There is Good Reason to Be Bullish on Strikeforce
by Michael Rome on Feb 14, 2009 1:35 AM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
After a week or so of taking everything in regarding Strikeforce, I am extremely bullish on the organization's future for a few reasons.
First, they are not getting themselves into a pay per view death sentence. Pay per view is where most companies go to die. It's expensive to get on, and you end up spending a ton just to make some money, and the returns aren't good enough.
Second, they are running a completely non-competitive model. There is no meaningful way in which Strikeforce is competition for the UFC. Neither company's gain is the other's loss, and success for Strikeforce is not a threat to the UFC. They may eventually do a couple pay per view shows a year, but it still doesn't really matter in the long run.
Third, Scott Coker's vision of MMA is an interesting synergy of ideas that is ultimately based on presenting a product that sells. By main eventing his first fight with a catchweight fight between two trash talkers, he made his company strategy very clear. Strikeforce isn't out there trying to claim to have the best in any division in the world. They are out there to present entertaining fights that people want to see. At the same time, his excitement for fights like Jake Shields v. Shinya Aoki reveals he is really a fan of the sport of MMA as well.
There's something about the way he puts together fights that I find superior to the Joe Silva method. Whereas Joe Silva will give us something like Vera v. Jardine because they are similar level, Scott Coker will try to find two guys of similar levels and of contrasting styles that will make for an entertaining fight. I think the UFC overlooks stylistic factors in its matchmaking.
Finally, I am bullish because I do not believe the UFC will mount any counter-promotional effort. I spoke with someone at Zuffa who said this was good for the sport. I asked why, and the response was simple: "politics." A lot of people have noticed the extensive D.C. lobbying effort by the UFC of late as well as a second large wave of fighter cuts. Some industry insiders have speculated that their concern about antitrust litigation and D.C. regulation explains a lot of their moves of late. By cutting so many fighters and allowing them to go elsewhere, they cut off claims that they have a chokehold on the industry. The presence of Strikeforce on CBS only helps their cause in that respect.
I don't know if Strikeforce on CBS is really going to be a huge growth point for the industry, but I do believe it is a huge positive. Instead of trying to be the USFL to the UFC's NFL, they are positioning themselves as college football, an alternate version of the same sport that doesn't need to compete with the major league.
102 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The cuts have to do because they have way too many fighters under contract and needed to do some spring cleaning to make way for possible new additions. To me if Strikeforce is going to be taken seriously they have to put on big shows and big fights Shamrock vs. Diaz doesn’t qualify as either. People need to put on the breaks before things get out of hand it’s one thing to run a small promotion it’s another to try and run a big time MMA org we’ll see how they do.
It’s the antitrust. They don’t “have” to do any spring cleaning. They are going to end up cutting nearly 100 guys from their peak point. That kind of overall roster reduction is strategic.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
I would heavily have to side with Rome’s story here. UFC could employ those 50 – 100 fighters, just look at all the events on the schedule. It looks like the company will put together 30 – 35 events this year with 9 fights per card. Meaning they could employ a roster 270 fighters and give each 2 fights in 2009.
The antitrust situation is a real possibility. When you company keeps appearing in Forbes magazine noting it almost resides alone in billion dollar industry than law makers and business legals start to take an interest.
Sports don’t really seem to have a lot of trouble with antitrust and even when they have in the past it has pretty much been a joke(see USFL winning $1 judgment). Being the biggest company doesn’t make for a antitrust case, heck being a monopoly (which the UFC isn’t) doesn’t always make for one, antitrust involves the action a company takes to maintain their position not their size. If they could prove Zuffa was underhanded in their dealings they could file a antitrust case regardless of whether Strikeforce existed or not. Look at the big Microsoft antitrust case, it wasn’t about Micorosoft’s size or virtual monopoly it was about the way they illegally pressured computer manufacturers to only use their programs(specifically internet explorer).
