Co-Promotion Is Not the Future of Mixed Martial Arts

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 4:23 PM EST in News Comment 106 comments

Ultimate_fighting_championship_ufc_medium In late 2007 and early 2008, a mantra developed that the UFC could not hold on to power in the industry for long. Fans would demand to see the best fight the best, and eventually the UFC would be forced to co-promote. I never believed this, but when it looked like Randy Couture vs. Fedor Emelianenko would imminently take place on another organization's card, and Tito Ortiz was making noise about going to CBS, even I had my doubts.

Whereas 2007 was a year of expansion and aggression for the UFC, 2008 was a year of consolidation. They effectively smashed EliteXC by stepping on the organization's throat when it was down, and did the same to Affliction by bringing back Randy Couture and driving them out of Las Vegas. I'd be shocked if we see more than three shows from Affliction. Early indicators suggest UFC 92 broke the 600,000 buy mark, which means they comfortably set the all-time PPV revenue record in 2008.

The UFC is the future of Mixed Martial Arts. In 2009 they will shut off the only remaining path to competing with them: international exposure. Before the UFC went international, there was always a possibility that a group could catch fire in Europe, create a number of stars, and then bring an established brand over to the U.S. This door is being closed as we speak. The video game will result in even more fan consolidation.

The only important commodities in American MMA that Zuffa doesn't control are Fedor Emelianenko and women's MMA (Gina Carano). They can achieve full consolidation without picking up either, but the game is up once those are both taken care of. Fedor is meaningless in the U.S., but he is the greatest fighter of all time and it doesn't make the UFC look good to have a champion that is clearly not as good as a guy outside of the organization. Gina is a big draw, but without an outlet she's no threat, and Dana already has expressed interest in her.

There are numerous upsides and downsides to this reality which have been debated for years, but the bottom line is that Zuffa achieved its dominance through free competition. By delivering a consistent, high-quality product, they've earned a degree of consumer trust and name recognition that will be nearly impossible for competitors to overcome. New companies will come and go, but in order to compete with Zuffa you need to be able to compete with their revenue, and I don't see anyone doing that.

Even if ESPN all of a sudden decided to jump into the MMA game and compete with the UFC, it still wouldn't mean anything in the long term. It would likely just end up creating a lot more UFC fans, and a lot more stars for the UFC to take once ESPN makes them into valuable commodities. The market opportunities in MMA remain vast going forward, but there is no market for a national competitor to Zuffa.

0 recs | Comment 106 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The UFC didn’t have anything to do really with EliteXC going down.
They never ran a PPV event and got pretty good ratings on network TV.

Their own manegement broght them down.
They needed no help from the UFC to go 50 Mill + in debt.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 6, 2009 4:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Zuffa had alot to do with it… you dont what was going on behind the scenes.

There was a “kill” order issued which meant whatever fighter that got an offer from elite, zuffa would match it.

This meant Elite had to pay them twice the amount because you get more sponsorship rev with zuffa, among other things.

This was the “kill” order. This hurt a lot more than than the counter programming.

Here’s the problem:

Zuffa plays chess while these knuckleheads play checkers.

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I like how the narrative has turned to “UFC killed EXC” in spite of the vast array of evidence to the contrary. Of course, in the next 7 days ZombieXC in some form or (live) Strikeforce on NBC could be announced and suddenly we’re all back at square one discussing what could happen if someone provides enough monetary incentive for a fighter like GSP to jump ship. If either of those rather strongly rumored things happen, there’s no more “consolidation” in the market than there was at the start of ’08.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 4:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think that the UFC was the principle mechanism by which EliteXC attained “MEGA-FAIL”; however, the counter programming certainly wasn’t helpful, and had to be a factor in CBS’s assessment of their investment (accidentally psuedo-rhymed there; sorry about that).

by Rundownloser on Jan 6, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The counter programming had nothing to do with its demise. Its own corruption prevented it from being ultimately being purchased by CBS. This isn’t something I’m making up on the spot, its the postmortem from the most respected journalists in MMA. What argument is there to the contrary? The best argument you can produce to claim that the UFC killed them is that Dana White posted a video blog about the standup scandal.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m saying that the counter-programming most likely drove down the ratings, specifically in those key demographics, which couldn’t look good for the CBS execs. Coupled with everything else, I think it probably made CBS wary of em’.

Yet again, it wasn’t the most important factor in their decision by far, but all this shit adds up, especially when you’re dealing with execs of a major network.

by Rundownloser on Jan 6, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, their ratings were really good and CBS was happy with them.
The UFC counter-programming affected Affliction a lot more than it EVER did EliteXC.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 6, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is quite the view of history, in which Pro Elite was viable until this happened. Do you remember why they had to be purchased? It was because they had burned through 50 million and could not get a single loan because they were such a horrible investment. Dana White pressuring the Florida Commission and other commissions to get involved had everything to do with CBS backing out and not wanting to be involved with the product. Corruption didn’t kill it, it died on its own and corruption prevented life support from starting.

None of the big stars are leaving UFC for these other groups unless they have a major falling out with Dana.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana White was the key instrument in pressuring the Florida Athletic Commission for their non-investigation? That’s a new one I’ve not heard before. In any case, there would be no investigation or call for it without Seth Petruzelli being on the radio, in which case they get purchased and run that show on November 20th.

Big stars will leave if the money is good enough. “steady work” versus a single monster paycheck and monster paychecks will always win.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big stars will leave if the money is good enough. "steady work" versus a single monster paycheck and monster paychecks will always win.

The question is how much longer will companies be willing to pay more than the UFC for a given fighter. If the UFC keeps developing new revenue streams (it will), then at some point no upstart company will be able to afford overpaying a fighter compared to the UFC. Right now, Affliction had to pay Arlovski, Sylvia and company hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them to jump ship. What happens when the requirement for a star to jump ship becomes millions of dollars, or tens of millions?

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are already seeing prices come down with Affliction. It is clear that in order for a company to have a future in MMA, realistic paycheques have to become the norm.

by pud333 on Jan 6, 2009 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

about the fighters pay. However there will never be one promotion for MMA there are too many good fighters for one promotion to keep everyone happy and someone willing to spend money to get into the business. Like a Mark Cuban or maybe Marc Ecko. Also Strikeforce isn’t going anywhere and will most likely grow, and as disappointing as TV rating seem for the Dynamite show Japanese MMA isn’t going anywhere either.

by tylerdurden1 on Jan 6, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

there are too many good fighters for one promotion to keep everyone happy

What exactly does this mean? I hear it pretty regularly, but it doesn’t actually mean anything. The UFC can keep as many fighters as it can hold events to fit them, and they’ll get bigger as they continue to open markets. And there won’t be only one promotion even if they UFC continues to dominate the market, there will always be single-A, double-A and triple-A type promotions.

someone willing to spend money to get into the business.

Sure, there will always be room for someone willing to spend money. . . at the lower levels. But at the elite levels, the barriers to entry will continue to get higher and higher. Is there room to enter at the elite level of basketball, or baseball, or football? Right now the UFC is still young, but odds are good that they will eventually drive up the paychecks to the point that nobody will be willing to compete.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

What I mean by there are too many good fighters out there for one promotion to keep happy is that the UFC has cut their roster to 180 and I’ve seen reports where they’d like to get it down to 140 eventually. So those fighters that aren’t in the UFC are going to go somewhere and there are enough high quality guys for other promotions to sign.

by tylerdurden1 on Jan 6, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But most of those fighters getting cut are bottom feeders. Its one thing to have a triple-A promotion filled with those guys. But nobody would ever be able to compete for top-level MMA dollars with guys like Jess Liaudin and Dean Lister.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not talking just about the guys getting cut. I’m talking about the high caliber fighters who aren’t currently in the UFC. Guys (and woman) from Strikeforce, (ex) EliteXC, Europe, Korea, Japan and elsewhere. There are too many to fight in just one promotion. So there is always going to be someone else and that someone will always try and get bigger and compete with the top dog.

by tylerdurden1 on Jan 6, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But the top fighters are moving towards the UFC, not away. Thats a fact. Denis Kang is one example of a guy who spurned the UFC for K-1 originally, and is now in the UFC. Akiyama is supposedly in talks with the UFC, and now Overeem says he’s talking with the UFC. There are maybe three guys in all of Strikeforce who could compete with the top ten fighters in their division in the UFC, and the UFC is clearly courting Cung Le. DHK and Akiyama are the top Korean fighters, they have DHK and are courting Akiyama. Once they develop a real presence in Japan, they’ll get more Japanese fighters.

This “too many for one promotion” thing doesn’t hold water. Once the UFC can afford to pay them, they can have all of the elite fighters. Enough anyway to prevent any serious top-level competition.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right now it’s still smart for guys like Melendez and Shields to build a rep outside of UFC before going in at a low pay rate.

The main obstacle to them having all fighters (Fedor excluded) is Dana having personal animus with a number of guys. It’s one of his failings, but at the same time it’s part of the same personality that made everything work. It strikes me that he should be in charge of everything, but not in charge of talent relations.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Care to explain how the personal animus prevents the UFC from getting fighters? I’ve yet to hear a report of ANY fighter whose UFC banishment didn’t ultimately revolve around money and marketability. And I say this pretty much every time it comes up, and nobody gives me a good unimpeachable example.

Maybe there was one last time, I forget who. Regardless though, Frank Shamrock: money. Tito: money. Barnett: money. Lindland: marketability. Etc, etc, etc.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by tylerdurden1 on Jan 6, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Every single fighter you mentioned there has not just had money issues. Every one of them had personal issues with Dana White. I can’t recall off the top of my head exactly what they were but they’re not fans of White. I don’t think I’ve heard a fighter complain about the Fertitta’s it’s always White.

by tylerdurden1 on Jan 6, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, they’ve had issues, but that hasn’t stopped them from signing. Barnett has stated flat out that they won’t pay him as much as he can make in Japan, and he loves fighting in Japan. Lindland made an outright request to be brought back. Tito spent the past couple years in the UFC, and now they’re fighting over money. Shamrock. . . Shamrock is just strange.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Shamrock

is just strange. LOL very true, but off topic I think he did do a good job as a broadcaster for CBS.

by tylerdurden1 on Jan 6, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the fighters and their reps had to negotiate they would be complaining about lorenzo and not Dana…

This has nothing to do with Dana… It has everything to do with the Fact that he’s the one who is negotiating.

If Lorenzo was negotiating he would give up farr less than Dana on certain things.

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Moreover, you’re talking about right now. As the UFC keeps opening markets, their roster WILL get bigger.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not one promotion for MMA – just the best fighters in the world. Nobody ever said regional MMA wouldn’t thrive under a Zuffa-dominated landscape.

by subo on Jan 6, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As long as the UFC is king, I assure you it will never become tens of millions.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d consider that if it was spoken by somebody who isn’t an obvious UFC hater.

Hell, it might be true, I haven’t looked at the economics of it. But you’re not any sort of reliable commentator.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Geez, you’re pretty touchy. Unless you plan to back up you accusations with some kind of substance, its just petty name calling.

If you DID look at the economics of it, you’d know that under the current system, no fighter will ever be pulling down that kind of per-fight money.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Please. Do you actually deny having an anti-UFC bias?

And as for the current system, its all a matter of scale. Nobody will make that kind of money with the current numbers the UFC runs. But the sport is still in its infancy, and there are a ton of markets remaining to be opened.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Making accusations of bias with nothing to back it up is just weak. Are you one of those “fans” who feels you can’t criticize the UFC unless you praise them in equal or greater amounts?

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Have you ever praised the UFC for anything?

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I haven’t seen it. But I’ve been wrong before.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And if you’re willing to analyze the UFC without bias, care to explain why the current system will never require competitors to pay tens of millions?

