Quote of the Day: Dana White, The Omnicompetent

He makes this whole thing go 'round

Brash and sometimes downright ignorant, the man knows MMA and how to make it work. I for one am glad he is running things.

by Nick Travaglini on Dec 29, 2008 3:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You didn’t have to be some kind of uber-MMA promoter with a crystal ball to see where ProElite was heading it was pretty obvious to anyone who looked at the situation for more than 30 seconds that they were in trouble from the very start.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

not those who invested millions to start it.

by dnevil001 on Dec 29, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

People lose millions on bad investments all the time, of course many of the people who put their money into starting it were the same people who made a lot of those bad decisions too.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe they should have seeked out your advice… If they only would have known.

by midwestbred on Dec 29, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They didn’t have to look me up they could of checked every MMA blog and news site on the internet for the last year and a half. Heck they were formed December of 2006 and by February of 2007 they were already having problems. By the time they signed the CBS deal everyone and their dog knew that that was their last chance at survival. Lets not act like what happened with ProElite surprised people or that only a “omnipotent super-genius” promoter like Dana White had the insight to see it coming, anyone who keeps up with the sport in a half assed manner knew there were serious problems at ProElite a long time ago.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s cocky and arrogant, but he’s also a genius and a great business man and promoter. And although I don’t agree with everything he says, he speaks the truth.

by Cmad77 on Dec 29, 2008 3:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fedor isn't a top 5 heavyweight?

Dana speaks the truth?

by skwirrl on Dec 29, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you talking about "who me" ?

by dualdiagnosis on Dec 30, 2008 1:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude is right

im not impressed with your performance

by troy145 on Dec 29, 2008 3:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Truth

The man makes a great point about Oscar and one that I’ve only given cursory thoughts to in regards to why he wouldn’t put Golden Boy talent in compelling matchups on his undercard.

Dana may not always make the moves we approve of but he does understand the fight game and its pitfalls.

by kp the ghost on Dec 29, 2008 3:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Easy to criticize boxing, really, because…well, its boxing.
I am just waiting until someone brings up Strikeforce now.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 29, 2008 3:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You know

the funny thing is, Dana has bashed every single organization in Mixed Martial Arts minus Strikeforce. Strikeforce handles their business very very well, and I think Dana has said that on the record. Strikeforce could benefit the most from Elite XC folding.

But Dana and The Bros are the reason why MMA is this huge. That and well Forrest vs. Bonnar

by "Mr. NC-17" on Dec 29, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana has made it clear he wants Strikeforce to thrive.

by banter on Dec 29, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And he always manages to somehow simultaneously refer to them

as a ‘smaller show,’ but never does so condescendingly.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Dec 29, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How many times are people going to ask him these questions it’s the same answer over and over. Talk about beating a dead horse.

by tylerdurden1 on Dec 29, 2008 3:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

this sounded like an old interview to me as well. something from over a year ago or more.

by bdw on Dec 29, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana is 100% right on the money about

Goldenboy. It makes me sick! The guy has a lot of great fighters under contract. He had a GREAT opurtunity to put guys like Juan Diaz and others in the same card as DLH VS Pac but nooooo. Money hungry I guess :/

by xFenixKnightx on Dec 29, 2008 4:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Everybody keeps crying about fighter pay in MMA… What the idiots don’t realize is if the fighter pay gets more like boxing so will the Cards – be more like boxing.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Additionally, it ignores how poorly undercard boxers are compensated.

Well, that’s what I’ve been told. I can’t actually be bothered to research the salaries of undercard fighters for myself, you understand.

"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard

by Brett Jones on Dec 29, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Untelevised undercard fighters are poorly compensated

By the time you’re on the televised undercard they are making more than all but the top 10 fighters in all of MMA. If they are on the main card of a PPV they are making close to a million

by skwirrl on Dec 29, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not always do even the televised undercard fighters make big money. There are only three or 4 fights total on a boxing card to start with and the vast majority of the money goes to the main event. The headline boxers make big bucks(in some cases the money is just silly big) but then the MMA fighters with PPV percentages do pretty darn good. It’s really hard to find the exact numbers because boxing card payout numbers normally aren’t released like MMA payouts are for some reason.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Considering how closely Dana follows the WWE blueprint when it comes to certain aspects of UFC expansion and fight promotion, grand statements like this one are always fun to read.

by smoogy on Dec 29, 2008 4:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

And that's a bad thing because....?