Even if a case was brought against UFC that resulted in $1 judgment the damage would already be done. There is large cost to defending your case but the bigger problem is UFC’s name would get absolutely degraded in the public. Any opportunist looking for a stage to bash UFC would be given a podium and UFC would not be given the anywhere near equal air time to defend it’self. Just look at the Microrsoft case for example. I’m sure they’ve paid consultants to study the companies long term viability and the results came back saying it was more profitable to foster a #2 competitor than take on the increased risk of an antitrust suit where real damage to the company can be done.
The UFC’s name in the mainstream public doesn’t really have to worry about being degraded that much, I mean how much worse could it get than Human Cockfighting? Their marketing issue has nothing to do with anti-trust it has to do with they are in the MMA business. Do you think if the WWE got hit by an anti-trust lawsuit it would lose any fans at all? No, heck most of their fans would probably rally around them and anyone who would hate them over it already hates them to start with. Microsoft’s anti-trust case didn’t really hurt them at all in the long run, they didn’t lose and “fans” or business out of it and the people who really attacked them in public over it had been doing that for years beforehand anyway.
You also have to remember that bringing a anti-trust case to court cost the government tons of money too, they don’t do this lightly and honestly with all the problems facing the US these days do you think they want to waste any serious legal time, money or effort on a fringe sport that appeals to young people? It may be different if Zuffa was actually taking actions that break anti-trust laws but just being the industry leader in a specific sport market isn’t illegal.
A case and smear campaign would put heavy pressure on UFC’s sponsors to withdraw their money. Plus, never ever underestimate the government’s desire to waste money . . . especially on a questionable cause. Politicians would step all over themselves to decry Dana White and recite some of his worst quotes to gain election votes, especially when they have nothing good to report back to their constituents.
Again why would the US government care to smear the UFC for anti-trust? Hell if they wanted to smear the UFC they could go after them for what the actual sport of MMA contains(it’s the entire sport that the critics hate not the individual promotion) or if they wanted to play politics for election votes they could drag the UFC into steroid hearings like they have done to other sports (and pro wrestling). The general electorate couldn’t care less about how Zuffa does business as that doesn’t affect them at all. Hell I could see backlash against policitians for wasting time going after a fringe sport for something so silly when they should be investigating wall street or big oil companies that are actually hurting voters wallets.
They cut 50 fighters to get down to 150 lst April too, it’s not like this is something new from Zuffa.
If people are worried about the UFC becoming a monopoly, how in the world does the NFL, MLB, and every other sport get away with it?
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Feb 14, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry, just read posts below.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Feb 14, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions
The best way that the UFC can avoid a suit is to allow it’s fighters to unionize an F y’all who say that that’s liberal BS. “Liberal BS” is what will save this country from the conservatives who almost destroyed it.
This is because the NFL, MLB, and NBA have what is called an “Anti-Trust Exemption”. The basis of the exemption is two-fold:
A) They have a collective bargaining agreement with their respective unions of athletes.
B) There is competition within the leagues in that rather than being one private company like the UFC; in the NFL’s case they are rather 32 companies competing for the services of the players.
It is primary the CBA that gets them this exemption, but the UFC as yet has no such exemption with the Federal government, and thus are exposed to anti-trust litigation.
Baseball has a anti-trust exemption, the other two don’t actually have full exemptions. The NFL has been taken to court (and lost) antitrust cases in the recent past. Antitrust governs how a organization acts not how big it is in a market, a monopoly doesn’t just mean that you are the only company in a specific market it is a description on how a company functions within that market, specifically actions used to control that market and push competition out. The NFL and NBA are still supposed to follow antitrust regulations on how they act.
Monopoly power alone, without some act of wrongful exclusion or other legally cognizable anticompetitive conduct, is not prohibited. To the contrary, as the respected jurist Learned Hand noted, “[t]he successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins.”U.S. antitrust law thus does not attack monopoly power obtained through “superior skill, foresight and industry”.
imagine if you controlled most of a certain “stock”… that means you can manipulate the price right?
Dump some on the market and everyone else holding similar stock experience a change in their value, etc…
Zuffa is an ocean where only the surface is seen, but the deeper you go you start to see things of wonder.
In short:
They got a promoter who has been making money in the sport for years.
They’ve got several legitimate draws and several more potential draws.
