The business that is ZUFFA - Page 3 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
UFC The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is a U.S.-based mixed martial arts organization, recognized as the largest MMA promotion in the world. The UFC is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada and is owned and operated by Zuffa, LLC. This promotion is responsible for solidifying the sport's postion in the history-books. UFC is currently undergoing a remarkable surge in popularity, along with greater mainstream media coverage. UFC programming can now be seen on FOX, FX, and FUEL TV in the United States, as well as in 35 other countries worldwide.

Reply

Old 10-17-2007, 05:15 PM   #21 (permalink)
Bantamweight
 
Z-man-mma-fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Revolution
Posts: 738
Z-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A HugZ-man-mma-fan Needs A Hug
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-thug
Exactly, there are so many other things that go into running a business than just paying the fighters handsomely.

The UFC is still growing, hell its only just gone mainstream this year. Expansions in Europe do not come cheap.
lol mainstream ? go out on the street and ask the average joe who jon fitch is, then ask them who brett favre is.. MMA is FAR from mainstream. id give it another 5-6 years.
__________________
- The Alpha Wolves-
Muhammad Ali - Fedor Emelianenko - Alexander Karelin
Z-man-mma-fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 10-17-2007, 05:21 PM   #22 (permalink)
MMA Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 40
kegann has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Lol man stop with the bullshit sources, and qouting. LOL SILLY ME I THOUGHT I HAD TO SAY A DAMN NUMBER FOR ME TO BE MAKING UP NUMBERS. Thats called speculating you idiot.

And you keep qouting me like your picking my post apart, when I clearly said don't qoute me on it and you did. Are you illiterate?

If most of the profit went back into the business, then why did they not keep their PROFIT, and put the money they loaned into the actual buisness? You keep talking like you have a clue because you went an took a class on business or something.

"And it will be paid back (barring severe adverse conditions, which is what the S&P was estimating). The the borrowed funds will be used to generate revenue, which will in turn more than cover the debt and accrued interest. It's the concept of financing."

Your own qoute, is trying to complicate the actual meaning of how loans work. Every smart person in the world knows when a company takes out a loan, the goal is to then use it to make more money back then they borrowed.

GTFO
kegann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 05:26 PM   #23 (permalink)
Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 903
Acoustic has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasvll
Yes, we established that the amount was pure speculation. In fact, that's what prompted my response to your condemnation of the amount they received.

If you're not familiar with standard business practices, it might be best not to judge them. Taking on debt is a source of capital for businesses, nothing more. What they do with it is literally, their business.

There you go making up numbers again. If you read the article again, you'll notice that it's highly unlikely they've seen anywhere near that kind of return on their investment. Besides, even if they had, it's their company, finance and grown completely internally. They have a right to as much as they see fit. There are no shareholders to answer to and the labor force has alternative employment options. Excessive greed would have negative financial consequences, which would defeat the purpose of their investment. In other words, they're minding their business.
Jasvil, if you don't mind my asking, what is Zuffa to you?

It seems you're extraordinarilly passionate in your defense of Dana, the Fertitas and the UFC's practices. It's an unfailing likelihood that whenever someone's criticizing them you're the Caped Crusader that comes to their rescue.

What's the story with you?
Acoustic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 05:31 PM   #24 (permalink)
Super Heavyweight
 
jasvll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,104
jasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By All
Quote:
Originally Posted by kegann
Lol man stop with the bullshit sources, and qouting. LOL SILLY ME I THOUGHT I HAD TO SAY A DAMN NUMBER FOR ME TO BE MAKING UP NUMBERS. Thats called speculating you idiot.
Then what, exactly, is this 'bullsh!t' you speak of?

Quote:
And you keep qouting me like your picking my post apart, when I clearly said don't qoute me on it and you did.
If you don't want to be held to your words, don't post them.

Quote:
Are you illiterate?
No.

Quote:
If most of the profit went back into the business, then why did they not keep their PROFIT, and put the money they loaned into the actual buisness?
Taxes, weighted cost of capital, etc.
Quote:
You keep talking like you have a clue because you went an took a class on business or something.
I talk like I have a clue about business because I spent 4 years of my life studying it and the time since engaging in it. Why do you talk about business as though you had a clue about it?


Quote:
Your own qoute, is trying to complicate the actual meaning of how loans work. Every smart person in the world knows when a company takes out a loan, the goal is to then use it to make more money back then they borrowed.
I imagine you're right about smart people knowing what loans are for.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Rogan
That longing to return to the retarded past can only be born of some collective, subconscious, internal desire to try to turn back the clock on humanity and halt our obvious progression towards the inevitable zombie apocalypse of 2012.
jasvll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 05:48 PM   #25 (permalink)
Amateur
 
Beeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 159
Beeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level nowBeeg is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasvll
Maybe this will give the 'screwing the fighters' crowd pause.
Well, the article said this:

Quote:
Furthermore, despite more than doubling operating costs from a year ago, the company remains profitable.
Doubling your costs and still remaining profitable means your margins have been pretty good.

And this:
Quote:
For example, although an average show might generate $2 million at the gate (ticket sales), it generates at minimum roughly $4.8 million in pay-per-view revenue (assuming 300,000 buys and a 60/40 split between Zuffa and the PPV distributor).
Conservatively, that's $6 million per fight night. And what do the combined fighter salaries come to? For UFC 76, they were just under $1 million. Figure in judges' salaries, refs, tickets, security, insurance, etc.... expenses might add about $250,000 per show. How many UFC PPVs in a calendar year? Multiply that by $4.75 million profit. Zuffa's done well for themselves.

