Hardcore fans taking food off Pat Barry's plate.

It goes past not buying the ppv

It comes down to not spending a cent in the mma economy. Not going to a gym which is more than likely run by a fighter. Not supporting sponsors which support the fighters. Just plain not spending any money. In economics your dollar is your vote. If you want something to play a larger role in the economy and society as a whole, spend money on it.

by hlebtasic on Oct 28, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i dont know if i would call it “wrong” for someone to not go to a gym. but there are so many different avenues people could put their money, yet they choose not to. they choose to steal the PPV, they choose to belittle anyone and everyone who wears a Tapout etc. shirt which has to have some affect on the sales of such shirts which has to have some affect on the money they can give out as sponsorship dollars. i’m not saying i’ve never made a crack at some of the stuff (i clearly did in the article), but i’m saying if we want fighters to be paid more, WE have to be the ones to do it. sure, no stupid fanpost is going to change things, but hopefully it starts a conversation where “that guy” is looked at in a negative light whereas before, most no one ever says anything and keeps the site names quiet so we dont “ruin it for the rest of them”.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 28, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most don’t belittle people who wear Tapout just because they are wearing the shirt. They are belittling because the individual in that shirt is usually acting like a jackass MMA fan.

by brandonh on Oct 28, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another unintentionally hilarious aspect of the MMA culture is the abundance of retarded macho "fight wear" T-shirts. The enormous financial success of enterprising clothing companies like "Tapout" have given birth to a rise of ham-handed imitators where each one tries to out retard the next. Images of chained up pitbulls and skulls are the norm with shiny foil letters to make sure you can clearly read the "Break my [expletive] off in your [expletive] – fight wear" label.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/Rogan-bites-the-hand-that-feeds-him?urn=mma,191268 (sorry, wish i could reference the bloodyelbow post)
i was mainly referencing Joe Rogans rant where the comments section of various sites was filled with bitching about the shirts, which i’m not saying is awful, but it is an income source for these fighters.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 28, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

People in MMA shirts aren’t usually acting like jackasses. The people acting like jackasses are usually wearing MMA shirts. Two different things.

by MMAInFeRioRiTy on Oct 28, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those jackasses who are buying the shirts and looking goofy trying to live the so called lifestyle are probably pumping more money into this sport than any of us are, it’s the meatheads with fat wallets that allow us to enjoy the sport being at the level it is today and they are the ones responsible for it’s growth. Lets face facts when you belittle that doofus in the tapout shirt who drops money on every event and buys the merchandise like it’s crack you are belittling the goose that is laying our golden eggs.

Far from making fun of the meatheads you should be walking them to the store and helping them blow their whole paycheck on MMA programming and products because that’s what the sport needs.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I don’t think any of these things in and of themselves are “wrong.” I think its the culmination of these things that is detrimental to the sport.

by hlebtasic on Oct 28, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think most of my frustration came from the conversations i’ve had with people who bitch that a fighter can make such little money… and then 2 minutes later brag about watching the fights on ********* (still cant bring myself to outing their sites, am i a hypocrite or what)

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 28, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good post. I totally agree...

and it’s the same issue I have with people stealing music. Both fighters and musicians dedicate themselves to doing what they love, and accept that they generally aren’t going to make any more than a living with it. To steal their work is just as bad as stealing anything else, and particularly clueless since those who do are hurting people whose fights they obviously get a lot of entainment value out of. There’s plenty of options if you can’t afford the pay-per-view, starting with getting a couple people to chip in, or going out to a bar that has them (which I admit can become far more expensive than a PPV :). Doing this isn’t sticking it to the ubiqitous “man”, it’s damaging people you admire and respect as athletes and martial artists.

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 28, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like I perpetrate to some extent...

I mean, I’m in college in a small town where there are no jobs (at least not for kids in class 4 hours a day). When I’m back home, I buy the 3-4 PPVs I can see because I’m working and can afford it. But at school, while I don’t stream, I do watch vids the next day. Obviously the UFC would prefer that I bought the PPV, but are they really pissed that I see their product the next day in a non-live, grainy version? I’m getting the advertising they show, their fighters are being exposed to me which in turn will cause me to buy those 3-4 PPVs in the summer when I can afford it.

And with musicians, I play myself so I can sympathize to a small extent, were I to try becoming professional. But due to my limited funds, I have to select what I consume. I’ll buy the new LCD Soundsystem album rather than Tha Carter III, because I know Tha Carter III is going 2x platinum whether I buy it or not. I’ll download the album, because I like Weezy. Would he be pissed that I downloaded rather than bought it? Perhaps, but would he rather me not listen to his music at all?

Don’t get me wrong, this in no way justifies my doing it; it’s just my rationale.

P.S. Sorry for the WALL OF TEXT, I try not to post them often.

We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.

by Robert Downey Sr. on Oct 29, 2009 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, obviously I’m not your Dad, and I’m a moderate Libertarian really, so I’m not gonna freak on you and pull my internet billy club out or anything. I did the foreclosure dance a few years back, and I definitely know what it’s like to be pretty damn broke. I guess just do the best you can, and pay for it as much as possible. You’re aware of the issue, and honest about it, so I’d assume you’ll keep in mind how much the fighters put into it. It’d also be nice if there was some kind of bulk discount. Like I pay $350-$400 a year, and get all UFC content. Something along those lines…anyway, my wall of text groweth as well…so I’ll just add that perhaps your challenge is to recruit a few new fans at home to split the cost up with. Consider your free ones to be a promotional fee for yourself :)

by Kwisatz Haderach on Oct 29, 2009 3:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mean, I’m in college in a small town where there are no jobs (at least not for kids in class 4 hours a day).

Meh.

When I was in college, I always found staying in to watch a PPV was much cheaper than a typical Saturday night out bar hopping and chasing tail. We’d usually swing down to the local pony keg and grab a quarter barrel, cram 8-12 people in front of the boob tube, and order a couple of pizzas. It usually wound up costing about $10/person, which was WAY less than what we would spend in the bars.

by Steve4192 on Oct 29, 2009 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh brother let me tell you

I’m in a magical place with free beer (for your first two years at least). We have these things called “Eating Clubs” which are sort of fraternities since frats were banned 100 years ago. The intent of the ten different Eating Clubs, which are all along the same street—cleverly referred to as The Street—is to provide upperclassmen with meals. But on Thursday-Saturday, at night they go on tap with dancefloors and other shit; they’re all these old huge mansions. Some you can just walk into, others you can easily get a colored pass from one of your upperclassmen friends in the club.

There is no better experience than walking up to the bar in the basement and one of my buddies pouring me a deliciously disgusting Beast. But, I’m gonna have to pay next year if I join one of the clubs… :(

We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.

by Robert Downey Sr. on Oct 29, 2009 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

:) We hardly even go to the bars

Grab a six pack and take it home

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Relating to the music comparison: Spider 1 from Powerman 5000 assumed I had downloaded the newest album when I met him. I had the brand new (unopened) cd in my hand and he asked me how I liked it. His bandmate pointed out that I had just bought it, so how would I know? Spider’s response was “He downloaded it, duh. So what did you think?” He actually seemed amused that his bandmate thought I HADN’T downloaded it.

by thekiltedwonder on Oct 29, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course he assumed you DL'ed it...

very few people would pay for a PM5K album

by Grappo on Oct 30, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i feel that streaming a ppv is wrong. in and of itself, theres no defence of it.

by ironic sumo on Oct 28, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, if there'

by I don't wear mma t-shirts on Oct 28, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i was going to say before I accidentally posted….

“well if there’s one thing I don’t, like its….”

by I don't wear mma t-shirts on Oct 28, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a ludicrous argument, really – the issue obviously isn’t a lack of revenue in the MMA economy, it’s the comparatively poor wages for mid-to-low tier UFC fighters and financial mismanagement of the money they do earn.

by An0nymous on Oct 28, 2009 4:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Seems like you’ve got it all figured out. If you want the lower tier fighters to make more money then the MMA economy will need to make more money.

by hlebtasic on Oct 28, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not saying those guys don’t deserve to get paid more because they do but to be honest most of those guys are interchangable parts as far as the UFC is concerned. The Brock Lesnar’s and GSP’s of the world are the ones who sell the PPV’s so they are gonna get the big dollars. I know people are gonna say there would be no UFC without the lower tier guys but the fact is they could probably find people to fight for $500 just to have a chance and to say they were a UFC fighter. Until a union forms, which is years away, the best way to show your support for the lower tier guys is to support their sponsors.

by ufc4 on Oct 28, 2009 5:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

most of those guys are interchangable parts as far as the UFC is concerned

and

but the fact is they could probably find people to fight for $500 just to have a chance and to say they were a UFC fighter

is why there will probably be no union. The lower tiered fighters have no pull to get concessions out of Zuffa (or Strikeforce or anyone). This is not baseball or football where they have to field a whole team, a mma card generally is dependent on only a few fighters at the top of the card. If those guys are happy the show goes on.

That’s why I think a true competitive labor market is so important. If not for the sport at least for the fighters back pocket.

by nottheface on Oct 28, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s blame piracy and just ignore the fact that Zuffa/DW could pay every fighter double and not even notice a difference in their daily lives. If everyone who enjoys MMA and doesn’t put a cent into it did so, the wages of UFC fighters wouldn’t be any different. It would just be that much more money going into some fat cat’s pockets.

by Ahhhoki on Oct 28, 2009 5:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nonsense. If the UFC paid double, they would not be in business. Right now, the UFC pays 20-35% of the total card revenue to fighters. By now, pretty much everyone knows the listed numbers are not the total, but rather only the contracted to fight and to win money.

Folks often ignore the very real fact that many of them make money based on the success of the show. Whether it is a contracted ppv cut or simply backstage bonuses, those are paid based on how well the show does.

As the ppv buys go up, so does the pay of fighters. The UFC pays more today than they did a couple of years ago.