The WWE has the entertainment end of things sewn up – sure, it’s fake, but it’s fake with a high sheen and energy in the production values… people of all ages lap it up for that very reason.

Dana and co. were shrewed insofar that they took the razzmatazz element of WWE and married it with the reality of mixed martial arts.

Every fighter, from the undercard upwards, gets their pre-fight build up on the big screen so that, when they enter the arena, you can make a snap judgment on whom you’re gonna root for… irrespective of the fact you might only have heard of them two minutes ago.

Add in the booming music and flashing lights as they walk to the cage and bingo… you’ve just created the energy and buzz needed for even the casual observer to get into the sport and care about the outcome of each match.

Case in point was my wife. She worked as my transmit technician at UFC 72. She never watched boxing and was mentally opposed to bloody contact sports. She flinched a bit during the first fight (Dustin Hazelett vs. Stevie Lynch) but, come the next bout, she was well into it. She’s now an ardent fan and even has favorite fighters!

by VikingPhotography on Dec 29, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree they borrow a lot from WWE production style, but I’m not saying its necessarily a bad thing. I’m just saying that its hardly an original conception. Particularly when it comes to international expansion, UFC is just following in their footsteps.

by smoogy on Dec 29, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re still oversimplifying what Zuffa’s been able to accomplish. It’s common business practice to model yourself after successful companies in related areas. It’s one thing to say you’re going to do so, it’s another to execute in a successful fashion to the length Zuffa has. Before the PPV last weekend, they were on the verge on breaking WWE’s 2001 PPV revenue record. There’s something to be said for what Zuffa has done, original or not.

by LiuLang on Dec 29, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The undercard of DLH / Pac was almost as bad as the Holyfield / Valuev fight I saw the other week.

Boxing needs personalities and it is running out of them fast.

by DirtyML on Dec 29, 2008 4:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

LOL. Dana is such a douche. He never fails to amaze me. It’s easy to talk noise when things are going well and you’re on top. We will see how long the ride lasts for him. He’s the only show in town right now.

by lbk on Dec 29, 2008 5:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

For good reason. I’ll be shocked if another game ever comes along to truly match the UFC, barring some enormous change in the landscape. They run VERY GOOD business.

Blathering about how he’s the only show in town right now misses the point completely. They got a big boost by getting on free TV and getting a huge head start, but they keep building that lead by being way better than everybody else.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 29, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope the UFC doesn't get complacent

Ford and General Motors were the swingingest of dicks for quite a while as well. RIP

by 106.7 WJFK FM Listener on Dec 29, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really, they weren't.

They’ve been losing market share for a long time, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

It was nice when the auto industry was consolidated, and they felt like they owned the world, but then foolish business practices took over and for some reason never got addressed, let alone corrected.

Ultimately, that’s the fate of any empire. Rise—>Plateau—>Fall—>Recover(to fall again)/Die

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Dec 29, 2008 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right it is easy to talk… but it’s not easy to build a billion dollar business and an entire industry.

You should try opening a lemonade stand and see how it works out. You’ll have a head start as people actually drink lemonade.

When Zuffa started nobody watched MMA.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I think a big reason nobody was watching MMA when Zuffa took over was because MMA was banned from cable television at one point and returned in 2001.

by tylerdurden1 on Dec 29, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think this is inaccurate.

There was literally no demand for MMA when they took over. Aside from the hardcores who would rent the VHS copies of the UFC, and import whatever ‘MMA’ they could from Japan, there was simply no desire for the product.

Brilliant marketing (as dissected above w/ the WWE comps) and ruthless application of a solid business approach is what has created the MMA market. And Zuffa is responsible for the vast majority of that market’s existence.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Dec 29, 2008 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not trying to diminish Zuffa’s success. I’m just pointing out it’s hard for there to be a demand for a product that’s been banned and isn’t readily available and can’t be seen by simply turning on your T.V.

by tylerdurden1 on Dec 29, 2008 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems that you imply

there actually was a desire/need for the product, but it was outlawed?

If that’s the case, I disagree. Fight fans had boxing for combat, and pro wrestling for theatrics/drama. I don’t think there really was a significant demand for a combination product.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Dec 29, 2008 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The UFC’s early buyrates were very large. The success of UFC 1 stands alone historically given the lack of promotion, lack of draws, etc. The problem was regulation; You can’t draw a big house when politicians are forcing you to fight in Wyoming. You can’t succeed running Detroit if they don’t let fighters throw closed fists.

by D.Capitated on Dec 29, 2008 9:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The regulation issues is one of the big issues for why things got as bad as they were in 2001, but it doesn’t really explain why it took till 2005 for the sport to really catch back on again. That part is where Zuffa deserves the credit.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The way Dana does what he does is why the UFC is the only game in town.

by dualdiagnosis on Dec 30, 2008 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another game is surely to come into town.

It became inevitable when the UFC and MMA in general became so popular. EXC did some good things while they were around. If they had been run by people with a little less “homerism”, and didn’t blow so much money early on. They would have been a good # 2 promotion.

ESPN will get into MMA at some point. Then we will see how far the sport can really grow.
Daily exposure and free television are the logical next step. With ESPN’s resources they could really build a formidable Organization.

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Dec 29, 2008 5:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ESPN are into MMA

but their job is to report on it, not be a player in it… same way they report on sports of all kinds.

What we’ve seen over the last year is the increasing visibility of the UFC and MMA in general sports reporting, not to mention broader reporting in lifestyle and specialist media. Slowly but surely the sport as a whole will enter the mainstream consciousness and, at that point, the UFC will probably become synonymous with the sport as a whole… much like the NBA, NFL, MLB etc. ad nauseam

Now consider the above carefully: who in their right mind would try to build a new league to compete with those major sporting bodies that I listed? Sure, the UFC is far, far younger than any of those bodies but let’s be honest – they’re pretty much on the road to become the de facto home for the top talent in mixed martial arts.

Now, the UFC knows that it needs feeder organizations in order to thrive – they play an important role in sourcing talent. They’ll never be the only show in town, but they’ll most likely be the biggest and, by extension, be the promotion that the top talent gravitates towards.

by VikingPhotography on Dec 29, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It isn't a forgone conclusion in my mind

That the UFC is the NFL and it is gospel.
Are they the best organization? Yes.
Are they the Biggest and most visable? Yes
Does that mean that will always be the case? Nobody can say yet.

I am of the opinion that MMA is better when you have several strong organizations. Not one organization headed by a guy who thinks he hung the moon. And as long as the UFC is willing to burn guys for Dana White’s personal vendetta’s. The UFC will always be vulnerable.

Just think back 3 years. The UFC was up for sale and the Fertittas wanted out. Now a short 3 years later and it’s impossible for someone else to be successful in the business?

ESPN shells out hundreds of Millions for programming every year. If MMA gets to the point where they see it as a money maker. It would shock me if they didn’t jump in. They can do TUF type shows and promote the hell out of fighters. Plus they can give guys tons of exposure.

Mark Cuban might very well do the same. Unfortunately HDNet just isn’t in enough homes yet. But in 3 years that will likely change.

My point is that this new MMA “Boom” is 3 years old. And as the always wise Winston Wolfe once said. " Lets not start sucking each others ####’s quite yet fellas"

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Dec 29, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am of the opinion that MMA is better when you have several strong organizations. Not one organization headed by a guy who thinks he hung the moon. And as long as the UFC is willing to burn guys for Dana White’s personal vendetta’s. The UFC will always be vulnerable.

What personal vendettas, pray tell? I’ve NEVER heard a convincing argument of Dana burning a fighter for a reason that had nothing to do with business. And if its good business for Dana to kick a fighter out, that usually means its a bad idea for a competing promotion to pick up the fighter for the same terms the UFC refused to pay.

Just think back 3 years. The UFC was up for sale and the Fertittas wanted out. Now a short 3 years later and it’s impossible for someone else to be successful in the business?

ESPN shells out hundreds of Millions for programming every year. If MMA gets to the point where they see it as a money maker. It would shock me if they didn’t jump in. They can do TUF type shows and promote the hell out of fighters. Plus they can give guys tons of exposure.

It might be very near to impossible to ever compete with the UFC because the UFC exists. Three years ago there was an open market. Now the UFC dominates.

