Michael Cohen - Getty Images
over 1 year ago: NEW YORK NY - JANUARY 13: Lorenzo Fertitta UFC Chairman and CEO looks on during a press conference to announce commitment to bring UFC to Madison Square Garden and New York State at Madison Square Garden on January 13 2011 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images)
In the wake of the ESPN "Outside the Lines" feature talking about UFC fighter pay one of the biggest discussion points has been the UFC's first released video of what amounts to an outtake of the Lorenzo Fertitta interview. In this video, Lorenzo makes an attempt at a "gotcha" by pointing out that on Friday Night Fights (on ESPN2) fighter pay is fairly low. He even singles out a fighter who made $275 on a Friday Night Fights card in Vegas.
Scott Christ of Bad Left Hook broke down Lorenzo's argument in a recent article:
First of all, ESPN is not a fight promoter. This is an enormous difference. For a UFC card on FX, the UFC is pretty much in control of everything. ESPN just airs fights. They have the right to turn down a proposed fight, but that's about it. Everything is really up to the promoters of the actual fight card.
They are a network that broadcasts a low-budget boxing series for nine months out of the year. To compare Friday Night Fights to a UFC show on cable is an attempt at trickery at best. It's just not the same thing.
The budget for FNF is small: $100,000 per show. This is not a big-time showcase for top fighters. It is, more or less, somewhere for prospects and mid-tier veterans to fight.
He also talked about the fighter who was paid $275 and what exactly that means:
Fertitta claims, and I'm sure he's telling the truth, that someone fought on Friday Night Fights in a four-round bout for $275. What Fertitta doesn't reveal -- or perhaps does not actually know -- is that anyone in a four-round fight that winds up on the broadcast, on TV, was positioned in a swing fight that was going to air only if there was time remaining in the two-hour time slot. There are no four-round fights purposely scheduled to air on ESPN's series. A four-round fight is the lowest level of professional boxing, and frankly to call the majority of four-round bouts "professional boxing" is kind of a stretch; the fighters don't often resemble what we're used to seeing on TV, even from the middle-of-the-pack guys that get on ESPN or HBO or Showtime. It's kind of like comparing high school football to the NFL most of the time.
The UFC line is that everyone on their roster is there because they're among the best in the world. Obviously no one is being paid $275 to fight on a UFC card, but Friday Night Fights is not known to be, nor is it advertised as being, a showcase for the world's best boxers.
Follow after the jump for much more...
The Friday Night Fights card in Vegas prior to that interview would have been the July 29, 2011 show headlined by Lamont Peterson vs. Victor Cayo. There were only two four round fights on the card and if I had to guess who the guy getting a low rate of pay was, I'd assume it was Timothy Hall Jr. Hall entered the night with a 6-11 record, but had lost ten of his previous twelve bouts. There's also a possibility that it was Razvan Cojanu, a local Vegas heavyweight who came into the night with an 0-1 record and, despite winning and only being 24 (an age where boxers fight every couple months) has not fought since.
I can't stress enough how bizarre I find the defending of Lorenzo's larger point. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with fighter pay in the UFC. I'd like to see mid-tier guys get a little bit more of a boost and I think the $6,000 to show, $6,000 to win model for undercard guys should be changed to a flat $10,000 (or something in that neighborhood) as it's crippling for guys to show up after a camp, lose a tough fight and walk away with $6,000 (yes, in disclosed pay). But those aren't huge issues.
The problem is with treating Lorenzo's argument like it's some heavy blow to ESPN. The deep undercard of a small boxing card with a limited budget like you get with Friday Night Fights is made up of prospects just starting out, local fighters filling spots and warm bodies being put in the ring to give a better fighter some experience. That's not in any way similar to what the UFC is supposed to represent, where even guys in a curtain jerker role on a card are supposed to represent someone near the pinacle of the sport.
If anything, I think the UFC is overreacting to a feature piece by ESPN that, while not particularly flattering, wasn't exactly the a sledgehammer to the credibility of the UFC. I think the amount of attention they're giving it, with swinging back with a video like this (which falls apart under any sort of critical thinking) they're not doing anything but appeasing their own fans by giving them something to shout about. It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't actually make ESPN look bad and it only serves to further the "us vs. them" narrative.
But maybe that's just what they actually set out to do.
1 recs | 123 comments
the UFC rarely backs down when it is slandered
it’s what makes this sport extreme, it’s in your face and filled with attitude
I'vegotthepower - January 16, 2012
Except the UFC is not the sport, MMA is, and their attitude makes them appear extremely childish and silly.
Unabomberman - January 16, 2012
This is right. They weren’t interested in an actual discussion on fighter pay, and I don’t think espn was based on the way they handled this situation.