If you want to support fighters, go to local shows. Without the smaller shows, fighters don’t make money. Support all companies. If I am going to watch a ppv at home, I am buying it. Be it UFC, Affliction, Elite or whatever. Put your money where your mouth is. Go to shows, buy ppvs. The MMA world overall needs to grow.

by Lynchman on Oct 28, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs

Zuffa could probably pay out a lot more and still make a profit. Supposedly the company’s EBITDA margin is somewhere between 40-50%.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/080_3.htmlrun

Not bad when you are bringing in $250 million in sales. And you know what? Good for Zuffa. They are a successful company, doing what companies do – maximizing their returns. But they are also benefitting from the current situation of imperfect competition. Because there is no real competition, Zuffa has become a monopsonist who is able to dictate terms to its suppliers (in this case the fighters). They have all the market power.

And that is why (baring some magical fighter union appearing) I am a big supporter of competition. Not because I am ant-Zuffa (I’m not, I love their product), but because I would like to see most of the economic power in the hands those doing the fighting. Sure it may keep us from seeing the all the fights we want, but isn’t it worth it if it drives the fighters salaries higher. Look how good it’s worked in the last six months with basically every major star in the UFC getting a cut of the PPV, just to quell even the possibility of them fighting against Fedor and/or on CBS. Now if they start can start competing over the lowered tier fighters, we’ll see some big changes in days ahead.

by nottheface on Oct 28, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

The UFC also reinvest earnings into growing the company at a drastically higher rate than most companies do, it’s not like they are just out there sitting on a big pile of cash they are growing an entire industry and reinvesting what they make. There is a lot more to the story than just basic operating expenses compared to Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Heck a 40% margin isn’t all that outrageous for a small strong growing company.

As far as competition goes, that’s a mixed bag and just not as simple an issue as a lot of people seem to believe. Competition just for competitions sake is utterly worthless it has to be the right competition doing the right things for it to even mean anything at all (not to mention that sports are very different from most other industries and thus the same business rules don’t always apply).

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This!

Someone with some clarity on the ‘UFC is greedy’ line of thought.

It doesn’t come cheap to try and bring MMA to new countries! No doubt alot of people need to be paid off for it to happen (most likely in the form of ‘entertainment’)

These expenses would likely NOT be on balance sheet, and could well be material.

'He built his whole reputation as a waffle house chef. They’ve been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes' - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko

by Well Read Idiot on Oct 29, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course they’re greedy, they’re a company. It’s their job to maximize profits. Or did I miss something and Zuffa has been giving away everything to charity?

And I am sure it is expensive to expand into other territories but somehow I don’t see them spending tens of millions on “entertainment”.

by nottheface on Oct 29, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heck a 40% margin isn’t all that outrageous for a small strong growing company

I believe you are mistaken here, for two reasons:
1) Zuffa, being valued at above $1 billion, is not a small company
2) 40% margin is huge. Look through the top 10 net profits of companies by industry and try and count how many companies’ profits are larger. It will be hard to find:
http://www.theonlineinvestor.com/en/stock_research/top_10_profit_margins/synthetics/

Now Zuffa does have some additional bills to pay, that probably cuts into it’s profts; the payments for all of their outstanding loans. Unfortunately their high loan payments have probably more to do with Station Casinos current status than anything Zuffa is doing.
http://www.watchkalibrun.com/2009/10/2/1066010/zuffa-takes-out-a-100-million-loan

by nottheface on Oct 29, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that’s a crock, if the UFC doesn’t make millions then the fighters don’t have jobs, that goes with every industry out there. Zuffa is a for profit business it is their fiduciary duty to make money for the owners. Blaming the company for doing what a company is supposed to do when you are failing to do what a consumer is supposed to do is self defeating and just plain lying to yourself.

The idea that if the UFC made more money the fighters would still make the same has already been proven to be just plain wrong because as the UFC’s profits have gone up so has the level of fighter pay. It wasn’t 6 years ago that the UFC payouts looked like current WEC payouts and it doesn’t take an accountant to compare the payouts of even a couple of years ago for events and see that they are steadily going up. Sure there is always room for a company to pay more and make less but a companies entire survival and the incomes of everyone who works there are directly tied to the consumers not the guys running the show.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if they’re not making enough profit they will cut back the number of events to drive up demand. Profit drives everything. On the night of a show some douchebag meathead who paid for the PPV is a much better mma fan than some guy streaming an illegal feed.

Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 28, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Exactly.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I buy all the PPVs that I watch but I will admit that I do archive some events when I have a chance and will stream events that simply aren’t possible to get here (Strikeforce/EliteXC not on CBS).

I’m sure there are a lot of ‘fans’ that think “The UFC doesn’t pay the fighters shit, Zuffa already makes a lot of money so I’ll just steal the PPV whenever I get a chance to ‘stick it to the man’”

It’s people like that that will drive the sport into the ground, they’ll rationalize anything.

by pr0cs on Oct 28, 2009 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

add WEC to that list because TSN puts on fucking underwater basket weaving or Poker or a boxing match from 1983 on instead of a WEC event.

by pr0cs on Oct 28, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get TSN2.

I am blinded by a sea of green.

by bubbafat on Oct 29, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m certainly guilty of that.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 28, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

this is just ridiculous.

Hardcore fans are the foundation of MMA’s success. Energize the core, and you energize the casual fanbase, that’s just how it works.

Most diehard MMA fans are the ones that watch every event live, be it on free TV, at a bar, a PPV that you watch with a few friends, etc. We’re more than doing our part. Those few people who have found live streams have probably done so because A) They don’t have the money to spend $20 at a bar of the $50 for a PPV, and they suffer because of it (poor quality, constant freezing/ lag, etc), and B) Because they’re a big fan of the sport, and are willing to commit a potential misdemeanor just to enjoy watching what they love.

I personally don’t watch live streams of the fights, because if i’m not at an MMA watching party, then i’m probably doing something else with my time, and watching the fights later on. But I can totally understand why some people go for the live streams. And honestly, who the hell are you to pass judgement on anyone?

1 person buying a PPV isn’t going to get Barry out of the monetary rut he was in, but you know what will? The $120,000 in bonus money he got for his spectacular comeback TKO. And until the sport gets more money and mainstream acceptance, there will always be guys like Pat Barry, Jeremy Horn, Dan Severn, Travis Fulton, etc

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Oct 28, 2009 5:22 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs

I am no one to pass judgment on anyone. And I am certainly not saying every hardcore is to blame. absolutely i would say that the UFC would not be where it is today without the leg work put in by the hardcores, what I am saying is that the ones who call themselves hardcores who dont spend any money yet complain about fighter pay, they are a big reason why the money isnt there to give them.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 28, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and 2, who can complain they dont have money but deserve to watch the PPV when the argument is about fighters not having enough money to eat. that is blatant arrogance.
and dont say they risk a potential misdemeanor to watch a sport they love by streaming it, thats an argument with no teeth.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 28, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That

only holds water if you can actually show that the people using streams are also complaining about fighter pay. Which is something that you’d be hard pressed to prove.

The entire argument is asinine, I mean honestly. As someone said before, if a stream exists, people are going to use it. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and i’m not condoning it but I can certainly understand why it happens. Pat Barry’s financial woes aren’t their fault.

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Oct 28, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re bit defensive about watching streams, aren’t you? =)

You can’t prove that people who watch illegally also complain, but you can’t prove that they don’t. As in all things, there are that group of people who do both. Judging by the commentators asking for streams on BE, I’d say there is a sizable portion who do.

How often have you heard: “This PPV is not worth my money, I’m going to find a stream.” There is a correlation between guys who don’t sell PPV and guys who aren’t paid well. When is the last time you pay a PPV to watch an under card fighter? That leads me to next rant, which is: don’t complain about a fighter being underpaid if you refuse to pay to watch the fighter. They get paid what they’re worth. If the fans don’t deem them worthy of paying ofr a PPV, then they’re worth 3000 or whatever they are paid.

As someone said before, if a stream exists, people are going to use it.

Speak for yourself. People are just not going steal because it’s easy. It’s always a choice.

by cyph on Oct 29, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed it is a choice

and there’s always going to be some people who don’t value a PPV at USD55.

But it IS worth the effort to go and find a stream.

by rainmaker6 on Oct 29, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh how horrible that these poor people have to deal with their free, illegal stream having low quality. Such suffering that they might have to deal with their free, illegal stream freezing up because they didn’t buy the PPV. Then these poor souls complain about fighter pay because they are big fans of the sport, and are willing to voice their opinion and even risk punishment by the law to watch the fights.

If it was just 1 person not buying the PPV, there wouldn’t be a problem. But the truth is, its not just 1 person getting the free stream. Its quite a significant number.

As MicahW said, your post provides noting in terms of a counter-argument.

by Swordslasher on Oct 28, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying

that we should sympathize with those who choose to watch the free streams. I’m just saying that they’re making a conscious decision to trade quality (shitty) for economy (free).

And how exactly do you even know what that a “Significant number” of people use these live streams? I’ll go with my gut and say that you’re just assuming that there’s some kind of proliferation.

My stance provides a quite adequate counter argument: that this thread is dumb, and purely based on conjecture

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Oct 28, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a plain fact that if the product isn’t purchased in sufficient numbers then the company goes under, that’s how capitalism works. If your watching a steam you aren’t supporting the company or the product or the sport.

Besides lets face it if you are stealing something then you are stealing something and that is all there is to that. I don’t care what it is a thief is a thief is a thief, it’s no different than going to Wal Mart and shoplifting.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t care what it is a thief is a thief is a thief, it’s no different than going to Wal Mart and shoplifting.

Sure it is. When you steal something from Wal-Mart, you prevent anyone else from buying that thing. When you stream a PPV, you don’t prevent anyone else from ordering it.

If you don’t plan to watch a PPV you can’t stream, then you’re not taking any money away from anyone.

by JRN on Oct 28, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s just making silly excuses, when you take something that wasn’t freely given then that is stealing and it is exactly the same thing. If a recording artist wants to give their songs away for free then that is perfectly fine but if they are trying to sell them and you take them for free then you are stealing from them. If the UFC is selling a PPV but you take the PPV for free then you are a thief just like any other thief out there and no silly justifications can change that.

Wal Mart has racks of stuff, when you put one in your pocket your not stopping the next guy from buying the next product on the rack, what defines the theft is the unlawful taking not the fact that a product is missing. If you want to steal stuff then fine but don’t try to make sad ass excuses for the behavior because that’s just lying to yourself.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wal Mart has racks of stuff, when you put one in your pocket your not stopping the next guy from buying the next product on the rack

But you are stopping the guy from buying the particular item that you took. That particular item, which could have generated profit, now cannot. In the case of PPV streaming, there is no item. You are not taking anything that someone else could have purchased instead.

I’m not denying that PPV streaming is stealing of a sort. I’m disputing that “it’s no different than going to Wal Mart and shoplifting.” It is clearly different, and to me, the difference is morally relevant (you don’t seem to agree, which is of course your prerogative).

by JRN on Oct 29, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And that is really funny because morally is where it is the exact same thing. If you wanted to argue that there was a financial difference due to the fact that there is a limited number of physical objects produced as opposed to the PPV the UFC provides then you might of found something worth arguing(although I really don’t care about that anyway) but from a moral standpoint then stealing is stealing is stealing. Hell from a moral standpoint was the only standpoint I was talking about to start with.

That is the morality of taking something that doesn’t belong to you. The stealing is in the fact that you took it, the fact that someone else may or may not be able to buy it because you took it is 100% irrelevant to the fact that you took something that didn’t belong to you. That isn’t my prerogative that’s just how it is, it’s all knowingly stealing something from somebody else. If you walk into someone else’s yard and take an apple from their tree then you are at a much different level legally and financially than if you took their car but from a moral standpoint you still took something that belonged to them without permission. A guy who steals a dollar or a million is still a thief and there just isn’t any getting around that with silly justifications.

by who me on Oct 29, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you wanted to argue that there was a financial difference due to the fact that there is a limited number of physical objects produced as opposed to the PPV the UFC provides then you might of found something worth arguing

This is exactly what I’m arguing. But on top of that, I’d argue that the financial difference is the morally relevant thing. Theft is not inherently immoral to me, and neither is breaking the law.

This discussion is some serious Kant vs. Mill type stuff. Oh dip.

by JRN on Oct 29, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Theft is not inherently immoral to me, and neither is breaking the law.

taking something that doesnt belong to you from someone else isn’t immoral to you? thats one of the most shameful things i’ve ever heard.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It just depends where you draw the line

If I take money from someone else’s pocket – that’s stealing right?

What if I found a wallet on the street and took the money out and chucked the wallet?

What if I just found the cash on the street?

by rainmaker6 on Oct 29, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re supposed to turn it in to the police. If someone don’t claim it, it’s yours. If you keep it, that’s stealing. But whatever…

A PPV is a profit generator. If you steal what you could potentially pay for, that’s money that the provider will not receive. That’s stealing their revenue stream. It’s theft.

by cyph on Oct 29, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Serial killers don’t believe murder is wrong. Immoral is immoral, regardless of what the person believe in.

by cyph on Oct 29, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thats the whole point of the article. people who steal would say “but i’m not hurting anyone” (with the wallet scenario)… but i was hoping by following up Luke Thomas’ article that there would be a face to whom people are stealing from. certainly not if one person decides to start paying for it will barry make more money, but lets assume there are 15,000 streaming (no proof to back it up, but i wouldnt be surprised), 15000 x $55 = $825,000 /2 (ufcs cut) = $412,500 EXTRA the ufc would make per show. lets assume they only pass half of that onto the fighters. $412,500 / 2 = $206,250 / 20 (#of fighters per card) = $10,312.50 MORE PER FIGHTER!!! sure, i concede that maybe the ufc would allocate the money differently, but its not mine nor anyone elses call to say “thats not how they would do it, so i wont give them the money to keep and not give the fighters”

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

Great post. Rec’d.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They don’t have the money to spend $20 at a bar of the $50 for a PPV, and they suffer because of it (poor quality, constant freezing/ lag, etc)

They literally don’t have the money as in they are only able to afford necessities or have decided that this particular luxury (UFC ppvs) is less important than other luxuries?

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m 24 and speaking of my own generation. but what happened to “if you dont have the money, do without” line of thinking? is it that high credit card debt is the social norm, because people need to have everything now? as i said earlier, did mom and dad give you such an inflated sense of entitlement that you literally deserve everything? what happened to some things being right and honorable and other things being wrong and shameful?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that the real problem is that a lot of people say “I want to see the UFC ppv and I want this new pair of shoes but I only have money for one. I can get the UFC ppv for free if I watch a pirated stream so I would rather do that and use my money for the shoes I want”.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not a problem

It’s just a choice.

by rainmaker6 on Oct 30, 2009 6:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to knock Barry, but...

most fighters have other jobs until they become successful enough to fight / train full-time.

by MMArmy on Oct 28, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Grim

We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.

by Robert Downey Sr. on Oct 29, 2009 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't we already see this with the music industry?

They made the case that people are downloading music for free, and if we could stop that, that money would go towards CD sales. They didn’t realize that most of the people downloading an album per hour would NEVER buy that much music. Then a cool thing happened, the artists that actually released their music for free saw an INCREASE in profits.

I think the lesson to take away is that piracy increases exposure, brings in more fans, and is better in the long run. Without free MMA, I would not be a fan today, and if it came down to paying $50 for a PPV, I would have to skip it every time. I love this sport, I think most people on this site can see that, but I’m also a broke college student. I also don’t have many friends who are in to this sport, so going out to a bar would basically mean me sitting in a corner alone watching a fight. I’d rather be here on the BE live update thread in the comfort of my own home.

If you want to make a difference, don’t ask for $50. Make merch more prevalent, and price it accordingly. You’re more likely to get a lot of little contributions rather than 1 big one.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 28, 2009 5:58 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

Re: Music Industry
The businesses, history, and – most pertinently – avenues of income are very, very different.
I can understand why someone would think they may parallel each other but they unfortunately do not to any serious extent.
The example of providing free product and seeing an increase in profit as an overall result within the industry also seems a little misleading.

Re: Poor college student
No one falls for this excuse for anything where the total expenditure is $10/month. Ever.
If you don’t have a job, get one. If you do, work one more hour a month and the expenses will be covered.
I can completely understand not wanting to sit at a bar by yourself (meet people?) and that’s fine; I just find the “I’m in college so I’m poor” excuse to be rather lazy.

Re: Merch.
How much more prevalent would you like it? I’m not sure I’m aware of it being withheld in any facet.

I apologize if I seem like I am singling you out. It is not that way. I just disagree on multiple points.

by Simco on Oct 28, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No worries on singling me out, I come here for discussions

I personally think that MMA can benefit more from gathering new fans as opposed to making a little more money on PPVs, but I can see your point.

PPVs cost $50, where are you getting $10/month? As far as I’m concerned, 1 PPV = 1 week of food

by Shaun32887 on Oct 28, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm in the same boat with you man

My bank account is often in single digits at the end of the week, school just costs too much.

Look at Radiohead’s last album, they released it online with the option to pay a penny. About 2 million people payed approximately $10 for it online, and when the CD version came out it was #1. Now they’re done making albums and are just sending out new songs. Why? I think they realized, and I read a report on this a few years ago, that no money comes in off CDs anymore, even if they do sell. It mostly goes to the record label. Their money is off of merchandise and touring, so they want as much exposure as possible. This is where I think music is going—get big, and then rake in dough off touring. Maybe that’s the way it already is in the music industry.

Obviously, this isn’t entirely applicable to PPVs, which are the big money in MMA. The main thing, I think, is exposure, which drives PPVs, advertising, merchandise sales, etc…

We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.

by Robert Downey Sr. on Oct 29, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at Radiohead’s last album, they released it online with the option to pay a penny. About 2 million people payed approximately $10 for it online, and when the CD version came out it was #1.

That has a LOT to do with being the first major artist to try that tactic and the fans trying to prove the music industry wrong. Good luck with that tactic if everyone was doing it.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's been repeated

Saul Williams and Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) have had success with it as well

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

someone else has heard of saul williams? i’m not into rap, but my wife bought one of his CD’s, simply amazing.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey cool

I have a belief that no genre is bad, some are just executed badly. Saul is one of the few guys I know that does rap well, and I love him for it.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said, its a gimmick and when it becomes a normal tactic it will be MUCH less successful.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really don't think so

$50 for three CDs is a lot, especially when you know that most of the money doesn’t get back to the artists themselves. With the advent of the internet, artists can reach far more people that they could before, and the consumer knows that their money goes straight to the artists. Furthermore, since so many middlemen are being cut out, the overall price can come down.

There’s an Australian band I absolutely love, their name is Karnivool. My friend downloaded their CD, and made everyone he knew listen to it. When they came to Houston, this “little known” Australian band packed out the place, made a killing on CDs and t-shirts (I think they ran out of CDs that night, and I’m wearing their shirt right now), and also saw significant pre-order sales from Houston for their next CD.

I really don’t think this is a gimmick

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Go to a bar or a viewing party with other people. There are always ways to reduce the costs.

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on Oct 29, 2009 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What happened is that the industry found a way to make money off internet downloading, CD sales still suck and industry profits are still down but at least now sites like itunes are scoring a dollar a song off downloading and that is where the growth in income is coming from.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Like Joe Rogan said during 104, “Can’t fight the internet”

Best thing to do is find ways to use it in your favor. If the UFC had smooth but low quality stream on their site, one which they could guarantee would not go down, for about $15-$20, I think a lot of people would choose that over an illegal stream.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 28, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I know that streaming video has never been one of the UFCs strong points, but it is a fixable problem.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 28, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still stealing the product if you take it without paying. Them not keeping up with modern technology isn’t a justification that makes it ok to steal their product from them. People like to try to justify their actions with a bunch of BS excuses and they shouldn’t. If you want to do that then fine but don’t pretend it’s something different or try to make up reasons to justify those actions.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

You never listened to a mix tape someone recorded for you growing up? You never recorded a favourite movie from tv to watch over and over again as a kid? You never taped songs off the radio back in the day?

It’s all the same.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well those things have been judged to be legal actions by the courts under fair use laws. See when they say it’s ok to do that then it’s no longer theft. That’s what makes it not even remotely the same thing we have been told those things are ok to do but no court has ever ruled that stealing a PPV stream is a legal action.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

judged to be legal actions by the courts under fair use laws.

