Zuffa Math (200,40,28, 7, 5): Why Merging the WEC and UFC Is Harder Than it Looks
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 3:22 PM EDT
Email
Print
Promoted from the Fan Posts by Kid Nate.
In some ways merging the Ultimate Fighting Championship and World Extreme Cagefighting makes perfect sense. Both groups are owned by the same company, Zuffa, and both feature the best fighters in the world in their showcase divisions. Combining the two would give a new look UFC a near monopoly on the world's most talented fighters. But things are never as easy as they seem-which is why the WEC seems safe as a stand alone promotion for now.
It boils down to fighters and their deals. Right now the UFC keeps around 200 fighters under contract. More than that would be untenable, as they just don't promote enough fight cards to support any additional athletes. Less than that is inviting disaster when fighters get injured and allows the possibility of a competitor laying their hands on a potentially world class talent.
Split between the five weight classes they promote (Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Middleweight, Welterweight, and Lightweight) that is approximately 40 fighters in each division. That gives matchmaker Joe Silva 20 fights in any given period he can make and the ability to ensure that the most promising fighters in the class fight under the UFC banner.
If the UFC added the bantamweight and featherweight classes, giving them more potential title fights and some additional exciting matchups, each division they promote would be forced to take a hit. Instead of 40 fighters in each weight class, the UFC would be stuck with just 28. The number of potential matchups would be limited, the chance potential stars would slip through the cracks would be greater, and the opportunity for a handful of injuries to demolish fight cards would increase astronomically. Something would have to give.
We've seen it before: in the early Zuffa era the UFC stopped promoting lightweights. Despite speculation that the move revolved around BJ Penn, the truth is that it was a lack of fight cards that necessitated the change. There just wasn't enough room on UFC shows to promote five robust divisions. The same is true with seven divisions today.
The obvious solution to this issue probably springs immediately to mind. Why not just promote more UFC cards? Sounds easy enough. The problem is with their television partners. The UFC is opposed to creating more PPV cards. It's already difficult enough to find the kind of compelling matchups that fans will pay for. So that's out.
SPIKE has been a tremendous assett to the UFC and it's a relationship both parties see continuing into the future. But SPIKE definitely prizes their exclusive relationship with the UFC. They aren't willing to pay the same amount of money for a promotion that is spread out across a number of networks, with SPIKE as just another partner. So spreading the UFC product among a variety of network partners is out (except for the shows allowed under SPIKE contract).
The desire to remain an exclusive partner doesn't mean that SPIKE is looking for additional UFC programming. The number of Fight Night shows seems to work perfectly for them and they don't appear willing to run any additional cards at the current price. So additional UFC shows on SPIKE are out.
That's what makes the WEC useful. Why maintain the illusion of separate promotions? The answer begins and ends with television. Zuffa wants control of as much airtime and as many fighters as possible. Their current arrangement with SPIKE doesn't allow them to promote more than four UFC shows a year outside of the network. That leaves a lot of fighters under contract short fights if the UFC alone is the only way to get fighters in the cage. The number of fighters in each division would need to be reduced just to find room on the card for them all if the UFC is the only option. Enter the WEC. Operating under the pretense of being a separate promotion, the WEC banner allows Zuffa to promote seven additional shows a year on Versus, without falling astray of their deal with SPIKE. This allows them to maintain 40 fighters per division, allowing for diverse, interesting matchups on every show.
When the Versus deal expires all bets are off for the WEC. As we saw last week, they are a promotion in name only. Hell, even their logo has disappeared. If the UFC inks new television deals, there may be no need to pretend that the little guys are in a unique organization all their own. The fighters with potential to connect to the audience, guys like Urijah Faber and Jose Aldo, will be able to be promoted on the UFC's marque shows. Until then, merging the WEC and UFC is mathematically impossible.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
137 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
nice post.
The UFC doesn’t need to absorb the WEC to use them in a PPV. Why can’t the UFC cherrypick from the WEC roster, as it needs? Take UFC 111 for example, Pelligino vs. Cameos was on the main card. No problem with either fighter, but, imagine how much stronger the ppv would be if instead of that fight, Zuffa had Cerrone vs. Henderson 2. or Aldo vs. Faber. This would be a vehicle to help the WEC brand grow and make the bi weekly UFC ppv’s a little easier to swallow.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
I’ve floated that idea in the past, but the bottom line is that the WEC needs every one of their top talents to create sustainable television ratings.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the UFC audience on Spike is a little bigger then the WEC audience on VS. So, if UFC were to invite a few hand picked fights to broadcast on the PPV or even Spike, it helps the WEC brand. The UFC fans would be exposed to the WEC fighters, this should create more crossover viewing then what is currently going on.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
But it also takes fighters away from WEC events.
Fighters who fight on a UFC card aren’t going to be available for WEC cards anywhere near the same time.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
I really do understand that. I guess I am more interested in a stronger UFC PPV and if WEC are owned by Zuffa, they should be able to facilitate this. I would like to ask, Do you think the lack of super star power hurts UFC on Spike? It can be argued, UFC have used second tier fights and done great. Not many of the Spike fight cards would have a PPV appeal. I guess Im assuming the WEC is at this same level in their development.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Just hold more events!
Not every event needs to be a PPV. The amount of actual MMA available is nowhere near comparable to the amount of programming other sports have.
He covered the issues with this....
They don’t want to hurt their Spike relationship by having new relationships with more networks, but Spike doesn’t necessarily want more UFC programming then they currently have.
by Brandon Starr on Apr 30, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I bet you they do…they’re virtually the UFC channel and the live UFC events are some of their biggest ratings.
The number of Fight Night shows seems to work perfectly for them and they don’t appear willing to run any additional cards at the current price.
They show old UFC Unleashed reruns all the time but they have no desire for more fight nights?? They also buy all these prelims which aren’t even events in themselves! This line makes no sense, really. It’s pretty presumptious to say that Spike wants no more UFN cards than they currently have.
Episodes of unleashed and the prelim fights cost waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than a whole card on spike.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This. That's why they only run 3-4 Fight Nights per year.
And substitute showing prelims with interviews from the guys from Blue Mountain State!
"It's fourth and fifteen and you're looking at a full-court press." - Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad
Um ok it costs more but it also draws more. Profit margins are roughly the same (10%) across the board it doesn’t matter if something is expensive as long as it allows them to make larger profits.
how on earth would you know what the profit margins are?
Also, the UFC 110 replay averaged 1.4 million viewers, the last fight night on spike averaged 1.6. The difference in cost is not in line with the increase in ratings.
Called microeconomics? Profit margins are generally conistent across most businesses but that’s not even the point.
First of all, you make the assumption that UFC 110 was far cheaper for Spike to broadcast than an UFN, based on no actual evidence. This is fundamentally flawed in an economic sense. Spike will pay what a show is worth to them. It’s not like Zuffa sets a price on the UFNs which Spike is forced to take it. If UFNs had lower profit margins than other programming, Spike simply would not buy them.
Even if ratings were higher than they expected for the UFC 110 replay, or lower than expected for the UFN, the price Spike would be willing pay would simply adjust to reflect this. If the UFC felt that they were able to fetch a higher price for their product on other stations, they would do this.
Except that there are two agents involved in the transaction. Zuffa would require more money from Spike for UFN’s than they would for replays because UFN’s cost Zuffa more to produce than a replay of an event they’ve already paid for with PPV revenue. Spike pays whatever price it can negotiate as long as it’s profitable to do so. Both Zuffa and Spike have to ensure they’re profiting fromt the agreement.
My guess is that Spike makes out like bandits by airing those replays. Zuffa only cares about stealing young males away from competitors when it comes to these things, as opposed to revenue generation. I’m sure Spike is well aware of that fact and negotiates with the UFC with that in mind. Whereas the licensing fee for broadcasting the UFN’s is probably a pretty important to the UFC to ensure that UFN’s are profitable.
So, if Spike is choosing to air all of this UFC content and ratings are similar for UFN’s and replays, then it can probably be assumed that both UFN’s and replays are profitable for Spike, but replays are probably more profitable.
The production costs for Fight Nights come out of the UFC’s pocket books. Dana has called them a way to give back to the fans.
They may give Spike a discount on replays, especially if they are last minute counter programming, but I would think that the UFc proably charges the same.
Shows are bought and sold based on ratings and if the UFC take a slight his in revenue on a fight night card, they make up for it with the low procution cost of a replay.
I find it hard to believe that the UFC is willing to take a bath on UFN’s just to give back to the fans.
It’s an interesting discussion, in any case. I guess at the end of the day it’s all just speculation. We don’t have access to the UFC’s account books.
by zorba on Apr 30, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You really think that an entire live show, a clip show of previous fights, replays of already taped shows, and 2 live fights that take place before a PPV card all would have the same exact profit margins for everyone involved?
We were talking about Spike’s profit margins—the comment about profit margins across industries is just a side note, which as I said is not material to the argument. The question we are trying to answer is whether Spike is willing to buy more UFNs, or if, as you suggest, that the UFNs are not worth TO SPIKE what they pay for it.
As I said, you’re looking at this the wrong way. From Spike’s perspective it doesn’t matter how much it cost Zuffa to produce the programming it matters how much the programming can attract in revenue. This is how Spike determines how much the programming is worth to them and therefore how much they are willing to pay.
For good measure, if you believe I am neglecting the UFC’s perspective, here you go:
Similarly, if the UFC believes that they can obtain a higher price than Spike offers (which, as I said, is based on what it is worth to Spike)for any of their programming, live or otherwise, then the UFC would try to sell their programming to other networks, to whom their progamming is worth more.
You must always look at these things from the perspective of each individual agent involved to understand their business decisions.
Do you know the difference in cost?
The difference in cause would be proportionate with that the expected draw will be… That is the economics of the situation. The probably paid a similar amout for the re-air as they wouold for the live card.
I guess I’m an idiot for assuming that it costs less to produce a clip show or a fight card that has already been filmed and edited than a live show.
Keep ignoring the obvious signs that Spike is unwilling to add more live cards (countering SF was taped, European PPVs are no longer on spike, etc) and trust a guy pulling numbers out of his ass.
by Phildo on Apr 30, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah I wonder with the prelims if they're going to reduce the European PPVs on Spike.
"It's fourth and fifteen and you're looking at a full-court press." - Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad
by SSreporters on Apr 30, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Phildo your are right
Live shows are more expensive to produce. If anybody needs any proof on that go look up why the WWE only does RAW and PPV’s as live shows and tapes their other shows(Smackdown, etc..)
The other reason anybody should be able to tell that the UFN’s are more expensive is this. Spike ASKS for the UFN’s and so the UFC is going to charge them more. Spike is not going to the UFC and saying let’s counter Strikeforce or Affliction, the UFC is going to Spike and wanting to counter.
iI’m sure Spike does pay a fee to air things like 110 or any other PPV replays but those situations are more the UFC wanting to get on Spike where with an UFN Spike wants that as a lead in to the new season of TUF or any other show they want to get a large audience(deadliest warrior, dea, etc..).
More expensive to produce... Sure...
But the UFC produces their own shows. That would be a barrier for the UFC to do it, not a barrier for Spike. Spike pays according to what the draw will be, not according to the production costs.
Thank you, Truck. Business decisions are made based on that particular business’s expected revenue, which determines the amount that THAT particular business is willing to pay. The costs associated with production of the show are irrelevant.
This is NOT to say that the amount it is worth to Spike is the same as the amount it is worth to other networks, where it is possible UFC programming could draw higher ratings…
If you are buying a $200 bike do you care what the production costs are?
You buy based on value. Which ever one has more value is the one you buy.
There is give and take in the Spkie UFC deal, but it is still done based entirely on how many viewers the UFC will bring to Spike. Networks pay for viewrship, not for production costs.
I don’t have to care or think about what it costs because the price the store is charging already reflects the bike’s production cost. Someone mentioned microeconomics earlier. Basic microeconomics states that:
price = marginal cost
You’re using the term “cost” loosely. Costs to Spike and costs to the UFC are two different things. You seem to be equating the two. As I said before, we are only talking about Spike’s particular decision as to its programming.
The UFC may not like the price, but that doesn’t influence the value of the programming to Spike. The amount Spike is willing to pay is merely a reflection of the revenue to be gained from the programming. Spike would not lower its profit margins based on the UFC’s cost of production. They would simply show another program, whether a different UFC program or an episode of Blue Mountain State.
If the UFC finds that it’s not worth it to produce live shows because they have lower profit margins doing so, then they would stop producing live shows. They would not be able to charge Spike a higher price for the progamming than what it is actually worth, as you would suggest.
However, there are other considerations the UFC has having to do with saturation, promotion of fighters and upcoming PPVs, and such. For example, those UFC Unleashed reruns were all live shows at one point, and interest in them would eventually dwindle if there were never new fights.
Let me make an analogy not involving the UFC.
There are two shows competing for a 10PM Saturday time slot on Spike. Blue Mountain State costs $2 million to make. Deadliest Warrior costs $1 million to make. Let’s assume that both programs would draw the same ratings, which we’ll say have revenue equivalent to $3 million.
Does the fact that Blue Mountain State cost twice as much to make affect Spike’s the price Spike is willing to pay for the programming? No. Spike would make the same offer to the producers of both shows.
On the other hand, the profits of the producers of these shows are a reflection of their costs versus the value of the product they produce. To put it in economic parlance, they are price takers, not price makers. Before you try to say “Ha, they are a monopoly they are price makers!” let me preempt you by saying they are not a monopoly in the television market—what they are producing is, for all intents and purposes, generic programming that has nothing to do with the content of the show.
In order to for Blue Mountain State to obtain the same profit as Deadliest Warrior, they must either produce a product that is worth more or they must find a way to produce the same show for less.
hopefully I’ve convinced you. If not, there’s nothing more that I can do, anyway, and I have a chem exam to study for lol so I’ll c u all later.
This is actually my point.
TV replays and live events do about the same ratings. So if Spike will only pay the same price for them, why would zuffa sell them live shows for that price and lose money?
Or in other words, Spike is not willing to pay more for live shows, because they cost more.
Damn it! Why did I check back…I really need to be studying right now.
You are right that, if the benefits are truly the same, and the costs of rerunning old shows are far lower, according to our theory the UFC should not bother making live events for Spike. First off, let me say I’m skeptical that live events generally have the same direct revenue (ratings) as replays of UFC PPVs or mash-up shows of various UFC fights. But even assuming that this is true, then you have to ask yourself “why is the UFC, then, still choosing to make live shows for Spike?”
The answer is that there must be other factors that influence the UFC’s decision to continue to make these shows. For example…future reruns, PPV/fighter promotion, keep the brand fresh, etc. These are just a few considerations and I’m sure you could come up with many more ideas. I don’t have time to think too deeply about it.
After realizing this, to answer the fundamental question of whether the UFC will benefit from creating more UFNs, you must ask yourself “Will the indirect benefits that currently lead the UFC to pursue live programming on Spike continue as they make more shows? Could they even be magnified?”
Who knows, who cares, I’m out!
2 things come to mind
1) almost all UFN’s fall under the current deal with Spike. If I remember correctly Spike paid the UFC like 100 million for 4 UFN’s, 2 seasons of TUF including the live TUF Finales, and all the UFC unleashed stuff. Anything outside of that has to be negotiated by the UFC and Spike.
2) The amount that they are paid for the additional shows is gonna vary. If Spike is looking for a live UFC card to show off a new show(dea, deadliest warrior, blue mountain state) they are obviously going to pay more. When the UFC comes to them and goes we want to counter Strikeforce they are obviosly not gonna pay as much because the UFC wants on.
The difference is Spike wanting to air a card and the UFC wanting to air a card. So why is Spike gonna pay the same amount to the UFC if it is the UFC that wants on the air. Again Spike ASKS for the UFN’s and UFC unleashed so they are going to pay more. They dont ask for the PPV replays. Have you ever seen a PPV replay not countering mma? So why would Spike pay the same amount when they know the UFC wants on tv?
Example: Let’s say Spike pays the UFC 700K a fight night(*just making up numbers) why would Spike pay 700k for a 110 replay that they know the UFC wants on tv. If Spike offers up 400k for the 110 replay the UFC is gonna say yes because they want to counter Strikeforce.
by bigdmmafan on Apr 30, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
For #1
I meant per year. 2 seasons of TUF including the live TUF finales and 4 UFN’s per year.
I think you hit right on to the big issue that the above long conversation was missing.
Fight Nights and PPV replays are dealt with under completely different deals here. Fight Nights are part of the programming package that Spike and Zuffa agreed to and the PPV replays are individual deals outside of Spike and Zuffa’s contract. If you go back and look most live Spike tv events revolve around the Ulimate Fighter reality show either as a lead in for the first episode or the finale’s. They are a package deal that is planned from the start of the year. PPV replays are done mainly when Spike and the UFC want to counterprogram another show and for the most part seem to be a one time deal made shortly before the event is actually shown. You can’t just go by ratings vs cost due to the fact that there are other reasons these shows are put on than for just their own individual ratings.