The UFC is overreacting because the piece wasn’t that damning, but they promised clips, so they’re going to give them.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Didnt't they say they would release the entire interview?
Sabate - January 16, 2012
Maybe, but I’m sure that will come in time. Why release the whole, long, boring thing at first when you can cut it up and make idiotic points.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Fair enough
Sabate - January 16, 2012
Unfortunately, I agree
It seems like a politician’s response in a bitter campaign. What he should have brought up are the positives like the new health insurance, the enormous costs of the production that the UFC is putting on the line, the expanding to different areas of the world. As much as the sport its growing there are huge expanses that go with it.
Coeman - January 16, 2012
I think Lorenzo did bring those up, and they made the final cut
Certainly he brought up the costs of in-house production. I can’t remember if he brought up the accident liability insurance.
KJ Gould - January 16, 2012
The insurance was not brought up
Gross should have brought this up it when asked not a single story about Dan Miller. The story seemed very one sided.
Coeman - January 16, 2012
The response may seem political
However, Lorenzo use to be a member of the commission and is privy to a lot of info pertaining to boxers. He may have been fighting fire with fire, but at least he knew the facts before attempting before attacking head on. While ESPN used some disgruntled or blackballed sources like Kenny and Monte Cox.
BrothaDarkness - January 16, 2012
The promoters of the boxing matches on Friday Night Fights pay their fighters what the market will bear. The promoters of the UFC pay their fighters what the market will bear. Both are acting as we would expect business to act in a free market.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
What is "what the market will bear" for the UFC?
$50 for “just bleed” brawls? I always thought the UFC was distinguished by its genuine embrace of skill and technique alongside the favorites fight style of its core demographic.
Sabate - January 16, 2012
They can do that and not pay more than they have to.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
By doing so they are paying more than they have to.
Let’s face it: the UFC could cut quite a few journeymen/veterans, save some salary money and pay novice fighters who are willing to stand-and-bang, and they wouldn’t take a substantial hit in their PPV revenue. So why don’t they do that?
Sabate - January 16, 2012
you pay whatever you have to pay to make the most money. Random people standing and banging doesn’t pay as much as being the best fighters in the world, they need to find the middle ground in doing both and have done it better than everyone else so far.
If they cut the people you are talking about and replaced them with nobodies they would lose ground to whoever signed those guys.
That’s why the UFC makes more money than Bob’s fighting shack, and the NFL makes more than Arena football.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Again, what the market will bear for the UFC is what the UFC is paying
That’s how it works. The UFC and its fighters enter into contracts of their own free will. The UFC wouldn’t get good fighters at $50 a fight, so they don’t pay that. At $6,000, they’re getting good enough fighters to fill their preliminary cards, so that’s what they’re paying for entry-level preliminary card fighters. Fans are free to decide for themselves whether the $6,000 fighters are worth their time and their money, another element of the free market.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “what the market will bear”? When you consider the history of baseball salaries, before Marvin Miller and free agency, teams were clearly paying less than “what the market would bear” because they could lock players into lifetime contracts and pay them very much less than their “market” value.
One of the points I agree with in the ESPN story is that the lower-end UFC fighters would greatly benefit from a fighters union. The problem is that higher-end fighters would gain nothing and probably lose a great deal in that bargain… and they’re the only ones the UFC needs to keep happy.
Stanlee - January 16, 2012
It means that the UFC will pay as little as it has to to get good fighters, and at a higher level, to get draws. They pay Hendo hundreds of thousands because that’s what Hendos cost; as long as entry level guys are willing to fighter for $6000, then that is what an entry level guy costs. If every entry level guy wants $10,000, that becomes the floor – same if talented guys show up for $1000/fight contracts.
outlander78 - January 16, 2012
I think your rationale is a bit circuitous.
But I think you’re misunderstanding me. My contention is that the UFC is already paying quite a bit more than it could for many winning fighters who are “boring.” It could cut costs by shedding these fighters more quickly and hiring cheaper fighters who are willing to have standing slugfests.
This is what the market will bear. In fact, they could arguably improve their PPV revenue by significantly cutting the number of wrestling-based fights. So why don’t they do so?
Sabate - January 16, 2012
Sabate, you're right, I was misunderstanding you
Thanks for the clarification.
Stanlee, what I mean by “what the market will bear” is that there’s a market for MMA fighters, which is set by how much money promoters can make off MMA fighters. The UFC wants to be the market leader and therefore it’s paying exactly what it thinks it needs to pay in order to remain the market leader.
