Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Josh Barnett: Dave Meltzer report on Affliction pay cuts is not true

By Zach Arnold | August 3, 2008

Print Friendly and PDF

From a statement released on Saturday:

-Straight from the mouths of my friends Tom Attencio and Todd Beard; No one is being asked to take a pay cut. They would never ask anyone to take a pay cut and don’t intend to. Tom was only referring to any fighters that may have been thinking that they could get an exorbitant amount of money from Affliction just because. Again, no pay cuts asked and expected and they are doing just fine.

Topics: Affliction, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 14 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

14 Responses to “Josh Barnett: Dave Meltzer report on Affliction pay cuts is not true”

  1. 45 huddle says:

    Already for Affliction 2

    Josh Barnett: $300,000
    Andrei Arlovski: $500,000
    Matt Lindland: $225,000
    Vitor Belfort: $70,000

    And those are without win bonuses. So before the rest of the card is announced, the payroll is already near $1.1 Million.

    You add the following fighters:

    Tito Ortiz: $1 Million (???)
    Renato Sobral: $60,000
    Rogerio Nogueira: $50,000
    Paul Buentello: $60,000

    And already, before win bonuses, the purse is at $2.25 Million. Which means the overall payroll will once again get close to $3 Million. I just don’t see how this show makes a profit again. The numbers just don’t make sense. They would need 150,000 PPV Buys to cover their payroll. And that is very unlikely.

  2. Jeff says:

    Of course Tom told Josh there would be no pay cuts, Josh already has publicly said that he won’t take one and has made the Meltzer report very well known.

  3. samscaff says:

    150,000 buys for a PPV with Arlovski (possibly vs. Fedor) and Tito Ortiz is very unlikely??

    I’m not so sure about that at all. You are aware that Tito Ortiz has headlined some of highest rated UFC PPVs of all time. And Arlovski vs. Fedor in a main event would pull big numbers on its own. Not to mention a sellout at the Thomas and Mack.

    Also, anyone putting this much money into an event (and its not just Affliction clothing) has a long term plan. It is too soon to predict the future success of this promotion. Especially considering the possibility (or lack thereof) of a match involving Randy Couture.

    One hugely successful PPV can wipe away all monetary losses in one foul swoop and set up future successes..

  4. Jeremy says:

    Samscaff,

    AA has never been a huge ppv draw, and it sounds like Fedor will not be on that card.

    And while I agree that Tito would bring some viewers, his numbers are only huge when facing folks like Shamrock and Liddell. His bout with Rashad only drew 50-75k more buys that Rashad/Bisping.

    You say they have to have a long term plan, what about every other MMA company that has lost 30-40 million? Each of them felt they had a solid plan for success.

    I am not saying they can’t make it, just that the proposed second card could still be a financially rough time for them.

  5. cyph says:

    Affliction 2 will prove once and for all that Tito Ortiz does not sell PPV with his name only. He may be popular, but in the fighting game, you have to to win to sell.

    People bought into Tito when he was thought of as unstoppable. Liddell’s fall from grace was also the turning point of the UFC’s falling buy rates. Tito was only half of the Liddell VS Ortiz 1 million buy UFC 66. Without the UFC name, what makes people think that Tito can still sell after being exposed as a mid tier fighter these past few years?

    Look at Ken Shamrock. He’s half of the Ortiz VS Shamrock 775k PPV buys. Now that he’s exposed as over the hill, he couldn’t sell PPV if he life’s depended on it.

    This isn’t pro wrestling. You have to win for fans to want to watch you fight. Unfortunately, Tito Ortiz hasn’t won anything significant in the last few years other than beating Ken Shamrock.

    P.S. Nice to see FO back online after being missing for most of the day.

  6. IceMuncher says:

    I don’t think Tito’s the big PPV draw he once was. Some casual fans may still like him, but it’s only the more hardcore portion of the fanbase that’s going to order a non-UFC pay-per-view. They’re not mindless sheep. They’ve seen Tito’s last three fights, they know he’s mediocre and they’ve lost a lot of interest in him. A name only takes you so far before you get replaced and forgotten.

