Who Owns the Martial Arts Student? Inside MMA.INC’s $180 Million Monetization Model

On November 12, 2026, the publicly traded company behind BJJLink published the most detailed account any school-software vendor has given of how it intends to make money from martial arts academies. Read closely, the numbers say something every owner using any platform should understand: the software fee is the smallest part of the plan. The biggest part is the academy’s students.

What did MMA.INC announce?

Mixed Martial Arts Group Limited (NYSE American: MMA), which does business as MMA.INC and owns BJJLink, TrainAlta, Hype and MixedMartialArts.com, updated the “illustrative revenue scenarios” in its September corporate presentation. It gave two figures:

• About US$21 million a year for its “verified” network, up from about US$19 million in September, when the same scenario was built on 996 gyms and 107,694 students.
• About US$180 million a year for its much larger “published” network of gym profiles.

Both figures assume 100% adoption of every product by every academy and student. The company says plainly that they are not forecasts, guidance or targets, that it does not expect full penetration, and that actual conversion would be “a fraction” of these levels. That caveat matters, and we repeat it. But a company does not publish a line-by-line model of where its revenue would come from unless that is the plan. The model is the news.

What is the network actually made of?

As of September 2026, by the company’s own count:

Note the gap between rows two and three. Roughly one verified gym in three pays. Our October analysis of the September figures walks through why these are three very different numbers. The CEO, Nick Langton, put the priority plainly in the release: “Our priority now is to convert more verified gyms into paying academies.”

Where would the money come from?

This is the table that deserves the attention. These are the company’s own figures for each scenario at hypothetical full adoption.

The assumptions behind it, again from the release: an average software fee of US$99 per gym per month; payment fees of 1% on about US$54,000 of annual payment volume per gym; training-program sales of about US$14,900 per gym per year, of which MMA.INC keeps a 35% net share; and a hypothetical XP Passport price of US$9 a month per student.

XP Passport, which the company describes as a unified digital identity and portable training record for participants, launched as a free product in July 2026. The paid layer is not switched on and earns nothing today. The company says there is no guarantee students will convert.

Run the numbers: what each academy is worth to the platform

The company’s assumptions can be checked against its own network, and they reconcile almost exactly. That tells you what the model is really built on.

• Software: US$99 x 12 months = US$1,188 per gym. Multiply by 1,148 verified gyms and you get about US$1.36M. That is the US$1.4M line.
• Payments: 1% of US$54,000 = US$540 per gym, or about US$0.62M across 1,148 gyms.
• Training programs: 35% of US$14,900 = US$5,215 per gym, or about US$5.99M.
• XP Passport: US$9 x 12 = US$108 per student per year. Multiply by 120,048 registered student profiles and you get about US$12.97M. That is the US$13.0M line.

The last line is the one to sit with. The US$13 million figure is what you get if every registered student profile, including the inactive ones the company says are in the count, pays US$9 a month. Divide the network out and the average verified academy carries about 105 student profiles. At full adoption, that academy would generate roughly US$18,200 a year for the platform, and about US$11,300 of it would come straight from its students’ pockets, in a subscription the academy does not sell and does not collect.

Look at it another way. Of the modeled US$21 million, only the US$1.4 million software line is a fee the academy pays from its own budget. Training-program sales are paid by participants. Payment fees are skimmed from tuition. The Passport is billed to the student. On the company’s own model, the academy owner is the distribution channel, and the student is the customer.

Why does this matter to schools that don’t use BJJLink?

Because MMA.INC is not unusual in wanting this. It is unusual in publishing it. It is a listed company, so it has to explain its model to investors in writing. Most school-management vendors are private and never will. Across the industry the same layers are being assembled under one roof: academy management, payment processing, competition registration, consumer discovery, student identity and direct-to-consumer products. Mindbody’s parent, Playlist, closed its US$7.5 billion merger with EGYM in March. Gymdesk bought Smoothcomp, joining school software to tournament registration. Renzo Gracie took an equity stake in UJITSU.

A platform that only earns a software fee needs you to stay subscribed. A platform that earns most of its money from your students needs access to your students. Those are different businesses, and an owner should know which one he is signing up with.

Five questions to put to any software vendor, in writing

1. Who owns the student records? Names, contact details, attendance, rank history, payment history. The contract should say the academy owns them and the vendor processes them on the academy’s behalf.
2. Can the vendor contact my members directly? For its own products, for partners’ products, or for anything at all? Is that opt-in, opt-out, or silent? Get the answer as a contract clause, not a sales conversation.
3. What leaves with me if I switch? A full export of members, rank history, billing schedules and payment tokens, in a usable format, at no charge, within a stated number of days. Ask specifically whether recurring billing can be migrated or whether every family has to re-enter a card.
4. What happens to a portable student profile when the student leaves my school? If a platform holds a student’s training record in an identity the student owns, that record goes to the next school too, including a competitor on the same platform. That may be good for students. Decide whether it is good for you before you upload 300 families.
5. What share of my students’ spending does the vendor take, on what? Processing percentages, revenue shares on programs, consumer subscriptions. Add them up per student per year, and compare it to what you pay in software fees.

Frequently asked questions

Is MMA.INC forecasting US$180 million in revenue?

No. The company says both scenarios assume hypothetical full adoption, are not forecasts, guidance or targets, and that actual conversion would be a fraction of these levels.

What is XP Passport?

A digital identity and portable training record for martial arts participants, launched free in July 2026. MMA.INC’s model assumes a future paid tier at US$9 a month. That tier is not yet enabled and earns no revenue.

Does BJJLink market directly to academy members?

The November 12 release does not say it does, and it does not describe data-handling practices. Its stated growth plan relies on MixedMartialArts.com, ambassadors and advisors. Owners should ask the vendor directly and get the answer in the contract.

How much of the modeled revenue would come from students?

In the verified scenario, the student subscription alone is US$13.0 million of about US$21 million. Only the US$1.4 million software line is paid by the academy itself; training sales, payment fees and the Passport all derive from student spending.

What should I check before moving my school onto any platform?

Data ownership, the vendor’s right to contact your members, export and billing migration terms, what happens to student profiles when students leave, and the total share of student spending the vendor takes.

Related reading

• Is Your Martial Arts School’s Software Provider Financially Stable? A Due-Diligence Checklist
• BJJLink Reports Growth: What the Numbers Actually Mean for Academy Owners
• Martial Arts School Software: What the Vendors Publish