Baseball wasn’t a free market pre-Marvin Miller. It was a cartel in which the owners colluded with each other to keep salaries down. But MMA isn’t the same: The UFC, Bellator, Dream, M-1, Shark Fights, etc. are business competitors in a way that the Yankees, Red Sox, Pirates, Tigers, Dodgers, etc. are not.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
so ur saying
The market can only bear to pay Aldo 48k to headline a card? I call BS. To me the injustice isnt so much the 6k/6k nobodys, its the top guys getting railed sometimes. Carwin made 50k to fight Lesnar. 50k for a HW title fight? GTFO. What market is it where the UFC can gross millions and pay the champ 48k? Greed pure and simple. And they will kill the golden goose if they don’t pay up a little.
Ever wonder why Dana gets freakishly defensive about this stuff? He knows he’s robbing these guys
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
you don’t understand how the market works. If someone could afford to pay Aldo 49k, they would, but they can’t.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
49k? I don't think Aldo is ready for Anderson Silva money...
menckenstein - January 16, 2012
Everyone is ready for anderson silva money, doesn’t mean they are going to get it.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Not this time...
menckenstein - January 16, 2012
Right
If you’re asking could Lorenzo Fertitta afford to give Jose Aldo $1,000 more than he currently pays him? Of course he could. But that’s not how free markets work. Your boss could afford to hand you $1,000 and my boss could afford to hand me $1,000, and I could afford to give the waitress a $1,000 tip when I go out to dinner tonight. But if I gave every waitress $1,000 every time I go out to eat, pretty soon I’d be broke. And if Fertitta gave every fighter what that fighter’s fans want him to make pretty soon the UFC would be broke.
Look, I’d love to see Jose Aldo get paid more money than Alex Rodriguez. I personally like Jose Aldo a lot more than I like Alex Rodriguez. But it’s not my money. It’s Lorenzo Fertitta’s money, and he and Jose Aldo have reached an agreement on how much he’s going to pay Jose Aldo.
And, finally, Jose Aldo and Shane Carwin both make more money than what is publicly disclosed, as I’m sure you know.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
this is hardly a pure "free market" experiment
And i dont think any of u are considering the secondary consequences. I.Em. if i’m jose aldo, i would rather claim an injury and spend the next 9 months raking in $ as a champ outside the cage than rush back in to collect my 50k. And we wonder why these top guys are constantly injured…
Its not about what another promotion can pay, its about giving these guys incentive to fight. When they make waaaayyyy more out of the cage then why fight more than once a year and risk losing it all?
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
another example
If ur Anthony Johnson, are u worried about making weight so u dont have to give away 20% of ur purse? Isn’t a win worth much more than 20% here? 20% in this case is prolly what, 5k? Its a joke. U get KO of the night and u get 65k! Why would u ever make weight?
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
or Anderson for example
Dude just signed several huge sponorship deals. Why would u risk a year where u stand to make $5-10 million to rush in there and fight a roided up maniac? If i were him my shoulder would hurt too.
Last example, I promise. :-)
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
Why would you ever make weight?
So you wake up on Sunday morning with a job. If he made weight and lost, there is no way he gets cut.
Joben - January 16, 2012
i get that
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
i get that
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
i get that
It was a hypothetical. If u miss weight by 11 lbs ur prolly in trouble either way. Especially when u have missed several times. Hypothetically a fighter could choose to miss weight once or twice (by a few lbs) if he felt it would help him win.
Just pointing out that threatening to take away a portion of a purse means very little when the purse is so small
RearNakedToke - January 16, 2012 via mobile
A few extra pounds is far from a guaranteed win. Wouldn’t it suck to lose 20% of your purse and still lose (like Johnson)? It is smarter to just make weight, keep your boss in good graces, and maximize your potential earnings.
As for Anderson, if he stops taking fights the sponsorship money is going to go away. If he wants to only take enough fights to keep the sponsors happy, then that is his choice. And you’re right, it is up to the UFC to offer him enough money to get him back in the cage. That is part of the reason why he makes “Anderson Silva Money.” If Aldo starts getting opportunities outside of the cage, the UFC will have to pay him that kind of money.
alxn - January 16, 2012
Yep, what one company will pay is what the market will bear – in a monopoly
Day Man - January 16, 2012
bingo
Clifford J - January 16, 2012
but no one who pays more than the UFC can survive, so monopoly or not, it’s what the market will bear.
Who was going to drive up prices after Pride died? Who was going to do it after Affliction died?
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Especially if the UFC buys them out or counter programs their PPV's
aaronb - January 17, 2012
The ufc buying them out is more of that free market stuff. If someone thought they could make money with those companies, they would have outbid the UFC.
Every other form of entertainment in the universe is constantly counterprogramming the others, the good one’s survive.
Phildo - January 17, 2012
What the market will bear?
What market? Who can match or exceed any offer made by the UFC? There is no “market” when there are no competitors for your services. That $6K is about $5K more than they’d make anywhere else, so it’s not like they can say: “No, I want more”.
supermario305 - January 16, 2012
If that’s true, they are getting overpaid and people shouldn’t be complaining.
There is no market because everyone who has tried to make more has died, that’s part of the market. If they really start screwing the fighters (like people thought they were when they started Pride, or like people thought they did when they started Affliction) then someone will come along and pay them more. That’s how the world works.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Zuffa's response is predictable, and effective
They feel the ESPN piece was unfair to them, so they are accusing ESPN of the same sins. Now ESPN, who places themselves as an unbiased source of information, has to explain how they aren’t promoters of FNF, etc.
So, Zuffa is now placing ESPN in the same position ESPN placed Zuffa, thus in the eyes of the public neutralizing the original accusation.
The strategy, I believe, effectively kill any chance of the issue gaining any traction in the larger media sphere, not that there was much chance of that happening anyway. The fight is now seen as a boxing promoter vs a MM promoter.
Yes, factually, the Zuffa argument is wrong. But it is a good PR strategy.
duck - January 16, 2012
Effective?
Maybe
But then I don’t completely see how pissing off the biggest sports news organization in the world will benefit Zuffa and company in the long run…
jack knight starman - January 16, 2012 via mobile
people need to get over this.
They treated the card this weekend the same, or possibly better than they have covered cards in the past.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Yeah, I think it’s kind of weird that people are acting like ESPN is “at war” with the UFC. They did a somewhat critical feature piece about a controversial issue…same as they’ve done with EVERY major sport. They could have ignored UFC 142 completely and it wouldn’t have impacted the network at all, but they didn’t. They had the results on the front page of the .com and featured stuff on Sportscenter.
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Well I think it’s because ESPN did the story and didn’t include that fighters on their own network get paid a fraction of what UFC fighters get. (Yes they don’t control the pay, but, it still should have been included in the story.) Journalists go where the story goes even if it might make their employer not look so great right?
jrobb20 - January 16, 2012
But the piece is about a company that has established a near-monopoly (not a bad thing in my eyes, btw) on the sport and the top talent and thus has ultimate control over how much they get paid to fight at the highest levels of the sport.
Friday Night Fights isn’t in that category at all. It’s a low end boxing show where the lowest paid guys don’t have to accept the fights, but the promoters are putting them on cards for fights they agree to because they need the in-ring work. It’s not a comparable thing at all beyond “both involve guys fighting.”
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
People think Dana’s tweets or this Lorenzo video are going to somehow cause ESPN to “fight back” when they really don’t (and shouldn’t) give a shit.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Its really weird – do people actually think ESPN is one guy making all the decisions based on his own interests and vendettas?
Day Man - January 16, 2012
But
you can’t let ESPN bend you over a barrel and just take it either. Plus ESPN’s death grip on their sports coverage monopoly is starting to loosen. They are losing a lot of their power to the internet that can report and break news stories blog sites like these. And NBC just rebranded Versus and in the near future I think will challenge ESPN very vigorously for the TV side of sports coverage and events.
I love hockey and hockey fans went through the same thing. ESPN treated the NHL like dog crap sticking it on ESPN 2, barely covering, and then having on air talent make fun of hockey. Well the NHL had enough and went to OLN . People were saying “We need to get back with ESPN, we can’t survive with out them.” Well Hockey is now in a very good spot in a place that respects it. The UFC did the same thing with FOX and I think it will be much better for them. ESPN can go to Hell.
Karl12 - January 16, 2012
hockey is also a completely different story. Hockey went from being on espn multiple nights a week, plus a daily nhl show, plus good billing on Sportscenter, to literally nothing. That hurt a lot.
ESPN isn’t going to go out of their way to attack the UFC, their biggest crime against the NHL was doing nothing, They are already doing that with the UFC.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
Good points.
Karl12 - January 16, 2012
You have the ESPN/NHL story wrong
The NHL got all kinds of coverage on ESPN when they had the rights. Post-lockout, ESPN recognized the position of power they were in, and basically told the NHL they would show it if the rights were effectively free. The NHL (short-sightedly IMO) took a better $$$$ deal from Versus, and only then did ESPN stop doing good coverage.
joker24 - January 16, 2012
Maybe they got some decent coverage from ESPN in the beginning of their contract, but when ESPN got the rights to the NBA they pretty much moved the NHL ignored hockey all together. They took them completely off ESPN and put them on ESPN 2, they gave the axe to an excellent NHL Tonight show, and they had little to no advertising for upcoming games, and had hardly any highlights on SportsCenter until the Stanley Cup. And even then it was less than ten minuets.