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because under the current system, UFC would have to sell like 3 million PPVs for any fighter to be sniffing the ten million dollar range. Unless the MMA business takes a radical left turn towards the boxing model, where the main event fighters control their own destiny, its unfathomable.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno. I think the 1.5 million mark is within reach over the next 10 years, and free television and other revenue sources should push the high-end paychecks into the many millions of dollars. Considering that a competing promotion will have to cover lost sponsorship money as well, I could see the requirements to get a superstar reach well over 10 million a fight. In twenty years, its even more likely.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would a competing promotion automatically need to “cover lost sponsorship money”? A fighter won’t be able to get sponsorship say, headlining a live Strikeforce event on NBC?

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lyoto Machida is my favorite fighter. The WFA purchase brought him over, and they honored his deal, paying him well above the average rate for a UFC newcomer. Praise The Dana for this glorious move. Praise UFC.

Happy?

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really? Thats the best you can do?

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see any scenario in which headliners in MMA make tens of millions per fight.

The biggest purses in MMA has paid about 20-25% to the headliners. That was Liddel/Ortiz II and Lesnar/Couture, both saw fighters make between 2-3 million each. If 91 did one million buys, the UFC grossed around 25 million. Even if they gave HALF of the gross to Couture and Lesnar, it still would have been 5-7 million each.

No other company have been able to generate that kind of revenue. MMA is simply not big enough and likely won’t be for at least five more years.

by Lynchman on Jan 6, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d say longer, but I could see it happening. Maybe 15-20 years from now.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares if a fighter doesnt make 10 million per fight…

Are you his fucking agent where youd get 10% or a fan???

It amazes me how people complain about fighters who make 1m per fight not making 5 or 10m.

Look at the lower levels.

The lower level and midlevel guys in the UFC make way more than their counter parts in Boxing.

The communists should be happy… instead their whining about guys who make millions a year that should make 10’s of millions.

Just doesnt make sense.

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Who’s complaining? I just said it wasn’t going to happen. Read more carefully.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I see no logical reason to think the astronomic growth in fighter pay won’t continue. Remember when people said Kevin Brown’s $105 million contract would ruin baseball? Time has a funny way of rendering ‘fer sher’ statements like that utterly ridiculous.

by subo on Jan 6, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’ve got a point. I would add that predicting the future isn’t usually a productive use of time. There are simply many things that will happen in the future that we can’t possibly account for. It can work both ways in regard to growth of the sport and in turn fighter pay.

by Cannon Jacques on Jan 6, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What astronomical growth? The biggest sums we’ve heard of are in the $2 million dollar range. Ogawa/Yoshida got that kind of money back in 2005.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As fans you should want fighter pay not to get enormous… you think these guys will give a shit about you if they start making 10 mil a fight?

Right now UFC fighters are the most accessible to fans in any major sport.

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t care what people are paid as long as good fights happen. Alternately, I realize that money pushes forward sports. If someone can make spending $10 million on purses for Fedor/Lesnar work outside the UFC, what the hell do I care what banner its under?

As for accessibility, uh, MMA is basically a niche sport and the salaries reflect that. I don’t see Chuck Liddell as being more “accessible” than a guy who plays back shooting guard on an NBA team.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On the growth tip

Couture’s reported pay for UFC 91 was more or less the same as Liddell’s for UFC 66. Obviously that doesn’t provide the complete picture, but you could argue the payouts at the absolute upper echelon of the sport have remained flat over the past few years.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You could argue that if you go only based on what the commissions report, but that’s a bad assumption. We have Fedor getting 300k which is really 1.5 million, Frank Trigg fighting for $1, and countless other reports of “locker-room bonuses,” PPV cuts, etc. All the salaries are going up.

by Phildo on Jan 6, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

with multiple top level promotions you will always have the question who is really the best, a la boxing and current mma. one premier league or promotion with smaller regional feeders is, i think, the optimal system. i will bet you that Dana White is praying for an Arlovski victory.

by #5mmafan on Jan 6, 2009 4:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ESPN

ESPN might be the only legitimate contender left: they have endless money and tons of experience in production. Not only that, but they have a channel on which to promote their product (and not promote the UFC). Fox Sports could do the same thing, having the advantage that they’re not owned by the Mouse House, but the disadvantage of being a lesser name (the cable sports channels, I mean).

There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!

by Drewplata on Jan 6, 2009 4:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Now it only remains to be seen whether or not this turns out as a good thing for the sport.

by Rundownloser on Jan 6, 2009 4:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Early indicators suggest UFC 92 broke the 600,000 buy mark, which means they comfortably set the all-time PPV revenue record in 2008.

Hey Rome – by this you mean 2008 was the biggest year for PPV revenue in UFC history?

by Chris Nelson on Jan 6, 2009 4:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It had more to do with Brock Lesnar PPVs really.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 6, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What does that matter, he is a UFC fighter.

And they set the all time one year PPV revenue record. Not for UFC, for everyone.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How many ppv’s did brock “sell” when he fought for k-1???

Oh right…

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Come on.
K-1 did NO marketing for that show. Plus, would have been great to see HMC defeat Lesnar and stop all this Brock buzz from the get go.

UFC fans/ WWE fans have many things in common anyways.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 6, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So then it isn’t just Brock, the UFC had something to do with them setting the revenue record.

by Phildo on Jan 6, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Everybody is a “draw” and a “superstar” (its just a coincidence that they are always in the UFC)

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lesnar would’ve ripped HMC’s arm off and beaten him with it. And I’m an HMC fan, too.

You must not be a UFC fan. Weird, for an MMA fan.

by subo on Jan 6, 2009 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes AND for any company ever.

by nk on Jan 6, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I was wondering – UFC’s 2008 was better than WWF’s best PPV year ever?

by Chris Nelson on Jan 6, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes it beat WWF 2001 unless the 92 numbers come in surprisingly low.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Was it revenue, or buys? I was under the impression the numbers being compared were buys. Which should give it much more revenue than WWE’s top years, but maybe not as much as boxing’s top.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s total revenue: http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ppvbuys121208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

With 12 pay-per-view events in 2008, UFC has a good shot at breaking the all-time record for pay-per-view revenue set by any organization during a calendar year. The World Wrestling Federation, now known as World Wrestling Entertainment, did approximately $260 million on pay-per-view during its heyday fueled headliners by "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, in 2001. Boxing’s biggest year was 2007, with HBO estimating $255 million on eight shows, carried by the Oscar De La Hoya vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr., fight, which drew pay-per-view’s all-time record of 2.4 million buys.

UFC needs about 514,000 buys out of its final show of the year to break the WWF single-year revenue record. The show features a triple bill of Forrest Griffin vs. Rashad Evans for the light heavyweight title, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira vs. Frank Mir for the interim heavyweight title and a future shot at Lesnar to unify the titles, and Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

SBN doesn’t like hyphens in URLs.

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 6, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hyphens arent good for seo.

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

by Richard Wade on Jan 6, 2009 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And in a horrible, horrible economy, no less.

by subo on Jan 6, 2009 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s impossible to say there won’t be competitors for the UFC in the future, but there certainly don’t seem to be any likely competitors on the horizon. The UFC has insulated themselves from competition about as well as possible. They really don’t have to look over their shoulder. Instead, their main objectives will involve building on their success and not making mistakes that might give someone an opening to compete.

by Cannon Jacques on Jan 6, 2009 5:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The UFC is the future of Mixed Martial Arts.

I have no problem with this, so long as the brothers and White are in charge. It is clear Zuffa really cares about their product, and for the future of MMA (albeit under their firm control).

by pud333 on Jan 6, 2009 5:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Finally! It has seemed to me that every MMA journalist felt the opposite. Glad someone gets it.

by nk on Jan 6, 2009 5:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

“The UFC is the future of Mixed Martial Arts. In 2009 they will shut off the only remaining path to competing with them: international exposure. Before the UFC went international, there was always a possibility that a group could catch fire in Europe, create a number of stars, and then bring an established brand over to the U.S. This door is being closed as we speak.”

