Company: MTCH
Filing Date: 2025-04-16
Form Type: PREC14A
Source: 0000902664-25-001820
Chunk: 20

Company: Match Group, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-04-16
Form: PREC14A
Chunk 20
---
[RESOLVED, that the stockholders of Match Group,
Inc. (the “Company”) approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers for 2024,
as disclosed in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders pursuant to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission’s compensation disclosure rules, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Executive Compensation tables
and the related narrative discussion.]

We encourage all stockholders to review the Company’s
proxy disclosures in the Company’s Proxy Statement in detail. According to the Company’s Proxy Statement, the Board will consider
the outcome of this vote when making future compensation decisions for the Company’s NEOs.

We believe the Company’s executive compensation
practices have failed to properly align management incentives with long-term stockholder value creation while simultaneously failing to
maintain any continuity in executive leadership. This has contributed to turmoil in the Company’s executive ranks; only one of the
Company’s NEOs for 2023 still remains in his position today. The Company’s abrupt changes in its CEO—the Board has now
appointed four CEOs in five years—and other C-suite positions have ensured that the Company regularly issues sign-on equity grants
for new hires while also accelerating awards and other compensation for outgoing executives, including current director and former
CEO Shar Dubey despite her having presided over significant value destruction during her tenure.

The Board’s decision to grant Mr. Rascoff a so-called
“Value Creation Award” with a grant date value of $30 million, which in combination with other awards amounts to a $60 million
compensation package, is emblematic of the Company’s poor pay practices in our opinion. We are puzzled as to why the Company believes
that achieving a stock price lower than the price its shares traded at ~1.5 years ago is “value creation” and concerned by
the Board’s lack of disclosure around how it determined the appropriate stock price hurdles. Given that the award will continue
to vest for up to a year following the executive’s qualified termination, we believe it would be more appropriate to call it a “Value
Transfer Award.”

In our view, the Company’s compensation program
would also benefit from a greater emphasis on relevant operating metrics. The annual bonus program for NEOs in 2024 only included two
financial metrics and 30% of the bonus was still completely discretionary.

We therefore recommend that stockholders vote “AGAINST”
the advisory vote on executive compensation. According to the