ESPN was in a position of power and thought with there arrogance could bully the NHL to agreeing with there demands. But the NHL said screw you and went to a place that respected them. I don’t know how it was short sighted of them to take the deal with OLN. Sure it was a gamble but, the NHL went from a league that lost an entire season and was struggling to a healthy and exciting product. And OLN went from a hunting and fishing channel to now being the NBC Sports Network that will be a player and a challenger to ESPN in the 24 hour sports business. The NHL is now on a network that cares and promotes them, instead of being overshadowed by poker. Smart move by the NHL imo.
Karl12 - January 16, 2012
1. NHL2Night ran until 2004 when ESPN lost the rights
2. While I can’t vouch 100% for the highlight packages of 2004, ESPN was giving them Sportscenter love. That was back when Sportscenter was about highlights and not “analysis”. ESPN pimped Arena Football when they had the rights to that, I’m pretty sure they were doing the same for the NHL. ESPN gives the NHL more than 10 minutes for the Stanley Cup now—-methinks you’re really going with some hyperbole here.
3. ESPN2 is a MUCH bigger network than Versus. Games right now on Versus get 200-600k viewers. ESPN2’s 365 day 24 hour average is 276k—-that includes the 4 AM re-runs of MMA Live on a Sunday morning.
4. It was shortsighted because they completely capped their ceiling for the grand total of $130 million over 2 years (the original Versus contract)—-3.25M a year per team for 2 years! ESPN’s position was only there for the first contract. I’m basically positive that the exposure ESPN gives a sport would have allowed the NHL to make up $130 million over the next 14 years that they will be stuck with Versus/NBC Sports. I mean Pardon the Interruption on Wednesday did 50% more viewers than the highest rated Versus game this year.
joker24 - January 16, 2012
The NHL signed a 10 year, 2 Billion dollar deal in April to be NBC Sport’s flagship league.
Ruben Tisch - January 17, 2012
It seems like all the UFC is doing here is responding to ESPN’s criticisms by saying “well, isn’t the pot calling the kettle black!” Obviously it’s not meant as a deep and final refutation of the original argument, but it is an extremely common rhetorical device which does usually carry weight.
Maybe I’m just not capable of critical thought though.
Stanlee - January 16, 2012
That's pretty much what they're doing.
duck - January 16, 2012
ESPN at least partly to blame for boxer's low pay.
UFC = Content creator + distributor
ESPN = Distributor
Boxing promoter = Content creator
If the fighter walked out after his match with only 275 USD, ESPN definitely deserves part of the blame here, just as much as the boxing promoter.
Given the amount of value ESPN extracts from the boxers in Friday Night Lights, they have a responsibility towards them, just like the boxing promoter that brought them to the arena.
Ectoras - January 16, 2012
Friday Night FIGHTS
Lights is a TV show about football.
They pay the liscence fee and broadcast the fights, they have nothing to do with how much money the fighters make. You can blame promoters for that and even then, those are low level guys and low level guys don’t get paid a lot in any job.
IRodC - January 16, 2012
ESPN pays the promoters and the promoters pay the boxers, so ESPN obviously has something to do with how much the boxers get paid. They choose not to get involved because legally they don’t have to.
Ethically however, they are an integral part of the boxing ecosystem, so at the very least they should leverage their superior market position and negotiate with the promoters better purses for the boxers.
Ectoras - January 16, 2012
What you just did was light the rainforest on fire and now it’s gone.
ESPN has friday night fights to have a low-cost feature show for 2-3 boxing matches a week featuring young prospects or slightly past their prime veterans. It’s also a place where low end guys get decent paydays (most of the guys make over $1,200 for their fights) beyond what they normally would to round out the card. If ESPN has to start paying more for a show that doesn’t do huge business for them already…they’ll just take it off the air.
By the way, they have recently increased the budget for these shows so they are doing that to some extent. But there’s a ceiling to how much they can realistically raise it.
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Low-cost means nothing. This isnt a smoker bout we’re talking about.
ESPN should be advocating the boxers’ right for more money continuously, every time they’re negotiating a deal. As of right now, neither ESPN nor the promoters are looking out for low level boxers. Considering the exposure boxing has gotten over the decades, its a shame people are still getting paid 3 digit figures to fight on TV.
As far as the UFC goes, 2 – 3 years ago the base salary for an entry level UFC fighter was 4,000 + 4,000 USD. Today its 6,000 + 6,000 USD. As long as this figure keeps rising, the skepticists should keep among themselves.
Ectoras - January 16, 2012
but blame for what?
