A simple fix to the complex fighter pay problem

Few who pay attention to the issue disagree that MMA fighters at the highest level are financially exploited compared to other professional athletes. While revenue splits around 50/50 are seen in unionized major league sports, and splits north of 80/20 in favor of fighters are seen in high-level boxing, the money flowing to fighters in MMA’s most dominant promotion is closer to the neighborhood of 20 percent. With no pension, no post-retirement health insurance, nor most of the other benefits and protections enjoyed by unionized athletes.

While most agree there is need for reform, there is little consensus on what reform is best. Such disagreement is a powerful reason for lack of reform. Lack of agreement leads to lack of a significant number of people taking action, which entrenches the status quo.

Some want the Ali Act brought to MMA which would make the sport follow the boxing model. Some are opposed to this given boxing’s dysfunctional landscape. The Ali Act to MMA would unquestionably allow the biggest names in the sport to enjoy substantially greater pay but would also bring some of the baggage of boxing.

Some want a fighters union like other major league sports enjoy. Others oppose this, saying fighters are and should be independent contractors and a UFC fighters union would keep the dominant promoter entrenched at the top of the sport making it more difficult for genuine competition to arise.

Some fighters are seeking change through an antitrust lawsuit, which could hit the UFC hard in the pocketbook. After over half a decade of gritty litigation, the case looks more promising than ever. Others are hesitant to be seen as trying to bite the hand that feeds them.

One idea, however, seems to enjoy near-unanimous support. I asked whether limiting fighter/promoter contract lengths to 2-3 years would be good for fighters and good for the sport. Of the 334 responses, an overwhelming 91.9 percent said yes.

Yes, a Twitter poll is not scientific. You can only respond if you are on Twitter and follow the poll creator or had it retweeted into your timeline or had Twitter’s algorithm feed it to you. Leaving these fair shortcomings aside, it is rare to see this level of support of any idea regarding legislative reform in combat sports.

Some prominent voices weighed in as well, supporting the positive effects such a change would have.

Dave Meltzer, the man behind the Wrestling Observer, who has been around the combat sports block more times than most people walking the earth, had the following short and to the point observation:

John Nash, who has perhaps written more than anyone about the state and details of UFC fighter pay from the numerous documents revealed in the antitrust lawsuit against the promotion, tweeted the following:

Even the Mixed Martial Arts Fighters Association, the driving force behind bringing the Ali Act to MMA and the billion dollar plus antitrust lawsuit pending against the UFC’s parent company agrees that this simple reform with nothing more would be an “immense improvement“.

image

A hard cap on contract lengths is an easy concept for everyone to understand. This reform would create regular free agency. This would allow fighters to frequently have their value tested. This would allow current promoters to go after top talent. This would allow new promoters to easily enter the game. This would create bidding wars. It would create competition. It would make fighter pay skyrocket. And it’s not complicated.

It would prevent situations like Jon Jones being unable to secure a bout for a fair slice of the revenue he helps create because he’s locked into a seemingly never-ending contract. It would free GSP to be in his thwarted high-paying boxing exhibition with Oscar De La Hoya. It would prevent many of the highest-profile champions from being locked into harsh, lengthy contracts at the height of their earning power.

It is hard to see any downside to this reform other than creating a landscape where promoters have to pay fighters a greater slice of the revenues their bouts generate. Given the dangers of the profession and the lack of a safety net after retirement that is a good consequence.

Promoters, such as the former owners of the UFC, retire from the trade with piles of cash. Fighters retire with chronic injuries and often brain trauma. If any professional athletes should be fighting for a fair share of revenue, it’s those that pay the biggest physical price for their profession.

Given the overwhelming support this idea seems to enjoy, it is something fighters, managers, regulators, and lawmakers should give serious thought to.

Via Combat Law Sports Blog

7 Likes

In

1 Like

Interdasting.

@ErikMagraken, it seems that the UFC’s preference is to sign contracts with X number of fights. So would that approach be nullified entirely if what you’re advocating here came to pass?

