Throughout a latest look on The Ariel Helwani Present, UFC veteran Matt Brown delivered a stark evaluation of the present state of fighter illustration and compensation in blended martial arts.
Matt Brown Calls Out Systemic Failure in UFC Fighter Advocacy: No One Fights for Fighters
Talking with the fervour of somebody who has spent 16 years contained in the UFC whereas additionally studying in regards to the enterprise aspect of the promotion post-retirement, Brown articulated a elementary downside plaguing the game: the entire absence of significant advocacy for fighters throughout each degree of fight sports activities infrastructure.
He defined:
“Nobody fights for the fighters. The commissions received’t do a single factor for the fighters. That’s actually what their job is for. They’re not there to work for TKO or the UFC. They’re there to work for the fighters. And the politicians have all been purchased out. The managers don’t do something. The media is managed. There’s nobody there for us.”
Brown’s feedback got here within the aftermath of his testimony earlier than the California State Athletic Fee relating to the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, the place he stood out amongst over 90 public commenters for the uncooked conviction behind his message. The fee voted 6-0 to help the controversial laws on October 15, 2025, regardless of overwhelming opposition from MMA fighters and business observers who seen the act as a roadmap for making use of UFC-style monopolistic practices to boxing.
The core concern Brown recognized extends throughout a number of institutional failures. He characterised the position of athletic commissions as basically contradictory to their said objective. Athletic commissions exist to guard fighters, Brown argued, but they persistently vote in ways in which favor promoters and company entities.
Within the case of the Ali Act listening to, the fee’s unanimous help for laws that MMA fighters imagine would hurt their sport’s athletes demonstrated this misalignment. Brown said that commissions “received’t do a single factor for the fighters” regardless of that being “actually what their job is for” and that they exist “to work for the fighters,” not for TKO or the UFC.
The monetary disparity between the UFC as a multi-billion-dollar enterprise and fighter compensation underscores the urgency of Brown’s advocacy. The UFC generated $1.4 billion in income in 2024, surpassing the earlier 12 months’s $1.292 billion. But fighters obtain an estimated 14.5 to 16 % of whole income, translating to roughly $200 million distributed amongst lots of of athletes competing throughout the group.
This stands in stark distinction to different main sports activities leagues: the NBA distributes roughly 50 % of income to gamers, whereas main league baseball allocates roughly 48 %. Brown emphasised that regardless of record-breaking revenues, the UFC’s response entails solely minimal will increase to discretionary bonuses – quantities he characterised as insignificant relative to the group’s monetary scale. He added:
“Preventing must be about competing and making a residing, however the actuality is there’s an enormous energy imbalance. UFC is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, but the fighters get 0% of that income. They could up the bonuses by 10K or one thing, however that’s minimal in comparison with the size of the enterprise.”
He contended that politicians concerned in regulatory and legislative selections affecting fighters have been compromised by way of lobbying and monetary affect. This evaluation aligns with documented proof of UFC affect over athletic commissions and regulatory our bodies.
The Nevada State Athletic Fee, which oversees occasions within the state the place the UFC hosts its most important fights, has traditionally maintained shut relationships with UFC management. Lorenzo Fertitta, one of many UFC’s unique homeowners, was appointed to the Nevada fee in 1996, and subsequent UFC executives have maintained strategic relationships with regulatory our bodies and political figures.
Maybe most slicing was Brown’s evaluation of fighter illustration buildings. He highlighted the failure of managers and brokers to advocate on behalf of their purchasers. In line with Brown, lawyer Rob Macy, a lawyer engaged on fighter advocacy initiatives, reached out to a number of managers relating to participation in antitrust litigation, and never a single supervisor agreed to work with the plaintiffs. This represents a systemic betrayal of fighter pursuits, as managers’ major obligation ought to theoretically be to their purchasers fairly than to their relationship with the promotion.
Brown prompt that managers persistently prioritize sustaining favorable standing with the UFC over advocating for the fighters they characterize, a dynamic that undermines the whole fighter advocacy construction.
Brown’s frustration finally stemmed from a recognition that regardless of clear proof of monopolistic market circumstances and fighter exploitation, no institutional actor possesses each the facility and the motivation to intervene on the fighters’ behalf. The 2024 settlement of the Le v. Zuffa antitrust lawsuit resulted in a $375 million payout to fighters, with Choose Richard Boulware particularly criticizing the UFC’s contract practices and noting the prevalence of class-action waivers that prevented many fighters from collaborating within the lawsuit.
But even this landmark victory failed to supply structural reforms that may deal with the underlying energy imbalance. The UFC stays the one viable employer for many elite fighters, granting it unilateral management over contract phrases, compensation buildings, and the power to droop or limit any fighter’s profession.
The truth Brown articulated displays a system the place energy has concentrated solely with promoters, the place regulatory our bodies have grow to be captured by the industries they oversee, the place political actors lack enough incentive to intervene, and the place the fighters themselves lack ample leverage to implement their very own pursuits.
