Does Affliction's Business Model Matter?
by Kid Nate on Jan 23, 2009 6:03 PM EST
in MMA Events
Email
PrintJonathan Snowden makes an interesting argument:
The important thing is that someone is willing to pony up to bring two of the world’s best into the ring to test their skills. It’s not my job as a fan (or as a journalist) to make these shows profitable. That’s the promoter’s job. It is the job of the journalists to cover it, not promote the show for the "good of the sport." And if you look back at the history of combat sports, much stranger ducks than Tom Atencio and Affliction have dropped millions of dollars to put on vanity shows for a number of reasons.
In 1974, Mobuto Sese Seko paid Don King millions to bring Muhammad Ali and George Foreman to Zaire for the now famous "Rumble in the Jungle." Seko was a brutal dictator, a man who once had his political rivals rounded up and executed in front of 50,000 awestruck countrymen. He was so despised by many in his own country that he needed no less than three separate special forces squads acting as personal bodyguards. How was he going to make a profit herding his people into the Mai 20 Stadium to watch the fight for free? How will a bad turnout affect Seko’s future shows?
...
n the long term, fans will remember the fights that made them feel. No one remembers the promoters, because they are interchangeable. Does it truly matter if it is Affliction, or the IFL, or Showtime, or Mark Cuban, or the Fertittas? It’s the fights that are important, that will stand the test of time. MMA fans and reporters would do well to focus on them and leave the promoters to get ulcers worrying about what will draw. That’s their job. Our job is to watch great fights. Enjoy the show.
I'm sympathetic with Snowden's point. The Ali-Foreman FIGHT is what ultimately matters. Its been the source of great movies, important books and is a cornerstone of the Muhammad Ali legend.
My History of MMA series has been predicated on this notion -- stick to what happens inside the cage/ring, not the bullshit going on outside it.
However, Fightlinker mini-me Shawn Schatzle has a different take:
...when covering a sporting event, you cover every aspect of it. This is the very idea that ushered in the modern era of sports popularity in this country. The reason ESPN has become a staple in the sports industry is because the journalists over there cover every aspect of the industry, from the player’s contracts to the lives of the different personalities involved and, of course, the action on the field or in the ring. And as a fan who would like to see some decent alternative to the Zuffa machine every now and then, that makes me a stakeholder in the Affliction brand — meaning I have every right to be curious about whether the promotion is going to last.
...
Ali and Foreman were so huge that promotions or leagues didn’t matter — the names of those two men was more than enough to create a giant spectacle. Very few men in the MMA world are able to attract the type of attention that Ali and Foreman were able to do — and especially not Fedor and Arlovski (At this point, at least. This sport is still in it’s infant stages compared to where boxing was in 1974).
And let’s not forget one major point that needs to be made: hating on morons is the most fun you can have with a keyboard. Atencio and company have been coming out for months talking about their long term success in this industry. Then, you go and look at their fighter payroll and those comments become funnier than watching War Machine try to figure out the directions on a Hungry Man TV dinner.
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What happens outside of the ring/cage directly effects what happens within it. A promoter’s various successes and failures directly effects the product. Also, each individual entity existing within the whole of MMA comprises the worldly success, growth and popularity of the sport. Those three things create new athletes that will pursue (and further grow) mixed martial arts, as well broadening the demo and number of viewers/customers.
In ring, out of ring; it all effects the product and my enjoyment of it.
by Blackout612 on Jan 23, 2009 6:10 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
You said it, man. I think it’s kind of out of vanity that some people preach the “fights only” angle. It’s like the “love only” angle in marriage – noble and romantic, but even if it’s a necessary condition (for most) it’s certainly not sufficient.
by ununkvadrium on Jan 23, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
When..
we got to the point where our sport’s growth depends on intelligent business decisions.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 23, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I was going to write a Fanpost called “Snowden, You’re Loose Change” in counter to his “Snowden: Worrying About Dollars Makes No Sense”. Oh well.
In the long term, fans will remember the fights that made them feel. No one remembers the promoters, because they are interchangeable. Does it truly matter if it is Affliction, or the IFL, or Showtime, or Mark Cuban, or the Fertittas? It’s the fights that are important, that will stand the test of time.
To put it negatively, the wellness of promotions can cancel matchups. What happened to Affliction on October 11th? Are we as fans not to be inquisitive? The lack of a sound promotion behind the card prevented us from just ‘enjoying the show’.
Yes, it matters whether the Fertittas or Atencio is behind a card.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 23, 2009 6:24 PM EST reply actions
I vote for Fightlinker's take.
I do that a lot.
by Derek Suboticki on Jan 23, 2009 6:30 PM EST reply actions
What is the point of telling people what they can and can’t be interested in about a sport? This sport is particularly unique because it was completely dead in the states until a few years ago, and without the UFC would die again tomorrow.
Secondly, unless you are extremely narrow minded or just dull, it is very possible to be a fan of the fights and interested in the business side of things. For example, I am totally stoked about Arlovski-Fedor, but I’m also interested in the many facets of fight promotion. They’re not mutually exclusive.
by Michael Rome on Jan 23, 2009 6:32 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
This sport is particularly unique because it was completely dead in the states until a few years ago, and without the UFC would die again tomorrow.
You want to explain what this has to do with Arlovski/Fedor being a good fight? I’m interested in hearing it.
Why do I need to explain that? What in the world are you talking about anyway, and why do I need to run the theme of my thoughts by you? I was saying that the sport is uniquely interesting from a business perspective because unlike, say, the NFL, its continued success is nowhere near guaranteed, and the people involved are trying to grow it. If you don’t find it interesting, that’s fine, there are roughly 10,000 internet messageboard posts arguing who will win between Fedor and Andrei. Surely you can find what you want there.
by Michael Rome on Jan 23, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
You’re not gonna explain it because you can’t. The two have nothing to do with one another, yet for some reason its an endlessly droned on theme.
I never intended the two to have any connection. I was responding to the idea that it’s not a legitimate thing to want to talk about. Your problem may be that you’re trying to find connections between things that were never intended to be connected.
Maybe I’ll post in outline form with headings in comments now so you don’t get confused.
I’m not trying to be a sports writer or someone providing mainstream coverage of the sport. It’s a blog, where writers post what’s on their mind. I find the attempts to enter into the growing MMA market and the UFC’s efforts to stifle them a lot more compelling than Nogueira v. Matyushenko.
I think Andrei vs. Fedor is a great fight, but it’s a fight happening in the middle of a forest with nobody watching.
by Michael Rome on Jan 23, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Its a legitimate thing to talk about. Who says it is not? Alternately, its hilarious to hear people attempt to justify MMA promoter #132 throwing money away instead of discussing what he’s throwing it out on. I mean, its only the best heavyweight in the world in a tough fight. If you find Affliction advertising on stock cars to be more interesting than that, god, why did you pick MMA to be something you follow in the first place?
by D.Capitated on Jan 23, 2009 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
What is wrong about talking about both? It’s not like the actual fights are being ignored or that people are incapable of disussing multiple subjects at the same time. I can discuss their finances and their fights in different articles or on different sites even at the same general time. One discussion does not preclude the other from happening.
Its a legitimate thing to talk about. Who says it is not?
Did you read the what Nate posted?
by Rundownloser on Jan 24, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions
I don't know exactly where to insert this...
A couple of days ago Dan Wetzel talked about the “Biggest fight not on the card.” He alluded to the battle between the MMA promotions and its promoters. And this saturday’s event is Affliction’s counter attack to UFC’s barrage of PPVs. And their business model is the key to their success or if they’ll even be able to last to launch another “attack”. The fight outside the ring brings much interest as Fedor and Arlovski’s fight.
And its very much possible to discuss both fights, at the same time.
I think Andrei vs. Fedor is a great fight, but it’s a fight happening in the middle of a forest with nobody watching.
Affliction’s business model is to blame for this. Although, they’re now trying to learn from their mistakes like dropping those money-sucking-non-draws and are now trying to emulate UFC. And until they get it right, we might not be able to see more of these great fights.
As far as I’m concerned, Snowden’s take on the business side of MMA and how it should (or shouldn’t) be covered is completely ludicrous. If you want to ignore the business model of a promotion, that’s completely up to you. However, all facets of other sports are covered. The Snowden piece reminds me of another such article that I wrote about. In that one the “junior business analysts” blogging about the struggles of a certain promotion deserved blame for blogging about the financial struggles in question.
I’ve got a real problem with others dictating what part of the sport are important or interesting. From what I’ve seen, there are more than a hand full of fans interested the business portion of MMA. As stated several times above, the financial aspect of MMA promotions is of extreme importance since the entire sport is trying to transition into the mainstream. Yet, we’re supposed to ignore this? Fat chance.
by Cannon Jacques on Jan 23, 2009 7:37 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Snowden isn’t just arguing that the business model doesn’t matter, obviously. He is saying that at this point in the buildup to the event, real fans ought to be talking more about the fight card than the balance sheet, and I agree. The actual analysis of the fights and the historical significance of the card has been very lacking, on this blog and many others. I mean, there has been a relatively enormous amount written about UFC Primetime, a repackaged version of Countdown. Then the superb Fedor special airs on FSN to a great fan reception, and nobody here seems to have an opinion one way or the other.
Fedor vs. Arlovski is unquestionably one of the biggest heavyweight fights in the history of the sport, and this card is a gift for hardcore fans. Why should Affliction’s missteps on the business side be dominating the coverage of this event? I have no problem with the analysis of their success or failure, but its like every blog wants to be MMAPayout when it comes to Affliction. Just because you have doubts about their future, doesn’t mean you can’t express excitement about what they’re putting on this Saturday.
by smoogy on Jan 23, 2009 7:40 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
LOL @ that retarded poll by the way. By hacking up his article, you’ve kind of misrepresented his argument.
His article wasn’t particularly long or nuanced. His point is that we shouldn’t care about their business model and should instead focus on the fight they’re putting on. The poll asks if you agree with that.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 23, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps, I’m missing something, though. In what way is his point being misrepresented?
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 23, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
The point is right there in the first paragraph. Fedor and Arlovski are fighting, and there’s an undercard filled with competitive matchups between world class fighters. Too bad everyone is too busy talking about tickets sales to talk about what is one of the best fights in the history of MMA. Show me similar coverage in another sport. It would be like ESPN having the result of the Super Bowl on the side menu while posting the overnight rating as the lead story.
It’s a blog where people write what is on their mind. We’re not running feature sports pieces. Maybe you should check out Kevin Iole’s latest for more of what you’re looking for, Sherdog has some of it too. This website has never been that kind of content provider; there are a million MMA websites and blogs out there that do different things, you should probably go read one that provides the kind of adequate coverage you’re looking for.
by Michael Rome on Jan 23, 2009 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
We are leading up to the Super Bowl and two of the big stories ESPN has been covering have been Terrell Owens continuing saga in Dallas and all the coaching firings and hirings that have been going on. ESPN does report on the business side of sports quite often, heck their investigative reports frequently deal with issues that are outside of the actual games being played in any sport. If the NFL was on the verge of going out of business and this might be the last Super Bowl to ever happen then yea ESPN would be all over that story and it would be bigger than the actual game itself. Hell every time a big name baseball player signs somewhere new the first thing mentioned isn’t what impact he will have on that team it’s the size of his new contract. Don’t fool yourself here, Snowden is just flat out wrong because real sports journalism does cover every aspect of the sport and hardcore fans of every sport are very interested in the business side of what is going on too.
The potential for this being the last Affliction card is just as big of news as the actual fights on the card because it will have an affect on what fans will be able to see in the future and where/when these fighters will be fighting in the future. I am thrilled to get to see this card but I am also very worried that I won’t get to see another out of them because I am also interested in seeing Fedor fight Josh Barnett in the future, if they fail it will have a real affect on me as a fan.
Everyone who thinks that it is stupid to discuss Affliction’s business plan and future in the sport needs to shut the hell up every time a discussion of MMA fighter pay or UFC contracts comes up then because that is the business side of the sport too. Lets face it it’s the same faces are taking the same sides because of which organization is being discussed not because of what the actual issue is here, if it was an article saying that fans should ignore the UFC business plan and what they pay the fighters and should just talk about the fights half the people in the thread would do a complete 180 in their opinions(on both sides).
Oh and the “Rumble in the Jungle” example is silly, it was a one off fight used to get public attention for the country. There was no chance that it was the end of boxing or even the end of Don King’s career. Having an African Dictator foot the bill for an event is an example of how crazy the history of boxing promotion is not an example of why the business side should be unimportant to fans.
by who me on Jan 24, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I wish I could double rec this post. But I can’t. :-(
by Rundownloser on Jan 24, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
We are leading up to the Super Bowl and two of the big stories ESPN has been covering have been Terrell Owens continuing saga in Dallas and all the coaching firings and hirings that have been going on. ESPN does report on the business side of sports quite often,
Terrell Owens’ future with the Cowboys is “biz” talk no different to comparing PPV buys? This is madness.
If the NFL was on the verge of going out of business and this might be the last Super Bowl to ever happen then yea ESPN would be all over that story and it would be bigger than the actual game itself.
MMA, however, isn’t going out of business. If Affliction goes under, so what? You think Barnett and Fedor won’t be able to get fights? They’ll both go back and fight in Japan, or in Russia, or Europe, or any number of other locales. The problem is that you people desperately want Affliction to run like its a pro wrestling promotion, and its not. It basically is a series of one-offs. It doesn’t have its own belts, it doesn’t pretend to have divisions, etc. Look at it! The one belt on the card is from an independent sanctioning body!
But it goes beoynd the issue of wether Affliction will survive or not. Primarily, I’d say, the interest provoked by their poor business comes from the idea that they are hindering the growth of the sport. This way the business aspect becomes relevant for me as a fan – because Afflictions well doing has implications for the overall quality of the MMA I get to see.
So, it’s not really about Fedor or Barnett anymore. It’s about the prospects of seeing new Barnetts and Fedors coming in to the sport. And this ultimately depends on wether or not the sport turns a profit for the promoters and fighters, long run.
by ununkvadrium on Jan 24, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
Terrell Owens’ future with the Cowboys is "biz" talk no different to comparing PPV buys? This is madness.
The Terrell Owens talk is about whether he is ruining the team off the field and whether Jerry Jones needs to change out personnel, that is part of the business side of the game. Of course if you want a even closer example Stephen Ross just bought out majority ownership of the Dolphins from Wayne Huizenga and there was a lot of discussion about what this would mean for Parcells future there. The point is that every aspect of sports is regularly covered by the mainstream sports media in depth, including financial and business news.
MMA, however, isn’t going out of business. If Affliction goes under, so what?
Yea MMA isn’t going out of business but if Affliction does it will defiantly be news. All during the XFL season and the USFL’s existence one of the big stories was whether they would survive or not and almost all the news coming out of the Arena League in the last year has been about their financial woes even though their death doesn’t mean the end of the sport. The thing is that whether you like it or not all this stuff gets covered constantly in other sports too, heck if MMA ever does break mainstream news sources like ESPN and Sports Illustrated will really start to put every single aspect of the business under the microscope. Blogs like Bloody Elbow would have nothing on how deep a show like Real Sports with Bryant Gumbell would dig into the story of whether Affliction is financially viable or not.
You think Barnett and Fedor won’t be able to get fights? They’ll both go back and fight in Japan, or in Russia, or Europe, or any number of other locales.
Yea but will they make the same money? More importantly than those two guys what about all the other fighters Affliction has under contract, will they all get other high profile fights too? The loss of a company employing high level fighters will have a ripple effect in the industry even if we are just talking about Affliction.
The problem is that you people desperately want Affliction to run like its a pro wrestling promotion, and its not. It basically is a series of one-offs. It doesn’t have its own belts, it doesn’t pretend to have divisions, etc. Look at it! The one belt on the card is from an independent sanctioning body!
Honestly yea that is stuff I look for because as a fan of the sport I really enjoy watching the movement in divisions and guys striving to win titles but that isn’t the reason that I discuss Affliction losing millions of dollars. The way the promotion is built to run as a league and the way their financials run is also two completely separate issues here. Heck there were three entirely separate issues in you last paragraph.
by who me on Jan 24, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You're clearly putting too much thought into this
This seems more like backlash against all the business talk when some fans just want to enjoy the fights. Just two different fan perspectives clashing.
Excellent points all around tho.
The Terrell Owens talk is about whether he is ruining the team off the field and whether Jerry Jones needs to change out personnel, that is part of the business side of the game.
Ruining the team chemistry sounds like its directly related to, you know, the Cowboys WINNING GAMES. If the Cowboys were in the Super Bowl or had even made the playoffs, this discussion would not be happening. Moreover, to compare it to talk about papered houses, PPV buys, etc, is ridiculous. Using the same logic as is pushed towards MMA, The Kansas City Royals are a more successful baseball team than the Yankees.
Yea MMA isn’t going out of business but if Affliction does it will defiantly be news. All during the XFL season and the USFL’s existence
Stop. Read what you post. The XFL? People didn’t talk about the XFL’s championship game because it was contested between teams no on cared about with mostly substandard football players. Fedor and Arlovski are not substandard MMA fighters.
Honestly yea that is stuff I look for because as a fan of the sport I really enjoy watching the movement in divisions and guys striving to win titles but that isn’t the reason that I discuss Affliction losing millions of dollars
But they lose the money in large part because, lemme guess, they don’t follow the model of the UFC, lack weekly TV, etc, right?
Look, they lose money, they didn’t promote well enough, whatever. Fedor and Arlovski are gonna fight. If a fight like that doesn’t excite you more than the financials of MMA, why even pay attention to MMA in the first place?
I don’t think anyone is misrepresenting what he said. I agree that Fedor/Arlovski is a great bout. If they put on an amazing fight, I’m confident that it will be remembered based on its merits. We don’t know what will ultimately happen to Affliction – the fight promotion. The concerns about Affliction’s future play into how jazzed fans will get about their events. In a way, that’s unfortunate, but I don’t believe it’s unique to MMA.
Affliction just doesn’t have the reach of the UFC, and the fact that this weekend’s show is happening wasn’t a foregone conclusion just weeks ago. By the way, I think this site has covered Day of Reckoning quite extensively.
by Cannon Jacques on Jan 23, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
If I didn’t want to know about what’s going on around the ring I wouldn’t care about MMA blog, I got TV, internet, I can see the fight anywhere, but “inside” infos are on blogs like this one.
Infos on business models though, I can live without it. I don’t say I prefer articles on BJ trashing GSP and on how Junie browning is bad for the sport, I just don’t need technical infos on what affliction should do to win money.
Just because this seems like a decent thread for it, I think Affliction did a great job this week getting press.
I think the show will do 100,000 buys.
MMA Fans should do their part...
Affliction is putting on a great card and the next one could feature Barnett vs Fedor.
What more can MMA fans ask for?
Support MMA and the fighters an stop worrying about balance sheets, attendance, and company brand strength. I think it has been done to death already.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
Talking about the business side does NOT mean you aren’t supporting MMA.
Saying Affliction is going to fail does NOT mean you want them to fail. You seem to have a very difficult time understanding this.
In the contrary, I LOVE to talk about the business side, BUT, when you let Affliction’s marketing strategy overshadow the BEST MMA fighter fighting another top MMA fighter in a great matchup, call me crazy, but I think its sad.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
It isn’t overshadowing the fight to me at all, I find discussing the business side interesting but that doesn’t mean that I’m not excited about the fight. Heck Freddie Roach has got as much if not more MMA press and discussions as Affliction’s business problems in the last couple of weeks.
When discussing BJ Penn and GSP a significant portion of the disucssion has revolved around Penn’s antics and the ratings/effect of Primetime instead of discussing the actual fight between the two guys too, people are interested in those things but because they are discussing them doesn’t mean that it is overshadowing their excitement about the actual fight.
It is somehow out of the bounds of acceptable conversation to bring up the fact that Barnett vs. Fedor, for example, might not be possible because of those balance sheets and attendance figures?
Food doesn’t just appear on our plates. Everyone here enjoys eating and knowing who slaughters which cow.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 24, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
Bashing a company because of their marketing strategy to the point where you don’t support them is the cause that Fedor vs Barnett wont happen.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
Ofcourse they did their part to lose money as well, but still, MMA fans should support MMA to see more MMA fights.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
Thus I support the most consistent and professional promotion, with the majority of the best fighters and consistently delivers with quality fight cards. They are the ones that get my money.
I would put market strategy over bashing a company in terms of influence on any future cards or events.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 24, 2009 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
That is complete BS. It is not the fans fault if a entertainment company goes out of business because it is the companies business to please the fans, they exist to entertain the fans not the other way around. If the fans don’t like your show/event/company for any reason then that is the companies problem not the fans. Of course even if everyone on all the MMA sites played along and only talked positive about Affliction MMA it wouldn’t change the fact that they don’t sell enough PPVs to the casual fans that actually drive the business side of the sport.
Hell a much bigger issue to the Affliction bottom line than fans talking about their business problems is the fact that most of the hardcore MMA fans are also knowldgeable enough about the internet that they can find ways around paying for the show and still get to see what they are a fan of.
HT: Again, it isn’t the blogs/media’s job to blindly support an org to the point of nuthugging. They are supposed to report the news. On the forums and comment sections, we, as fans, are supposed to discuss the news.
If the news is that Affliction is struggling financially, it’s their job to report it, and our job to discuss it.
For some reason there seems to be a lot of people who want to blame fans for Affliction’s problems and that just doesn’t make a lot of sense. It is Affliction MMA’s job to make the fans want to buy their product not the fans responsiblity to blindly support everything they do.
Exactly.
I understand the fact that the long-awaited “next Pride” would make the UFC step up their game and continually put quality shows. But that doesn’t mean that every organization that comes along and tries will automatically be it.
It isn’t the media/blogosphere’s job to turn an organization into competition for the UFC.
I’m surprised how much talk there has been on the blogs and especially in the mainstream media. I do believe Trump helped in this regard. Both he and his family have the name recognition that no one else in MMA can currently rival. Their media connections are quite extensive.
by Cannon Jacques on Jan 24, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
I hope your right, because 100 000 PPV buys and Roy Englebrecht telling sherdog.com "We have a good chance to have back-to-back $2-million dollar gates, ticket sales have picked up this week". could mean they’ll be around to put on Fedor/Arlovski vs Barnett/Yvel. Here’s to hoping things come together for them with great night of fights!
YAMATO DAMASHII
I posted this as a comment on 5 oz, but I’ll post it here too. Because of the way MMA contracts are set up, the business side of things DO matter. It didn’t matter how much money was lost on The Rumble in the Jungle, because the succes s or failure of that card had nothing to do with how or when the fighters could fight again.
I’m all about sitting back and enjoying the fights, but when an organization fails, it becomes impossible to watch the fights because the fighters get stuck in contract limbo. Because of a promotion failing, I can’t enjoy Gina Carano fight. I can’t enjoy Nick Diaz fighting, and so on and so on.
Really?
EliteXC going out of business didn’t ruin my enjoyment of their events. Crazy, I know.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
Gina Carano’s options for employment are now limited is what I believe is being referenced, not the subjective enjoyment of viewing any of Elite’s events.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 24, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
She will be fine...
And what were her options before hand? She is getting paid a lot more due to EliteXC and CBS than she ever was through different opportunities.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
She could still be in Elite on CBS if they had not been run into the ground.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 24, 2009 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
Or she would have never gotten the opportunity.
Or, she could still be there since EliteXC is not completely gone yet.
All ifs…
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 24, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
Your point?
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 24, 2009 12:56 AM EST up reply actions
Very true.
By seeking information, and thus encouraging transparency, everyone is better off. Fighters are better able to make long-term career decisions. Investors deploy funding to the well managed entities and not the ones destined for failure. Scrutiny improves businesses on balance.
by Cannon Jacques on Jan 24, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
lets say by miracle that Affliction is able to sell 10,000 seat and sell 250k ppv’si’d be willing to bet the people voting or debating that Affliction’s business model SHOULDN’T matter would be the 1rst ones on here to boast about it. :)
by bdw on Jan 24, 2009 1:42 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Is there a reason to pay for the PPV if the business doesn’t matter, if all that promotional stuff doesn’t count? The fighters have their money secured — they will get paid either way.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 24, 2009 1:49 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
