletes in general make a lot of money because a lot of people watch them You get watched by millions of people you get paid in millions, simple as that, the more people watch the more you get paid, it's a reason Sullivan only got paid 10,500 to fight Kilrain because only 20,000 saw it. Then comes motion pictures when Jeffries fought Johnson and they split 125,000 or so, the market as to who watchd them opened up and they got paid more. Dempsey made a million dollars extra revenue in his title reign by getting paid radio broadcast shares again more people tuned in and he got paid proportionately more than sullivan who perfromed in front of those that were there and Johnson and Jeffries got paid for th delayed broadcast so to speak. People say Joe Louis lost millions and see what he made for his fights and it barely adds up to a million but he made 4.6 million in radio,motion pictures and television revenues, he tripled Dempsey because well he had three shots at it radio, delay(motion pictures) and towards the end of his career television. Then along come satellites and all of a sudden at the same time the first satellite gets functional and Floyd Patterson gets paid a million dollars for a fight. proportions, UFC fighters/athletes don't get paid proportionately, you can't argue anything different and sooner rather than later the UFC's Curt Flood is going to come along.
No, Vince McMahon is, just like Dana White and the Fertitta's.
I don't have much disagreement with what you said here. My issue was with your comment that "Athletes must get paid based on the number of people who pay to watch them perform"
In team sports as well as boxing or the UFC, pay clearly needs to be based on MORE than just how many people watch. I think the NFL does the best job of revenue sharing and thus it allows a tiny market team like Green Bay be able to pay their athletes the same as large market teams. And again, that has more to do with the number of people watching the sport, not the specific athlete.
Beyond that, and looking more closely at boxing, the pay scale is based more on the expected number of paid viewers a particular athlete can or is expected to generate. This is why Mayweather will make more than a fighter on the same PPV undercard. The undercard fighter might be seen by the same number of people, but it is Mayweather that made them pay.
So again, your statement of: Athletes must get paid based on the number of people who pay to watch them perform is far too broad a statement that is not solely true.
Yes, I do wish they cared about their fighters financial well-being like Arum or Don King. Those two saints never ripped anyone off. If only........
Don King and Arum do rip off their fighters. Who's arguing against that? That being said, King and Arum do pay their fighters much more than the UFC does.
I have a simple question... Tomorrow night we will have a boxing triple header on HBO and a UFC PPV. Let's say the UFC PPV does a decent to strong buy rate. And let's say Devon Alexander makes more money than Anderson Silva.
In your opinion, who made the better deal from a business perspective, the UFC or the boxing promoter?
I have a simpler one. Can the UFC afford to pay its fighters more than they are now?
But wait, you just said....
So it's ok to talk about the main event fighters only when it's boxing, but not when it's wrestling?
I don't know what they can afford. I promise you that I have never seen their balance sheet nor have you. You can speculate and guess but you have no idea.
So go back and try my question.
Separate names with a comma.