They’ve got wonderful television partners in Showtime and CBS.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Well, you could have all these things and be completely doomed. They are lucky the UFC is concerned with antitrust issues, and they’re making a good call not to try to compete on PPV.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
To be more clear:
Having a promoter who has been making money in the sport for years is the most important of the three.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Feb 13, 2009 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed in general. I’m not 100% convinced that Scott Coker’s success on a small level means he will succeed on a national level, but at the same time it’s a 1000% better start than being run by a guy I wouldn’t want cleaning my toilet, Jared Shaw.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
I would argue that being the promoter behind the greatest house in the history of North American MMA is not operating on a small level. On a smaller level than the UFC, certainly, but I feel like calling his promoting “small level” is misleading.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Feb 13, 2009 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
I guess local level is the more accurate term. It’s one thing to sell out cards focusing completely on local talent in a brilliant way, but the local market technique isn’t really proven on the national level. I think besides Kimbo and Gina they do not have any CBS draws (yet), which is why I’m happy they are focusing on Showtime.
Moving from 8 shows to 20 shows a year, expanding the roster by a huge amount, spending all this money…it’s a pretty big step.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
Anti trust litigation against the UFC?
Riiiiight.
The SEC is really worried about monopolies in sports, I mean look at how they busted up the NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA, and NFL.
O wait.
I call bullshit on that one.
I hate to break it to you. But the NFL’s battle against antitrust litigation is legendary in sports.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not following
I’m definitely not following the logic behind the claim that the UFC won’t counter-promote against Strikeforce because of potential anti-trust issue. Is it an anti-trust issue to logically counter-promote against a promotion that could become a legitimate threat?
Since anti-trust usually revolves around dealings by a company which can range from throwing money at someone to not allow a specific event to occur at this time or that time or could be interfering with a contract negotiation or stopping other promotions from moving into specific areas, I fail to see how counter promoting Strikeforce is anti-trust. Isn’t that just plain competitive business?
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Feb 18, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Should also add that baseball had the same problem and congress passed a bill specifically exempting the sport from antitrust litigation. The UFC doesn’t have the same kind of congressional support. Almost every major league in sports has gone through an antitrust litigation phase.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Well, wouldn’t the existing rulings which awarded MLB and the NFL exemptions from antitrust litigation be useful as precedent if the UFC were tried on similar charges?
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Feb 13, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
Whoops, somehow deleted my responses. Shit.
Anyway, there would be precedent in terms of baseball…but the precedent is extremely weak and one of the most criticized decisions in history, and rested on a bunch of stuff about the importance of baseball to america.
The NFL is excepted under the sports broadcasting act of 1961 as a result of a decision that said the NFL had violated antitrust law in its television broadcasting.
The UFC is very safe now..they are just taking precautions.
by Michael Rome on Feb 13, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions
It should also be noted that Zuffa has a poor political reputation due their casinos being non-union. It’s been cited as the real reason why MMA isn’t legal in New York. It’s just away for the powerful union shops in New York to stick it back Zuffa’s.
The chances of UFC under Zuffa ownership getting a hall pass past the antitrust laws is almost zero. No Democrat is going to snub their union backers and most Republican would find a loud group of their supporters calling the sport moral reprehensible.
The NFL isn’t exempted, they were taken to court (and lost) to the USFL for anti-trust actions. In 1986 the NFL was found guilty of willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly status through predatory tactics and the USFL was awarded $1 in damages. That case had more to do with the NFL keeping the USFL from using stadiums and getting a network contract than it had to do with there business standing but in the end even being found guilty of that nothing changed in their status.
It’s not illegal to be the biggest or even the only company in a market, the illegal part is when you use certain tactics to keep it that way. The laws aren’t about the size of the company in the market it’s about how they act try and control that market. A monopoly that doesn’t bar any other companies from entering that market or presenting a comparable product(boxing/kickboxing or any other “fight sport” in the UFC’s case) hasn’t violated anti-trust laws. Now for example if there was any proof that the UFC used predatory practices to push Affliction out of Vegas for it’s second show then they would be in anti-trust violation even though they aren’t currently a monopoly.
Well, the fact the UFC has made an effort counter program other promotions and threatened to get in bidding wars is probably enough to start forming case.
Affliction, Bodog, IFL etc wouldn’t be the only potential companies who could register a complaint. Don’t put it past boxing promoters to sense an opportunity and make a total BS case saying how UFC complete control of the MMA market leaves them at disadvantage because ownership in their industry is divided.
Counter programming wouldn’t be a problem the way they have been doing it. Now if they tried to counter a PPV with a PPV or had tried to counter a PPV by using industry ties to cause the competitor to have to pay higher fees for distribution then there would be an issue but free tv is just free tv, every single tv program is counter-programming to try and convince you to watch it instead of what’s on the other channel.
Bidding wars for individual contracts probably wouldn’t be a problem but bidding wars for asset purchases of failed companies might be and bidding wars for tv contracts definatly could be an anti-trust issue. Say the UFC had taken a crappy lowball offer from CBS just to keep other MMA promotions off the air that would be an anti-trust violation but competitive bidding for a tv contract wouldn’t be an issue.
If Affliction, Bodog, the IFL or even boxing had any kind of case for anti-trust they would of brought it up a long time ago. Heck the UFC is farther from a monopoly now than it was a couple of years ago when there wasn’t really any other US MMA promoters at a high level(US anti-trust could care less about Japanese market products like Pride they would only be interested in competition inside the US). You have to remember anti-trust isn’t about being a monopoly it’s about trying to influence the market with abusive or predatory practices and putting up unnatural barriers to other companies entering into the market. If any other promoter had proof of the UFC doing that they would of tried to take it to court a long time ago.
Just raising your payroll when another competitor comes to the scene is construed as predatory practice.
The bar for antitrust lawsuits really isn’t that high. If the political will exists and politicians have something to gain they will make the case on their own and influence the courts to their favor. No conspiracy has to be proven, in fact past cases suggest nothing has to be proven. In the Microsoft case they just kept making things up until something stuck. The case started out over MS 98% control of PC market and shifted and shifted until the government nailed them for including some free software that other companies were attempting to sell. They are political footballs at the expense of the company.
A sudden increase in payroll might raise eyebrows but it is expected that payrolls will increase over time so no that can’t just be construed as a predatory practice. Did the UFC all the sudden jump the pay for every fighter a significant amount every time a competitor entered the market? No, hell one of the big knocks UFC critics have on them is that their payscale seems to be too low.
It seems you are basing your argument on some high level politician specifically having it out for the specific company Zuffa but not the entire sport. If some politician really wants to go after them then whether Strikeforce is on Showtime or not would be irrelevant because antitrust isn’t about whether there is competition(successful or not) it’s about how you run your business in regards to the competition. The whole political football argument is irrelevant to why Zuffa would potentially want Strikeforce to get bigger because Strikeforce being around wouldn’t protect them from that kind political gold digging suit anyway. “But look at Strikeforce” is no defense if the government tries to go after them for their practices towards the entire MMA market. It’s rare that the DOJ actually brings an anti-trust lawsuit to court, most are one company against another and if any of the UFC’s past competitors had serious grounds for one they would of done it a long time ago.
The government went after Microsoft because Microsoft was blatantly breaking anti-trust laws and what they went after them for was the fact that they were leveraging their market share to kill off competition and force other companies to give them preferential treatment designed to make it hard for competitors to enter the market(even then it took years before they actually brought a case against them). MMA is completely different, hell if anything there are more promotions now than there used to be, the sport is growing and more promoters are giving it a shot.. The UFC can’t be held responsible if those companies fail due to mismanagement or poor business planning they can only be in violation if they used abusive practices to force them out of the business. If it can be shown they used those kinds of practices then whether Strikeforce is successful on Showtime/CBS or not is completely irrelevant. Even if Strikeforce fails and disappears Zuffa won’t be an actual monopoly and even if all the competitors failed then that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are in antitrust violation.
There’s also thier tactic of using the WEC as a separate entity to try to leverage deals with networks like HBO, ESPN, etc. They’ve also used the WEC to block a potential broadcast cable competition (Versus). This could be seen as a starting point for any potential challenge.
If it can be shown in court that they specifically used the WEC to block another organization from being on that network then yea that would be an issue but just getting the WEC a tv contract isn’t. There is nothing wrong with them putting their secondary organization on tv, you would have to prove their motives were underhanded for making a specific deal.
……..also the increase in ‘super fights’ surrounding DOR could be potentially seen as anticompetitive practice designed to minimize Afflictions ppv buys by flooding the market. And there were also those rumours of UFC interference when the IFL and Affliction were promoting in Vegas……….but I dont know what they were exactly. There is certainly enough info to arouse interest, but I have no idea what kind of hard facts would be needed to mount a case.
Whoops, meant to say football. Baseball’s exemption was through the courts, and when challenged by the court to change it congress chose not to.
by Michael Rome on Feb 14, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
Anti-trust and monopolies are actually two different things. There is no law against being the largest company in specific market, anti-trust laws govern how a company acts.
Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:
prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to “remedies” such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.
The NFL/whatever comparison never really made a ton of sense to me. Fighting isn’t a team sport, its all about promoting individuals. Can you imagine some random guy putting youtube videos of himself playing out of his mind during a pick-up football game, who then becomes more popular than many of the NFL stars? Sure, there are lots of fans loyal to the UFC like NFL fans are, but it is a much more volatile business.
Considering how Strikeforce can compete when it comes to courting some free agents, and the way the sport fluctuates from fight to fight, I’d say WWE vs. TNA is a better comparison.
It can only compete though to the extent UFC chooses not to pay guys. If there was actually competition for someone besides Fedor, the UFC could win anything it wanted to.
You can choose whatever analogy you like, TNA/WWE works because they’re not competition for each other at all, except in that both charge monthly and some fans will have to make the financial choice. They are more competitive than this will be.
by Michael Rome on Feb 14, 2009 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
I think UFC is kind of limited by their own pay structure though. Since buying up the PRIDE guys they wanted, they have not made many high-profile acquisitions. I think the Lawlers and Rogerios of the world who make 50k-200k in purse money will continue to find good opportunities outside the UFC. So I guess I’m agreeing with you, UFC could outbid everyone for domestic talent, but they probably won’t in most cases.
All true…they don’t want to explode their pay structure and push it up.
Since Pride, there have only been two high profile acquisitions of real interest to them. They got one in Brock Lesnar, and offered the other the highest pay in UFC history. They just didn’t get him. Their reluctance to bend the rules for Fedor speaks to how strongly they believe in their model.
by Michael Rome on Feb 14, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
I'm sorry...
but after dumbing myself down with Stevia and Wargods talk all day you guys are giving me a headache with all the logical thinking
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 14, 2009 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
All Zuffa has to do is sign Gina and that will deflate more than 70% of what Strikeforce has done…
I am not saying it will happen but dont be surprised if Gina gets a very significant 6 figure “sponsorship” (err xyence) while she gets out of her contract.
And there arent any other females to get pissed off because Gina will get such a good contract.
Even without Gina strikeforce has everything in place to make the showtime deal a success.
Oh yeah… I’ve heard that Javier Vasquez is the de-facto matchmaker for Strikeforce, though I’m sure Coker has his hand in it too.
Coker does match making for Strikeforce as well.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Feb 14, 2009 3:44 AM EST up reply actions
Please help me...
I am so confused…“they have a chokehold on the industry at the knees.”….how is this possible. How can you have a choke hold at the knees? I am not a BJJ expert but I am pretty confident that it is not possible to choke someone around their knees.
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
Wow you actually changed it!
Good job Rome! : )
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
The Smartest Thing Coker is Doing...
Is convincing the UFC fans and media they are not a threat or competitor to the UFC. By doing this, it give them the ability to become a competitor to the UFC without anyone realizing it.
:)
Yes, I already hate him for lying about the non-competition aspect. Unfortunately it’s working because it’s what people want to hear . . . even though the concept is foolish.
Actually, going from most of the replies of people who post on message boards, what they really want to hear is, “RAWR!! Die Zuffa die! My kung fu is better than yours and I will rip your heart out!”
Why the hell would he want to compete with the UFC when he can easily make money in a slightly different niche market?
