General MMA Chat/News mk3 - **No Spoilers Use Event Threads**

Queasy Tadpole

Is anyone else absolutely sick about hearing about UFC fighter pay?

It does my head in. They join up knowing their pay. Knowing their situation. There is more said about their pay than the actual fights. It's becoming a joke of an organization. You're not happy about the pay then do something about it, otherwise don't fight. As a fan I don't give a **** what they get paid. Go get a normal job if you don't like the pay or actually do something about it.

Don't sign a contract with the UFC and go to ONE or Bellator. Pay is stopping good fights.

mailburner

sick to death of it also, demanding big money at a time
where there's no gate is a bit pointless unless you're conor mc gregor

masvidal beat till askren and diaz and now he thinks he's big box office...he'll sell more than before
these fights and could generate a lot of ppv buys depending on his opponent.

I'm notsure the casual fans would be rushing to buy masvidal v usman/burns....colby maybe

I liked him before he got way too big for his own shoes!

Queasy Tadpole

**** I wrote out a huge post and it got deleted.

My basic point stands, I as a fan don't give a **** how much they get paid and just want to see the best fight the best.

Let them make their deals behind the scenes. What other sport do you have talk about athlete pay? It's a joke. And it's ruining the sport since you're not having the best fight the best due to pay.

There needs to be some type of regulation in this sport. **** the money fights, the best need to fight the best. No jumping ranks because you bring in the cash but you're a sub par fighter. It's a joke.

eagle eye

US2 wrote:

Are they employees of the team/franchise?

No, contractors. If they don't sign a new contract they become free agents.

US2

eagle eye wrote: »

No, contractors. If they don't sign a new contract they become free agents.

Premier league soccer is the same but they are employees of the club they work for and receive a salary.

eagle eye

Queasy Tadpole wrote:

No jumping ranks because you bring in the cash but you're a sub par fighter. It's a joke.

Well this might be McGregor's argument. He was ahead of Gaethje in the rankings. Now Gaethje is ahead of him without fighting him.

eagle eye

US2 wrote:

Premier league soccer is the same but they are employees of the club they work for and receive a salary.

American sports isn't like that though.

Fromvert

You don't hear it in other sports as much because those athletes are getting 50% of the revenue (aways from US sports some PL teams are shelling out up to 70% of revenue to players), UFC fighters get around 12% (or is it 18%) of the revenue, ****ing peanuts. And it has taken those other athletes years to get to that, there has been plenty of times negotiations have failed and there has been lockouts.

NFL players and the NFL where fighting over a percentage point only a few months ago. The more senior players coming out and telling the rookies to keep their mouth shut while negotiations are going on as a few came out saying they where willing to accept the offer the NFL where putting on the table.

But those other big sports in the US have unions which renegotiate how much the athletes get every few years, MMA fighters have no such avenue.

Even the Reebok deal, Dana/Lorenzo lying again when it was announced 'All the money will be going to the fighters'. Read recently the fighters got about half of it and it's ending soon.

I hope they walk out but they won't. They would need the big names plus a large chunk of the top 15 in each division to refuse to fight. Get on every show (radio/tv/podcasts) and shout it as loud as they can. Dana getting questioned about it recently by larger media (First Take/Dan Le Batard) is a nice change as he can't black ball them as they're too big and MMA makes up a tiny fraction of what they talk about. And shockingly Dana had no answers but to divert away from the questions until time ran out.

Queasy Tadpole

That's their problem though. They could easily leave the sport and get a real job. They know the situation when they sign the contract. I think their contracts are ****ed and Dana and the UFC are ****ing every single fighter hard in regards to the entertainment and revenue they bring. They don't have to sign. I'd choose to be a mid tier fighter in ONE or Rizen getting paid serious amounts rather than the champion in UFC getting paid bollox. They make these choices. Pay is for the back room and nothing fans such as us should be privy to. I don't give a **** and no one else should. IT's bollox and takes away from the sport. Too many quality fights have been ruined by the UFC being cheap ***** or a fighter thinking they are worth too much.

Fromvert

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

That's their problem though. They could easily leave the sport and get a real job. They know the situation when they sign the contract. I think their contracts are ****ed and Dana and the UFC are ****ing every single fighter hard in regards to the entertainment and revenue they bring. They don't have to sign. I'd choose to be a mid tier fighter in ONE or Rizen getting paid serious amounts rather than the champion in UFC getting paid bollox. They make these choices. Pay is for the back room and nothing fans such as us should be privy to. I don't give a **** and no one else should. IT's bollox and takes away from the sport. Too many quality fights have been ruined by the UFC being cheap ***** or a fighter thinking they are worth too much.

It is their problem but they clearly can't get it done behind the scenes hence you hearing about it. They need to get big mainstream media involved for attention and come together and refuse to fight.

The issue is they will never come together, when that sham Bjorn Rebney Association came along, Dana just went to each fighter and got them back fighting by dealing with them individually. They see themselves as individuals and as long as they do they'll get no where.

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

No, contractors. If they don't sign a new contract they become free agents.

They are the employee's not contractors.

Anyone playing in a team sport, where they are under the direction and control of a coach or manager is considered an employee (it's defined for tax purposes). People taking part in individual sports competitions (e.g. golf, tennis) are classed as contractors.

eagle eye

Axwell wrote:

Anyone playing in a team sport, where they are under the direction and control of a coach or manager is considered an employee (it's defined for tax purposes). People taking part in individual sports competitions (e.g. golf, tennis) are classed as contractors.
They are the employee's not contractors.

Where are you getting this from? They each have to pay taxes in the State they play in, as in you pay taxes on what you earn in Florida to Florida when you play there, Louisiana when you play there and so on.

EagererBeaver

eagle eye wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? They each have to pay taxes in the State they play in, as in you pay taxes on what you earn in Florida to Florida when you play there, Louisiana when you play there and so on.

No, they're taxed based on where they're resident, hence why so many of them (and why so many MLB teams have their spring training) in Florida.

The fact free agency exists is because of the power of the union that negotiates the collective bargaining agreement with the league, not because they're contractors. They are employees.

eagle eye

EagererBeaver wrote:

No, they're taxed based on where they're resident, hence why so many of them (and why so many MLB teams have their spring training) in Florida.

No, well at least NFL players aren't taxed where they are based and I'm certain of that.

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

No, well at least NFL players aren't taxed where they are based and I'm certain of that.

That's not the case - it's as previously posted. They pay tax where they are resident and then also where they play. Plenty of articles about it online..

https://smartasset.com/taxes/nfl-jock-taxes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2017/04/18/income-taxes-for-pro-athletes-are-reminder-of-how-complicated-u-s-tax-code/#1cf4e8c5411e

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/17/nfl-players-tax-filings-athletes-salaries

eagle eye

Axwell wrote:

That's not the case - it's as previously posted. They pay tax where they are resident and then also where they play. Plenty of articles about it online..

From the si.com link. Did you even read it?

'With the Texans he played home games in income-tax-free Texas and paid other states based just on the number of days he spent there.'

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

From the si.com link. Did you even read it?

'With the Texans he played home games in income-tax-free Texas and paid other states based just on the number of days he spent there.'

Texas is an income tax-free state..he still filed tax for being based there..it just happens to be 0 because its Texas and then files for the games played elsewhere. This is just confirming exactly what we said, as do the other articles.

I mean it literally says it right there in the Forbes one.."Athletes file taxes not only in their home state but also in every state—and some cities—in which they play."

eagle eye

Axwell wrote:

Texas is an income tax-free state..he still filed tax for being based there..it just happens to be 0 because its Texas and then files for the games played elsewhere. This is just confirming exactly what we said, as do the other articles.
I mean it literally says it right there in the Forbes one.."Athletes file taxes not only in their home state but also in every state—and some cities—in which they play."