Not from what the Aussie media will have you believe, and the associations trumpeting the ‘torrents are killing the industry’.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well you have to deal with your own laws and I have to deal with mine. Hey I think the RIAA is full of shit myself and I’m not trying to stop anyone from doing what they want but good grief it’s just sad when people try to make up silly excuses to justify their actions instead of just owning up to them. I’ve got more respect for someone who tells me “yea I took it and I don’t give a damn” than I do for someone who tries to make up sad sack arguments to justify what they are doing.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my issue isnt what’s right or wrong. it’s that because a person who loves the sport watches a pirated stream/torrent of the show then somehow he is taking away from the sport. I dont buy it.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

pardon the pun :P

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Puns too, your a regular Jesse James. :D

by who me on Oct 29, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh if your not giving them money for the product then that is taking away from the sport. It’s a professional sport it’s primary reason for existing is to make money. The fighters are professional fighters, they are fighting to get paid. All the money that the company and the fighters get comes from fans who pay for the product, that is the way the industry is supported. Heck even the act of creating new fans for the sport only has one reason and that is because the more fans the more money the company makes selling it’s product (or from advertisers trying to use the product to sell their own stuff). Every dollar out of your pocket they don’t get is taking away from their potential earnings. Watching a pirated stream instead of paying for it takes money out of their pocket even if you claim you wouldn’t of watched it otherwise (because lets get real who knows if you would of paid or not if that was the only way to see it). If your in another country and it isn’t offered then yea there isn’t any other way but that doesn’t change the fact that you not paying takes away from their potential income.

Hey it is what it is and your going to do what your going to do and hell if it’s the only way for you to see the product then go for it but the the UFC does try and sell it’s product in a lot of different ways in a lot of different countries too and it’s growing all the time. The more money they make the faster they grow.

by who me on Oct 29, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of which we agree on.

I guess the issue of contention for some of us here as Beren pointed out below is “if you watch a pirated copy of the event then you’re a bad MMA fan”.

I got into the sport from a pirated disk many moons ago in the era of Tank Abbot and co. There are at least 4 other people who are now guaranteed regular consumers due to my passion alone so there is something to be said about getting your product out to as many eyeballs as possible – “If they love it, the money will come.” Something like that anyway.

I know there are numerous gaping holes in that argument, no need to rehash your well written arguments. I’m just trying to refute the ‘Bad mma fan’ BS.

Anyone who loves the sport and has a passion for it will champion it to any and everyone he meets. That has flow on effects that cant be denied.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 29, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Oh if your not giving them money for the product then that is taking away from the sport.

You’re not getting it, it’s NOT taking away from the sport. My options are stream, or not watch the event at all. You’re falling into the same trap that the music industry did, where they saw 10 albums downloaded, and thought that they had just lost 10 sales.

Furthermore, since I follow the sport so rabidly, I talk about it often, and therefore am bringing in more fans. So far, I’ve been able to hold one event where people chipped in and we actually bought the PPV, and I hope to make this a more regular occurrence in the future. Streaming now → more fans → more money for UFC in the future.

I’m not BS-ing myself, I know I’m stealing. That doesn’t change the fact that the bodies who have adapted to the internet rather than fight it are the ones who thrive. That was the purpose of Joe’s “You can’t fight the internet” comment.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some solid comments here on both sides of the fence.

<3 BE

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 29, 2009 6:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My options are stream, or not watch the event at all. You’re falling into the same trap that the music industry did, where they saw 10 albums downloaded, and thought that they had just lost 10 sales.

While I agree with your assessment of the fallacy in piracy calculations its equally incorrect to assume that the majority of people are in the situation where the zero sum game is pirated stream or nothing.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll accept that

but the price of a PPV is so high, that I think there are a significant number of people who fall into this category.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or watched a fight vid on YouTube

by Grappo on Oct 30, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My stream for 104 must have been terrible. I saw Machida getting his ribs, legs, and ass-kicked for 15 of 25 minutes, the stream cut out, and then I saw Machida with his hand raised. There must have been a 6th round I didn’t get to see during that brief period.

I’m just playin’, and there is always going to be a huge division between rich and poor fighters until a union forms.

Spinning out solid gold, like Rumpelstiltskin.

by Heenan on Oct 28, 2009 7:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

UFC creates their own problems.

Over saturating the market with PPVs. I’ve bought a LOT of PPVs, hell, my last cable bill was 250 bucks, but that doesn’t mean I can get them all.

If there was a cheaper way I’d go for it. Hell, if the online streams they charge for were like 20 bucks I’d be all over that for the smaller shows that I am not going to have some friends over for.

Head Kick Legend
Twitter @HeadKickLegend

by D.W. on Oct 28, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oversaturation? Dude, they’re pulling in 10’s of millions of dollars on every show. Unless you’re personally paying a million per PPV, I’m pretty sure they’re doing fine without you..

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 28, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not really my point

My point is if people are going to complain about piracy they need to understand they create their own audience and said audience’s need for shows.

Head Kick Legend
Twitter @HeadKickLegend

by D.W. on Oct 29, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In an economy this bad, people are going to find ways to get expensive things for cheap. Finding a free stream for a PPV might be considered illegal but, at the same time, it is the only means in order to view the spectacle itself. This is a problem that the UFC has kind of brought upon themselves. They’ve just shoved so many PPVs down our throats that it becomes tough for people to continually buy them month after month after month, especially when there’s one every other two weeks. They’ve started to become like the WWE in that regard. Too many Pay Per Views and not enough people that truly want to purchase them. Do I sympathize with Pat Berry? Of course. However, it’s also the problem of the company he is employed under. Supply and demand. That’s all this is. The more supply, the less demand. I guarantee you that if the UFC waited two months between PPVs, they’d sell like funnel cake at a carnival. The less supply, the more demand. The UFC needs to understand that. Overflowing the market with PPV after PPV is not the right way to go about things.

From October 24th (UFC 104) until January 2nd (UFC 108), there are a grand total of five Pay Per Views. Now, only four are going to be requiring the PPV price in order to view them since UFC 105 is free on Spike via tape delay. In the 70 days between the two PPVs, there will be five. That’s a Pay Per View every two weeks (14 days). Does no one else think that’s a little bit ridiculous? This is a UFC problem, not a fan problem.

Twitter: @FlyByKnite

by FlyByKnight on Oct 28, 2009 7:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Trsut me, the UFC understand supply and demand. They still makes money off of every PPV they hold so they are clearly not over-saturating the market. You as a consumer need to decide which PPVs you believe are worth the fee. The problem is that people are not making the would I rather not watch or pay $50 calculation, they are making the would I rather watch for free through a pirated stream or pay $50.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that people are not making the would I rather not watch or pay $50 calculation, they are making the would I rather watch for free through a pirated stream or pay $50.

thats exactly the problem. its not about “can i afford it”. if free is available, it is simply a moral choice from there.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've gotten shit on a lot around here for saying it...

but if you’re stealing UFC PPV’s (or any PPV that is available to be ordered) you’re a bad MMA fan. I’ll never back off that opinion.

Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 28, 2009 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

And thats fine; but not everyone lives in north america (i know thats a shock).

I would not be a fan of this sport if i were to have to pay to see pay per views. Not one bar in sydney that i know of shows the ppvs; the sport here is tiny; there is no spike on cable here only bad channels that show TUF from 3 seasons ago…

I would rather be at bar watching the PPVs live; Id rather be streaming the PPVs of a UFC web site live. I dont watch the events live at any rate; i watch all my MMA a day or 2 after the fact…I am not going to watch a PPV live at home @ 3 pm sunday afternoon by myself.

When the UFC comes to Australia i plan on going; i wouldnt miss it… Australia has terrible access to MMA and what it does get access to is old TUF episodes… The pay per veiws are not even live here everytime (UFC 100 or 94 was delayed here; one the PPVs i was going to buy as i wanted to see it live)….

by Beren on Oct 28, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree.

In Aus, the only way to see a show ‘legitimately’ is by going to a mates house who has Foxtel. The few shows I’ve seen from a legitimate source cost me the same as when I download the events the day after – nothing.

I dont wear stupid overpriced fight shirts but I do go to the occasional local fight show, I do pay my fees to train BJJ, I do buy fight gear to train in (tapout shorts, rashie etc) I have bought MMA action figures and the like…

This thread is BS on so many levels.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey if you don’t live in the US and the product is offered in a different manner then your having a different discussion, it’s not BS on any level unless you are breaking the laws of your own country and if your doing that then your just BSing yourself by making up justifications for what you do. I personally don’t care what you do but don’t lie to yourself about it.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing in life is black and white. This subject has so many gray areas that I’d love to get into if I was any good at expressing my thoughts. My issue with this thread is the hardline approach a lot of you are taking.

I’d argue if you actually want to put more money into Pat Barry’s wallet as per the thread title, then go buy his sponsors products or subscribe to his fight on UFC on demand (if that’s possible.)

Buying another UFC card isnt going to put extra cash in Pat’s wallet.

Hope my thoughts arent too muddled.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but thats things thing; we are not having a different discussion.

The internet is global; If the media is not available here then if the company and thus the fighters want my money then they need to provide areasonable way for me to access their product.

I am willing to be a “good MMA fan” but i don’t have reliable and accessable means to do so.

Boxing for instances: Most aussies go to the local pub to see the big fights; but MMA is not shown. Without getting the product out how can it possably get bigger..

The question is how right or wrong streams, torrents and the rest are. The question should be how can MMA in general turn the people and obiviously fans of the sport into paying consumers of the sport.

I think the UFC should really start to works its devilery a lot more; I would happyily pay $20 a month to access the fights online after the fact (like UFC on demand used to be like)

by Beren on Oct 28, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See your offering up a fine argument for why they should do something different and that is wonderful and all but if by the laws of your country you are stealing the product then you are stealing the product. Shit I don’t care if you steal it in Australia but if it’s stealing the product then it’s still stealing the product. Do it if you want just don’t try to paint it as something different.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

im not painting it as anything.

Its not an excuse its a reason….I even offered a possible solution and a direction that could be followed through to increase revenue…a lot more constructive then saying “your a bad MMA fan”.