I know Zuffa runs an office, has lawyers, a website, etc. Those annual expenses would be less than the profits of one PPV. It's Zuffa's game, their rules, their company, their original investment. As some have pointed out, the fighter's don't have to sign with them if they don't want to. Which might be starting to happen. Fedor said no, Couture's leaving... what's going on outside the octagon is more interesting than the product inside. Someday, somewhere, a promoter will show up and offer the fighters a combined 60% of the profits... opening their bookkeeping and all. If Zuffa's not the first to do it, they could be in for a world of hurt.
Beeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 06:20 PM   #26 (permalink)
Super Heavyweight
 
jasvll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,104
jasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By All
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acoustic
Jasvil, if you don't mind my asking, what is Zuffa to you?
They are one source of a product I enjoy.

Quote:
It seems you're extraordinarilly passionate in your defense of Dana, the Fertitas and the UFC's practices. It's an unfailing likelihood that whenever someone's criticizing them you're the Caped Crusader that comes to their rescue.
I don't wear a cape nor am I religious.

So far in this thread, I've pointed out the fact that a condemnation of Zuffa was based on what went on in the condemners head, not actual facts.

I also pointed out that, in general, engaging in practices that are bad for business result in business being bad. I don't think them losing Fedor is a big deal to Zuffa, but losing Couture, a potential second vacant belt, Pride being unrevivable, underpeforming imported stars, and missing the deal with HBO are signs that the UFC may be in for a rough ride.


Besides, aren't you the guy that condemns everything they do, regardless of what it is?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Rogan
That longing to return to the retarded past can only be born of some collective, subconscious, internal desire to try to turn back the clock on humanity and halt our obvious progression towards the inevitable zombie apocalypse of 2012.
jasvll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 06:54 PM   #27 (permalink)
Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 903
Acoustic has a little shameless behaviour in the past

Last edited by Acoustic : 10-17-2007 at 06:58 PM.
Acoustic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 06:55 PM   #28 (permalink)
Super Heavyweight
 
jasvll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,104
jasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By Alljasvll Is Beloved By All
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeg
Well, the article said this:


Doubling your costs and still remaining profitable means your margins have been pretty good.
It says nothing of what the margin is now. They may well be down to 1% at this point.

Quote:
And this:

Conservatively, that's $6 million per fight night. And what do the combined fighter salaries come to? For UFC 76, they were just under $1 million. Figure in judges' salaries, refs, tickets, security, insurance, etc.... expenses might add about $250,000 per show. How many UFC PPVs in a calendar year? Multiply that by $4.75 million profit. Zuffa's done well for themselves.
This is more of that blind bookkeeping. What you call 'salaries' is actually the fighter purse, nothing more. It represents what the fighter was paid directly for that fight, as required by the athletic commissions. Many of the top fighters negotiate points on the revenue generated by events they fight in. This is one of the issues between Zuffa and Couture. Here's what Dave Meltzer had to say about it recently talking about Zuffa's financial secrecy:
Quote:
...There was one major UFC fighter who was telling me about a contract that would pay him millions. But when he fought, his salary was listed as far less than $100,000. ...
Mailbag: Readers react to Randy - MMA/Boxing - Yahoo! Sports

Also, you haven't accounted for the fact that Zuffa produces every television broadcast themselves. You also haven't considered the cost of renting the arena and all the other costs associated with a live event. There's also the costs associated with getting the athletic commissions to sanction events.



Quote:
I know Zuffa runs an office, has lawyers, a website, etc. Those annual expenses would be less than the profits of one PPV.
Again, we see nebulous unsubstantiable numbers that happen to support your claims.
Quote:
It's Zuffa's game, their rules, their company, their original investment. As some have pointed out, the fighter's don't have to sign with them if they don't want to. Which might be starting to happen. Fedor said no, Couture's leaving... what's going on outside the octagon is more interesting than the product inside. Someday, somewhere, a promoter will show up and offer the fighters a combined 60% of the profits... opening their bookkeeping and all. If Zuffa's not the first to do it, they could be in for a world of hurt.
I agree with this, and my last post dealt with that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Rogan
That longing to return to the retarded past can only be born of some collective, subconscious, internal desire to try to turn back the clock on humanity and halt our obvious progression towards the inevitable zombie apocalypse of 2012.
jasvll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 06:56 PM   #29 (permalink)
Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 903
Acoustic has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasvll
Besides, aren't you the guy that condemns everything they do, regardless of what it is?
No, not everything about the UFC deserves criticism - just Dana and The Fertittas.

99.9% of the fighters are alright by me - no matter where they're fighting.

Last edited by Acoustic : 10-17-2007 at 06:59 PM.
Acoustic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 08:05 PM   #30 (permalink)
This is SPARTA!
 
Kameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,493
Blog Entries: 4
Kameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level nowKameleon is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acoustic
No, not everything about the UFC deserves criticism - just Dana and The Fertittas.

99.9% of the fighters are alright by me - no matter where they're fighting.
I can see critizing Dana on some decisions but overall, what he did for the UFC along with the Fertittas is outstanding business work. If it were not for them, the UFC wouldn't be what it is now.

I honestly believe that the UFC is expanding into the global market too fast. They should focus more on the US market and the Canadian market than the UK. It is far more cheaper to produce an event in the US or Canada than the UK.
__________________

Kameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios