Should anyone make 2k in the UFC?

Many first time fighters in the UFC are guaranteed 2k. That seems to be a little cheap since the UFC is not losing money on each show. Dave Meltzer reported that the last ppv had the lowest payout to the fighters of any ppv since Zuffa bought the company. If this is true, what is going on?

NO....but thats what happens when there is only one big organization in
North amercia you have to climb the ladder to make some money. Thank
god ROR and Icon have came along to pay some fighters.

no one makes them fight for that money; they agree to it of their own free will

the walk in non televised fights maybe

"NO....but thats what happens when there is only one big organization in North amercia you have to climb the ladder to make some money. Thank god ROR and Icon have came along to pay some fighters. "

Remeber thw UFC shoots down pride thread. guess they knew what they were doing

the only people that should make 2k are the fools dumb enough to fight for 2k

Are you a big proponent of sweatshops and a big opponent of unions?

I'm in favor of free labor - meaning the freedom to decide whether or not you're willing to work for any given payment without any restrictions.  I think people can make up their own minds about what they're willing to be paid for what work, and they don't need you or anyone else to make their decisions for them.  If $2k is really such an objectionable amount for fighting in the UFC, why are so many fighters eager to do it?  Seems to me there are a lot of other benefits - potential future paydays, publicity, a chance to showcase your skills, moderate degree of fame, making a dream come true, etc. - that might make it well worth $2k to fight in the UFC.  Who are you to tell these fighters that they're wrong about their own valuations?

 

If you'd like to talk about so-called "sweat shops" or unions, another thread might be a more appropriate place.  But if you want my opinion on "sweat shops," you can start by checking out this article: http://www.aworldconnected.com/article.php/507.html

I'm not a terrific fan of unions, since they're essentially creating a cartel for labor and trying to exclude non-members from the profession so that they can raise their own wages, but I don't think they should be illegal either.  People should be free to associate and form labor cartels if they wish.  However, I do object when unions are able to co-opt the legislature and get laws passed making them the de facto gatekeepers for various professions, or that create mandatory arbitration requirements, etc.  For a brief version of the argument, check out The problem with unions.

"However, I do object when unions are able to co-opt the legislature and get laws passed making them the de facto gatekeepers for various professions"

I understand this objection, but big-business and the wealthy have consistently done this, as have special interest groups with large and powerful memberships. If you want to stay in the "game" at all, these are necessary evils. I agree with the arbitrary admissions criteria to an extent though.

I understand this objection, but big-business and the wealthy have consistently done this, as have special interest groups with large and powerful memberships.

I object to that as well - didn't mention it b/c I was talking about unions.  The problem is not with any of these groups themselves, but with the expansion of government power to an extent that everyone has to one-up each other in getting the gov't to grant them special favors and laws that give them an edge against their competition.  If gov't were a lot less powerful to grant these sorts of favors, this would be a much smaller problem.

But this thread should probably stay focused on the subject of whether $2k + $2k is an unconscionable sum to pay an entry-level fighter in the UFC.  I say no, based on the fact that so many fighters freely choose to fight for that amount.  They themselves are in the best position to judge whether it's worth it to them or not, and I don't think paternalistic busybodies should interfere with their ability to make these choices.

Sijan, I think it is objectionable, for a number of reasons. One, the $2k amount is very close to "free" after you factor in the expenses the figher must pay for clearance, trainers, etc. It amounts to an amount left over of a few hundred dollars.

Two, the current situation is largely a market-of-adhesions, due to lack of competition at the moment. This means that the contracts are not "freely negotiated", but are in essence, forced on the fighters in a take-it or leave-it fashion.

Three, it was one thing to say the low pay rates were justified when profits were minimal. That is no longer the case, so from an "equitable" viewpoint, I don't see it as justified.

Four, if you carry that "free-market" assumption (with all of its built in assumptions that are not true) to far, you will end up with a situation where wages will detioriate, IMO.

my buddy is one of those that fought for $2,000 and i think it's horseshit. he probably ended up paying to fight in the ufc, what with airfare, hotel, etc.

Macedwagg:

One, the $2k amount is very close to "free" after you factor in the expenses the figher must pay for clearance, trainers, etc. It amounts to an amount left over of a few hundred dollars.

Ok.  I don't think it's unreasonable for them to fight for free, if they're willing.  Tito fought for free in some of his early fights because of NCAA conflicts.  He wasn't being exploited - he realized there were other benefits to fighting in the UFC besides getting paid.  Plus, he liked fighting.  He's not unusual in those respects.

the current situation is largely a market-of-adhesions, due to lack of competition at the moment. This means that the contracts are not "freely negotiated", but are in essence, forced on the fighters in a take-it or leave-it fashion.

I don't think I said anything about "freely negotiated" just that the choice was freely made.  lack of competition (in terms of promoters) may make the terms of the contracts less negotiable, but that does not make the choice to fight or not any less free.  There's nothing wrong with a take-it or leave-it contract so long as both parties can walk away.

Three, it was one thing to say the low pay rates were justified when profits were minimal. That is no longer the case, so from an "equitable" viewpoint, I don't see it as justified.

What's equitable is whatever the two sides agree is equitable enough for them.  I wouldn't want to impose my own judgments about equity on fighters with entirely different preferences.

Four, if you carry that "free-market" assumption (with all of its built in assumptions that are not true) to far, you will end up with a situation where wages will detioriate, IMO.

Actually, quite the opposite and this has held true historically - wages, in terms of actual buying power, rise in market economies.  There are a variety of reasons for this - increased mechanization & education leading to greater worker productivity, competition between firms driving wages up, etc.

In the context of MMA, as the sport becomes more profitable, fighter purses are also likely to rise.  I don't know if they've recovered all of their sunk costs yet, but from all appearances, the UFC is beginning to make substantial profits.  Those profits are a signal to other entrepreneurs and investors that they should get involved in this burgeoning industry, creating new promotions, but this time with real money behind them.  The subsequent competition for a limited number of quality fighters will drive up the size of fighter purses.  This sort of salary competition already happens to a limited extent with the UFC's higher level fighters - the UFC has to compete with Japanese promotions that might want to lure them away with more money.  But as domestic promotions begin to offer real competition to the UFC, this competition will likely extend down to the entry-level. 

"Ok. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to fight for free, if they're willing. Tito fought for free in some of his early fights because of NCAA conflicts. He wasn't being exploited - he realized there were other benefits to fighting in the UFC besides getting paid. Plus, he liked fighting. He's not unusual in those respects."

Actually, Tito is pretty unusual, as he has stuck his neck on the line to say that the current pay situation is BS, to which he caught much heat on this very board. Turns out, he was correct.

"lack of competition (in terms of promoters) may make the contracts less negotiable, but that does not make the choice to fight or not any less free. There's nothing wrong with a take-it or leave-it contract so long as both parties can walk away."

This argument only goes so far, and without unions and people fighting for wage benefits, owners of capital would dominate, and wages would fall, IMO.

"What's equitable is whatever the two sides agree is equitable enough for them. I wouldn't want to impose my own judgments about equity on fighters with entirely different preferences."

This will get very circular, for if you accept this premise, other "choices" must be available, which they are not. Take MLB, for example, do you think it coincidence that salaries sky-rocketed as soon as brave Curt Flood fought for the right to free agency?

As to your last point, countless studies will also say the exact opposite, absent legitimate competition.

Relatedly, do you think the U.S. should scrap the anti-trust division, and let the likes of Microsoft do whatever they please? Would this benefit workers, and/or socieity as a whole?

Actually, Tito is pretty unusual, as he has stuck his neck on the line to say that the current pay situation is BS, to which he caught much heat on this very board. Turns out, he was correct.

Actually, I said he wasn't unusual in the respects I mentioned - realizing there are non-monetary reasons to fight in the UFC & enjoying fighting.  Of course he's unusual in other respects

This argument only goes so far, and without unions and people fighting for wage benefits, owners of capital would dominate, and wages would fall, IMO.

this ignores competition for workers/fighters, which currently exists but isn't as good as it will likely be in the near future with domestic promotions that compete with the UFC

This will get very circular, for if you accept this premise, other "choices" must be available, which they are not.

I'm puzzled by your remark.  There are lots of other career options besides fighting in the UFC.  Even if you want to fight in MMA, there are Japanese promotions, a major UK promotion, several semi-major US promotions, etc. 

And it's not circular at all.  Traditionally, there are two defintions of equity - one looks at the conditions of the agreement, and the other looks at the result.  I look at the conditions of the agreement - was it voluntary, was there any fraud or deception, is each party of full mental capacity, etc.  If those things are ok, then I'm willing to accept whatever terms the parties agree to as equitable.  I don't like the results-based version of equity because it applies one's own feelings about equity to others who may have very different views.

Take MLB, for example, do you think it coincidence that salaries sky-rocketed as soon as brave Curt Flood fought for the right to free agency?

I don't disagree with you on that.  Free agency = more competition = higher salaries for athletes.  That's what I'm suggesting will happen soon in the domestic MMA market as it becomes more profitable and other firms enter the market.

As to your last point, countless studies will also say the exact opposite, absent legitimate competition.

Actually, I'm not aware of those countless studies that say the opposite and would find them very entertaining, as would some economist friends.  However, your "absent legitimate competition" proviso is an assumption of a static market.  I suggest that the domestic MMA market is not static, but dynamic, and that continued or increased profits will bring in new competition (in terms of promoters), thus creating competitiong for fighters and raising their salaries.