… What i am saying is not everyone does it becuase they are nazi loving stealing low lifes…

by Beren on Oct 28, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t judging you, hell I’m not even telling you not to steal it, just to recognize it for what it is (I don’t care about the possible solutions because I can’t enact any of them anyway, I don’t have any pull with the UFC but you could e-mail them to UFC.com I guess). “I steal it because I want to watch it” is fine enough as far as I’m concerned as long as you can live with that but that is where it ends, the rest is just trying to justify actions. Heck I wish you all the luck in the world with getting the product to your home country, hell I live in the US and I still have issues in some places getting Zuffa programming when I travel.

Now the real point that started this fanpost was people bitching about what the UFC pays fighters when they aren’t even paying the UFC for the product and that pretty much speaks for itself. If someone is going to call the UFC out for not paying someone when they are not paying for it themselves then that’s really sad but that is different than the tangent I rambled off on.

by who me on Oct 29, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no what started this little part of the wider discussion was : Brent saying:

“but if you’re stealing UFC PPV’s (or any PPV that is available to be ordered) you’re a bad MMA fan. I’ll never back off that opinion.”…

personaly i don’t care about other peoples morals nor will i ever. To me the moral police are like nuns is a whore house… useless…. ( ill let you guys fill in the rest of the saying)…

What i was getting at is there is a difference between a fan who can’t get ligitimate access to a product and someone who is stealing it to advoid paying for it outright.

The counter point i was making is this: if we are trying to get more money to fighters; then looking at how to get fans that watch into fans that pay is maybe a very good place to start.

by Beren on Oct 29, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but don't you get it?!

Stealing is stealing is stealing is blah blahhhhh blahh blahh

by Grappo on Oct 30, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is the yahoo sports feed available in Australia?

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1. The international aspect has already been brought up. It’s a strong point. Also – the concept of PPV only really works in the US. No other country has anything even approaching such an economy.

2. Free MMA is probably better for the sport overall. There are a lot more people who know who Pat Barry is because of free (pirated) MMA.

3. Who determines whether or not you’re a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ fan. Are those people who make six figures and can afford to buy the PPV every month any better than those who only buy one PPV a year?

4. There is no inherent problem. The internet makes things free for people who don’t value the product enough to buy it. For example, Microsoft penetrated China on the back of pirated versions of Windows. If Windows WASN’T pirated in China – the majority of that country would be using Linux. Likewise – MMA definitely has a lot more fans because it’s available for free in certain places.

5. Finally – the problem of fighter pay doesn’t rest on those who don’t pay for PPV. It’s got almost nothing to do with them. There’s two main reasons – lack of viable competition. Nobody can compete with the UFC on the quality of shows and exposure. So the UFC doesn’t need to pay top dollar for anyone unless they have bargaining power (i.e. Brock, GSP). Secondly – the lack of a fighters union and solid competition means that fighters lower down the totem poll have zero bargaining power. They can’t get good exposure anywhere else – and the fighters as a whole don’t band together.

I think the reality is either competition will force the UFC to start paying better wages (unlikely) or (most likely) the fighters will eventually form a union.

by rainmaker6 on Oct 29, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

because of #4 you dont feel bad about stealing because #1 other people get it for free, so you deserve it, PLUS #2 states that you’re actually helping the fighters by you being aware of them and #5 you’re kindof like robin hood, you’re helping out the lesser promotions by not giving any money to the big dog, so #3 screw people with money who can buy PPVs! you sound a little bitter. i dont make 6 figures, i am married with a house and some dogs… i pay my bills and order PPVs, its called a budget. i dont take what isnt mine and would hope no one would take from me what isnt theirs.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you like mma your a fan

if you dont go to gyms and dont buy sponsors gear and live stream every fight and burn copies of every event torrented off the internet your still just a fan

bad fan good fan stop being self righteous, they might not be your “type” of fan but their love of the sport has nothing to do with where their money is spent

by jackmerridew on Oct 29, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

^this

In 100% agreement.

This thread is full of self-righteousness. And the issues that are being brought up aren’t going to be solved in an MMA discussion.

Although I am thoroughly enjoying the reading : )

by rainmaker6 on Oct 30, 2009 6:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get it.

This thread is really a veiled shot at all the people who read MMA blogs but don’t click on the links. YOU’RE TAKING FOOD OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS! THINK ABOUT THE BLOGGERS!!!

But give me a break. There’s a reason why a guy like Pat Barry only gets $8K, and it’s called VORP. I wouldn’t get paid $8. But he doesn’t get $80k or $800k with out (a) doing something memorable (which he ended up doing, btw, with his KO) or (b) bringing in viewers. That’s part of the personal investment.

Here’s hoping that this fight has cemented his status as a draw, and can market himself into some money. Good luck.

by the exit on Oct 28, 2009 9:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We need to think of the poor independent contractors working for Sherdog, without health insurance, and paying both the employer and employee’s portion of their payroll taxes. Also, the poor people at fightlinker whose radio hosts are forced to watch pirated streams because not enough people pay for their subscription service!

by Jahbulon on Oct 28, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh noes! I use Adblocker in Firefox so I dont even see the advertising on this site.

Stop Thief!!

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 28, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I buy PPVs that I really want to see.

If I don’t really want to see it, I’ll stream. If streaming weren’t an option, I just wouldn’t watch it at all. When my stream isn’t working, I just shrug my shoulders. The streaming isn’t what stops me from buying it. It’s just, given the choice, it’s more interesting to watch the shows then read about them. Streaming gives me that choice for shows I don’t care to buy. The streaming makes no difference in their revenues, because I wouldn’t buy the shows that I stream anyways. I fail to see any moral or ethical issue with that.

by Trysdor on Oct 28, 2009 10:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It does not change the fact that you are stealing from them.

I understand your view, but that is not unlike sneaking into a concert and you would not have gone if forced to pay.

by Lynchman on Oct 28, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I fail to see any moral or ethical issue with that

And that is because you are using BS to justify your decision to watch the stream and lying to yourself. The theft part comes in from you taking something you didn’t pay for and have no rights to, the fact that you wouldn’t of paid for it anyway is 100% irrelevant to that. It’s the same as saying that you would of bought that thing off the shelf at Wal Mart if you really wanted it but because you only sort of wanted it you just put it in your pocket and took it, the justification makes no sense and changes nothing. No one here can stop you from doing what you want to do but please don’t try to hide behind silly crap like that, if your taking something that isn’t yours to take then your stealing it and no justification you can toss up is going to change that.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fact of the matter is that, if people can do sketchy shit to obtain something that costs money for free without getting caught (as long as it’s not absolutely heinous), many people are going to do it. You can scold them or whatever, but it’s not going to do much good. This is accounted for in the UFC’s calculus. That’s why they don’t charge $200 per PPV and, instead, have cultivated other revenue streams besides straight buys where they aren’t as easily ripped off (i.e. advertising).

It’s wrong to steal, and indulging in a free live stream is a form of stealing. As a practical issue, it can’t be completely stopped. Luckily for the UFC, they’re not nearly as dependent on PPV buys as they once were, and, by extension, neither are the Zuffa fighters.

by Cannon Jacques on Oct 28, 2009 10:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s easy to do and the threat of getting caught is very low and honestly I would by that justification before I would buy any of the excuses people toss up to try and make it seem like what they are doing is somehow ok.

by who me on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

absolutely no matter how much “scolding” they get, it probably wont change the piracy, BUT the attitude towards these people needs to change. it has long gone without a care from those who pay to those who wont.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Streaming is not inherently wrong

Yes it’s against the law. But so is downloading music. To be honest – it’s the law that needs changing. And it will eventually be changed.

Lots of people who would never pay for the event stream it instead. That’s a big plus for the UFC and MMA in general.

by rainmaker6 on Oct 29, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

in what world is taking something without giving any compensation for, not “inherently wrong”? did peoples mommies an daddies tell them they were so special that they deserve anything, and if they cant pay for it, stealing it is acceptable?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats like

me getting free coffee at Starbucks. No way in hell would I ever pay for it, but if its free sure. Now all your customers dont pay for coffee, guess what happens?

A musician pours his heart and soul into a song, get 3 million illegal downloads and 12,000 singles sold. Sounds like a great deal for the artists. Everyone has a job, think of doing it for free because someone thought they were entitled to enjoy your labor for free, that is bullshit.

by Riney on Oct 29, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So can someone tell me the difference........

between me ordering a PPV and having a block party where I invite 20-30 of my friends over to watch the fight. I don’t charge them, nor do I try and make any money off of anyone. So now those 20-30 people come to every PPV at my place. These people aren’t contributing anything to MMA/UFC at all, but they’re also not doing anything illegal right?

So then what’s the difference between those people that come over to my house to watch the fights than if they were just to stay home and download the fights later?

If you’ve ever been to someone’s house and didn’t contribute to the funds then you’re taking away from MMA/UFC.

by ChillMike on Oct 29, 2009 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The $55 price is based on the idea you will have some people over to watch it with you. And from the UFC’s perspective, they don’t care if Chill Mike eats the whole cost or gets reimbursed two bucks by each guest.

Eh, I very seriously doubt that these live streams are taking much food out of anyone’s mouth. To me it seems like a very lonely and kind of lame thing; it’s the sort of thing you’d do when you didn’t have the cash to buy it even if the stream wasn’t there.

"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.

by toxic on Oct 29, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wish the polls on here were anonymous (if you click a person icon you would be able to see how they voted), id be very curious to see how many people out of 100 stream 1, 2, 3 ppvs/year and how many would say they stream all.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thats much the same as me buying a CD and you listening to it in my car. i purchased the item, now i have a small ownership in the songs that allow me to share them (legally) with anyone i choose (by letting them listen to the songs, not illegal downloads.) much the same with the PPVs, within reason, anyone you can cram into your home, i believe it is legal to let them watch it so long as you purchased the rights to view the event. the problem is if you can cram 100 people in your living room, you are within the allowance the UFC gives when puchasing PPVs. it becomes illegal when you buy the PPV and then stream it online for anyone who wants to watch it online. that is not legal, and its quite frankly theft.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No you have ownership in the physical CD and not what’s on it, which is why it’s technically illegal to even back up your own cds.

Again I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, what I’m trying to get at is what’s the difference between a guy who never purchases anything but goes and watches a PPV bought legally than a guy who never purchases anything and watches a stream? How exactly is that person contributing to things?

by ChillMike on Oct 29, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i host UFC parties with between 2-16 people (16 being UFC 100 & 101. 2 being randy couture vs sylvia), everyone pitches in for pizza and ppv. without other people sharing the cost with me, i would not be able to afford ufc every month and would have to watch it at hooters. both hooters and my house PAY for the ufc. both are legal forms of watching. if the day comes where i cant afford either way of paying for ppvs, that will be the day i stop watching. i will get on the sites and read the news, thats free and legal. i wouldnt be contributing because i cant afford to. i dont think anyone on this site holds anything against anybody who doesnt contribute if they cant afford it, you’d be insane to ask that of them. but if you cant afford it, you shouldnt watch it.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

By coming to you party and getting you to pay for it. I guess.

And as far as not owning the content of the cd, bollocks. Just cause the MPAA says something doesn’t mean its true (or even legal). IIRC that argument got shot down. And if it didn’t the law can go sit an spin. I didn’t spend 20 bucks in order to physically possess a CD, I bought it to own the music. In short, I bought the files on the disc, with the disc being merely the medium.

"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.

by toxic on Oct 29, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t spend 20 bucks in order to physically possess a CD, I bought it to own the music. In short, I bought the files on the disc, with the disc being merely the medium.

all UFC talk aside, thats the best way i’ve heard that said.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

You have purchased a license to privately perform the music; you do not own the music – the artist and/or record label owns the music… you’re just renting it from them via the physical medium of a compact disc and have paid a fee which in part covers the physical goods.

This is where people get confused. By purchasing a physical CD, it implies a transfer of ownership. The simple truth is that you don’t own the music any more than the other 500,000 people whom have purchased the same CD.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

You have purchased a license

100% correct.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Generosity as a host

Think on it this way; you’re throwing a party for your friends and you’re allowing them to be privately entertained on your own nickel. Whether it’s a UFC PPV on screen or Family Guy, that’s your perogative.

They can reciprocate by one guy bringing $55 worth of beer, another ordering $55 worth of takeout… maybe someone is a designated driver, sparing the rest $55 in gas / cab fares – whatever. It’s that or you demonstrate your largesse and eat up all the cost yourself.

Now if you rented a large screen projector and set up a few dozen seats in your back yard, charging perhaps $5 a head for folk to watch the PPV… that constitutes a public performance and yeah, the UFC might take issue with that.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Understood so again I’ll play devil’s advocate.

Let’s say I bring 10 people over for the fight, I’m not charging them, they’re not contributing anything. I’m just entertaining my ten buddies right?

Ok so then tell me the difference between that scenario and this one

I purchase the PPV and set up a private stream for those same ten buddies, I’m not charging them nor are they contributing anything.

Again I’m not advocating anything here, I’m just trying to present an argument here that isn’t being addressed.

by ChillMike on Oct 29, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Private VS Public

Are the buddies viewing at their own homes or your home? If your stream goes outside the home, would you consider it a “private showing?”

by cyph on Oct 29, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dont mean to sound like a deuche, but it seems like you’re fishing for an answer. given just the right wording you might be able to make someone say “under those circumstances i would say its ok”. but if we hold to the idea that “whats wrong is wrong” and “whats right is right”, i would simply have to say “illegal streams” are wrong, and leave it up to your own moral compass to decide if your certain situation some how makes an “illegal stream” morally acceptable to you.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The difference is you have become a distributor of content you have no right to distribute

It all lies in copyright laws; when you purchase a PPV, you are in effect purchasing a license to view the material – you don’t own the broadcast (Zuffa does) but, for the sum of $55, they allow you to view it in your own home.

Setting up a private stream to ten of your buddies constitutes re-distribution (sometimes called sublicensing) and is against the terms of the license agreement that you enter into when you pay for the PPV.

The key is the copyright – as it resides with Zuffa, they have the right to determine the what, where, how, when and who is allowed to copy their work

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs

this is why i love the “rec” button, i know what my opinion is, but somewhere out there is someone far more eloquent and educated on the subject than i am and can voice my opinion much better than i ever could.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

That’s a very valid point, and again I wasn’t trying to take one side or another just an argument I hadn’t heard. You’ve officially ended that argument.

Micha, no I wasn’t fishing for something apologies if it sounded that way I was just trying to play devil’s advocate that’s all.

Since you’ve given such a good explanation on that, I’d like your opinion on my other question then. What’s the difference between a guy that never pays for fights or anything else related to mma than a guy who goes to a buddies place to watch the fights but never pitches in or supports the sport?

Now before you answer, yes I realize the guy at home is doing something illegal, that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking for the sake of the topic this was posted under. How is that person any better than the guy that watches illegally? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to call someone out just because someone watches via legal measures but never supports the sport?

by ChillMike on Oct 29, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Choice

The guy who consciously decides to not pay for a PPV and decides to view an illegal stream is making a conscious choise to do so; he wants to view the content, but objects / refuses to pay for it. Thats theft.

The guy who goes round to his buddies place to watch an MMA event but never pitches in is a casual fan; he’s partaking of his friends hospitality. His friend is exercising a conscious choise of whom to be hospitable to within the confines of his own home and thus is not breaking any laws.

You can sucessfully argue that neither party is putting money in the pockets of fighters etc but the difference is their methodology is clear: one is actively engaged in theft, the other is freeloading at the expense of his friend.

At least in the latter case, revenue is finding its way back to the fighter.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed in full there, I guess maybe I’m thinking about the “fan” (and I’m not pointing at anyone at all just a generalization) that goes and watches the fights legally but never pitches in gets on his high horse and somehow thinks he’s better for the industry than the guy that streams/downloads. Ethically yeah I suppose that would be true but economically it doesn’t make any sense as he’s not contributing to “the cause” (sorry couldn’t figure out how to phrase that any better)

by ChillMike on Oct 29, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The guy who goes round to his buddies place to watch an MMA event but never pitches in is a ~~casual fan~~ dirty moocher

Fixed.

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on Oct 29, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no need for apologies, its been a very educational and respectful discussion.
but to your question, how is there a difference when they generate no extra income into the organization or fighters? on that criteria alone, my answer is, i dont know. there is a difference between lawfulness, but there is no affect on the bottom line of the UFC. my whole problem when i wrote the post was, the hardcore guy that feels as if he was right there with dana white building this sport… yet never pitching a dime towards a ppv. its not something against all the hardcores, but simply having watched MMA longer than someone else doesnt make you more of a fan.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe it has as well and it’s very refreshing to be able to have a discussion like this without “keyboard warriors” jumping in and spewing 12 year old jibberish.

I totally agree with your post as well. Anyone that thinks that they are a “bigger” fan of something is kidding themselves. It may or may not make you a more knowledgeable fan but not more of a fan.

Personally I like ordering the events via PPV and having people over, if they want to pitch in for the cost cool, if not whatever. I’ll admit to torrenting some of them but the joy and excitement doesn’t compare and I’d much rather attend an event or get together with a bunch of friends….

Speaking of which (maybe an idea for another fan post) but wasn’t there an idea floating around for trying to get a bloodyelbow patch on a fighters shorts? Oh wait there’s a yearly fee for sponsors now right?

by ChillMike on Oct 29, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pissed off with the "I don't have the means, so I'll..." argument

FUCK THAT. Seriously.

If you can’t afford a car, you don’t go out a frickin steal one.

If you can’t afford the new, shiny clothes, you don’t shoplift.

If haven’t got enough money in general for what you want, you don’t rob a bank.

Trouble with the internet is that some folk think that everything is simply there for the taking – especially entertainment media; photographs, music, video (including films) etc.

Digital distribution has made theft as simple as a few mouse clicks.

Also, what I find completely offensive is the argument that “the folks that download copyright material off the internet aren’t costing companies money as they wouldn’t pay for your wares anyway…” That is a seriously retarded statement. Try to apply that justification to any physical property and it all falls apart.

You know there was a time that if you couldn’t afford something you had to

a) Save for it, or
b) Do without

Option c) – more commonly known as theft – always had you running the risk of getting caught and fined / jailed / both.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs

very well stated. i’ve noticed the arguments have had a sense of entitlement. “i wouldnt pay for it, so now i can have it for free” bull… if you wont pay for it, because you know you can have it for free.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ding ding. Thats the real issue. The availability of the free product is what allows people to make the economic decision that the PPV isn’t worth $50.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, this does not include people that don’t live in a place that it is possible to acquire the content.

Giving Shogun his props. I had the fight 48-47 Machida but Shogun put up a monumental performance and I am honored to have seen it in person.

by Day Man on Oct 29, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’ve made a great argument, and I won’t challenge that, try as I might, I’m a product of my generation and therefore, I probably do have some sense fo entitlement.

Still, I’d like to make a few counterpoints for the sake of a discussion.

Also, what I find completely offensive is the argument that "the folks that download copyright material off the internet aren’t costing companies money as they wouldn’t pay for your wares anyway…" That is a seriously retarded statement. Try to apply that justification to any physical property and it all falls apart.

Yes, making this argument with something you swipe off the shelf, because the seller has already bought that product himself, and is trying to resell it for a profit. Digital copies however, are just that, copies. It’s analogous to seeing a plaque with a beautiful poem on it, and writing down the poem on the back of your hand rather than buy the plaque. Right, you haven’t bought the plaque, but the owner isn’t any worse off than if you had just walked by, whereas physically swiping the plaque would rob the owner of the value he bought the plaque for. This only becomes an issue when the person is actually considering buying the plaque, and chooses to swipe it again. This is why I advocated legal, lower quality, cheaper streams. $50 is a lot for a graduate student to pay, but I would buy it every time if I could get a lower quality version for 15-20 dollars.

Second, your argument that we should save for it or do without. To me, the UFC reminds me of a local, startup band. Granted, they’re much bigger than most bands, but they’re still kids compared to the big sports; most people I know don’t know much about MMA at all. In these cases, the body always benefits more from exposure, rather than buys. A large fanbase will bring in money, a strong, small core of diehards is much harder to profit off of. Free sharing of material is the reason a lot more people can make it in the industry now, whereas 20 years ago, it was very hard to break through. This means that given the choice between obtaining the material for free or passing on it entirely, the body is better off having people get it for free. Again, this breaks down when someone is considering buying the PPV and then chooses not to, but from what I’ve seen this is rarely the case.

I have bought PPVs in the past, I try to get people together for parties, but the fact is, I’d miss most fights without the streams. Due to the streams, the MMA awareness and appreciation is slowly growing around me, and PPV parties are not that far off.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Argument

It’s analogous to seeing a plaque with a beautiful poem on it, and writing down the poem on the back of your hand rather than buy the plaque. Right, you haven’t bought the plaque, but the owner isn’t any worse off than if you had just walked by, whereas physically swiping the plaque would rob the owner of the value he bought the plaque for

Not quite. The store does not “own” the plaque – they are a reseller / distributor of the plaque. Unless the store is owned by the person who wrote the poem and made the plaque, then all they are doing is distributing a product.

Think of it this way. If you go into a record store and steal a CD / DVD, you’re charged with theft and not copyright infringment. The record store has already paid for the CD’s / DVD’s in bulk and then in turn are offering them up for sale from their own premises.

Not being able to afford the retail cost of the CD or DVD is in no way a valid legal defence for your theft. The same thing applies to a $50 PPV. Heck, I can’t afford a car, but I can stump up the occasional cab fare :)

Free sharing of material is the reason a lot more people can make it in the industry now, whereas 20 years ago, it was very hard to break through. This means that given the choice between obtaining the material for free or passing on it entirely, the body is better off having people get it for free

The UFC already provides select events on Spike TV for ‘free’ – it’s similar to bands that make tracks available to download for free on their websites / myspace etc.

In either case (bands / UFC) the rationale is the same: by offering limited content for free as a “taster”, they can widen their audience and tempt them into purchasing material down the line. For a band, it’s convincing people to see them perform live and pay for concert tickets and/or CD’s… .for the UFC, it’s hoping that more people will buy their marquee PPV events or attend a show.

As for missing fights – why not simply wait for them to be released on DVD, for about 2/5 the cost of the PPV? That would surely be a compromise… othewise your argument becomes a petulant but-I-want-to-see-and-enjoy-it-now tantrum.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

i’ll make an argument from a sales point of view with bogus number, but the principle should remain the same.
say it costs me $5M in total to produce and distribute a PPV event. i have to estimate how many people i think will buy it so i can make a profit. i am a fairly sized company and believe i can sell my event to 100,000 people. now i have to figure how much net profit i want to make, for a $5M event, i probably HAVE to make 15% net profit ($750,000). then i need to add for variance in my estimated sales, call that 10% (or 90,000 people total buying the event). so i need to to figure what i need to charge for $5.75M in sales with 90,000 people buying. $5.75M / 90,000 = $63.89 for the PPV. now here’s the problem, there are 15,000 people streaming my event for free, thats $958,350 they are taking of something I made and giving me no compensation for it. do i not deserve that money if they are enjoying something I made? no imagine i could get those extra 15,000 people, they would be included in my original estimate, so if i could figure on 105,000 as opposed to 90,000 i would charge ($5.75M / 105K =) $54.76/PPV.
not only are the free streams stealing from the UFC, they are stealing from everyone who does pay.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spot on

Of couse there are two sides to that argument

A) More people consistently buying the UFC PPV’s will lead to the PPV cost being lowered incrementally over time

or

B) More people consistenty buting the UFC PPV’s will lead to the UFC making more profit

With the UFC, I’d see it as as option B) but that’s not a bad thing in of itself. What matters is how that profit is spent. Increased profitability might mean more shows being put on, better fighter salaries / purses and perhaps the ability to better absorb the cost of producing / distributing more “free” content

Now Dana & Lorenzo et al. are in this business to make money – no mistake about it. But they also have a rock solid belief in what they do and are committed to MMA, otherwise they would have bailed out of the game when they were haemorrhaging cash some years ago.

In an ideal world they’d like to lower the PPV cost whilst being able to increase profitability at the same time. There are ways for them to achieve this in the long run but they’ll need the short-term revenue stream to effect their long term goals.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Of couse there are two sides to that argument

and i know you’re agreeing with me but, it isn’t anyone’s right to assume it will be option B., and never give them the money in the first place.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not spot on

This only works if you have reason to assume that all 15,000 people who are streaming would otherwise pay for it. Some of them undoubtedly do fall into this category. But the people who stream but who wouldn’t otherwise pay do not factor into the analysis at all, and so cannot be said to be stealing money from anybody.

I realize that this idea has come up again and again, but that’s because no one has offered a good response to it. VikingPhotography’s reply above

Try to apply that justification to any physical property and it all falls apart

misses the the point of the argument, which is that different standards apply to theft of non-physical things under certain circumstances. (Morally, I mean, not necessarily legally.)

The responses to ChillMike’s questions about the difference between hosting a party and hosting a stream aren’t satisfactory either, with respect to the moral question. In both the case of the illegal stream and of the viewing party, some people are getting something for nothing. In each case, one person did buy the PPV, so the difference is not that the UFC benefits in only one instance.

The only difference is that in one case there’s an action involved (streaming) that we identify as theft, which some choose to equate with immorality regardless of the cirumstances. I can’t get on board with that.

by JRN on Oct 29, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would have to imagine that in the hypothetical 15,000 number, that virtually 0 “non-hardcore” fans know where to go to get it. i am aware of 2 sites, and neither are something common like youtube or even metacafe.com. you have to be looking or know somebody to stream it live. which, if my assumption is correct, you have to be a self-proclaimed “hardcore” fan to stream an event live. and if you are a hardcore, you wouldnt miss an event, even if it meant paying for it.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're still not getting it.

Whether you have the means (finances) to afford a PPV event or not does not justify streaming – no matter the percentages or numbers involved. Not being able to afford something is not a rational (or legal) argument to justify your theft of whatever property – tangible or otherwise – it is that you are obtaining without payment.

The difficulty most folk have in understanding this is that Copyright law means the creator of a work has the sole discretion as to how it is distributed.

I’ll say it again.

The person who streams a PPV event is breaching Zuffa’s copyright. The person who makes that stream available is committing an even greater breach. Both acts are illegal, but the latter is far more serious.

The person who goes to a PPV party is still getting “something for nothing” but is doing so in a manner that is legal – he is a guest in the private residence of an individual whom has paid for the PPV; as this does not constitute a public performance on the part of the person whom has purchaset he PPV, it is legal

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Right

and I’m debating the moral/ethical angle. I’m referring to the original statement that streams are “taking food off Pat Barry’s plate.” I do not believe that if every single stream was shut down, those people would drop $50 on a PPV. Most of them (the ones that I know anyway) will choose to skip it.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edit

I’m NOT debating the moral/ethical angle*

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edit

I’m NOT debating the moral/ethical angle*

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the guy who skips Machida vs Rua is a guy who wouldn’t pay for any event, do we agree?
then if they pay for none, and every live stream gets shut down, would they not be forced with giving up being a fan of MMA or shelling out the money for a minimum of 4 events annually?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They would

But now we’re splitting that demographic again. You have the guys that would skip every event, and the guys like me who will buy 3-4 events while streaming the rest. And I pose the question, if every live stream gets shut down (which I don’t think is possible anyway), and you make every streamer fall in to one of those two categories, are the fighters better or worse off?

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to be honest, i was working off the assumption that there really wasnt someone with the means to stream every event who would still buy the “big” events. i’m a math guy and assume everything is black and white and most groups are quantified as one way or the other. but thats me being honest, if you’re the type who posts 815 comments on bloodyelbow since june 29th, 2009; would you really be able to do without paying for the events if the streams were gone?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I would. I started skipping UFC events before I found out about the streams. So given the binary choice between paying for events and skipping them entirely, I made the choice to skip them. Since I discovered streams, I buy about the same number of events, but I stream the ones I would have normally skipped. Also, since I only need my laptop and an internet connection to stream, I often watch the events at friends houses, thus introducing it to more people.

I understand that my perspective is skewed since I’m going by my own personal experiences, but I don’t think I’m unique. I’ve got to believe that there’s other fans like me who love the sport and do what they can to see it grow, but can’t afford to get every PPV. I’m still trying to put together more frequent PPV parties (maybe my new chili recipe and homebrew beer can entice more people over…), and I’m trying to support the organization as much as I can, which is why I’d LOVE for the UFC to host a low quality stream for $10-$20.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, that was the beauty of the free music sharing.

i was working off the assumption that there really wasnt someone with the means to stream every event who would still buy the "big" events.

People would usually download everything, but then still go out and buy the major CDs because they really do want to support the artists. I’m positive the same thing would happen here, stream the lesser events and buy the big ones.

And then when more money comes in, buy all the events

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Businesses are still allowed to

make money, at least for now.

I am falling in love Viking, you are saving me hours of typing!

by Riney on Oct 29, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol, same here, i’ve been up and down just rec’ing his stuff because i could never say it as good as him.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there are 15,000 people streaming my event for free, thats $958,350 they are taking of something I made and giving me no compensation for it. do i not deserve that money if they are enjoying something I made?

Yes, you do. You’re absolutely right.

BUT, there’s two arguments being made here, 1 that it’s morally/ethically wrong, and 2, that it’s taking food off the fighter’s plates.

While I’ll concede the first point, I do NOT think that you’re going to convince those $15,000 to buy a PPV. You’re ignoring the category of people who will, given the choice to buy a PPV or skip an event entirely, would choose to skip the event. Skipping an event does the exact same thing as streaming an event financially, except you’re lowering interest in the sport.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if my assumption is correct, you have to be a self-proclaimed "hardcore" fan to stream an event live. and if you are a hardcore, you wouldnt miss an event, even if it meant paying for it.

i made the argument for this assumption up a little bit. i think there is a big group who pay for 12 events a year and stream 1 or 2. but i think past that, the rest who stream, dont pay for a single event a year. (not condoning either practice, but i’m neither employed by zuffa or the government so who gives a crap whether i condemn it or not?) but if there is a group who doesnt pay for any and still call themselves a “hardcore fan”… i think they would have to order the PPV or give up the sport.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, you can call them whatever you want. For the sake of this discussion, lets just call them “streamers.”