The real risk for competing promotions now is that the UFC can just buy out whatever stars the other organization builds. The only way to keep them is to pay them more than they’re actually worth, which is not a good plan for long term success. And eventually, the UFC may be able to outpay them even then, just to prevent any other organization from keeping their stars under any circumstances.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 29, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"I’ve NEVER heard a convincing argument of Dana burning a fighter for a reason that had nothing to do with business. "

While I do agree with what you are saying I don’t think it should be overlooked that Dana and Tito’s fued has been completly personal from the start.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana's got a bigger personality than any of his fighters,

and he takes the opportunities to flop his manhood onto the table whenever it suits him. We all know this. But he always does what makes the company the most money. Always. We dislike many of his moves because they ‘threaten the integrity of the sport,’ or ‘decrease the quality of the product,’ but ultimately the bottom line continues to swell with him in charge, and none of his decisions have ever jeopardized this.

I’m not disagreeing with you, btw. I’m just adding to the ST.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Dec 29, 2008 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I wasn’t disagreeing with what was said I was just pointing out that Tito is probably the exception to the “business first” rule.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can say that, and there might be truth to it.

But at the same time, Dana kept signing the guy while he was winning. It wasn’t until he was behind the curve that Dana cut him loose. While Tito was a top-flight competitor, Dana swallowed his pride and kept paying him big money. But when he wasn’t a top five/ten LHW any more, he got kicked to the curb.

Seems more about economics, to me. Tito was on a PPV sharing contract, no? If that’s the case, there’s literally no reason to keep trotting him out there to pull draws against Rashad and lose to Machida. Not unless he’s on straight contracts like the rest of the rank and file.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Dec 29, 2008 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well Tito claims that all his business dealings go through Lorenzo not Dana and Dana said that he got Tito that contract and brought him back to help him out because Tito was broke, both guys stories are completly different but both of them point towards personal issues. I also think that the Machida fight was a big middle finger to Tito(a well deserved middle finger). Tito was fading and his BS was getting old but he still could pack a house and pop a PPV buyrate, he earned any PPV percentage he got. I can see where they wouldn’t want to give him a bigger contract but once again Tito has always said that his negotiations were always with Lorenzo. If there was ever a fighter where personal issues might of influenced business decisions it would of been Tito.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you’re assuming it’s Dana and not Tito…

Let’s see Tito work with someone else and then we’ll get a clearer picture who the knucklehead is.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am assuming it goes both ways, heck if there is real personal animosity influencing Dana’s dealings with Tito it would be justified.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana is pretty much on the money but he’s making it sound, like usual, that no one else can do this but him. Up to this point, he’s been exactly right but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible for someone else to be able to fill Dana’s shoes. The reason EliteXC failed in epic fashion was because the company was run by people who had no idea what they were doing (see: morons). The reason the IFL failed is because they invested too much goddamn money too quickly with no real idea of how they were going to get it back.

The UFC had a long term business plan. They took a few risks along the way that paid off (see: TUF) but when it comes down to it they made smart decisions with long term goals in mind. Every single other company we’ve seen with the exception of Strikeforce has rushed into this looking to make a buck quick and compete with the industry staple – the UFC. Short term planning doesn’t work in any industry and MMA is no different. Dana makes it out like it’s rocket science and it’s not. He’s done an amazing job simply by doing more things right than wrong. His competition has been fucking morons. It’s not too hard to beat a down’s syndrome kid in math and that’s essentially what Dana’s been doing when dealing with EliteXC, Affliction, and the IFL.

by dropkick101 on Dec 29, 2008 5:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It is rocket science…

Mark Cuban is pretty smart, has a billion plus, has his own stadium and has his own channel…

You think he’s dumb for not figuring it out?? No he is smart because he figured it out very quickly. After 1 show he got out.

Everyone thinks Elite and IFL died because of horrible management and then the smarter ones think it was because of a horrble strategy… The former is wrong and the latter is only partially right.

How do you think they raised the money? You think they show investors strikeforce numbers? NO… they show UFC numbers – so from the outset they position themselves as the number 2

This is a double edged sword as if they don’t do that they dont get the money – if they do then they are swimming upstream.