For having a promoter pay a low end boxer (who’d probably make $100 in a club in front of 15 people otherwise) a low amount? I keep hearing they should be to blame, but what kind of pay should the guy have gotten?
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
People are also ignoring that these fights are designed to get the fighter recognition so he can earn more money on the open market. The UFC isn’t anagolous because there is no open market
Day Man - January 16, 2012
What people are ignoring
Is that there isn’t much of an open market because the people that used to pay MMA fighters more than the UFC does folded.
Strikeforce, which is and was profitable, pays less than the UFC.
WEC, which was profitable, pays less than the UFC.
Bellator is all that’s left, and they don’t seem to be very successful at prying those lower tier fighters from the UFC’s contracts so… they probably pay less.
If a company’s competitors that paid more went out of business, that DOES mean the open market can’t support the higher salaries yet.
Also, Brent’s argument is not actually great critical logic either. He’s saying ESPN’s show is exempt from this low-salary argument because it specifically highlights unknowns. Well, UFC fighters making less than 10,000 are exactly those same MMA guys that are relative unknowns who don’t have much box office draw. If you’re saying UFC can afford to pay everyone more, you can ALSO still say that ESPN can afford to pay more for Friday Night Fights guys, because ESPN surely has far more advertising money than the UFC gets. Lorenzo’s logic does not fail here at all.
spamslots - January 16, 2012
Let's see, who else
Pride basically folded before it was bought. Wasn’t Dream having problems paying its fighters? I forget.
In a professional sport, it’s easier (and arguably better) to keep athlete’s salaries low until they can be sustainably be paid more than to pay too much and have an unprofitable company that suddenly needs to negotiate salaries down (ahem, NBA teams!) or go bankrupt.
spamslots - January 16, 2012
I keep hearing how ESPN is this #1 media source and how the UFC needs them to advance the sport. My question is does anyone really watch ESPN anymore? I couldnt tell you the last time I watched Sportscenter. Their pre game/post games shows are aweful too. The over-the-top broadcasting has killed ESPN along with the MLB, NFL and football conference networks. ESPN is a joke nowadays.
eckoltz - January 16, 2012
If ESPN is the #1 sports media source in the World then I’d say, ya someone must be watching them.
jack knight starman - January 16, 2012 via mobile
Yes, lots of people watch ESPN
Monday Night Football and the BCS bowls are the most-watched programming on all of cable television.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
Uhh yes
TV ratings
joker24 - January 16, 2012
Que the dead horse!
JONBONESJONES79 - January 16, 2012
What's that?
Damon O. - January 16, 2012
You can't let ESPN off the hook for this
If they’re trying to take the moral high ground to bash UFC on fighter pay, to say they’re just distributors unable to do anything about low pay for their show doesn’t hold water. They’re ESPN. If they wanted to do something about fighter pay for their show, they have an obligation to do so, and not duck it.
closetasfan - January 16, 2012
How about OTL doing an expose on the pay for FNF fighters?
jrobb20 - January 16, 2012
Never
Someone affilliated with ESPN bashing ESPN pretty much means you will be let go. Nobody wants to lose their job.
IRodC - January 16, 2012
Exactly, which is why OTL isn’t serious journalism.
jrobb20 - January 16, 2012
…I’m curious what journalistic outlets you think do critical pieces abut themselves?
Effectively, by running pieces critical of the NFL, NBA, MLB..etc. They have done plenty of stuff about their own product given that they broadcast events and news about those leagues
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Woodward and Bernstein couldn’t be more proud.
jrobb20 - January 16, 2012
They never wrote an Expose on The Washington Post.
Ruben Tisch - January 17, 2012
No need to wait Judge Smails
You will always get a rec from me.
Steve4192 - January 16, 2012
Talk to their ombudsmen
Day Man - January 16, 2012
If, as Brent and others have contended, ESPN will retaliate against it’s own reporters for daring to present stories that might include items that reflect negatively on ESPN, I don’t expect contacting the Ombudsmen would be worth the effort.
jrobb20 - January 16, 2012
Again..
I’m going to keep asking it until someone answers.
Why does anyone think that the fighter involved should make more than what he made?
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
I'm not aware of anyone arguing that the $275 fighter should have made more
What I am aware of is people arguing that a journalist looking to do a piece on the low pay of combat sports athletes would be wise to focus first on the lowest-paid combat sports athletes. And those athletes are much more likely to be found on Friday Night Fights than in the UFC.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
But as I said above, the segment focused on the UFC’s control over the MMA scene and what that allows them to do in terms of limiting fighter pay. FNF has no control over boxing. It’s a weekly event with a fixed budget.
