UFC revenue share for fighters has sat at roughly 16 to 20 percent of total company revenue for more than a decade — a figure that surfaced through discovery in federal litigation, not a number the UFC has ever volunteered. NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL players collectively bargain for close to half of their leagues’ revenue. UFC fighters have never had that option, and the legal structure that prevents it is the actual story here — not just the gap in the numbers.
We’ve already covered the $375 million Le v. Zuffa settlement that resulted from the first antitrust case. This is the part that comes after: why the percentage hasn’t moved since, and the second lawsuit currently working through the same argument. For the dollar amounts behind the percentage, see our UFC fighter pay breakdown.
The Number, and Where It Came From
The 16-to-20-percent figure isn’t an estimate — it came out of sworn discovery in the Le v. Zuffa antitrust case, the same lawsuit that produced the $375 million settlement. That settlement was agreed in September 2024 and received final approval in February 2025. Compare that to major U.S. team sports, where unionized players negotiate collectively for roughly 50 percent of league revenue through formal collective bargaining agreements.
Dana White has defended the gap directly: “These guys get paid what they’re supposed to get paid. They eat what they kill. They get a percentage of the pay-per-view buys.” On the question of paying new signees more before they’ve proven themselves, White has said: “So I should pay you $370,000 to see if you belong in the UFC?”
Boxing promoter Oscar De La Hoya made the opposite argument in October 2026, saying fighters won’t be cheated “like you do with the UFC.” Read what he said in our De La Hoya vs. Dana White post.
The Legal Root: Independent Contractor Status
The mechanism that keeps the percentage fixed is UFC fighters’ classification as independent contractors rather than employees. That classification blocks unionization and collective bargaining entirely — the exact tool NFL and NBA players used to reach a 50-percent split — and it also strips fighters of employee protections: no employer-provided health insurance, no retirement contributions, no workers’ compensation.
Without a union or a competing promotion large enough to force a bidding war for talent, individual fighters negotiate purses one contract at a time, with no collective leverage over the percentage of revenue the sport as a whole generates.
Revenue-share figures come from court filings and discovery in federal antitrust litigation; the UFC has not published an official revenue-to-fighter-pay ratio.
The Case That’s Still Open
The $375 million Le v. Zuffa settlement wasn’t the end of the legal fight — a second antitrust case, centered on fighter Misha Cirkunov, has a 2026 court date and could reopen many of the same questions about UFC’s market dominance and pay-suppression practices. Fighter sentiment toward the earlier settlement is genuinely split: some fighters received large payouts, while others feel the process changed nothing structurally.
Lightweight contender Renato Moicano refused his roughly $200,000 settlement payout from the first case on principle, arguing it did nothing for fighters still competing today: “It’s not about the money, it’s like [the UFC] changed the goal post for themselves. It didn’t help any other fighters. Other fighters get $5,000 bucks, and they’re struggling a whole lot.”
The Bottom Line
UFC fighters have taken home roughly 16 to 20 percent of company revenue for over a decade, versus the roughly 50 percent unionized athletes collect in the NFL, NBA, and MLB — a gap rooted in fighters’ status as independent contractors rather than employees, which blocks collective bargaining entirely. The first antitrust lawsuit produced a $375 million settlement, agreed in 2024 and finally approved in February 2025, but a second case involving Misha Cirkunov remains active into 2026, and at least one fighter has publicly refused his settlement money, arguing the underlying pay structure hasn’t actually changed.
Sources
- Front Office Sports — “How Dana White Became Immune to Controversy”
- ESPN — “UFC president Dana White not planning fighter raises: ‘These guys get paid what they’re supposed to get paid’”
- Yahoo Sports — “Dana White Court Date Set For UFC Lawsuit” (Cirkunov case, Renato Moicano)
- NYFights — “Dana White Promises Relentless UFC Fighter Pay Increases — But With One Shocking Condition”
- Cageside Press — “$375 Million UFC Antitrust Settlement Gets Final Approval” (Feb. 6, 2025)
FAQ
What percentage of revenue do UFC fighters get, compared to other sports?
UFC fighters receive roughly 16 to 20 percent of total company revenue, according to figures that emerged in antitrust litigation discovery. NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL players collectively bargain for roughly 50 percent of their leagues’ revenue.
Why can’t UFC fighters unionize like other pro athletes?
UFC fighters are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, a legal status that blocks collective bargaining and unionization, and also excludes fighters from employer-provided health insurance, retirement contributions, and workers’ compensation.
Is the UFC antitrust lawsuit over?
The original Le v. Zuffa case resulted in a $375 million settlement, agreed in 2024 and given final approval in February 2025. A separate, second antitrust case involving fighter Misha Cirkunov remains active with a 2026 court date, and some fighters, including Renato Moicano, have publicly refused their settlement payouts from the first case.