That's what I'm was saying. They get taxed in multiple states.
As such they are treated as independent contractors.

Whelo79

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

That's their problem though. They could easily leave the sport and get a real job. They know the situation when they sign the contract. I think their contracts are ****ed and Dana and the UFC are ****ing every single fighter hard in regards to the entertainment and revenue they bring. They don't have to sign. I'd choose to be a mid tier fighter in ONE or Rizen getting paid serious amounts rather than the champion in UFC getting paid bollox. They make these choices. Pay is for the back room and nothing fans such as us should be privy to. I don't give a **** and no one else should. IT's bollox and takes away from the sport. Too many quality fights have been ruined by the UFC being cheap ***** or a fighter thinking they are worth too much.

You think someone mid tier in One or Rizin is getting paid more than a UFC champion? You need to chill and stop spewing every word that enters your brain into a post.

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

That's what I'm was saying. They get taxed in multiple states.
As such they are treated as independent contractors.

But they arent..they are classed and treated as employee's both legally and for tax purposes. They receive salaries and health care in exchange for full-time work, and they live under certain company rules.

http://www.prosportstax.com/Images/Attachments/rn4b61f78e0a858.pdf

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/are-the-pundits-right-that-nfl-players-32920/#:~:text=As%20private%20employees%2C%20the%20NFL,which%20could%20restrict%20their%20speech.

https://thecomeback.com/nfl/professional-athletes-employees-lawmakers-not-want-treat-way.html

https://www.inc.com/jessica-mah/the-3-factors-that-distinguish-employees-from-contractors.html

Not trying to get into an argument or back and forth here but you are incorrect in both statements you made. They aren't contractors they are employee's and they do pay taxes where they are based.

eagle eye

Axwell wrote:

Not trying to get into an argument or back and forth here but you are incorrect in both statements you made. They aren't contractors they are employee's and they do pay taxes where they are based.

If they are paying tax in multiple states they are taxed as contractors.
If you were an employee travelling to work in different states you would still pay your bill taxes in the state where you are employed. I know this, I've worked that way over there when I lived there.

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

If they are paying tax in multiple states they are taxed as contractors.
If you were an employee travelling to work in different states you would still pay your bill taxes in the state where you are employed. I know this, I've worked that way over there when I lived there.

They are legally defined as employees, they receive salaries and health care in exchange for full-time work, and they live under certain company rules. That's the definition of an employee and their status.. it's also how the IRS defines them..it's also how they are defined in the pro sports tax document I posted. Like it or not they defined as employee's and that doesn't change just because you want to call them contractors. Feel free to post an article or document which defines them as contractors both legally and for tax purposes if you find one.

I also am aware how tax works in the US..I live there.

eagle eye

Axwell wrote:

I also am aware how tax works in the US..I live there.

Explain how they pay taxes in different states then. That's not part of being an employee.

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

Explain how they pay taxes in different states then. That's not part of being an employee.

Read the multiple links I have posted up above..all of which state they are employees..look out for references to jock tax to answer your question. I have posted multiple articles which clearly state they are defined as employee's within the NFL...you have yet to post anything other than your own opinion which states they are contractors. When you have some to back up your view then we can discuss it further..until then I can't really do much more for you and am not going to just keep repeating it and posting the same articles.

The information is all there clearly stating they do pay tax where they are based and that they are classed as employees..no matter how certain you are that they don't and want to call them contractors. Sometimes you just have to accept you are wrong and move on.

Whelo79

eagle eye wrote: »

Explain how they pay taxes in different states then. That's not part of being an employee.

Jesus Christ, he's provided you with multiple articles. Stop arguing on your own knowledge base and provide some supporting material to prove your side of the argument!

Mellor

eagle eye wrote: »

No, contractors. If they don't sign a new contract they become free agents.

Nothing to do with being an employee or a contractor.
The terms of the employment is simply a fixed term.

Fromvert wrote: »

You don't hear it in other sports as much because those athletes are getting 50% of the revenue (aways from US sports some PL teams are shelling out up to 70% of revenue to players), UFC fighters get around 12% (or is it 18%) of the revenue, ****ing peanuts.

eagle eye wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? They each have to pay taxes in the State they play in, as in you pay taxes on what you earn in Florida to Florida when you play there, Louisiana when you play there and so on.

Comparing UFC to NFL is pointless. They aren't similar structures so the 18% vrs 50% is a waste of time.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, they're taxed based on where they're resident, hence why so many of them (and why so many MLB teams have their spring training) in Florida.

Thats incorrect.
Away games are taxed in the opposition state.
Teams based out of Florida, Texas, Vegas do so to home game and training camp benefit.

Axwell wrote:

That's not the case - it's as previously posted. They pay tax where they are resident and then also where they play. Plenty of articles about it online..

It is the case. You are saying the same as Eagle Eye.
Game tax is levied in the state where the game is played.
Same why that fight tax is levied in the state that the fight happens.

eagle eye wrote: »

That's what I'm was saying. They get taxed in multiple states.
As such they are treated as independent contractors.

eagle eye wrote: »

Explain how they pay taxes in different states then. That's not part of being an employee.

Being taxed in multiple states has nothing to do with being an employee.
In the US, states can tax non-residents for earnings within the state.
Sports stars are simply easy targets

https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/memos/income/m12_5i.pdf

Section 601(e) of the Tax Law imposes a personal income tax on the New York source income of a nonresident individual. The New York source income of a nonresident individual includes wages and other compensation for services performed in New York State.

The next section specific states that employers in NY must withhold this from non-residents subject to state tax. As I said, it's nothing to do with being a employee or contractor.

NFL players are legal defined as fixed term employees. They are paid annual salaries. This is equivalent to being a employee agreeing to an salary of 60k including all sick, holiday pay etc

UFC fights are paid on a per fight basis, not a salary. They are contractors. Fight more paid more, fight less, paid less. This is equivalent to a contractor agreeing to a rate for the days they work only.

Axwell

Mellor wrote: »

It is the case. You are saying the same as Eagle Eye.
Game tax is levied in the state where the game is played.
Same why that fight tax is levied in the state that the fight happens.

It’s not the case..and we weren’t saying the same thing - he was saying they aren’t taxed where they are based which is incorrect. They are taxed where they are based as they are required to pay income tax on their earnings in the state they reside in, jock tax is applied in the case of the away games played elsewhere.

Mellor

Axwell wrote: »

It’s not the case..and we weren’t saying the same thing - he was saying they aren’t taxed where they are based which is incorrect. They are taxed where they are based as they are required to pay income tax on their earnings in the state they reside in, jock tax is applied in the case of the away games played elsewhere.

I think you misunderstood his post, or missed the first one.
That's exactly the same point he was making. When he was saying they aren't paid were they are based he was saying they are paid solely there.

EagleEye wrote:

They each have to pay taxes in the State they play in, as in you pay taxes on what you earn in Florida to Florida when you play there, Louisiana when you play there and so on.

EagerBeaver wrote:

No, they're taxed based on where they're resident,

The first comment is correct. They are taxed where the games are played not soley where they are resident. Obviously home games are played at home and tax there.

But as I said, it has nothing to do with being an employee or contractor. That part was wrong. NFL players are employees. UFC fighters are not.

Axwell

eagle eye wrote: »

No, well at least NFL players aren't taxed where they are based and I'm certain of that.

Any confusion over what he meant comes from the above..they are taxed where they are based..just not solely. They are also taxed for the away/out of state games which we all seem to agree on.

Mellor

Axwell wrote: »

Any confusion over what he meant comes from the above..they are taxed where they are based..just not solely. They are also taxed for the away/out of state games which we all seem to agree on.

That one in isolation is misleading, yes. But in response to the previous it reads differently.



To circle back to UFC. Fighters are contractors. If they are responsible for the contract they agree to. And until they stop agreeing to them, it's not going to change.