  7. samscaff says:

    First of all, I am not guaranteeing any success for Affliction whatsoever, but…

    Each one of other fledgling MMA companies (IFL, EliteXC, WFA, Bodog) THOUGHT they had a solid plan for success…but they didnt.

    Trust me when I say that myself and many others knew that the IFL “plan” involving teams was doomed to be a failure. I said it at the time and I was 100% right. EliteXC, buying up almost all the 2nd-tier promotions right off the bat before they even established themselves, was also not a great idea. And TV deals or not, they have no real star fighters. As for the others, well their failures speak for themselves.

    So far, IMO, Affliction has had the best plan for starting a promotion to challenge the UFC. History has clearly shown us that stars are what make money in fighting. Boxing and UFC have both proven that. Thats why the IFL was doomed to failure. Teams for sport based on individual success? It was a joke. None of the other organizations (besides UFC) have true MMA stars…except for Affliction. While they may not all be hugely popular in America yet, guys like Fedor and Barnett are true stars in the sport of MMA, both with exceptional skills. Arlovski already is a star in the American fight scene. Well-known, credible foils like Sylvia are also a must, since we all saw how well Fedor-Lindland went over for both Fedor and Bodog.

    In any case, I think it is clear that if there was a way to beat the UFC, Affliction is trying it. While they lost money on the first show on paper, there is no way to quantify, at this point, how valuable the event was in terms of promotion and marketing of the brand/event. We will have to wait and see. I’m not saying they will definitely be successful, but I think they definitely have the best chance of anyone so far.

  8. Grape Knee High says:

    Anyone have any idea just how much in sponsorship money Affliction was paying to fighters per UFC card before they were banned?

    It seems unlikely that they were shelling out in excess of even $1 million per PPV in sponsorship money, but anything seems possible to me given how financially reckless they’ve been with fighter salaries so far.

    Perhaps Affliction views a PPV as a loss leader to sell t-shirts. Who knows, maybe they’re making money that way. If all it takes is millions of fashion- retarded douchebags to buy ridiculously overpriced t-shirts for us to have great MMA cards, I’m all for it.

    Unfortunately, I have trouble seeing how they won’t be going out of business soon, not solely because of their unprofitable MMA shows, but because their type of “fashion” is of the type that comes and goes very quickly. Douchebag kids tend to be fickle with their douchebag fashion.

  9. Grape Knee High says:

    Also, let me note that Affliction might be sitting on a huge pile of cash. Business Week noted last week that Tapout will gross around $100 million this year. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Affliction is grossing comparable numbers (or better).

  10. 45 Huddle says:

    Affliction might have earned a lot of cash, but it would not shock me to see the owners taking the majority of the profits out of the company. That is very typical for a company such as this.

    And the PPV’s might be “Loss Leaders”, but if a PPV is only getting 75k in PPV buys, then the cost of running a MMA show will not make up the difference. And even a company as reckless as Affliction will figure this out.

  11. Grape Knee High says:

    And the PPV’s might be “Loss Leaders”, but if a PPV is only getting 75k in PPV buys, then the cost of running a MMA show will not make up the difference. And even a company as reckless as Affliction will figure this out.

    Agreed, this is no doubt true.

    However, what I’m specifically wondering is whether the amount that Affliction doled out in sponsorship money for a typical UFC PPV before they got banned might be approximately what they are intending on losing each show.

    (I suspect they are losing more than what they paid in sponsorships, but I’m just trying to see from Affliction’s viewpoint why they might be employing such a financially retarded strategy.)

  12. Mike says:

    Sounds like Barnett got in hot water with Affliction for his comment and is playing the “blame the media” card.

  13. Rolf Rosenstein says:

    Barnett has a well documented past with Affliction that predates any other fighter besides Justin Levens, Randy included.

    Seems more like Josh setting the record straight than responding due to being in trouble.

    Double R

  14. Jeremy says:

    I never saw what Meltzer said, but my understanding is that some fighters were approached about getting easier fights for less money.

    Barnett obviously would not be one of these guys since he will be headlining.

    Not sure if that jives with Meltzer’s comments or not.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image