You can get into the MMA promoting business and make a living doing what you love… just like local race car shows do. But don’t expect there to be another Nascar.

If there was a way to do it I would have figured it out and that means a few others would as well and that means alot of smart money would be in this space.

There are some who think:

Set up a reality show and then everything will fall into place… wrong.

When UFC was first on TV there was a novelty to the whole thing. That is now gone.

Everything in this sport is viewed through the lens of the UFC.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The reason I’m saying it’s not rocket science is because implementing a smart business plan is not a genius or novel idea, but it is in comparison to those who fail. What Dana and company did that was “rocket science” was seeing the potential for the sport before anyone else did and running with it.

In addition to these other companies having poor business models, they’re also competing with the fact that there is only room for one top company — and the UFC is not going to be giving that spot up anytime soon. Just like there isn’t a market for another major football or baseball league, there is only room for one big MMA organization. That’s the reason Strikeforce has been so succesful: they know their role.

by dropkick101 on Dec 29, 2008 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The reason I’m saying it’s not rocket science is because implementing a smart business plan is not a genius or novel idea, but it is in comparison to those who fail. What Dana and company did that was "rocket science" was seeing the potential for the sport before anyone else did and running with it.

It’s one thing to recognize a business opportunity, it’s a completely other thing to execute it and not only survive, but prosper. I work in the banking industry, and if I got a nickel for how many businesses I’ve seen fail, I’d be a rich bitch. :) What Dana and crew have been able to accomplish is quite amazing. What was indeed “Rocket Science” about their business, was how they ran it.

That being said, you’re right, the landscape is different now. When Zuffa bought the UFC, they had no competition cause the sport basically didn’t exist. They could dictate where they wanted the sport to go. Now, any up and comer has to go against the UFC, which is essentially a David vs Goliath battle. You have the established model (UFC) and everything else is just that: everything else. I don’t think anybody can be successful tackling the UFC head on.

by pud333 on Dec 29, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Zuffa didnt have competition but there also wasn’t a market for MMA either…

It is much harder to market your product when there are no customers.

The highest probability of success in any business venture is to first see if there is a market… and then to see if this market actually buys what you are selling or similar to what you are selling… then you can dry test, focus group to see if this market will buy what you are selling.

If all of these are done you have over a 90% probability of success.

Zuffa had none of this -

Zuffa developed a good product, created the market for it, and conditioned the market to buy.

It doesn’t get any harder than that.

What Zuffa did is nothing short of miraculous.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Just a quick reminder to echo what you said: The hardest form of competition of all is indifference.

by Michael Rome on Dec 30, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mark Cuban . . .

He is great at building a stack of cards than selling it to buyer who thinks he/she is getting a full house. For a billionaire, what industrial empire does Cuban own? Ok, I guess that is harsh, but their is truth in my statement.

by bignerd on Dec 29, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think what gets lost sometimes is how much single-minded determination dana and the fertittas have for the sport(although dana likes to point it out quite often). one of the biggest reason zuffa has been so successfullis that all dana white does is mma. he lives and breathes the sport. nobody is ever going to be able to outwork him, if someone wants to be successful at running an mma org, it had better be the one and only thing they do. guys like cuban, atencio, and the shaws have to many irons in the fire. cuban has the mavericks, a movie production company and some legal issues ahead and he is always trying to buy other pro teams like the cubs, and the penguins. atencio is trying to run an mma org, while running a major clothing line and be a rock concert promoter. the shaws were still promoting boxing while trying to run elite xc. none of these guys are/were smart enough to try and hire someone that knows the mma business like the back of their hand, and let that person take the reigns, they all want to try and prove that they can do it themselves, just like dana. sorry there’s only one dana white and he ain’t going anywhere.

by bdw on Dec 29, 2008 7:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hubris

Dana may be right about Golden Boy and De La Hoya, but he’s full of himself.

From a business perspective, let’s hope Lorenzo keeps him in check.

Wrestling is his blueprint to follow and Boxing is his blueprint to not follow.
We know where Boxing is.
Where’s Pro Wrestling today? In the shitter.

by dohfil on Dec 29, 2008 8:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The WWE still does very good business and their international expansion has been very sucessful. Just because the UFC has been selling more PPVs doesn’t mean that they have caught the WWE yet because the WWE isn’t dependant on PPVs for all of it’s income.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana Right and Wrong

Dana is correct how boxing promoters burn themselves by ignoring an undercard to squeeze a little more profit.

I agree with the other posters that MMA isn’t rocket science. EliteXC went $55 million in debt partly because they over spent on MMA promotions they never used, it’s wasn’t their product (except for Kimbo).

Also, lets not forget that Dana ran the UFC into $40 million in debt before Fertitas bank rolled a TV show that hit a last minute hail marry. Oh, and Dana is also guilty of grossly over paying for MMA promotions a failing to fully utilize them (Pride).

Affliction isn’t that far off from what a big new promotion should do to compete with the UFC except their unwillingness to lose money to establish a brand and they do need a full time promoter, not part time. Even than, you need luck (Forrest/Bonner performance when everyone is paying attention).

by bignerd on Dec 29, 2008 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Affliction

Affliction needs a “free tv” type of outlet. IMHO

The thing that the UFC has done so well in the last couple of years, is that they create and promote personalities. People see guys like Diego,Forrest,Rashad,Randy,Chuck,Serra, Hughes. Even anti heroes like Junie and Leben and it gives the fan something to look forward to when big fights happen.
The buildup is already there. Then Dana and Joe Rogan sprinkle on the hyperbole and Presto!

The thing that a rival promotion will have to overcome/have is getting the fighters out there. The common fan gets a reason to root for a UFC guy. The common fan probably doesn’t know who Chris Horodecki is.

It’s also what made the UFC profitable. It uses TUF to build cheap stars.

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Dec 29, 2008 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The TV show was is part of the luck I was mentioning. Not just any TV will work. I think the only reason TUF worked was Forrest vs Bonner delivered a compelling ending that got people hooked. UFC now has the advantage of stuffing the show with their personalities.

Affliction has other concerns before a TV show. They already seem gun shy about promoting and don’t seem willing to invest for the long haul. Also, I believe if they had a full time promoter they would not have made certain mistakes.

by bignerd on Dec 29, 2008 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I honestly think the Affliction guys were just playing at MMA promotion from the start. That may not be the case now but they dug themselves an awful big hole and made a lot of headscratching decisions.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

everyone thinks TV is the solution…

Elite had SHOWTIME… and then CBS!

IFL had mynetwork for a whole year every fucking week… on an excellent time slot.

There is only one thing competing orgs need and that is:

REVENUE

If you can’t compete with Zuffa on revenue don’t even bother.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is a difference between tv and good tv. MynetworkTV isn’t going to pay the bills, nor would the crappy CBS contract EliteXC got stuck with. Of course the main reason for tv at this point is exposure that will help sell a PPV because PPV is where the money is made in North American MMA. IFL and EliteXC never built up enough exposure even with their tv coverage to sell regular PPVs off of thus their tv coverage didn’t get them anywhere.

Affliction is in the opposite situation, they just don’t have the fighters and the structure in place to do regular tv in order to support the PPV’s they are pushing. They would be helped by tv but so far they haven’t even shown they can pull off a second PPV yet, more/less regular tv programming.

by who me on Dec 29, 2008 11:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mynetwork is much better than what spike was…

A weekly show on mynetwork/mondays primetime is much better than a few shows on CBS…

Spike didnt pay shit for UFC with the initial deal… infact the deal was worse than the CBS, mynetwork and showtime deal.

The answer is revenue not TV.

Now if you can get a TV deal that will pony up some dough… don’t you think that network will want the UFC for the money they’ll pay?

When the answer is understood to be revenue then one will realize what needs to be done to get that… and then that one will realize it is just futile.

by mmalogic on Dec 29, 2008 11:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

When mynetworktv first started their ratings stunk (well they still stink but they were really bad before that). I didn’t even know we had it for the first year of it’s existence. Of course the big thing there was the exposure IFL got from it didn’t lead anywhere or to anything that could make them money. The UFC deal on Spike was even worse at the start but the UFC made the best of it, got the exposure and turned it into a boost for PPV buyrates which is where they make their money. That crappy tv deal saved the UFC because they made the best of their opportunity, the crappy tv deal with much more exposure that EliteXC scored not only didn’t help them expand it actually made them look worse than they did to start with. Honestly I’m not sure what the IFL or ProElite’s plan to make money was because

Currently in North American MMA revenue is generated by PPV buyrates and buyrates are correlated by exposure to the public and exposure to the public is correlated with a tv presence. TV isn’t the answer but it’s a better path to upping PPV revenues than putting up banners in the Buckle at the mall or wrapping a NASCAR.

by who me on Dec 30, 2008 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK how do you get PPV revenue?

You say TV exposure…

IFL had 1 year on mynetwork which at its worst was better than spike.

Elite had showtime for more than a year and CBS.

Neither were ready for ppv.

So what do we know now:

Even with a year of TV chances are you will not be ready for PPV.

But lets assume that you do everything right and you garner your exposure correctly, and you make the best of your TV deal and you are ready for PPV… what does that conclude?

It means you have created “stars”

This is the stage most people dont get…

When you create a star – you basically saved Zuffa the time and money to do it.

Why… because Zuffa can better monetize that star than anyone else. That means Zuffa can pay more.

The numbers have already been run… if an org ever gets to this stage the most amount of buys they will do is 200k (considering counter programming and the current market) Zuffa already has a nuclear option where the payscale will be such where you cant survive with 200k buys and keep your stars.

So this is the conundrum…

In order to create stars you have to lose money…. Basic arithmetic shows those stars will end up in the UFC.

So you have 2 choices…

Make money and build stars for the UFC (small local or regional shows) or lose money and build stars for the UFC (try to compete nationally).

by mmalogic on Dec 30, 2008 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

TV isn’t the way to PPV revenue it’s part of a larger puzzle. As I said the IFL and EliteXC didn’t do anything with their tv exposure (EliteXC actually managed to make themselves look worse). The UFC didn’t just use it’s tv exposure to build stars it also built a brand name, a fan base and shamelessly plugged upcoming PPVs.

As far as star building it isn’t a given that the UFC will just steal your stars once they get big enough, the UFC can only support so many fighters and they are only going ot pay so much. The problem is that you have to be willing to lose lots of money for years outspending the UFC to build your product, that’s a big hurdle even if you aren’t bungling things along the way like ProElite did.

by who me on Dec 30, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you have a star that can carry a PPV – UFC will take em or you will go bankrupt keeping him.

there’s a counter move to pretty much anything that can possibly happen… you haven’t seen it yet because no org has got to this point.

by mmalogic on Dec 31, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here it is… The only possible way to compete with Zuffa (shortened and simplified version):

Step One:

you will need alot of money – we’ve seen that this can be generated so it is not improbable.

40m to 100m.

two:

Set up reality shows in every major TV market outside of the US in every major language.

make sure fighters basically sign their lives away (very feasible overseas).

Sign TV deals based on exposure and less on present monetization.

Structure the same way as tuf with the live fight finale’s.

Step 3:

Sign better TV deals. Slowly increase live fights.

**************************************

Obvously copy every principle from the UFC except tweaked to the targeted culture and a new Brand Name.

Getting airtight contracts from the fighters will keep the UFC at bay.

Even though the overseas Markets are smaller individually than the US… Combined they will be formidable.

There is virtually no ppv business overseas… Ive figured at least 200m plus can be generated through this with the TV deals.

Now you can come to the table and play and now you can compete with the UFC.

The problem:

This was figured out over a year ago…

Zuffa is already setting this up :)

by mmalogic on Dec 30, 2008 12:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If you meet anyone who is considering dumping 40-100 mil on an MMA org, slap them and shout in their face, “SMARTEN UP!!!!”. If they are determined to piss away that kind of money, they could just give it to me. I would not blow it all on Liquor & Whores, I promise.

by Ubernoober on Dec 30, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure 100million would be enough (for a MMA start up, it’s plenty for liquor and whores).

by who me on Dec 30, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with most of this except there are two minor disagreements:

First, starting from the ground up you’ll need more like 200 million or more. You have to vastly outspend the UFC.

Second, the key to international revenue is in the merchandising department. The TV deals are solid, but you look at WWE financials and they make an absolute killing in merchandise overseas. Shirts, toys, games, DVDs, etc. This is one area where Zuffa is way far behind WWE. They are starting to ramp up merchandising now but I think that is the main area they should start focusing resources.

by Michael Rome on Dec 30, 2008 1:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Should also note that there is a limit on Zuffa’s merch that may not be there for WWE. Little kids watch the WWE in much bigger numbers and buy a lot more of this kind of stuff than older people do, especially things like toys.

by Michael Rome on Dec 30, 2008 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can do this with 40m… well when I created this you could of done it with 40m.

Why do you have to outspend Zuffa… you wouldnt be competing with them directly. That’s why this would have worked.

Im talking close to 18 months to 24 months ago.

Reality shows are very cheap to produce. That’s where the bulk of the expenses would have been…. I mapped this out assuming a quasi – initial spike deal – where Zuffa put up all the money.

Yeah obviously now this will not work – even with 200m… Zuffa is closing this hole up very quickly.

My point was at the time when IFL had the money and Pro-elite had the money this should have been the avenue.

In my past life I used to advise a venture capital group on different business ventures.

I had a very high success rate.

All I would do is see something working in california (business concept, idea, chain, etc…)

And just advise them to set it up in the east coast… if it was climate oriented then Southeast.

Something worked in manhattan, it also worked in Singapore, Hong Kong, etc…

Let others go through the headaches of inventing something that works and just copy and paste.

Worked like a charm.

Now what these retards did and what every other wannabe does is they see something that works and they go and open up shop across the street!

When you copy you have one advantage most of the research and development has been done… so you can be first to market without all the headaches in a different region, or country or hemisphere.

You’ll have first mover advantage and be in a position to garner the majority mind share.

Why would you give up your only advantages and open up across the street!

Foolish.

by mmalogic on Dec 30, 2008 2:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And this is why the best way for new people to make money in the mma business without going crazy internationally is to copy Strikeforce in a different part of the US. They seem to be the only people that know what they’re doing, and a good mminor league type of system is what is really needed.

by Phildo on Dec 30, 2008 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What do you think?

I’m not even sure a promotion should start trying to compete with the UFC for top spot. As Affliction has shown it’s expensive to acquire fighters off the free market. If a promotion can just sustain itself as the apparent, but lacking #2 promotion it would be a good start.

$200 million seems to far reaching to be possible. I think Affliction is close (in theory). Start the promotion around a few good fighters in the same weight class to give it a buzz. Hope to stick around, build a name, and try to out recruit the UFC for future talent . . . than as the next generation grows the promotion can make it’s bold move.

I do think Affliction is close, but they spent too much on fighters. Which if they wanted to stick around could be corrected after a few events because their expensive contracts would expire (they wouldn’t be that much in the hole). Better marketing would help. They are good at getting press coverage but not so good with connecting fighter story lines with fans.

by bignerd on Dec 30, 2008 2:35 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

They’re not close in any meaningful way, the money hasn’t bought them a thing so far.

by Michael Rome on Dec 30, 2008 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

canceling your second show does not equal close #2…

it equals close to bye bye.

by mmalogic on Dec 30, 2008 3:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They aren’t really good at getting press coverage. They’re good at having press conference, and those get covered and talked about by mma sites, but does anyone else know or care?

That’s the thing that separates the UFC from all the other orgs right now. When they have a shtity PPV, they still get at least 250 thousand people that think a sherdog is a type of puppy and don’t know what a Fedor is to watch and pay.

by Phildo on Dec 30, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One of the few things EliteXC got right was getting the general public to notice their big star, yea they chose the absolute wrong “star” and rode that horse into the dirt but Kimbo was getting as much outside coverage as any UFC star has ever got. As sad as it is even with EliteXC’s complete implosion Kimbo is still a bigger star than Fedor. Affliction has completly failed at marketing their fighters and their shows.

by who me on Dec 30, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If someone would treat the fighters better and be ecome stable the big hitters will leave the ufc.

by jks9202 on Dec 30, 2008 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

But no one can do that. There are a select few who whine about the UFC, but when it comes down to it, the fact that they put on the shows they say they are going to, and they pay you what they say they are going to pay you, is “treating the fighters better” than all the other orgs that are going to supposedly beat the UFC.

by Phildo on Dec 30, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea it doesn’t really matter if they become your best buddies or how good the contract is if they aren’t actually getting you fights so you can make money.

by who me on Dec 30, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs