In a recent appearance on the Jits and Giggles podcast, ADCC promoter Seth Daniels addressed the controversial decision to host ADCC 2024 at the prestigious T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas, explaining that the venue choice was driven by a desire to elevate the fan experience rather than financial considerations.
“When we booked the arena, everybody was pretty excited about it,” Daniels stated, defending the decision that has since drawn criticism. “Thomas and Mack is just a s*itty arena. The seating is bad. The seats are uncomfortable. The in-house production is pretty bad.”
Oddly CJI, which was at Thomas and Mack didn’t encounter any of these problems when it comes to production and was a smash hit by most metrics one would consider.
According to Daniels, the move to T-Mobile Arena came in response to feedback following ADCC 2022, where attendees complained about the Thomas and Mack venue while also expressing concerns about women’s divisions and pay equality.
“At the end of ADCC 2022, the biggest complaints were we needed more women’s divisions and we needed to get the women’s pay up. That was our focus,” Daniels explained. “If you’re not doing something to get better each time, we have to keep improving. We couldn’t go back in Vegas and just do the same place.”
Daniels likened the venue choice to decisions made by major entertainment and sports entities. “Why doesn’t the UFC do events at s*itty arenas? Why does Taylor Swift play at T-Mobile? Because it’s the best arena. And we wanted the best arena for the best experience for the fans.”
The promoter also addressed criticisms about athlete compensation, a topic that has gained attention after high-profile competitors like Mackenzie Dern and Gabi Garcia spoke out. Dern recently noted that while ADCC has moved to larger venues, “the athletes are getting paid the same,” highlighting that competitors face “four fights with top-level girls, each fight could be 15 minutes, and the final could be up to 40 minutes… for like $5,000 or $10,000.”
Similarly, four-time ADCC champion Gabi Garcia chose to compete in Craig Jones’ invitation-only event rather than ADCC 2024, citing a purse reportedly exceeding $150,000 compared to ADCC’s standard $5,000 compensation.
Addressing these concerns, Daniels explained that the financial structure of ADCC limited their ability to increase fighter pay. “ADCC has a set specific amount of money that they give to the promoter who’s running world championships to pay the fighters. Anything else on top of that comes out of the promoter’s pocket.”
He elaborated on the challenge of changing the payment structure: “It’s very hard to get the finances changed from ADCC because the promoter doesn’t own it. You’re just promoting that event. If you go out there and give away X amount of money, then what’s the precedent for the next promoter?”
Daniels emphasized that the venue choice didn’t negatively impact compensation. “We could have done it at T-Mobile, but we couldn’t have raised the prices anymore. We would have brought in the same amount of money. We would have still paid the fighters the same amount of money.”
Despite the controversy, Daniels maintained that the promoters didn’t profit from the event, stating, “Every dollar of profit that was brought in in 2024 and 2022 and 2019 was given to the athletes.”
He also defended former ADCC promoter Mo Jassim’s contributions: “People seem to think that Mo made all of his money promoting ADCC… That’s not how it worked. The guy is a very successful business person and out of his own pocket donated millions of dollars to athletes and to jiu-jitsu.”
