boxing wiz - I imagine he is speaking hypothetically. I believe they are trying to build and develop their brand of mma. Coker has a little bit of a hole to dig out of due to Bellator having the stigma of being 2nd rate and part pro wrestling. Many people don't take their brand serious. Coker has a tough job. It sounds like Viacom is in for the long haul. They have to develop their own fresh fighters and sign the up and coming guys before the UFC. They will never be very successful using fighters that failed out of the UFC or just aren't at that level. They did sign Pico, and have a few good fighters. If they get away from relying on the Tito's, Bonner's a d Rampages, and give the fans fresh product and something different yet is still 100% true mma, it will succeed Coker should consider switching to diffdrent fight structures. Maybe try Pride rules or change the judging criteria or length and number of rounds. There are things they can do to make it work. The UFC brand is growing stale. Fans wanting something new. The challenge is finding what it is and what they will pay for.
If they want to hold regulated fights in America, they are restricted to the unified rules, unfortunately
Thacommish - at the end of the day though what if i told you that both orgs had problems with pay?
You just hear more bitching about the UFC because it comes with the territory of being number 1 in the sport. Its kind of like why you dont hear as much bitching about CFL head trauma compared to NFL.
Who cares what you say, since you don't have a clue how they run the company? Bjorn, who did/does said:
"Viacom, he said, has allowed Bellator to offer better compensation packages than the UFC can offer."
He knew their revenues and everything else was muuuuch lower than the UFCs when he made that comment and Coker has had the same info when he has made comments about what Viacom can do for the fighters so their revenues must not have been THAT big of a factor. Are you saying Rebney and Coker were/are lying with their comments or that they are full of shit?
Had the UFC based fighter pay on revenues they would have gone out of business. They sunk the money into the company because they believed in the sport and lost 40 million before things turned around. Viacom is majority owner of Bellator and their money makes the Brotitta's wealth look like chump change so where is their committment to the sport?
Thacommish - "Had the UFC based fighter pay on revenues they would have gone out of business."
Lets pretend it was based on fighter pay and lets throw the percentage out there for the purpose of debate. Say 1%. Would they have gone out of business? do you see the problem with what you said yet?
You should stop posting. You're stupiderer than you think.
Thacommish - at the end of the day though what if i told you that both orgs had problems with pay?
You just hear more bitching about the UFC because it comes with the territory of being number 1 in the sport. Its kind of like why you dont hear as much bitching about CFL head trauma compared to NFL.
Who cares what you say, since you don't have a clue how they run the company? Bjorn, who did/does said:
"Viacom, he said, has allowed Bellator to offer better compensation packages than the UFC can offer."
He knew their revenues and everything else was muuuuch lower than the UFCs when he made that comment and Coker has had the same info when he has made comments about what Viacom can do for the fighters so their revenues must not have been THAT big of a factor. Are you saying Rebney and Coker were/are lying with their comments or that they are full of shit?
Had the UFC based fighter pay on revenues they would have gone out of business. They sunk the money into the company because they believed in the sport and lost 40 million before things turned around. Viacom is majority owner of Bellator and their money makes the Brotitta's wealth look like chump change so where is their committment to the sport?
Cindy
Uhhh can i say who cares what you say since you dont know either and clearly have a bias?
You can... but then I'd ask you what was bias about my post:). YOU hold Zuffa accountable 24/7 so who is showing bias here, commish? There's no excuse for Viacom paying their athletes LESS than the UFC paid theirs a decade ago, IS THERE?
Thacommish - "Had the UFC based fighter pay on revenues they would have gone out of business."
Lets pretend it was based on fighter pay and lets throw the percentage out there for the purpose of debate. Say 1%. Would they have gone out of business? do you see the problem with what you said yet?
You want me to argue or debate you about a made up fictitious number? snickers
Thacommish - "Had the UFC based fighter pay on revenues they would have gone out of business."
Lets pretend it was based on fighter pay and lets throw the percentage out there for the purpose of debate. Say 1%. Would they have gone out of business? do you see the problem with what you said yet?
You should stop posting. You're stupiderer than you think.
LMFAO!!! I thought it might just be me. I've been drinking tonight and I read that it was like what the hell?!?!?!
Thacommish - I hold zuffa accountable for their actions yes that is true I dont know about 24/7 though its not a hardcore belt i defend when i go to the grocery store. But I dont use bellator to justify my feeling better or worse about them, and i dont bring up station casino money in discussions about UFC pay, i find it strange when people do so with "viacom" money
You must be able to see the difference? I mean surely?? And just on revenues vs fighter pay... You know the UFC would never have grown if they had done that right? You understand the mechanism of reinvesting in the growth of the business? It's your special kind of double standard that so many people are sick of.