The second part of this that I didn’t see mentioned was the fact that Spike has the rebroadcast rights on the UFN shows and they rerun the crap out of them, they only replay the PPV’s once. For those shows it’s not just about the individual ratings it’s about their considerable replay value over several years. This is just a way more complicated issue than comparing ratings to ratings and assumming the rights cost are similar, the deals and the usage rights are completely different here.
I see exactly the opposite.
Spike want as much UFC programming as possible. If they werent interested in having more fight cards, why does Spike counter program Strikeforce with UFC 110 or UFC 100? This tells me, that Spike depend upon the UFC to drive their ratings.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Which surprises me. I figured showing nothing but CSI during the day would grab the viewer's attention.
"It's fourth and fifteen and you're looking at a full-court press." - Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad
Let's not forget MANswers!
"It's fourth and fifteen and you're looking at a full-court press." - Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad
Deadliest Warrior is one of their highest rated shows now
http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/07/spike-tv-renews-deadliest-warrior-.html
"Oh, and Joe? If Brian hits any of your delicate millionaires, know that he meant it." - Stacey
One that also features UFC fighters fairly often...
And hits a very similar core audience.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com
And is fucking awesome. Just adding that in there. lol
"The true science of martial arts means practicing them in such a way that they will be useful at any time, and to teach them in such a way that they will be useful in all things." - Miyamoto Musashi
by Kaleb Kelchner on Apr 30, 2010 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
This is true, but there are reasons I talked about in the article this is hard right now. In the current landscape, the UFC doesn’t wield the same power an established sports league does, and it will be harder for them to demand the right to spread the product around.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a solution
network TV
more card space, creates the need for more stars/big fights and highlights the UFC if they are all together
watchkalibrun.com
What makes you think network TV will pay them enough to make it work now if they haven’t in the past?
Well, the UFC would say that they capture such a significant portion of affluent demographics that a network – as part of an industry that has had some bumps over the last while – could not afford to turn down the opportunity to put them on. It’s hard to get advertisers’ cash these days, and they’re looking for new ways to reach tightly targeted audiences.
I don’t necessarily buy it, but I’m neither a capitalist nor an economist so my opinion is irrelevant. But you can believe that if the New York regulation ever goes through, Dana will be at the network headquarters that day, making a pitch along those lines.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
Zuffa and networks have been millions of dollars apart during negotiations. The bottomline is that networks are asking for PPV level cards but not paying enough to make that worthwhile.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mr. Snowden I have a great alternative for the UFC
1) fold the WEC bantam and featherweights into the UFC (and eventually fly). Since we would have to introduce them to most fans, we could start smaller with only 20 fighters for fly and bantam, which means that the average number for the other classes would dip only to 32.
2) rebrand the WEC. Since Spike certainly doesn’t want the UFC appearing on every channel so I suggest The Ultimate Fight Challenge. Or WEC The Ultimate Fighters WORLD ELITE CHALLENGE. There you snuck UFC or Ultimate Fighter in the title.
3) Broadcast a series of Grand Prixs. For each weight class you hold a 16-man tournament over the year. For 8 weight classes (fly – heavyweight) you would need 128 fighters. That means 120 fights, and if you threw in a losers bracket, you could up that to 176 fights.
4) Invite the TUF winner from the various regional TUFs Zuffa plans on holding, plus other TUF contestants that show potential. Then invite older veterans and popular fighters who can’t hang in the UFC.
Between a tournament format forcing viewers to tune in each week to see how it plays out and bigger UFC names (Chris Leben, Stephan Bonnar), familiar TUF figthers (Amir Sabdollah, CB Dollaway), and older veterans (Frank Trigg, Phil Baroni, Nick Thompson) I don’t see how you don’t draw much bigger ratings without having to dish out six-figures to Urijah Faber.
by John Nash on Apr 30, 2010 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
i like that idea
essentially making the WEC both a minor league and a bellator style tournament league would be extremely interesting and zuffa could make some real great tourneys with the lower tier of talent that they have in their weight divisions
Zuffa have stated many times they do not like Tournaments.
Nice idea, it will not happen. Zuffa could basically do the same thing with a WEC contract on spike. Then Zuffa can cross promote/ co promote with themselves. They can build their PPV cards from both WEC and UFC rosters. The UFC gains tremendously and so does the WEC.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
… and all people do is bitch about how crappy the fights are.
The tournament format has a lot to do with that.
not the fighters?
really? I think those heavies would gas out even if they fought randomly. haha.
by Anton Tabuena on May 2, 2010 3:08 AM EDT up reply actions
well if they are tournaments then why dont all the fights count on a fighters record?
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
It's gets counted as an exhibition match, technically, because they don't want the results announced immediately.
nothing to do with it being a tournament or not…
PS
it is.
by Anton Tabuena on May 2, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I understand your point.
But, the fights dont count on the fighters record. Dana has stated many times he will never do a UFC tournament. TUF has to be a tournament. I’m not disputing that.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Very good post
This is the only thing I take issue with:
The desire to remain an exclusive partner doesn’t mean that SPIKE is looking for additional UFC programming. The number of Fight Night shows seems to work perfectly for them and they don’t appear willing to run any additional cards at the current price. So additional UFC shows on SPIKE are out.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that they couldn’t do 1 UFN a month? Like that would be too expensive or would over- saturate the market? Because honesty, if the UFC did a monthly Ultimate Fight Night, that alone would probably be enough to sustain the BW and FW divisions. Also, this way they would have more elite fighters to fill out cards with, which has been a problem with the recent UFC PPV’s; this kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
In the meantime, like the BE staffers here have said, make the WEC into a feeder org with all weight classes, put the few fighters who they might need to cut in there, and then pick up elite prospects and bring them up in the WEC instead of letting Bellator and Strikeforce get them.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture- "The Best Never Rest!"
Go Gonzaga! G-O-N-Z-A-G-A
Considering the fact that UFC is allowed to counterprogram with a show any time they want
I think the idea that Spike is unwilling to have more UFC programming is patently absurd. UFC seems to have the ability to put on a show any time they want on Spike, because Spike knows UFC is essentially their only compelling program. I think Snowden is seriously misconstruing the power in that relationship. UFC gets what it wants with Spike.
Snowden is seriously misconstruing the power in that relationship
Snowden uses non-fact is his arguements all the time.
Plus he said on April 26th that doesn’t believe WEC fighters are worthy of praise…
“Brown was a career long journeyman.”
“Faber was a 135 pounder masquerading as a featherweight.”
“Most of Torres’ success came against unknowns in midwestern country bars.”
“Aldo, who has beaten Faber and Brown, is being sold as the best fighter in the world. Never mind that his most impressive win is over a fighter that Manny Gamburyan just ethered in seconds.”
But Today the WEC has the most talented fighter in those weight classes.
by truck on Apr 30, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
yep
that’s a pretty accurate statement. rec’d.
by bobthewriter on Apr 30, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Having conversed with people in both camps, I don’t think I’m misconstruing the relationship. It’s a tight one and one of equal partners, but SPIKE is definitely very protective of the UFC’s relationship with the network.
To address your other point: certain fighters were mythologized by Zuffa and sold hard to their audience. That really has nothing to do with whether or not the promotion has the top fighters in a weight class. The WEC clearly has the best bantanweights in the world. Featherweight is also almost to the point that the very best across the board fight for Zuffa. I don’t think anyone disputes that the WEC has the best fighters in these two developing weight classes.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
If anything, Spike would be pumped about more live shows. It would bring in a fuck ton of ratings.
Plus, the UFC could appease Versus by running their full 4 shows a year on VS, which would make them happy and would provide yet another outlet for the new fighters to compete.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture- "The Best Never Rest!"
Go Gonzaga! G-O-N-Z-A-G-A
by ElliotMatheny on Apr 30, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
So why isn’t Spike throwing money at the UFC to do more shows?
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 30, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
They don’t want a bunch of watered down cards, obviously. They don’t have the amount of fighters to support doing any more than they already do. Adding a FW & BW division would allow them to do that many shows.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture- "The Best Never Rest!"
Go Gonzaga! G-O-N-Z-A-G-A
by ElliotMatheny on Apr 30, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Spike is worrying about the UFC’s ability to put together watered down cards in not paying them for additional shows. If they had that little faith in the UFC to be able to provide a quality program, they wouldn’t be paying for shows to begin with.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 30, 2010 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you have the deal misconstrued
It’s not like Spike has to pay the UFC out the nose to do those events. They both make quite a bit of money from any live event that happens, and as history has shown people go for quality.
I’m saying that right now, they don’t have a ton of UFN’s because they don’t have the amount of fighters for that to be feasible. Of course the cards aren’t watered down now, because they only have like 5 or 6 UFN’s a year. If they bumped that up to 10-12 and did 4 Versus shows a year, that would be plenty of room for a 135 & 145 division.
The average fighter in the UFC gets something like 2 fights a year, and IMO the more cards the better. Monthly UFN’s would by no means be oversaturating the market, and the more elite fighters of the BW & FW classes could add the extra little depth that most PPV’s could sorely use.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture- "The Best Never Rest!"
Go Gonzaga! G-O-N-Z-A-G-A
by ElliotMatheny on Apr 30, 2010 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
How do we know monthly MMA’s won’t saturate the market? It is not believed that SPIKE will be interested in monthly cards and their are people in the UFC who don’t believe their team will be able to support those additional cards. It would have to come hand in hand with unprecedented growth to a team of professionals that is very close knit and small.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
I think you’re missing the fact that they still have the whole WEC staff as well. They’re used to bringing cards onto free TV, they can use those guys to help put all that stuff together. I know personally, i’d be freakin pumped if the UFC had more cards on free TV, and having a serialized event might provide some good stability. It could be like how Bellator is shown, they wouldn’t even need an undercard really.
I don’t think they’d be overextending themselves by doing 1 UFN a month and 1 PPV a month.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture- "The Best Never Rest!"
Go Gonzaga! G-O-N-Z-A-G-A
by ElliotMatheny on May 2, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I like that idea Elliot
The problem I see is, It would weaken the WEC product, VS is starting to gain traction with the WEC, the last thing they need is for WEC to be stripped completely of it’s top fighters. The idea of promoting a WEC fight in the UFC ppv would take a potential fight from VS. but, would potentially drive eyeballs to VS.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Well
It definitely would take away the elite fighters from the WEC, but I care more about the fighters than the networks, and I think those guys should be getting the exposure & money that comes from being promoted by the UFC. The WEC will still be a viable product with solid veterans, good prospects, and the occasional freak show fight.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture- "The Best Never Rest!"
Go Gonzaga! G-O-N-Z-A-G-A
by ElliotMatheny on Apr 30, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I argued the point earlier
The UFC fight Night’s on Spike are usually devoid of top end talent. The same could be done for vs. Zuffa is a PPV company, these words were said verbatim by Dana. So, if you are a PPV company, then it behooves you to present the strongest PPV possible. If that means, promoting a fighter from WEC on VS to a UFC fight card, I dont see how VS could stop it. On to your point Elliot, this would allow the WEC fighters to make a higher wage and not completely strip the WEC brand on VS.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
The post notes that the UFC has 200 fighters under contract, but Zuffa has many more. I don’t see why the total number of contracts would stay the same if the fighters under contract with the WEC (Zuffa) were absorbed by the UFC. The pie of UFC fighters would grow, not stay stagnant. As it is, Zuffa must consider the match-making and timing of WEC events; the post seems to imply that the 2 operate in a vacuum.
If the 2 did merge, the UFC LW division would either expand with the top WEC fighters making the transition, or it could cut some middling 155ers, only take the top 2 or 3 LWs and keep the division the same size. In this way, the total number of Zuffa contracts could actually decline.
Finally, a merged UFC/WEC could create and develop stars in the lower weight classes the same way the UFC has built them for years: TUF. There are complaints that WEC fighters don’t draw well, on balance, and there is no greater way to bring these guys into the light. This tactic would breathe new life into the show, instead of having retreads coach year after year.
In the end, I’m mostly for the merger so that WEC guys get paid what they deserve. Look at the payouts for WEC 48- it’s sad.
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
Tweeting @dmiller23
What if WEC wasn't just a feeder org, but a feeder series?
basically merge the concept of TUF with a crowd and tape it all for air. More contender-ish I suppose. Just cover it all with skulls and other stuff copy-n-pasted from Olde design books.
200 Fighters
Is the number of fighters the UFC can support with the cards they air on PPV and SPIKE. They owe these fighters a certain number of fights in a certain time frame. Keeping track of these contracts and making sure the fights all get done, while also putting on compelling fights, is a Herculean task. If they took on the WEC roster, without adding a bunch of cards, it would be next to impossible.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
In 2009 there were 251 different fighters that fought for the UFC.
At the end of the first quarter of 09 140 different fighters had fought for the UFC.
We have not yet reached the end of the first quarter of 2010 and already 155 different fighters have fought for the UFC. That is a 10% increase.
by cokemachinebaby on Apr 30, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Some more numbers
Year – Fighters – %Increase
2009 – 251 – 11.16
2008 – 223 – 12.56
2007 – 195 – 9.23
2006 – 177 – 44.07
2005 – 99 – —
By the end of 2010 they should have used around 275 fighters for the year. How does this affect your thoughts? Clearly there is room for expansion. I’m not sure why the 135 and 145ers should be excluded.
by cokemachinebaby on Apr 30, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
They keep 200 fighters under contract at any time, at least that is my understanding. I guess the increase is related to the increasingly fast trigger finger on fighters who lose right out of the gate.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting
Of the 250* men who fought for UFC in 2009 168 or 67.2% remained employed in 2010. 82 or 32.8% were cut.
by cokemachinebaby on May 1, 2010 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Yea, this was my biggest issue with the article and the biggest flaw in Snowden’s reasoning. If Zuffa can maintain that many fighters in two separate orgs, it would not be that much more difficult to do it in one org. The staff is already in place and the work is already being done.
The main argument then becomes the UFC’s deals with Spike and VS. Now of course, all contracts with those stations will come up for renewal and those situations can change. Not to mention we have seen the UFC put on fights whenever it wants to on Spike. And with Zuffa looking to add a few WEC PPVs and even squeezing more UFC PPVs in one us the past few years; they obviously have no issues putting on a few extra PPVs.
Adding the WEC roster into the UFC would give them more opportunity to put on quality fight cards and we could avoid seeing so many non title fights attempt to carry PPVs. The WEC could be turned into a feeder org for the UFC and still provide a place for lower tier fighters to work and still provide television opportunities outside of Spike if they wish.
"expect us to take you seriously or think you’re even remotely intelligent?" - Luke Thomas
The problem with a larger roster doesn’t have anything to do with staff. They don’t have room on their fight cards for additional fighters. They have contractual obligations to fighters they sign and they also want fighters to be at their best-something that is impossible without regular work.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
You act as though they cannot add additional fight cards, when the last couple years they seem to be adding more PPVs and now trying to add a few WEC PPVs and have started doing more Fight Nights (now with some on VS).
And having the WEC exist as a feeder org would still allow for them keeping fighters under contract and having good TV fights as well. And we could move a few of the more stale fights/fighters to the undercard and move some of those guys in the low end that are already undercard fighters to the feeder org.
"expect us to take you seriously or think you’re even remotely intelligent?" - Luke Thomas
They don’t want to add additional fight cards. Spike doesn’t want to add additional fight cards. That may change if the terms change.
WEC as a feeder organization is something I’ve never heard anyone from Zuffa respond favorably to. I don’t see how they sell a network on a product they are admitting will be second rate.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
They don’t want additional fight cards?? Then why did Zuffa put on the WEC PPV? Why did they start doing VS Fight Nights? Zuffa/UFC will put on as many fight cards as their customer base will support.
And as I said, the terms of the contracts they have with networks always get reworked everytime they are renewed. You’re article make the argument about their contract deals sound more permanent than it really is. It’s a temporary issue and looking at them rolling the orgs together would probably take a bit of work to happen anyhow and those contracts would be up by then or close.
"expect us to take you seriously or think you’re even remotely intelligent?" - Luke Thomas
The WEC PPV and VS card were both important tests of the market. I don’t think they have much to do with the equation.
I know for an undisputed fact people in Zuffa are hesitant to increase the number of PPVs, and many believe they are already doing too many. I know for a fact that people in Zuffa don’t feel like the staff could humanly do more shows than they are-people are running ragged.
SPIKE likes the UFC as being their brand. If the UFC goes to another network to run a ton of additional shows, I’m guessing it is because SPIKE is no longer a partner.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
well, I kinda figure we disagreed on all this since it’s your article and all, but I’m not going to go around in a circle about it. I’m definitely not going to argue about stuff you supposedly “know for a fact” more than anyone else in the mma world. You have some interesting points in your article, I just view them as more temporary issues and nothing the UFC can’t conquer if it’s wants to absorb WEC.
"expect us to take you seriously or think you’re even remotely intelligent?" - Luke Thomas
by JeremyShane on Apr 30, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course if they want to they could absorb the WEC. But if they decide not to, these are some of the reasons.
I would never argue I know more than “anyone else in the mma world.” I have been lucky along the way to make some friends that have been very helpful in assisting me with understanding the Zuffa point of view.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
"It's already difficult enough to find the kind of compelling matchups that fans will pay for."
Isn’t this thought completely incongruous with the idea that adding more top-level fighters is a bad thing? If they’re having trouble finding top-level matchups, isn’t adding more top-level fighters the obvious solution? Isn’t using the WEC as a farm system style promotion with the ability to call up fighters in the event of injury or need an obvious workaround to the “not having enough depth in the weight classes” issue? These seem like simple fixes to me that solves both problems.
Do you have sources for this info?
The UFC is opposed to creating more PPV cards.
The number of Fight Night shows seems to work perfectly for them and they don’t appear willing to run any additional cards at the current price. So additional UFC shows on SPIKE are out.
by truck on Apr 30, 2010 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Actually the idea that the UFC is opposed to creating more PPV cards is wrong.
In 2009 the UFC ran 13 PPV cards. Through September 1, 2010 the UFC will run or have ran 11 cards already. Now bare minimum there will at least be 4 more PPV’s from September 01 – December 31 and I wouldnt be surprised to see 6 between September and December.
So this year alone we are going from 13 to 15-17 PPV cards.
Yes. When I write something like “The UFC flew to the moon” it is based on sources. If I write something like “It would be a good idea for the UFC to fly to the moon” I am opinionating. :)
Things may change. The UFC added additional PPV cards this year, after some hardcore internal debate. Some of the weaker performances earlier in the year opened eyes that there are limits to the audience’s willingness to open their wallets. So, I don’t expect additional PPV’s next year.
It’s also possible that SPIKE will want more UFN’s in the future. The shows haven’t performed quite as well as expected, especially the Couture special that many thought would do gangbusters. It’s all economics. Producing the UFN shows costs a lot more than airing Unleashed or PPV prelims where the television capabilities are already in place.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting read. Personally, I think the WEC should just be made into a minor league. Add 135 and 145 to the UFC and push guys with some name value but no chance of fighting for the title into the WEC. Guys like Jardine and Swick are probably never going to fight for the title, but they have name value and are entertaining to watch so having guys like them headline a WEC card will pull in just as many, if not more, viewers than there are currently. And then fighters can be moved back and forth between the two promotions as matchmaking and wins/losses necessitates.
What about the concept of pulling up the best FW’s and BW’s to the UFC and sending “down” some of the lesser WW, MW’s and LHW’s. Maybe the UFC would have to carry less than 40 fighters in each division to accomodate the smaller guys but if there ever was a real match making problem they could just call up Jardine, Catone, Quarry, Blackburn, etc from the WEC. (looks like bla10cow just expressed the same concept ) I think adding some of these well known but lesser tier UFC guys to the WEC can only help their ratings. Besides , the average fan likes seeing the bigger guys on a card too! This also addresses the fairness issue of the champion BW and FW’s making some real compensation for their excellence.
Brad Blackburn already got cut and there is almost no reason to bring him back.
"It's fourth and fifteen and you're looking at a full-court press." - Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad
Why can't WEC basically stay as is?
Move the 155 lbers to UFC, add 125 lbers, and you’ve got a viable promotion with its own niche – the lighter guys. 2 or 3 PPVs a year, and the current Versus contract, and we get free fights and the fighters get a chance at PPV $$$ once or twice a year.
Is WEC bleeding money? Is there an issue I’m missing? Use the UFC marketing muscle to promote WC as a stand-alone promotion, even when it’s still in the Zuffo fold. In the new TV deals, iron out the logo stuff for PPVs so it can be UFC Presents: WEC 51, Aldo vs Faber II on PPV, WEC still has their free shows on Versus, and away we go.
"Oh, and Joe? If Brian hits any of your delicate millionaires, know that he meant it." - Stacey
People want a change because as it is, the best FW and BWs in the world make significantly less than their heavier counterparts.
The 2-3 PPV a year model
would help alleviate that. And as much as I want those guys to succeed and make as much as the Rich Franklins of the world, at some point, market demand is what it is. UFC is pretty good at creating demand. Turn Dana loose and let him do his thing with UFC Presents WEC.
"Oh, and Joe? If Brian hits any of your delicate millionaires, know that he meant it." - Stacey
The numbers are not quite as you listed..
You said:
each division they promote would be forced to take a hit. Instead of 40 fighters in each weight class, the UFC would be stuck with just 28.
I cannot say exactly how many are under contract in each division but I can say how many do not have negative win/loss totals.
33 LW
32 WW
24 MW
24 LHW
20 HW
From LW to HW the trend looks like this: \
So while each division still might take a hit, the LWs and WWs could stand to lose several more fighters than the other divisions.
by cokemachinebaby on Apr 30, 2010 4:25 PM EDT reply actions
Also, the Zuffa BW & FW have only 18 & 15 fighters without negative records.
by cokemachinebaby on Apr 30, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
UFC Total fighters contracted
I agree w/ you cokemachine the numbers of contracted fighters is hard to track. I have been trying my best at keeping a complete record, rankings, and roster for over a year now. Just to have another reference point for the number of contracted fighters…..
Lw- 41
Ww-53
Mw-35
Lhw-32
Hw-26
total=187
I try my best to keep up with roster cuts and new signings, that is the hardest part. All fighters on my list have competed within the last year. But that does not include fighters who have not fought under their new contract yet like Karlos Vemola, Goulet, or MacDonald, they get added if they stay with the UFC.
I have it on a blog I run but I don’t know if I can post the link here or not.
Please do. I know 200 is the target. The number will be around that mark at any given time.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Zuffa owns both WEC and UFC
So, the hypothethical notion that UFC cannot handle adding fighters to it’s roster is a moot point. They are already doing it, they have the services of Reed Harris and his staff to make up the necessary manpower to facilitate this.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
The UFC essentially has a finite number of shows they can run, if Snowden is right, based on the money they get from Spike and the number of PPV cards they reasonably have. So they can’t just have 300 fighters under the UFC name unless they want to have 20 bout cards.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 30, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. They expanded the undercards awhile ago to help make sure fighters under contract were able to get their fights in. They simply can’t add more fighters without cutting others already on the roster.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 30, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
if Zuffa can handle the entire roster of WEC and UFC, and they can run shows on versus,
(both WEC and UFC on Versus shows), why can’t they achieve the same if hypothetically, they merged and called everything UFC?
you said they wouldn’t want to add more PPVs and add more Spike shows, but even if that is true, can’t they just renegotiate how many “UFC on Versus” shows they put out? They would essentially run the same number of WEC shows, but only rebranded, and added to the total number of “UFC on Versus” shows.
by Anton Tabuena on May 2, 2010 3:24 AM EDT up reply actions
that's a great idea Anton.
I thought the same thing. WEC would become UFC. VS gets a stronger product. Instead of only showing 135-155 they have the chance to show 135-265. This is great for vs, great for UFC and even greater for Zuffa. The WEC staff can be absorbed by Zuffa to help manage the 135- 155 lb divisions. Then Dana, Zuffa and Flash Entertainment can continue their global expansion plan. The hesitation to promote WEC into the UFC brand has left me with many questions. Does Zuffa not trust that Reed Harris and his staff would assimilate themselves well in the UFC.? Does Zuffa really support the lower weight classes? and What does Zuffa plan to do with WEC in the long run?
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
Because, as pointed out: Spike wants the UFC name exclusively. So they can’t just run as many shows as they want to as the UFC while televising on Versus. They best they can do is run them as being promotionless.
by VirtualBalboa on May 2, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
they allowed UFC on Versus right?
and they’re gonna add more shows this year.
by Anton Tabuena on May 3, 2010 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions
They can run a limited number of UFC shows on Versus. They will run two this year. Dana has said they are allowed to run four additional UFC events outside of SPIKE. I have also heard two and that they have reached the limit. Regardless, they cannot replace all the WEC events with UFC branded events on Versus.
by Jonathan Snowden on May 3, 2010 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think most of us could noodle this out.....
the only thing I was missing was WHEN/IF the Versus deal ran out or what the situation was. When they did the “UFC on Vs.” card I was like OK, WTF is going on here. That’s along with the PPV was the reason there has been such a ramp up in conversation on this topic.
wec is a place holder… you did a great job explaining why it WAS necessary. The numbers UFC on versus generated explains why it’s NOT anymore,
Zuffa’s distribution strategy will not be limited to spike and viacom knows it – that deal is set to be renegotiated by the end of the year. UFC on versus is a glimpse of what’s to come. Comcast wants the the UFC brand – they dont give a shit about the wec, 135lb title or 145lb title… and ideally they want some sort of ancillary programming inbetween the 8 to 10 live UFC events (tapout reality show didnt work.. it will probably be an “unleashed” type of show made up from the live shows that air on versus).
The wec had a hail marry pass with the ppv but after the UFC on versus numbers came in the door was shut and all the nails were in the coffin. The transition will not happen overnight but expect Urijah Faber to be the coach on tuf 13.
Zuffa cant logistically handle a b-leage so I dont expect the wec to even be restructured as such.
Dun Datta.
by mmalogic on Apr 30, 2010 5:29 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
fantastic, so we’ll see all the top FW and BW’s in the UFC as well as a lot more shows on Versus (and maybe even espn?) . The question is why can’t Zuffa be it’s own # 2 to it’s #1. They are obviously obsessed with killing the competition. The WEC ( especially after a name change) can help accomplish that objective. It’s either that or send a bunch of good fighters off to SF or Bellator. Or should everyone just fight under the UFC name with them doing 6 or more free shows per year? It sounds like that is the future. Finally, some clarity. Thanks Dana.
Was it fan encouragement that finally got you to air the prelims live or did someone at Spike suggest it or something else?
Great points mmalogic.
This would be a step in the right direction. With the addition of WEC’s roster to the UFC, it will allow Zuffa some flexiblity with their fight cards. I never understood the reason for trying to build the lighterweights in the WEC. If the plan was to combine the WEC with UFC, it seems silly to invest the time in WEC. For this reason, I dont see Zuffa folding WEC.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
I think you are spot on with most of your points,
but this is a pretty big claim:
expect Urijah Faber to be the coach on tuf 13
by Anton Tabuena on May 2, 2010 3:16 AM EDT up reply actions
WEC should...
be a minor league to the UFC. They should also bring the featherweight and bantamweight to UFC. Both UFC and WEC should have all weight classes and WEC can
also have tournaments to determine future UFC candidates. Tons of possibilities.
I agree with that. Just dont think it will happen.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
One of the most fascinating debates I’ve read on here for a while. Great post Jonathan, made even better by the intelligent arguments of the community. Rec’s all around!
by Benjamin Smart on Apr 30, 2010 6:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