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Right, but the whole premise was flawed
Early in the segment, Ken Shamrock says the UFC is the only place an MMA fighter can make a living, and ESPN presents that unchallenged. And you and I both know that’s not the case.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
Oh, well, I’m not really arguing that. I’m only talking about the FNF pay here and the continued idea that ESPN has been “exposed” in some way because of the Lorenzo video.
I’m not really defending the ESPN piece, merely the FNF thing.
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Fair enough.
I’m mostly interested in the video the UFC released because the media nerd in me finds it to be an interesting PR strategy, and it has me curious whether anyone I’ve ever interviewed has taped it without telling me in order to release the tape if they don’t like the way I present it. I do agree with the criticism that Lorenzo is making an apples-to-oranges comparison.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
I think it’s a really cool PR strategy when done well and you see politicians do it all the time to make sure they’re being treated fairly. I just wonder if that’s the best moment they really got out of it.
But really, even if I disagree with what the video said and think it’s an odd moment to release from the interview, it’s probably actually genius since it flipped the entire discussion to where now it’s “is it fair to compare UFC pay to low end boxing card pay?” rather than “does the UFC pay enough?”
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Where else can these guys make a living? What promotions are running enough fights to give a guy enough to afford to train and feed his family?
Day Man - January 16, 2012
it isn’t the UFC’s job to make sure everyone that wants to be a fighter can feed his family.
If you live in a town where the only job is a car plant and there are 50 jobs, the 51st guy is fucked. Fighting is no different. If someone can afford to pay fighter X more than zuffa, they will do it, if no one can afford to outpay zuffa, then zuffa is paying the right amount.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
You’re arguing against a point I’m not making – I’m responding to the statement that there are other US organizations in which they can make a living fighting.
Day Man - January 17, 2012
I don’t know why you’re limiting it to the US, but Bellator is right there. Wherever Ricco has been fighting since he left the UFC, whoever is airing on HDNet this week.
Phildo - January 17, 2012
Bellator’s existence alone nullifies any argument that the UFC is a monopoly. And that’s without mentionning the other hundred’s of promotion in North America alone.
Shnak - January 17, 2012
Actually,
Rodriguez said that he is doing well fighting in Japan and Europe.
Coeman - January 16, 2012
That's the point!
Every fairness, safety, or “greedy owners” angle you want to take against 6/6 applies just as well to a $275
fighterbar brawler. No, it’s not a great debate point, but this isn’t a debate it’s PR. If ESPN is going to get morally righteous about 6/6, why didn’t they get morally righteous about $275?But to answer your question: ESPN/promoters paid that guy $275 because that’s what he’s worth; the UFC pays entry level guys 6/6 because that’s what they’re worth.
joker24 - January 16, 2012
This
Well said, joker24
MichaelDavidSmith - January 16, 2012
As stated in the actual article, I have no real major problem with the UFC pay scale. I just keep wondering why people consider this single non-comparable case on FNF to be some great moment of torching the network.
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
Oh it's definitely not some big deal, I can't even come up with hyperbole strong enough to describe how little ESPN cares
But I thought it was pretty clever from the UFC’s perspective. This really isn’t about ESPN vs. the UFC in the least—-it’s ‘one single OTL daytime TV story that they don’t really care about’ vs the UFC.
joker24 - January 16, 2012
Exactly
Day Man - January 16, 2012
It’s not a great moment of torching the network. But it will certainly look like it to some people.
IRodC - January 16, 2012
It would never happen
But the easiest way for the UFC to make this go away would be to open their books. If they show what they’re paying fighters (including insurance, etc.) as a function of their net profits, and it’s at least somewhat comparable to what players make in sports with a CBA, wouldn’t that go a long way towards clearing this up? Even if it was less, you could explain that away if they’re spending significantly more on marketing (as you would expect for a sport that’s trying to grow its market).
Now, if they opened their books and the amount they’re paying fighters is significantly less than, say, Dana’s Lamborghini fund, that would be a whole different issue.
Damnatio Memoriae - January 16, 2012
You can’t expect it to be comparable to what other sports get through collective bargaining without collective bargaining.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
I don't expect it to
I’m saying the easiest way for Zuffa to clear the air would be to be open and honest about it, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. I don’t think they’ll do that, because I think it would create more problems than it would solve.
Damnatio Memoriae - January 16, 2012
they don’t want to, or need to clear the air.
Phildo - January 16, 2012
as SBnation user duck said yesterday
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/15/2709816/ufc-espn-lorenzo-fertitta-espn-interview-clip-boxing-outside-the-lines#88832199
Perception is perceived, and quite frankly, there’s quite a bit to it, as closetasfan just said a couple replies up, if you’re going to be doing some sort of expose on low fighter pay, how do you get to be the distributor for said low fighter pay and maintain any sort of moral high ground on this?
