This comes from a post on Sherdog. It's very interesting, breaking down the data for UFC fighter pay vs Affliction fighter pay. The UFC fighters get peanuts compared to HBO boxing. I would love to see a graph that has the HBO boxer data on the chart for comparison.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/ufc-cant-...inside-1286327/

yeah, it's a known fact the mma fighters work for peanuts.

What's the problem? Are UFC fighter paid too low, or are boxers paid too high? I personally think it's a bit of both, though the problem with boxing is that there is no good median. I think some boxers are paid way too much and it's why boxing is the way it is.
They have way too much say on some things and it's why certain fights don't happen and questionable fights do. For me, I think boxing should have some kind of average base, and then depending on marketability or something, they get paid percentages on bonuses and such.
UFC fights are probably underpaid a little, but at least they have control there and some kind of standard, which makes it much easier to not only have good fights happening, they seem to have good cards at all. Because they don't throw all their money at the main event and cheap out on the rest of the card.

I think this statement pretty much sums up the difference between being American, and being a foreigner.

Their control is a double-edged sword. Having Dana in total control does make it easy for fights and drives down competitive wages, but it can also lead to fights being impossible to make (e.g. Fedor vs UFC guys). On the other hand, boxing has its own issues by being watered down with so many sanctioning bodies and promoters; but it does make for better boxer wages through the free market. While it makes some matches more difficult to make, at least there is a standard set of operating procedures unlike MMA (cage vs ring, etc.) and there is a general level of cooperation between the different promoters. I would love to hear Mark Taffert or James Toney's opinion on the wages issue.

How so? I honestly don't know, but explain what you mean.

in boxing you have 1 big fight on a card, In MMa you have 3 to 4

In Free Market Capitalism, the market can operate free of Government oversight...other than the protection from obvious contract infringements. In that process, which is the process that boxing operates under, each company(the boxer) has the freedom to make as much money as possible. That's a very American point of view.

The one that you suggest is the antithesis of that, in which the government oversees each companies' earnings and places limits and restrictions on those. Kinda what the current regime in Washington is attempting, and a reason that people are upset. I think that history tells us which system is better for the market-place, and leads to a healthier economy.

In the context of the fight game...reduce the amount that boxers get paid, and suddenly getting punched in the face does not seem like a wise career choice.

the boxer has been spoiled to no return... they are grossly overpaid for a lot of non effort... and the fighters that should be getting the 20 plus millin dont even make a million a fight.. go figure...

Fair enough. That's fine, though as a fan. I think it compromises the quality of the sport.

I think an interesting comparison would be to look at the salaries and expenses of a Brock Lesnar fight vs the same data for a Floyd fight. Then, do the same comparison with undercard fighters, say Mirko Crocop's data vs Rocky Juarez's data. That would give us data for top level as well as mid level marketability fighters.

I think these stats are like any other professional industry in the US: the top 5% earn 95% of the revenue. Journeymen, low-tier, and debut fighters earn jack shit for boxing. Boxers aren't overpaid, it's just the superstars that are.

That's more accurate to what I said, but that is the problem and why boxing is criticised a lot. People only tune in to watch the superstars, they see the whole card and they think that represents boxing. Nobody tunes in to watch some of the guys at featherweight or something where we have evenly matched fighters, the best fighting the best and some good undercard fights as well. I know everybody is in it to make a buck, but to get people into boxing and gain more fans they need to promote the right fights, fights that will live up to the hype. Yet they promote the familiar names, and sometimes they dish out rubbish and that is the opinion people get from boxing, when they tune in to watch the 'fight of the year'.

But what are those guys making compared to the equivalent UFC fighter?

Good question. I know some club fighters get as little as $300 a fight. I mean fighters in general, both MMA and boxing, don't get a lot of money, only the ones at the top get paid well. Boxers get more because the sport is more established, at least from what I can tell.

Boxers can make more seeing as they're not part of an organization. I'm pretty sure MMA fighters have to join an organization; UFC, Strikeforce, or whatever and then they'll be given a salary relative to their position in the organization and can coincide with the organization's budget. Boxing operates differently, the boxer is essentially a free agent and those representing the boxer are trying to make the boxer as much as possible since they receive a percentage of their earnings.