UFC: A Long Term Investment in MMA

Bloody Elbow 2.0 | Anton Tabuena

The shrewd Adam Swift makes a great point about boxing vs mma. Boxing promoters can afford to pay fighters more because they’re not investing anything in the sport.

boxing promoters have lower overhead and can afford to pay fighters higher guarantees since they receive more contracted fees (site fees, broadcast fees, major sponsorships, etc.). These advantages come at the expense of creative control, which isn’t that important in a business model designed to maximize current profits, the future be damned.

The UFC on the other hand is largely self sustained. It handles everything from television production, advertising, etc. in house. As a result it has a much higher overhead and is much more dependent on the live gate and pay-per-view revenue in order to have a successful show. In exchange for bearing greater risk, the company deserves a greater financial share.

Deciding which model is best for the fighter is not as a easy as saying which model pays better. In the short term, boxing’s model may offer bigger paydays, but at the potential expense of the future. Promoters have little investment in future success, creating a make money now, worry later mentality that has hurt the sport.

Share this story

About the author

Nate Wilcox

Nate Wilcox is the founding editor of BloodyElbow.com. As such he has hired every editor and writer to work for the site. Wilcox’s writing for BE is known for its emphasis on MMA history, the evolution of fighting techniques and strong opinions. Wilcox developed the SBN MMA consensus rankings which were featured in USA Today from 2009 to 2011. Before founding BE, Wilcox was a political operative working for such figures as Senators John Kerry and Mark Warner and an early political blogger. He is the co-author of Netroots Rising, a history of the political blogosphere from 2003 to 2007. Wilcox also hosts the Let It Roll podcast on music history for the Pantheon Podcast Network.