Listen, I like ESPN and OTL a lot, but they didn’t really have their ducks in a row when they went on this story. There are plenty of ways to argue that fighters in all combat sports need better pay, but interviewing Ken Shamrock isn’t going to gain you a whole lot of credibility.
Cory Braiterman - January 16, 2012
This
Disgruntled former employees don’t make the best interviews.
IRodC - January 16, 2012
Why thank you. :)
duck - January 16, 2012
If the UFC raises minimum pay to 12k/12k, everyone would jump on them for raising the barrier of entry and call them a monopoly… and if they keep it to 6k/6k, they’re not paying fighters enough. Lose/lose…
Shnak - January 16, 2012
I understand it completely. Given that the ESPN/OTL story was about “Low pay for UFC fighters” then to find out that ESPN/FNF fighters make a fraction of what UFC fighters are making seems a bit hypocritical. Sure ESPN doesn’t set the pay for FNF fighters, but, why was the FNF pay not included in the OTL story? It’s about fighter compensation for putting their health at risk, right? The fact that it wasn’t included makes it seem more like a hit piece on the UFC. Which is why the UFC is responding the way it is.
jrobb20 - January 16, 2012
Bingo.
A large part of the UFC brand is their status as an edgy counter-culture rebel. Zuffa is simply reinforcing the notion that “Big Media doesn’t get us”, and building up their street cred.
Steve4192 - January 16, 2012
The UFC just did exactly what ESPN did to them.
They present a bit of truth, with a whole lof of missing information that would have rounded out the overall picture to make each other look bad. Anyone with a brain knows it’s not just as simple as what ESPN illustrated in their ridiculous expose that was in itself full of holes, just like the UFC’s retaliation isn’t completely true either, nor does it tell the whole picture. But the UFC knows exactly what it’s doing, and in this case, while I don’t believe either attack made the other party look that bad – really overblown – but the UFC knows its fanbase, and to the diehard Zuffa fanatics – the ones that mob Dana White at every turn – it did make ESPN look bad, and it looks like they accomplished their mission.
pud333 - January 16, 2012
Dan Rafael of ESPN slaughtered Dana White on Twitter yesterday regarding this.
Everyone should go check it out.
Upstait - January 16, 2012 via mobile
Dan made some stupid logical mistakes himself.
While you shouldn’t include a show like FNF with a fixed budget when talking about “paying fighters more” Dan was also saying that no network decides how much a fighter makes. Which is ultimately untrue when you have HBO and Showtime bidding over fight purses and thus determining how much guys are going to make.
Brent Brookhouse - January 16, 2012
HBO and showtime are essentially promoters though.
ESPN is no where near that level. They are broadcasters thats it. The same as Fox is to the UFC. The Fox UFC comparison Rafael made was right on the money. White had no real answer for anything Rafael said regarding that besides " We were paying the fighters out of pocket for the first six years!" or " why doesnt espn put in more money!?" Its hard to have come backs to logical replys from a really sloppy statement made by Lorenzo Fertita. The UFC is a multi-billion dollar company and the fact is fighter pay hasnt grown at the pace of company growth. There should be a degree of shame to that, and they are defensive about it.
Upstait - January 16, 2012 via mobile
How did he get slaughtered?
Karl12 - January 16, 2012
I haven’t seen the new OTL piece yet, so I have no idea how it makes UFC look. But, for those who have seen it, how much worse is it, if at all, than this E:60 from 2009?
In the 2009 show, they brought up the fighter pay issue. They also had Pat Miletich and Tito Ortiz slamming Dana and UFC on camera. Last I checked, both guys are still working for Zuffa.
Maybe Zuffa really doesn’t care if ESPN makes them out to be sweatshop owners making their fortunes off poor fighters, because it gets them talked about and they know the fighter pay issue never stopped people from watching boxing. Dribbling out the Fertita response a bit at a time keeps the topic alive. Free pub, can’t beat it.
( . Y . ) - January 16, 2012
The whole monopoly discussion
was a contraindicative, as Ricco Rodriguez was saying that he is making decent money fighting other organizations so how is the UFC a monopoly?
Coeman - January 16, 2012
Full video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck0Lb8pDmVg&feature=related
baronex - January 16, 2012
My take, with almost all of Lorenzo’s comments transcribed here
Jamie Penick - January 16, 2012
So if I own a clothing retail store, and I knowingly purchase inventory to sell from sweatshop factories, am I in the clear? I’m not the one paying them sweatshop wages, I’m just selling the clothes.
GogoPlatter - January 16, 2012
Bravo
This is the best analysis of the video “rebuttal” I have seen. Nice Brent.
Rob Maysey - January 17, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.