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
That is a bit silly. Strikeforce doesn’t have to actually be a direct competitor against the UFC nor are they trying to be any kind of threat. Lets face it they can’t touch the UFC at this point and they don’t have the financial backing it would take to be an actual threat even if they wanted to. It’s not like they will be forcing people to make a choice between Strikeforce or the UFC and it’s not like they are in a position to try and steal any big stars away from the UFC. Compare that to Affliction that went after Randy, Fedor, Tim Sylvia and Arlovski right out of the gate and stated that they wanted to be direct competitors with the UFC on numerous occasions. This isn’t like Coke or Pepsi where you chose one or the other it’s only competition if the companies involved make it that way.
Don’t read what you are wanting to happen into the situation, there has been other reasons for Dana White’s feuds with other promotions in the past aside from market competition that just don’t exist here. Heck the most refreshing part of this deal is that we could see multiple companies presenting high level MMA without all the ugliness of the sport’s past.
There’s no meaningful way they are competition. Look at their buying price. 3 million dollars, the UFC could basically donate a small portion of their profit on their last show to charity to pull together that kind of money. They simply didn’t want it. Strikeforce is the lesser of three evils to them.
If Strikeforce ever does become a PPV model (I have my doubts), UFC can basically pick and choose who they want to take outside of Frank Shamrock.
The two are barely in the same industry. It’s similar to comparing Best Buy and Blockbuster as if they’re competitors because both have DVD’s. No increase in UFC buys hurts Strikeforce, no increase in Strikeforce ratings hurts the UFC.
by Michael Rome on Feb 14, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
more than 85% of new fans strikeforce or any other org generates, become Zuffa product fans.
Making all of these orgs a watered down “tuf” for Zuffa.
Less than 15% of new fans a Zuffa product generates become fans of one or more non-zuffa org.
The math works against anyone.
The only reason Strikeforce will continue to succeed is because they fill a space Zuffa can’t, as Rome mentioned:
“They are out there to present entertaining fights that people want to see.” (not worrying too much on relevance to rankings)
This is perfect for a TV model as it doesnt cost an arm and a leg and these are exactly the types of fights that will work on TV but wouldnt on PPV (as michealthebox detailed on another thread).
by mmalogic on Feb 14, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sounds like the Zuffa PR approach is to paint Strikeforce into a corner as being insignificant in terms of the fights they put on, which is a complete crock of horseshit. The only difference between a fight like Maia vs. Sonnen and Lawler vs. Misaki (aside from the latter two being higher ranked) is the brand name of the promoter.
The idea that all forms of MMA just lead to UFC is mistaken. Its more like people just aren’t that loyal to any particular brand, some of them just want to see “the fights”. It helps explain how Affliction can pull such impressive PPV numbers, they have UFC buyers leaking in because a big fight is a big fight.
You’re missing another key difference…
Maia v Sonnen in the UFC is an undercard fight while Lawler v Misaki is Strikeforces main event or at minimum co-main.
How is afflictions ppv numbers so impressive? look at how much non-ufc ppv’s did and their cost vs Afflictions…
Affliction spent almost three times as much to get close to twice as many buys as other non-UFC’s.
affliction actually did worse… UFC had 3 of four shows doing over 900k buys. The marketplace is such that Affliction should have at least done 200k buys to even compare to Pride’s numbers which they didn’t even come close.
by mmalogic on Feb 14, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, considering you’re a Zuffa schill, I’m not shocked you would try to spin it like that.
If Lawler was in the UFC, he’d be at the top of the card, no question. But my point is, fights like Lawler vs. Misaki or Santiago, Shields vs.Hieron, Thomson vs. Alvarez, and many others… those are not just fights people want to see, they are major, elite level matches with a big effect on the rankings, no matter who promotes them.
Calling someone a “schill” violates the “no name-calling” rule. Also, the word you’re looking for is “shill.”
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Feb 14, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly, what has Lawler done since being cut from the UFC after his middling record there? He might be on the top of a Fight Night card.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Lawler would be a main card by far, probably close to 2 or 3 in line from the main event in the UFC.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Feb 18, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
“such impressive PPV numbers”? People got excited because the numbers didn’t suck ass as bad as expected but lets not get carried away here those numbers weren’t “impressive”. Lets be honest Affiction put on it’s A game and still only got around half of what Franklin vs Henderson did on PPV, good for them but they still have a very long way to go.
Glad to See Open Discussion Encouraged on Bloody Elbow
I suppose calling this post pure comedy violates the terms of service, as my post was deleted 3 times, and I was also issued a warning.
It appears, from the posts above, it is safer to call a poster a shill, but I myself would never suggest that. . .
You called it comedy but gave no reason for it – at least when you insult the writer have the decency to make your argument… What’s “comedic” is someone insulting another’s argument without backing it up.
by mmalogic on Feb 15, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just to be clear, we do encourage open discussion here. If you’ll notice, your follow-up comments that were actual arguments haven’t been censored. As for the “shill” statement, people have been warned/banned for name-calling before.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Feb 15, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
Reason
To the contrary mmalogic, I did give a reason. I cannot fathom how Rome actually believes what he wrote.
Coker is a highly successful promoter and businessman yes? I am not aware of many highly successful businessman who make investments in enterprises with the express purpose of remaining second fiddle or placing a preconceived cap on your company’s growth.
Or how about this. UFC’s popularity explosion in large part tied to TUF correct? TUF aired on SpikeTV. You think Coker might be able to build a PPV model with CBS and SHowtime, and getting roughly 10 times the audience of TUF?
Back to the “league” analogy again I see. What about the UFC is a league at all? Look at the definition:
1. a covenant or compact made between persons, parties, states, etc., for the promotion or maintenance of common interests or for mutual assistance or service.
2. the aggregation of persons, parties, states, etc., associated in such a covenant or compact; confederacy.
3. an association of individuals having a common goal.
4. a group of athletic teams organized to promote mutual interests and to compete chiefly among themselves: a bowling league.
There are many, many more reasons the post strikes me as high comedy.
Ok now you have laid out an argument… it is wrong but at least you laid one out and werent just wasting hardrive.
Every successful business targets a certain “niche” within a market space… This is what strategy is all about. Get an understanding of strategy and you will understand some this.
Look at showtime boxing versus HBO boxing… Showtime focuses its boxing product for a different purpose than HBO. If you understand this you’ll see why strikeforce is very synergistic.
Regarding mitigating regulation threats:
I think Zuffa knows more than you do about what will or wont constitute potential government regulations. You think Zuffa spends shit loads of dough lobbying (outside of getting sanctioning) for the heck of it?
Microsoft got into lots of shit… Google so far hasn’t. Google set up lobbying years ago before they became a behemoth. Microsoft never bothered.
by mmalogic on Feb 15, 2009 2:59 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You think Coker might be able to build a PPV model with CBS and SHowtime, and getting roughly 10 times the audience of TUF?
You do seem to be an expert on “high comedy” because that statement is hilarious on so many levels.
Comedic Indeed!
We shall see. By June 2010, Strikeforce will be on PPV. Thoughts to the contrary are just silly. That IS the value of the network.
Thy could be on PPV tomorrow if they wanted to invest enough money into that, it’s not the magical value of the network that gets you on PPV it’s just putting on a PPV. I agree that Strikeforce will be on PPV by 2010 I just don’t think that will be the stake in the heart of the UFC that you seem to act like it will be nor do I see where being on CBS a couple of times a year will make them into world beaters any more than it did for EliteXC. Strikeforce may be on PPV in 2010 but it won’t be because of CBS “magic” it will be because they are a solid company with smart leadership.
The roughly 10 times the audience of TUF was the part that was really funny though. Who knows perhaps Strikeforce will start a show that averages “roughly” 15 million viewers per episode.
Oh, agreed. I am not claiming it is going to be any stake in the heart of the UFC at all. Of course not. That said, Coker/Strikeforce won’t market themselves or their fighters as “minor league” either—you can be assured of that.
No marketing that way would be silly but marketing and reality are two separate subjects. It’s going to take a heck of a lot of capital to try and take on Zuffa at the top of the market but it would be very easy to step up solidly in the market. A very big difference in this situation is the difference between the best in the world and the best draws in the world, the UFC has the majority of the best in the world but more importantly they almost have a lock on all the best draws in the sport. It cost a lot to build a star but it is even more expensive to hang on to them and Strikeforce isn’t in a position to win those kinds of bidding wars. Who casual fans think of as the best has as much to do with perception as it does with reality(see Kimbo Slice in 2008).
A lot of people say the MMA market is saturated but I disagree with that, I think there is a lot of room for the sport to grow outside of it’s current limited demographic and focused lifestyle based market(I am way outside of the target demographic myself). Multiple companies can exist at a high level in MMA but to do that they are going to have to grow the market and start attacking niches to thrive in. RC cola will never top Coke or Pepsi but it has carved out a sucessful market for itself. I don’t think the comparison for Strikeforce and the UFC will end up NFL and NCAA, I think it will end up more like Microsoft and Apple, similar companies with similar products in the same industry but they both target their audiences in different manners.
by who me on Feb 15, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Explosion Entertainment LLC
Assuming Zuffa isn’t an owner of Explosion Entertainment LLC, I am confident in my postings.
Do think Zuffa spends money lobbying for the heck of it? No—I think Zuffa spends money to avoid regulation in the first place by propogating nonsense such as we are a “league” no different than the NFL, and other such nonsense.
I'm going to be really clear here Rob...
You came to the site and were rude in basically attacking the staff member who posted the article and didn’t even bother to defend your position. You came back and now have provided an argument so your comments have not been deleted. You were little more than a 12 year old prank calling his neighbor and saying “YOU’RE FAT!” and quickly hanging up.
It’s like how I think that your stance that the Ali Act would be beneficial if applied to MMA (and for that matter your insistence that it has somehow been successful in its intentions for boxing) is laughable at best…but at least I’ve provided reasoning in the past.
Show up and make a rude comment that does nothing but insult the author and your comment gets deleted, put some thought behind why you think he is wrong and it stays up. You’re a smart guy…that should be clear enough for you.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 15, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Explosion Entertainment LLC is the parent of Strikeforce. Newly formed on May 9, 2008. Prior to this date, the parent of Strikeforce was West Coast Productions, LLC.
As stated, assuming Zuffa/UFC isn’t an owner in Explosion, I am confident in my postings. My posts assume Strikeforce is independent, and not in essence an affiliate/subsidiary.
I assume Strikeforce is independent of Zuffa/UFC, yes.
If that is not the case, I will obviously (and quickly) retract my posts!
If Zuffa was “secretly” behind Strikeforce pulling the strings in some way then there actually could be an anti-trust issue from that. That doesn’t mean that the Fertitta’s don’t have time or money invested behind Strikeforce though (Microsoft has invested signifcant money in Apple in the past and the two companies have working arrangements).
Thank you for the Explanation
My intent was not, and is not to do “nothing but insult,” and even in the follow up posts, my point remains the same. Again, my post that was deleted wasn’t an insult with no reasons or explanation provided—I did in fact provide my explanation.
Your issue appears to be with my explanation—not so much the post. Does the substance of my explanation change with the length of the post? My point in the post that remains above is dentical to the post that was deleted.
I also find it ironic that Rome’s article, taken at face value, is incredibly insulting to Coker and Strikeforce, but that point appears to be lost on many.
Maybe because it is not an insult? Lumping Coker in with the Shaws and others who want to go too big too fast then crash and burn, that is insulting.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
The post does more than hold Coker/Strikeforce apart from predecessors. It suggests Coker and Strikeforce are and will remain a minor league, content to provide “an alternate version of the same sport that doesn’t need to compete with the major league.”
Likewise, the post suggests that clearly, the best fighters are not in Strikeforce, and this is likewise by design. “Strikeforce isn’t out there trying to claim to have the best in any division in the world.”
You think Jake Shields would agree? Robbie Lawler? Gil Melendez? Josh Thomson? Others? They are all clearly trying to be the best in the world.
Fair Enough--
Not sure how to edit—so adding another post.
Fair enough on spelling out in detail the reasoning for my general disagreement.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