I think you’re really overstating the power of the UFC brand internationally, and I really doubt they can expand at a rate where they even reach all the major markets before 2010. Their brand is not the be-all and end-all of fight sport in most of the world, and it won’t be any time soon. In Asia and much of Europe, K-1 has been going strong for more than a decade. In places like Germany, boxing is king, and it remains to be seen if UFC can create a toehold as a major live attraction there. In Amsterdam, a K-1 card can sell out a 25,000 seat stadium, but would that same audience go for a big UFC fight like Lesnar vs. Mir? Don’t even get me started on Japan.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 5:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

When I speak internationally, I think I’m referring to something different than you are.

To compete with the UFC in the United States you need to compete with them in terms of revenue. If you don’t have the revenue, they will be able to slowly destroy you and take your stars away, hindering any growth. A major MMA company that got television deals through Europe and followed the UFC’s reality show model could have established a powerful revenue base in Europe, and then come to the US with the kind of revenue power needed to compete. Now with the UFC in the closing portion of deals for television throughout Europe, they are shutting that door. Ultimate Fighter will be the MMA reality show. European TV is not like American TV with a million outlets, there aren’t as many options.

It’s true in Amsterdam K-1 can sell out a major stadium, but MMA can’t. The UFC really isn’t competing with kickboxing in any meaningful way, it’s a different sport and a very different business concept.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

What you’re saying is true for the UK, and its possible they could lock down parts of Europe as well, but as long as there are powerful organizations like FEG out there, with a wide array of TV deals, I think the door will be still be ajar at least a bit. And it remains to be seen how successful the UFC product can be as fight sport in some of these countries.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Example

Can they really build a superstar fighter for the German market? Randy Couture doesn’t count.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whats stopping them? MMA will need to get bigger, but its not out of the question.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Does he not count though? Bisping may be a moderate star in the UK, but the biggest stars there are the big UFC names. BJ Penn was a huge star when he went, and the possibility of Chuck Liddell sold over 10,000 tickets to the June London show…when he cancelled, no more were sold, even when Bisping was added.

I don’t think there’s really a huge need for localized stars, the fans there want to see the names. It’s actually kind of like WWE, they can have some British popular stars, but the big buyrates, ratings, and gates come for the big WWE stars not the British ones.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thats true… I guess I’m just skeptical that they’ll have palatable stars for some of the markets. The reason I say Randy doesn’t count is that he will almost certainly not be fighting in a couple year’s time, and the same applies to Liddell. Other than Lesnar, I’m not sure they have those megastars who they can sell anywhere.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It won’t be a slam dunk, it all depends on the TV deal they get. It looks like they are closing two deals, one of which is to air all the seasons of the Ultimate Fighter and unleashed episodes, and the other is for live events. I think with enough saturation you can create a desire to see fights and see them live.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if they get a decent deal with, say, Pro-Sieben, its not as if MMA must take off. Germans may not give a crap about it in the same fashion they would NASCAR, which is a helluva lot more popular and money making than MMA here in the US.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would say Couture doesn’t count because he A) doesn’t have a long career ahead of him B) its not even established that he is a star in Germany.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Its all in the system…

You see wolfslair in england? How many english stars you think will come out of their?

That’s just part of the system.

Prepare the ground, water the plants, collect the honey.

its all in the system….

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some thoughts and comments:

A) Affliction does not nec pay more than the UFC, just more up front. AA and Sylvia signed deals that pay them quite a bit of a downside, but many UFC headliners still make a fair amount more after ppv bonuses.

B) Tyler said Japanese MMA is not going anywhere. It may not die, but it is pretty sick. Neither WVR nor Dream are actually making money. I predict that one will be dead by the end of 09.

C) The UFC did not kill Elite, Elite killed Elite. Dana certainly belittled them, but they NEVER ran a single profitable show. Some are saying it was poor management, which is true to a certain degree, but that is a generalization.

They did have Network television, but the deal was such a poor one that they could not make any money off of it.