 

Relatedly, do you think the U.S. should scrap the anti-trust division, and let the likes of Microsoft do whatever they please? Would this benefit workers, and/or socieity as a whole?

Wow, that's completely off-topic, but I'll bite.  Yes, anti-trust laws are a bad idea and should be scrapped.  These laws are not needed to maintain competition, and in fact actually reduce competition by creating the incentives, and the means, for competitors to weaken or eliminate each other via legal wrangling rather than actual market competition.  The only monopolies that have any sort of sustained existence have been government-supported monopolies (meaning that they had a monopoly due to anti-competitive laws & regulations).  For more, check out this brief article or check out the paragraph below, from this article, for a summary explanation of how anti-trust laws are anti-competitive:

Producers who charge more than their competitors, Paterson observes, can be accused of price gouging. Those who charge less are guilty of predatory pricing and unfair competition. Those who charge precisely the same must surely be engaged in price fixing. Any of these accusations might therefore be leveled against a firm by a competitor, making "status," or political power, crucially important to commerce. According to Paterson, the malleability of the notion of "anticompetitive" practices means that in effect, firms will seek prior approval before innovating, merging, or splitting and selling off subsidiaries. The effect, ironically, is to inhibit competition.

[ed for misreading of a quote on my part]

[& because that was all the time I had for attention whores today, the bit I ed'd]

FWIW, this shows how little you believe in your own "free market economy" spiel. Presumably it would still be unreasonable if they were paid $.50 or $1, in your view.

Huh?  I said it's not unreasonable for them to fight for free, if they're willing.  In other words, it may very well be reasonable, depending on a fighter's preferences.  It may also be reasonable to fight for a dollar or a milkshake or whatever other hypotheticals you'd like to offer.

The issue is of what a fair wage is, not of "what the market will bear" or for that matter "what the law will allow."  If you mistake a political or economic question with a moral one, your brain is making a pretty obvious mistake.

My argument, from my first post, is that a fair wage is whatever mentally competent participants voluntarily agree to work for.  My criteria for fairness are 1) competence of participants (not children, mentally deficient, crazy, etc.) and 2) a voluntary agreement (no force or fraud.).  That's it.

People have raised issues that implicate politics & economics, so I've addressed those as well.  It is not unreasonable to say that I not only find the current purses moral, but I also find political & economic reasons to suggest that they will increase in the future, allaying the concerns of those who think they might stay low forever.

 

Listen, I saw that I misread that sentence of yours, and erased the post. Why it took you so long to respond, I have no idea. You must have been refreshing quickly and then had my post up for way too long.

FWIW, I find you kind of transparent. I'm just not interested in what you are selling. Like most lawyers, or wanna-be lawyers with your politics, you're an obvious attention whore whose ideas are formed from a need to alienate others, and encrusted around a mind that is clever enough to manipulate the periphery of discourses without ever grasping their cores, or caring that it doesn't. FWIW, I knew you were either a law student or a lawyer before thinking to check your bio link. You will probably think it gave me satisfaction to have my judgment confirmed, but I just found it depressing.

Sorry: like I said before I erased, this is about the extent of the energy I'm willing to waste on personalities like yours.

Maybe I should add: it's possible there is a troll out here somewhere brilliant to invent a "sijan" out of observation of internet personality types - now that would have been an impressive feat and one showing some real understanding of human nature.

That would impress me.

The accident, though, not so much.

If you're a troll, creating a fictitious "Daniel Alban" and manipulating the pathology I noticed (that made me suss out a lawyer-type), that is fucking brilliant.

First, let's kill all the lawyers :-D

Evangr:

I was responding to someone else, then I responded to you.  If I waited a long time to respond, it was because I was responding to the other person first because they posted first.

I'm not sure what you mean by the pscyho-babble about my personality and a need to alienate others.  You don't know me and I'm not sure what makes you think you can divine an accurate picture of my personality from a single thread on a message board.  I have no "need to alienate others."  I'm perfectly willing to disagree with others, but my ultimate goal is to persuade, not alienate.

I simply disagree with all the left-leaning and often economically illterate arguments for why UFC fighters should be paid more.  I have no opposition to them being paid more, but I don't think it's wrong for them to be paid what they currently are.

encrusted around a mind that is clever enough to manipulate the periphery of discourses without ever grasping their cores

Ummmmm, ok.  Not sure how you think I fail to grasp the "core" of this discussion, but whatever.  I'm not arguing that it's legal or economically feasible for the UFC to pay $2k salaries, I'm arguing that it's perfectly moral and there's nothing wrong with it.  If you haven't been able to grasp that, I'm sorry.

FWIW, you use FWIW a lot.