Thacommish - I hold zuffa accountable for their actions yes that is true I dont know about 24/7 though its not a hardcore belt i defend when i go to the grocery store. But I dont use bellator to justify my feeling better or worse about them, and i dont bring up station casino money in discussions about UFC pay, i find it strange when people do so with "viacom" money
You must be able to see the difference? I mean surely?? And just on revenues vs fighter pay... You know the UFC would never have grown if they had done that right? You understand the mechanism of reinvesting in the growth of the business? It's your special kind of double standard that so many people are sick of.
"You know the UFC would never have grown if they had done that right?"
Done what? based fighter pay on revenues?
This might come as a shock to you but the amount of money zuffa pays out to fighters is, on a fight card by fight card basis and a yearly basis, in fact a % of their revenue.
Not a fixed percentage. It's a flat- prenegotiated fee generally at the lower tiers... And much more than bellator. I'm sure you're bitching about bellator even louder... Right?. Honestly just forget it. You are fixed on your line of thought.
Thacommish - Considering the only actual number in our conversation about revenue split is the hypothetical 1% to fighters 99% to zuffa split i discussed with cindy to provide just 1 of many examples of a revenue split that would seemingly allow for zuffa to expand.
You 2 keep saying its impossible but fail to mention how or why. Id love to hear you 2 struggle to try to form that thought
Does each show do the exact same number? Money wise? No... So how could fighter purse be aligned as a percentage of revenue? Only the top stars get points on pay per view. Honestly dude- you're wrong and you haven't thought this thru.... Or your retarded..... Or all of that. Go change your tracksuit pants.
Thacommish - The only thing i mentioned about revenue, is why its dumb to bring up viacom money because on the flip side of the argument the other side never brings up station casino money. Somehow in your small ass brain you turned that around into some weird ass argument you started having with yourself
How much of the UFC does Station Casinos own? And how much of Bellator does Viacom own? Birdbrain.
CerroneWentFuryOnJurysAss - Bellator doesn't make anywhere near to the type of revenue and profit the UFC does.
How is that relevant? They have huge financial backing and have said they 'can afford any fighter' so why don't they pay them properly? All I'm saying is that they should be criticized as much if not more than the UFC
Thacommish - "Why wouldn't they pay at least on par with Ufc."
Lots of reasons. Revenue being a big one. And if you bring up viacoms revenue in comparison to bellators i would just move the goal posts to talking about station casino money when trying to explain why ufc fighters need to get paid more.
And somehow me saying this got twisted into me saying Zuffa needs to pay fighters a fixed % of the revenue.
The real dumb ass shit is that you and cindy read this and thought responding with " If UFC did that theyd be out of business" was a fucking logical ass thought.
The point of the thread is that bellator are paying fighters less than the UFC does. Bellator seems to be escaping criticism for this. Do you agree bellator should pay fighters more? Or are fighters paid as a mechanism of market value. Simple question. My bet is you are incapable of actually answering because it doesn't support your point of view.
Kryptboy - It's a joke. They brag they can afford anyone and yet they don't have the decency to pay a reasonable purse. Companies like these should be compensating them far more.
Kryptboy - It's a joke. They brag they can afford anyone and yet they don't have the decency to pay a reasonable purse. Companies like these should be compensating them far more.
Kryptboy - It's a joke. They brag they can afford anyone and yet they don't have the decency to pay a reasonable purse. Companies like these should be compensating them far more.
Thacommish - If you are making the point bellator fighters need to be paid more, by all means make the point. I dont disagree.
If you are making the point that bellators pay somehow makes the UFC clear of all criticism because of it, well take that attitude and go fuck off please
Just to be clear for you.... I was saying, in very simple terms, that bellator should face the same criticism... Not that the UFC should escape criticism... It makes me sad for you that it's taken this long for you to understand this. Seems to me you're looking for conflict in your life. I hope you let that go dude.
Can anyone do a breakdown of profit margins for both companies? Bellator, not Viacom. I think fighter pay is terrible, but Viacom will never pay so much that they are taking a loss. I don't really think that Bellator is lining their own pockets by short changing fighters. Viacom is huge and will pay market value for fighters. They would probably rather dump Bellator than hand it operate at a deficit. Viacom owns probably 20 TV channels, big Internet sites, record labels, etc... They probably have executives that don't even know what Bellator is. Bellator has to run Bellator, they like to spout out about money but I seriously doubt they have it readily available.
