During a recent press event for her upcoming fight against Gina Carano, Ronda Rousey launched a scathing critique of the UFC’s contemporary business model, focusing on fighter compensation, matchmaking strategies, and the promotion’s priorities in its new streaming era.
The former UFC bantamweight champion is making her return to mixed martial arts under Jake Paul’s Most Valuable Promotions. Her highly anticipated bout with Gina Carano is set to headline Netflix’s inaugural live MMA event on May 16 at the Intuit Dome in California, billed as a historic showdown between two foundational figures in women’s MMA.
Rousey Condemns UFC’s $7.7 Billion Deal, Citing Inadequate Fighter Wages
Rousey disclosed that she initially sought to arrange the Carano fight with the UFC, personally contacting Dana White. However, discussions stalled when the promotion’s new broadcast agreement and internal financial frameworks became central to the negotiations.
She attributed the failure to finalize the fight under the UFC banner to the promotion’s pivot from a pay-per-view model to a comprehensive streaming partnership with Paramount, reportedly valued at approximately $7.7 billion. This shift, according to Rousey, eliminated potential pay-per-view bonuses for star fighters and instead prioritized fixed costs and shareholder profits.
Rousey stated, “Once [UFC] moved into the streaming model, it’s just not about putting on the best fights possible anymore. Dana is legally beholden to the shareholders and to maximize shareholder value. Unfortunately, now that they’ve taken the reins of the company away from [Dana White], it’s barely recognizable now.”
This sentiment aligns with previous interviews where Rousey claimed the UFC was unwilling to establish a precedent by offering her and Carano the guaranteed purses they believed they merited. Such a move, she argued, could have “raised the tide” for all other fighters throughout the duration of the Paramount deal.
She further elaborated that the promotion’s current incentive structure favors “cost-effective” fight cards over high-profile matchups. This is because significant guaranteed payouts for major bouts would erode the profit margins anticipated by corporate owners and public shareholders.
Rousey bluntly asserted, “The UFC is one of the worst places to go. So many of their top athletes are leaving to find pay elsewhere. It’s why their champions like Valentina [Shevchenko] are selling pictures of their titties on OnlyFans.”
Rousey’s pointed comment about Valentina Shevchenko highlights the ongoing debate surrounding fighter compensation and the necessity of secondary income streams. Over recent years, several prominent UFC fighters have resorted to subscription platforms and extensive social media sponsorships to supplement their earnings from fighting.
Her core argument is that, with the company securing substantial long-term media revenue, financial strain on fighters, particularly those on the lower and middle tiers of event cards, should diminish, rather than compelling them into content creation side hustles.
She emphasized, “This company just got $7.7 billion. There’s no reason they can’t afford to pay their athletes at least a living wage.”
The $7.7 billion figure mentioned by Rousey corresponds with reports regarding the UFC’s new broadcast deal, serving as a central point of contention for critics who argue that fighter compensation has not escalated proportionally with the promotion’s substantial media and sponsorship earnings. Former featherweight champion Cris Cyborg recently supported Rousey’s viewpoint, stating that the UFC’s unwillingness to adapt its revenue distribution model following its transitions to ESPN and then the Paramount streaming era was a primary reason for her move to Bellator, where she reportedly secured the largest contract in women’s MMA history at that time.
Beyond pay, Rousey also connected her criticisms to the UFC’s recent matchmaking decisions, specifically highlighting the heavily promoted 2026 White House event. This card, designed around political fanfare and corporate achievements, has already faced fan backlash due to a perceived weak lineup and the absence of several of the promotion’s top stars.
Jon Jones has publicly advocated for a spot on the White House card, despite having previously declined a proposed heavyweight title match against Tom Aspinall. Dana White, in response, cited trust issues stemming from Jones’s rejection of a significant offer for that fight. Meanwhile, Conor McGregor’s coach, John Kavanagh, stated McGregor is training as if he will participate in the Washington event, yet no official bout has been confirmed, exacerbating the uncertainty surrounding the UFC’s supposed ‘super-card’.
With reigning heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall expressing lukewarm reception to Ciryl Gane’s spot on the White House event, and Jones sidelined, the perception of UFC matchmaking is shifting from strategic dominance to disarray. Francis Ngannou’s departure to boxing and the PFL continues to cast a long shadow over the division. Against this backdrop, Rousey’s remarks resonate deeply, not only targeting fighter remuneration but also implying that the financial imperatives of the Paramount era are distorting the UFC’s approach to card construction, fighter promotion, and the frequency with which fans witness the most anticipated fights.
She concluded, referring to Dana White, “I guarantee you he’s not happy with it either.”
As Rousey prepares for her Netflix main event against Carano, facilitated by a burgeoning rival promotion, she positions herself as both a cautionary example and a stark warning. Her argument is clear: if a company valued at $7.7 billion refuses to pay for one of the most significant fights in women’s MMA history, the implicit message to every other fighter on the roster is profoundly unmistakable.
