The Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu community is witnessing a heated debate over gyms that charge students for belt promotions, with prominent black belt Tom DeBlass leading the charge against what he considers a fundamental breach of martial arts values.
In a scathing social media post, DeBlass didn’t mince words about academies implementing testing fees.
“If your academy charges students for belt testing, it’s time to question their values. I’d rather live on bread and water than take money for promotions. Jiu-Jitsu is about growth, not profit.”
His message struck a nerve across the grappling community, drawing hundreds of responses from practitioners sharing their own experiences with promotion fees. The reactions ranged from wholehearted agreement to heated defenses of the practice as a business necessity.
One practitioner shared a particularly stark account:
“I didn’t get a promotion because I refused to pay for the belt promotion. Never stepped foot in that school again.”
The controversy highlights a growing divide in how BJJ schools approach advancement through the ranks. Some academies charge nominal fees to cover the actual cost of belts—typically around twenty dollars. Others have implemented more substantial testing requirements that can run into hundreds of dollars per promotion.
One student took to online forums expressing surprise at being asked to pay one hundred dollars to test for their next stripe.
“I’ve been here about 3 months and I love it so far, and this is the first thing that I’ve disliked.”
They prompted a flood of responses advising them to seek training elsewhere.
The mathematics are sobering for students at schools with steep testing fees. With four stripes per belt and multiple belt levels to progress through, costs can quickly accumulate into thousands of dollars over a BJJ journey—all on top of monthly membership dues.
DeBlass went further in his critique, urging parents to be particularly vigilant.
“If you or your child are training somewhere that charges for belt promotions, think twice. Find a place that values integrity, not your wallet.”
The debate has also touched on other commercialization concerns within the sport. Some respondents noted academies requiring students to purchase specific branded uniforms, preventing practitioners from wearing gear from personal sponsors or preferred manufacturers.
One student, commenting on DeBlass‘s post, reflected on his own experience:
“I came up through Saulo Ribeiro back in the day and the only way you could get promoted as an American was if you paid s*it ton of money for years ….privates, seminars, merch, a*s kissing, and expensive belt tests it was like a cult I swear.”
Others in the community defended reasonable fees when tied to genuine expenses and experiences. One practitioner explained their school charges forty dollars for promotions but includes an hour-long seminar with a visiting instructor, extended rolling sessions, and provided food—effectively a team-building event that offsets the cost.
Many voices are advocating for merit-based advancement:
“I am glad to train at a place where there is no fee for promotions, and one gets promoted solely based on skill against resisting opponents, not longtime attendance. Such promotions are priceless.”
The counterargument typically centers on the realities of operating a small business.
“Ok, but at the end of the day, it’s a business. And if it’s a small gym, they don’t want to be buying belts for the dozens of promotions and they need to make money too.”
Yet the distinction between covering actual costs and profiting from promotions remains central to the debate.
“Big expenses belt ceremonies are insane. Promotions should be intimate.”
For many practitioners, the issue comes down to transparency and motivation. A gym charging five or ten extra dollars monthly is seen differently than surprise testing fees that can reach triple digits. The concern is whether instructors view students as practitioners on a martial arts journey or as revenue sources to be maximized.
Whether the community will coalesce around standardized practices or continue with the current varied approaches remains to be seen.