Still, your choices of ordering the PPV or giving up the sport, I feel, would lead most of the streamers to give up the sport. This is counter to your original premise that streamers are taking food off Barry’s plate, and would instead shrink the MMA fanbase.

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if we go off the assumption that 90% of the streamers would drop the sport, having never contributed to it before, what good are they as a fan anyway? for years the hardcores have invited all their friends over to watch MMA when no one knew what it was. we dreamed of one day fighters making enough money to pay their bills, every fan we made, we assumed would keep our sport from going under. these “streamers” are useless fans.

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They’re not useless in that they indoctrinate other fans, and if enough of them get together, PPV parties will inevitably follow. If, as you say, they’re useless fans and should be dropped, then the fighters are no better off for it. The only difference is, you now have less fans, and therefore, less growth

by Shaun32887 on Oct 29, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This x10,000

and this lesson needs to be applied in everyday life for 80% of America.

by Riney on Oct 29, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This should be the most recd post in BE history.

by Riney on Oct 29, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought the way it works is “if you cant afford it, put it on your credit card…”

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 29, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And hence the recession....

I’ll not go into my diatribe on how lenders caused the whole sorry mess…

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m one of those very rare breeds – Debt free, myself :P

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 30, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get real

They get hundreds of thousands of people to pay their overblown prices around the world. These guys aren’t struggling cuz maybe 2% of the view audience isn’t pay, they’re struggling because their are a wealth of fighters and a lack of orgs that can pay that much money. Free streams don’t make fighters broke, lack of major competition does.

by Limelight on Oct 29, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

so let me get this right, if there was more competition, you would pay for the events?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If there was more MAJOR competition that didn’t charge a ridiculous amount to watch their product yeah, I would. But that said, what is being discussed is an infinitesimal part of the issue. You think Dana and Silva are struggling to pay their bills at the end of the night? They pay as little as a guy is willing to accept and most guys will compromise because there’s almost no place else to go where you can make a five figure payday. Don’t blame streamers blame management and the union. Oh wait… there is no union.

by Limelight on Oct 29, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They pay as little as a guy is willing to accept …

how can you demonize that when you choose to pay nothing?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone that ‘streams’ whom is otherwise capable* of purchasing a PPV is stealing; they want to enjoy the content without paying for it. Part of that $55 buy ends up in the pockets of the fighters – whether as salaries, purses or bonuses.

*capable = having the ability to do so. This does not mean able to afford to do so. Not being able to afford something does not give you the right to steal it.

Oh and please don’t try to justify theft by “The Little Guy vs. The Man” arguments. Yes – Dana, Lorenzo and co. are in the MMA business to turn a profit… but that does not by default mean they are the enemy.

You cannot say “Zuffa don’t pay their fighters enough” as justification for you not paying for their product. When you choose to enjoy Zuffa’s content without paying for it, you’re taking money out of the pockets of fightes since you are making Zuffa less profitable.

More profit = more cash in the kitty to pay the fighters.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s funny… didn’t Barry just get $134K dropped in his pocket for this fight? That’s before they saw the gate. Before they counted the buys. Boy, it’s almost like that money was just sitting their waiting and they just chose not to pay it to him. Zuffa/UFC, despite streaming, despite blogs posting videos later on, despite links to the entire event on the net a day later… MAKE A KILLING.

Whine and complain about who does and doesn’t pay and continue to miss the point if you want to. The VAST majority pay and pay top dollar. Fighters don’t get paid for lack of money available to pay them. They don’t get paid because (and I suppose it’s a bit of human nature) they want to get as close to “something for nothing” as they can. Don’t get mad at others because they’re better at it than Zuffa is.

by Limelight on Oct 29, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

but like i said, you’re demonizing Zuffa doing the same thing you’re doing, arent you? you accuse them of paying fighters as little as possible, while you’re paying as little as possible ($0 because you have that availability) to zuffa for their services (providing you with the events).

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

De-rec

Whatever you do, don’t start a small business.

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 29, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he does,

I love competitors who use this train of thought.

by Riney on Oct 29, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll help Limelight’s viewpoint with a RL example: Games here in Aus cost us $80-100. I refuse to pay that price so consequently I played pirated games for years. Now there are services like Steam that offer games for $50 and cheaper I am now a regular paying consumer.

Get UFC a tv deal and this whole discussion becomes obsolete :P

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 29, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Console games here in the UK cost £40...

… which is round $80 AUD, when you factor for taxes, import duty etc. Some go for £50 ($100 AUD) yet they sell consistently well.

Just because you don’t agree with the price of a product does not mean you have right to go down an illegal route. You have a choice: pay the going rate at time of launch or wait it out and pick up a pre-owned copy or, some time later, get the same title when it’s released on a ‘budget’ label.

Same goes for the UFC PPV’s; stump up the fee to watch the event live OR wait for it to be released on DVD some months later and get the full undercard and some extras thrown in too.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dont care about whats right and wrong in this argument, simply giving an example of what Limelight was getting at.

Moral issues have been covered at length in this thread already.

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 30, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What??

didn’t Barry just get $134K dropped in his pocket for this fight? That’s before they saw the gate. Before they counted the buys. Boy, it’s almost like that money was just sitting their waiting and they just chose not to pay it to him

Zuffa baset their bonuses on the live gate; before the fights have wrapped, their accountant knows what the take is and they set the bonuses accordingly.

Pat Barry was $7,000 to show and $7,000 to win. If he had been KTFO, he’s have pocketed just $7K. That he won and extra $127,000 in bonuses was a combination of luck and skill. That money could easily have gone into someone eles’s pockets.

The bottom line is simple: the more profitable Zuffa is, the more money they have in their coffers to pay the fighters. Whether they choose to do so is a different argument altogether.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He honestly seems to think Zuffa should be paying paycheck to paycheck and giving the fighters all available profits. It’s amazing business sense, really.

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 29, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

with his same line of thinking, its only stealing if its a tangible item, if its a service, its not really stealing. i dont know about you, but i provide a service for my employer and not a tangible item… i sure hope they keep paying me, rather than choosing “Limelight” approach

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 29, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you've just coined "Limelighting" :D

If “moonlighting” means having a second (untaxed) job in addittion to your ‘day’ job, then I guess “Limelighting” would be letting someone profit from your labor because they simply don’t want to pay you…

FYI there’s a shitload of people out there who want to profit from my photography without wanting to pay for it; or at least pay the going rate. This little video clip sums up some of the bullshit I have to deal with, whilst neatly illustrating the how when you take a service based argument and apply it to physical products, it all falls down

http://www.vendorclientvideo.com

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs

I'm with you

I own a creative services company, so I’m fully aware of the stigma that because something isn’t physically present, it shouldn’t cost anything.

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 29, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto. In And that video gets a rec’d from me as well.

Blackout, you’re based in Minneapolis, right? What kind of creative services do you provide?

by nottheface on Oct 29, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of them

Web design, programming, graphic design (print, apparel, packaging, vinyl, etc), video/audio (shooting, editing, motion graphics, 3D), marketing (SEO, business reply mail, p2p, events)— and anything else you can imagine.

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 29, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holy shit

I just watched that video and you, sir, are getting a rec. Welcome to my (our?) world, motherfuckers. Haha…

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 29, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's great...

That video is hilarious. Rec.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Oct 30, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UFC 92 (12.27.09): $10,000
UFC 98 (5.23.09): $7,000

So between December ‘08 and now, Pat Barry raked in $17,000—before taxes. That’s a pretty crap salary considering he had to travel and pay for hotels and road meals. Plus he probably has a manager to pay and has trainers to pay.

UFC 104: $134,000

Hey, Pat, if you are reading this, get an accountant NOW and start saving. No cars or vacations. Pretend you never earned that money and keep on eating ketchup and rice for a while.

by judonerd on Oct 29, 2009 8:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

^ Correctamundo

Forward Ever, Backward Never...

by Tony NJ on Oct 29, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

considering he had to travel and pay for hotels and road meals

Zuffa pays for that.

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on Oct 29, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe some fight-night plane tickets and hotels, but I doubt he just handed Zuffa all his reciepts for 2009 and got a envelope full of money back.

by judonerd on Oct 30, 2009 3:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

It was a box.

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 30, 2009 3:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pat Berry

fought 9 times in K-1, and 4 times for the WCL. did they not pay him anything? i can see not making much in the WCL, but K-1 is one of the FEG’s biggest assests. why was he so broke?

by bdw on Oct 29, 2009 11:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He had to buy stuff.

"I’m sorry. I didn’t drink last night, so I’m not funny today."
-Sakuraba

by Blackout612 on Oct 29, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And MMA training camps are known to be quite expensive.
Get income protection and save your dollars Pat!

"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy

by Benicio on Oct 30, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Economy Sucks

Only North America is force to pay for PPVs to see events through all this current economic hardship. WE are the tired, poor, and huddled masses. How can you ask someone without a job, probably in debt, and struggling to keep their home to shell out $50 for 3 hours of entertainment

Europe has been starting to do well again. Charge PPVs there and bump down the cost of PPVs 15 bucks here. More people will buy them and the sport will become more popular.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t justify blowing cash like that every month, especially with headliners like Ortiz vs Griffin

by HighNoon on Oct 30, 2009 10:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

if you wont pay for it, they why do you deserve to watch it?

I'm old school hating Lesnar, I've been hating Lesnar since '08

by MicahW on Oct 30, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

recd

by Riney on Oct 30, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

who said anything about deserving to watch it?

pretty sure he just explained why he couldn’t justify paying for it

as to why hes watching it? because he can

by jackmerridew on Nov 1, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if people realize that PPV service is not available in many countries…

Also, Pat Barry trains at ATT. I guess it’s pretty expensive camp. A lot of people would love to train at Jackson’s or ATT, AKA, but they can’t afford it. To me it seems like ATT has charged the shit out of Barry for training camp, and he had no money for proper food.

by dancingChicken on Oct 30, 2009 2:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bloody Elbow: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Bloody Elbow -

Hardcore fans taking food off Pat Barry's plate.

Comments