Haven't started many threads in the last few years but that really was a waste of a television magazine segment. I'm not even talking about bias from a perspective of essential corporate competition, of which, given the circumstances, the possibility speaks for itself. What I'm talking about here is that they seemed poorly prepared to ask any probing questions and seemed to know very little about some salient issues.
Sometimes you use unnamed sources, that's fine. But they left so much untouched that was available. It seemed like they didn't know what questions to ask regarding fighter contracts, history of dissent and UFC reaction, and a host of others.
Also, the comparative analysis components were uneven and that angle was not even close to fully explored. There are interesting ways to compare different sports, different leagues, promotions, etc., and they really only looked at the most superficial and easily dismissable ones.
As Dave Meltzer has written, the whole story of fighter pay is complicated and its even more complicated to make a solid value judgement on how fairly the UFC pays fighters, in my opinion. It can sort of come down to a philosophical debate. The reality is that fighter pay is worlds away from where it was when I started covering it. The growth is excellent and might actually be outpacing overall company growth, as Lorenzo Fertitta said.
Their production costs as promoters pretty much way exceed any that big time boxing promoters spend, yet the UFC "middle class" is much more of a reality than anything we see in boxing.
But it is possible to have a philosophical difficulty with the UFC top tier fighters not getting as much as the 2-3 top boxers in the world or you see this as an opportunity for a new way to emerge for major sports leagues - where name and likeness rights are more shared or exclusively owned by the competitors, or you wish that the UFC still had more more strong competitors. Or Perhaps you'd like to see a UFC fighter's union to emerge and you are not optimistic that a company owned by the Fertittas will ever allow that.
That's interesting stuff. But none was really explored by the piece. They ignored easy angles on both (pro and con UFC, if it must be about that, and with the media it so often does, for conflict) sides. Ie. why ignore the issue of health insurance and how that has developed over the years, where it stands now and compare to other sports? And they brought up fighter unions in the most useless, lack of context sense. How about talking about the ways in which collective barganing has helped other athletes in other sports, how that came about, assessing how that might look for MMA / the UFC, etc?
If they wanted to make the UFC owners look bad, why not then look at Station Casinos and their battle with organized labor? Then that leads into a whole other interesting real story of part of their difficulty in getting sanctioned in NY.
Anyway, this piece was so strange to me. I hate to see guys strike out when they have access to everyone and everything they need to
ESPN does everything it can to either ignore MMA or cast it in a bad light.
To steal another forum members comment, ESPN can go eat a majestic forrest of dicks.
Havent seen it and wont.but it sounds like how they blew it when given the opportunity to look into pro wrestling after the crazy Chris Benoit shit.
All they talked about was roids and had no meaningful content or questions or answers of any kind.
For your trouble:
Agreed. The ESPN piece was piss poor.
The reality is that the UFC holds these fighters and camps hostage and a fighters union has to be formed in order to ensure that fighter's rights are upheld.
I mean what a piss poor reporting job. They didn't talk about how the UFC cut Jon Fitch and threatened to cut all of AKA when he dared to question signing off his "lifetime and into perpetuity rights" *(i.e. rights even after he dies) for the video games and action figures, etc.
They never talked about what the did to Randy Couture when he wanted out in order to fight Fedor.
What a crock of shit really. This is a real issue and the UFC is full of crap in terms of what they offer fighters relative to other sports (i.e. NFL, NBA, etc.). There really needs to be a union...but that will never happen unless the top fighters are willing to risk their careers in order to come together and make it happen.
Real issue... but ESPN did a crappy job covering it...
Really, really good post man. But all of the things you stated make sense and are non biased as well as logical points that should have been covered. ESPN didn't go anywhere near logic or sound reasoning with their report. They did seem completely unprepared in attacking what they wanted to attack. 
Honestly, I've seen more in-depth, incisive, meaningful interviews done by 10th graders reporting for their school papers.
ESPN has an agenda, and that is to shed MMA in as bad a light as possible, whenever they can, however they can. What surprises me is that so-called journalists that work for ESPN have absolutely lost all their integrity and are willing to participate in such obvious bias.
Its sickening, but like everything else, lets blame it on the economy and how these guys have to "toe the company line" in order to keep their jobs. Uncle Bob Arum must be proud of them.
great post, Elias.
Nobody backs espn and Josh Gross for fighting for a league with no union about pay? The boxing that was on espn wasnt a league. 
Espn might just decide to stop covering all Ufc now. Maybe cut off the Uk of its Ufc content over this.
the UFC isa private company and the entire piece and most of the responses and comparisons in this thread are irrelevant.
if the fighters don't like the pay, don't work for the UFC. If the UFC wants to pay their fighters more or less, feel free.
This is an MMA bash from ESPN and an unnecessary explanation from the UFC as they are private and are allowed to compensate fighters as they please.
Good to see you around again, Elias. Your impression of the topic are especially valuable. I have to think the pay angle was the wrong one to take. Other business practices seem like better targets. The way they freeze out certain guys (e.g., Arlovski and Herring), counterprogramming, and arbitrary sponsorship (e.g., RVCA and Sprawl) licensing seem much more fruitful.
CavemanDave - ESPN does everything it can to either ignore MMA or cast it in a bad light.I get the impression that the culture within ESPN is that the producers are the ones that shun MMA. Much of the talent keeps up with the sport.
To steal another forum members comment, ESPN can go eat a majestic forrest of dicks.
Not really much meat to the report, totally agree on that. Lots of speculation with nothing to really back it up. They did take the opportunity to quote Dana's profanity-laced response, which they were probably expecting and hoping for.
Thanks for indulging my take, guys, and listening. When I first heard about this segment being done I was skeptical. The type of business reporting that Meltzer has always done is way more useful than this type of one and done segment "investigations." To try and find fire on the topics of "unfair" fighter pay or the UFC being a "monopoly" smacks of either ignorance or bias, at this point in time.
I'll never feel that these fighters make "enough." But given the growth, and reasonable comparisons, there is no scandal to how much UFC fighters currently make. Things have changed a lot over the last 6-7 years. Again, if one has a philosophical stance that is different than the UFC's business model and practices, that's totally cool. I'm a bleeding heart pro-labor kinda guy, naturally. But the rate of pay for the UFC's fighters seems to be really at or above a reasonable relative market level right now.
And sadly, for top level fighters, there is not another promotion/league etc. where they can make as much as they could in the UFC, so it is probably difficult for them to pit one org against another in contract organizations - something some guys had for a lil bit given the temporary and really unique international situation we had with Pride and the UFC both existing/competing at the same time (and for even briefer moments - other orgs like EliteXC, Strikeforceand Affliction).
But this isn't a matter of illegality or even anything unethical, as far as I can tell.
Given history and even the current landscape, I can't see how a reasonable person could view the UFC as a monopoly.
The way they brought up the Ali act was weird as well. How about examining that and talking to lawyers, judges and members of congress to see if they felt it applied to the UFC and if the way they were going about their business was in violation of the letter or even spirit of that law. I don't personally feel that they are, but I'd welcome expert opinions that differ from mine as a viewer.
The ESPN piece may have been poor and whatever, but at the end of the day the UFC (or Zuffa to be precise) has only itself to blame. The reason there is dissent among fighters and the UFC over pay, the reason there are rumors and the reason the media covers the issue and will continue to cover the issue, is only one: Zuffa is not a transparent company and it does not release data over revenues and fighter pay. As long as Zuffa will continue not to release this info, fighters will continue to dissent and the media will continue to make it an issue. And rightly so. A certain measure of transparency is to be welcomed, especially in the situation of near monopoly that Zuffa finds itself in.
you're suggesting that there is a way to make dissent non existent?
Also, the way ZUFFA handles its financial information seems to be in line with other similar private companies. You can feel its appropriate for a company like this to only be public or for the government to make it mandatory for private companies to make public to the general public more information, I suppose.
Elias Cepeda - Thanks for indulging my take, guys, and listening. When I first heard about this segment being done I was skeptical. The type of business reporting that Meltzer has always done is way more useful than this type of one and done segment "investigations." To try and find fire on the topics of "unfair" fighter pay or the UFC being a "monopoly" smacks of either ignorance or bias, at this point in time.
I'll never feel that these fighters make "enough." But given the growth, and reasonable comparisons, there is no scandal to how much UFC fighters currently make. Things have changed a lot over the last 6-7 years. Again, if one has a philosophical stance that is different than the UFC's business model and practices, that's totally cool. I'm a bleeding heart pro-labor kinda guy, naturally. But the rate of pay for the UFC's fighters seems to be really at or above a reasonable relative market level right now.
And sadly, for top level fighters, there is not another promotion/league etc. where they can make as much as they could in the UFC, so it is probably difficult for them to pit one org against another in contract organizations - something some guys had for a lil bit given the temporary and really unique international situation we had with Pride and the UFC both existing/competing at the same time (and for even briefer moments - other orgs like EliteXC, Strikeforceand Affliction).
But this isn't a matter of illegality or even anything unethical, as far as I can tell.
Given history and even the current landscape, I can't see how a reasonable person could view the UFC as a monopoly.
The way they brought up the Ali act was weird as well. How about examining that and talking to lawyers, judges and members of congress to see if they felt it applied to the UFC and if the way they were going about their business was in violation of the letter or even spirit of that law. I don't personally feel that they are, but I'd welcome expert opinions that differ from mine as a viewer.
You sound exactly like I would expect from a butthurt internet "writer" who can't believe the UFC doesn't spend hours upon hours talking about a fringe sport. Get over yourself.
Nascar pays around 25%... the WWE pays around 28%... the UFC pays in the same neighborhood...
The socialists need to get this 50% nonsense out of their heads. UFC's model and market realities mostly resembles nascar and the WWE and any real estimate shows that UFC pay for talent is very close to those 2.
Regardless, when did share of revenue become the means to calculate compensation? some people need to go live in cuba.
Elite Hunting -Elias Cepeda - Thanks for indulging my take, guys, and listening. When I first heard about this segment being done I was skeptical. The type of business reporting that Meltzer has always done is way more useful than this type of one and done segment "investigations." To try and find fire on the topics of "unfair" fighter pay or the UFC being a "monopoly" smacks of either ignorance or bias, at this point in time.
I'll never feel that these fighters make "enough." But given the growth, and reasonable comparisons, there is no scandal to how much UFC fighters currently make. Things have changed a lot over the last 6-7 years. Again, if one has a philosophical stance that is different than the UFC's business model and practices, that's totally cool. I'm a bleeding heart pro-labor kinda guy, naturally. But the rate of pay for the UFC's fighters seems to be really at or above a reasonable relative market level right now.
And sadly, for top level fighters, there is not another promotion/league etc. where they can make as much as they could in the UFC, so it is probably difficult for them to pit one org against another in contract organizations - something some guys had for a lil bit given the temporary and really unique international situation we had with Pride and the UFC both existing/competing at the same time (and for even briefer moments - other orgs like EliteXC, Strikeforceand Affliction).
But this isn't a matter of illegality or even anything unethical, as far as I can tell.
Given history and even the current landscape, I can't see how a reasonable person could view the UFC as a monopoly.
The way they brought up the Ali act was weird as well. How about examining that and talking to lawyers, judges and members of congress to see if they felt it applied to the UFC and if the way they were going about their business was in violation of the letter or even spirit of that law. I don't personally feel that they are, but I'd welcome expert opinions that differ from mine as a viewer.
You sound exactly like I would expect from a butthurt internet "writer" who can't believe the UFC doesn't spend hours upon hours talking about a fringe sport. Get over yourself.
My butt doesn't currently hurt, though my mcl is still bugging me. And I will never, ever, get over myself.
But back to your post, what are you saying, exactly? That I don't like that the UFC doesn't spend time talking about themselves?
Or do you mean that I think that ESPN should be spending hours and hours talking about MMA and the UFC?
Actually, ESPN chose to take air time and other resources to do this segment, and they didn't ask my opinion on whether or not they should at all...I'm assuming they thought they'd good ratings from discussing this fringe sport.
My point is that if you are going to choose to do something, as ESPN did here, do it well. Not about quantity, but quality.