1 Like

Erik- if you aren’t getting compensation for bringing all this to the UG you should be.

1 Like

That’s very kind. I’m happy to share my work here. Always appreciate Kirik letting my ramblings be republished here for a bigger audience.

4 Likes

You are and have always been an asset to this forum and the greater community.

3 Likes

Thanks. One of the things I like about the UG news is a lot of regulators read the site with it being the official ABC record keeper for MMA.

With that in mind whenever I’m brainstorming a proposed reform that may improve the sport I like the idea that those thoughts at least get before some stakeholders.

2 Likes

If a reform like this ever happened it would shake up a lot of what is standard contract practice for the UFC. And most MMA promoters out there for that matter. To the benefit of fighters, free agency and substantially increased share of the revenues.

1 Like

One legitimate question I have is there any unforeseen downside?

A hard contract length cap would fix so much of what is broken. I have yet to think of any compelling problem with such a reform. If anyone can think of a legitimate problem it would create that could harm fighters / the sport I would love to hear it.

@ErikMagraken is one of the main reasons that the UFC is against losing the independent contractor designation is that they would be liable for injuries that incur during the fight, and that they would have to pay their medical bills? Couldn’t the UFC set up a pension like the president of BKB is doing for his fighters?

2 Likes

There’s a lot of reasons why the UFC would want fighters to be classified as IC’s but I would say the main reason is IC’s can’t form a union. Only employees can.

As IC’s or employees of course the UFC ‘can’ set up a pension. Can’t imagine they would willingly do that. Keeping fighter pay as low as possible is what keeps their profit as high as possible. Now that they are public the shareholders want that sweet sweet ROI.

2 Likes

Thank you for your response. It’s like they will screw over the fighters, and say that they do get paid a lot of money. They do and they don’t. The UFC makes it seems like the fighters are getting Wilder money, and no one is getting that money. They really don’t give a fuck about the fighters, and sadly I feel like this will be the same thing we’re talking about 10 years from now.

1 Like

I’m trying to think of any reason at all that this would not be a good idea for the fighters.

I can’t think of any.

1 Like

Me neither. But I ask because perhaps there is a compelling reason I am overlooking. If there is none, and if this proves more popular than Ali Expansion Act, perhaps that is a route MMAFA can consider to really pick up support and momentum.

fighters should make websites where they can get tips from fans
i dont mean for sexy pictures… for the fights

3 Likes

Let’s try this concept out on a few fighters. Let’s assume we started this idea 2 years ago and fighters had 3 year contracts. So, 1 year left on contract at this time.

Leta use the lightweight division:

Champion - Olivera - one year left but I’d imagine a champions clause.

Chandler - most probably gets 2 fights in next year. If he loses next fight, do we run into issues with scheduling before he leaves UFC? Would we end up seeing him only fight one time in one year? Would this be the issue with these types
Of contracts?

McGregor- how could UFC ever agree to only doing 2/3 years contracts with him? Now at they let their cash cow walk.

I do like your proposal though. End of day, fighters win.

1 Like

-3yr limit.
-Health coverage for active fighters.
-Meal prep and recovery stipend for active fighters.
-60% split of every event.
-PPV points for main card.
-Health coverage for life after ____.
-Retirement pension after ____.

So the UFC takes 80% but they were also able to use that money and build this into a global sport and therefore make everyone more money in the long run.

How are fighters entitled to more money exactly that is beyond me. They didn’t build the UFC and they are replaceable. Looks like the UFC is still paying them enough because I don’t see anyone quitting their job.

The best thing is when people here are advocating they should pay more money to an asshole like Jones. “He deserves 20million”

I had the thought of an 18 month sunset clause 10 years ago.
I agree this would correct all issues.

Horrible idea. Why would the UFC put any money into promoting fighters that could just decide to sit out their contract at any time? A better idea idea would be for fighters to stop signing contracts and complaining about them later. There’s plenty other promotions to go to if they’re not happy with how the UFC does business.

2 Likes