Ronda Rousey has utilized her return to the MMA spotlight as a platform to openly critique the UFC’s contemporary operational model, specifically addressing concerns about fighter remuneration, bout arrangements, and the priorities of its new streaming agreements.
The former UFC Bantamweight Champion is making her MMA comeback under Jake Paul’s Most Valuable Promotions. Her long-anticipated match against Gina Carano is set to headline Netflix’s inaugural live MMA event on May 16th at the Intuit Dome in California, promoted as a significant showdown between two pioneering figures in women’s MMA.
Rousey Criticizes UFC’s $7.7 Billion Deal, Alleges Fighters Can’t Earn a Living Wage
Rousey revealed that she initially attempted to arrange the Carano fight with the UFC, personally contacting Dana White. However, discussions faltered once the promotion’s new broadcast contract and internal financial structure became central to negotiations.
In explaining the failure to secure the fight within the UFC, Rousey attributed the breakdown to the promotion’s transition from a pay-per-view model to a comprehensive streaming partnership. This deal, reportedly valued at approximately $7.7 billion with Paramount, eliminated the traditional pay-per-view revenue potential for star athletes, instead emphasizing fixed costs and maximizing shareholder returns.
“Since the UFC transitioned to a streaming format, the focus has shifted away from simply orchestrating the most compelling fights. Dana White is now legally bound to shareholders, tasked with maximizing their value. Regrettably, with control of the company largely taken from him, it’s become barely recognizable.”
This critique aligns with earlier statements Rousey made in interviews, where she indicated that the UFC “did not wish to establish a precedent” by offering her and Carano the guaranteed purse they believed they merited. She suggested this was to avoid “raising the bar” for other fighters throughout the duration of the Paramount agreement.
According to Rousey, the promotion’s updated incentive structure prioritizes “cost-effective” fight cards over securing the most significant potential matchups, as substantial guaranteed payments would diminish the profit margins expected by its corporate owners and public shareholders.
“The UFC has become one of the least desirable destinations. Many of its top athletes are departing to seek better compensation elsewhere. This explains why even champions like Valentina [Shevchenko] are resorting to selling explicit content on platforms like OnlyFans.”
Her remark regarding Valentina Shevchenko underscores an ongoing discussion about fighter compensation and supplementary income sources. In recent years, several UFC fighters have turned to subscription platforms and social media sponsorships to boost their earnings outside the octagon.
Rousey contends that in an era where the company has secured lucrative long-term media revenue, financial pressures on athletes at all levels of the fight cards should lessen, rather than compelling them to pursue supplementary income streams through content creation.
“This organization just secured $7.7 billion. There’s no valid reason why they cannot afford to provide their athletes with at least a living wage.”
The $7.7 billion figure she mentions is consistent with reports regarding the UFC’s new broadcast deal value. It has become a crucial point of discussion among critics who argue that fighter earnings have not kept pace with the promotion’s significant media and sponsorship revenues. Former featherweight champion Cris Cyborg recently endorsed Rousey’s assessment, stating that the UFC’s reluctance to adapt its revenue model after transitioning to ESPN and then into its Paramount streaming era was a primary reason for her move to Bellator, where she signed what was reportedly the most substantial contract in women’s MMA at the time.
Rousey has also connected her criticism of fighter pay to the UFC’s recent matchmaking decisions, particularly highlighting the highly promoted 2026 White House card. This event, framed around political spectacle and corporate milestones, has already faced fan backlash due to a perceived weak fight lineup and the absence of several of the promotion’s biggest names.
Jon Jones has publicly advocated for a spot on the card, despite having previously declined a proposed heavyweight title bout against Tom Aspinall. Dana White has resisted, citing trust issues after Jones turned down a substantial offer for that fight. Meanwhile, Conor McGregor’s coach, John Kavanagh, has indicated McGregor is training as if he will compete in Washington, yet no official bout has been confirmed, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the promotion’s supposed “super-card.”
With heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall expressing lukewarm interest in Ciryl Gane’s inclusion on the White House show and Jones remaining on the sidelines, the narrative surrounding the UFC’s matchmaking has shifted from perceived dominance to disarray. Francis Ngannou’s departure to boxing and the PFL further casts a shadow over the division’s recent history. In this context, Rousey’s remarks resonate on multiple levels: she is not only challenging fighter compensation but also suggesting that the financial imperatives of the Paramount era are distorting how the UFC constructs fight cards, promotes athletes, and whether fans truly get to witness the most anticipated matchups.
“I’m confident he’s also dissatisfied with the situation.”
As she prepares to headline against Carano in a Netflix event, promoted by an emerging rival organization, Rousey is positioning herself as both a cautionary example and a strong warning. She argues that if a company worth $7.7 billion refuses to pay the asking price for one of the most significant fights in women’s MMA history, the message conveyed to the rest of the roster is undeniable.