The only way they would have made it, with CBS, was if they had a strong PPV right after that was heavliy promoted during the broadcast. That was not pos because Elite never had a deep enough roster.

D) The international market: Smoogy makes some good points, but I don’t totally agree with him.

The UFC will be expanding into continental Europe in 09. They are wisely adding more European fighters to their roster and are signing new television deals to gain more exposure.

Will they draw twenty thousand? Maybe not, but they will be able to increase their influence and establish new stars.

It took them a while in the U.K., but they are now making money there and have Bisping as an actual star. It will take time and money, but the same will happen in Europe.

by Lynchman on Jan 6, 2009 6:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Japanese MMA will consolodate somewhat and will act as the “strikeforce” of japan to the UFC.

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 6:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

LOL…

Not going to happen.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 6, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wanna bet?

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Consolidation looks like the most likely outcome as ratings deteriorate.

by Michael Rome on Jan 6, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DREAM and Sengoku could amalgamate in some form, but they won’t become the “Strikeforce of Japan to the UFC” any time soon. Right now DREAM is on a major network and UFC is on some subscription channel that nobody watches. In Japan, they are the Iron Rang to DREAM’s UFC… or perhaps the BodogFIGHT! to DREAM’s EliteXC. Something like that.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who said soon? I’m thinking more over the course of a decade.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 6, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of things could happen in a decade, dude. Dana and the Fertittas could die in a plane crash and Mr. X could lead a coup to overtake Macau by 2019. I feel anything but confident about where the sport will be anywhere, US included, at that point. What happens if Steve Mazzagatti lets someone take 1 too many punches? What happens if someone like Lesnar has a major joint injury?

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyway, call it a hunch, but I think we might see UFC try to gang up with Sengoku. That is one of the only routes open for them if they want to have their product on a Japanese network.

by smoogy on Jan 6, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t want to read too much into Ishii showing up at the last Sengoku card with the UFC shirt on, but I have a feeling that it was something more than Ishii really like the shirt Dana gave him when he visited Vegas.

by Phildo on Jan 6, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would not compare them to Strikeforce, as SF makes money on each show. Neither Japanese company is making money.

I think we will see one company, but they will have to scale back the production if they want to continue to exist. Sadly, that goes against much of the Japanese thinking.

by Lynchman on Jan 6, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Michael Rome, get out of my brain

You have set forth the undeniable fact of the UFC’s dominance better than I ever could. No matter what the haters and ‘hardcore’ (read as: I was here before when you were watching pro wrestling and I loved Pride and hate Dana and you bastards are ruining my sport waaaaah) fans say, the UFC is what it is because the fans have made it so.

by subo on Jan 6, 2009 8:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The funny thing is Pride WAS pro-wrestling.

If you think elite xc was bad and corrupt as shit… pride was 10 times worse – only with a suit on.

Quinton Jackson was offered a losing bonus.

To this day Japanese MMA is not real MMA.

The organizations control the judging and the referees. Imagine if Zuffa did that shit.

And as I continue to harp on they Dont Drug Test!

Japanese mma is pro-wrestling.

The “hard-cores” are like closet homosexuals where the bash and make fun of people who watch american pro-wrestling yet they get their groove on in a mens bathroom stall in the local airport (watch japanese "mma")

by mmalogic on Jan 6, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Zuffa controls the judging and refs for the overseas events.

by D.Capitated on Jan 6, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At least they pick from the same pool the ACs use. I haven’t seen Earl Hebner turn up reffing a UFC bout yet. :p

by ilostmydog on Jan 6, 2009 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And they suspended Chris Leben for steroids with that in house testing at a UK event. What’s your point?

by LiuLang on Jan 6, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you know what the standards were for the testing? I sure don’t.

by D.Capitated on Jan 7, 2009 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The refs, testing, and judges are all payed and hired by a third party… yeah zuffa pays the third party but zuffa also pays a commission fees when its sanctioned.

Yeah a private entity is not as good as a public one – whats the other solution?

You want Zuffa to start toppling governments and creating commissions now?

by mmalogic on Jan 7, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs