Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Thoughts on ESPN E:60 video piece on Dana White

By Zach Arnold | May 12, 2009

Print Friendly and PDF

For all of the hype about how ‘controversial’ the segment was supposed to be, ESPN’s E:60 profile of Dana White came off as just another media piece on the UFC President. There were a few comments from critics, but it was largely a positive profile interview with White that frustratedly repeated a lot of myths and slogans.

For starters, the Zuffa Myth was in full effect here. Dana White didn’t have to say a thing, as Tom Farrey and others on camera claimed with a straight face that it was White who instituted weight classes and ‘cleaned up the sport.’ Second, White continued with his slogan that UFC “will be bigger than the NFL and soccer in 10 years.” This laughable sales pitch goes right up there in legend with Vince McMahon’s “I took wrestling out of smoke-filled rooms” sales pitch that he’s been hawking for a couple of decades.

White tried to claim that he’s made more fighters rich than people on Wall Street lately. Let’s call the MMA scene right now for what it is — if we are going to use Wall Street terms to describe what UFC is right now, right now it is a value play. They have a consistently strong core audience on PPV that is very loyal (except when given lackluster main events like Rampage vs. Jardine) and the houses do sell out in markets they’ve established. However, it is clear that UFC alone is not going to expand the MMA marketplace pie internationally. They may be able to run a show in Australia or in Europe, but they are not going to make a dent in Japan or China any time soon. As Dave Meltzer has pointed out in the past, UFC’s international blueprint basically is following the lead of WWE and copying where they make money successfully.

The story on UFC in today’s era as the one major MMA promotion running the show is that they know how to do business in North America, but it has not translated into major success internationally so far and the long-term growth prospects internationally look good, but not great.

And one more note about the MMA market — at least in media circles, I see more contraction than growth. Sites like Fight Opinion have always kept an even level of readers because we’re not mainstream by any means, so there’s less volatility. However, if you look at some of the more prolific big-name MMA sites, you clearly can see signs that traffic is down everywhere. One thing we have all learned is that the only MMA sites that are successful use a message board format. Sites that use more pro-style layouts or try to have long-form columns do not attract the same eyeballs as the message board style format. For all the heat that Bloody Elbow gets for using their SB Nation platform as more of a message board-style format, they should be given credit for figuring out a web style that works with the MMA audience and sticking with it.

On a personal level, the greatest irony of ESPN’s segment on White was his discussion about how he ran away from the mafia in Boston and packed his bags to go to Las Vegas, all while Tom Farrey discussed how the UFC swallowed up PRIDE without saying why PRIDE ended up getting swallowed up and what led to the company’s demise. ESPN also failed to mention the current lawsuits launched by both Zuffa and Sakakibara (which are scheduled to proceed this year and next year in American courts.)

Overall, I found the E:60 piece on Dana White to be not informative and, at times, painfully frustrating to watch.

Ivan Trembow notes the glaring holes in ESPN’s E:60 coverage on White. Remember, the focus here should be on Farrey and ESPN rather than Dana White, since we already know what Dana’s public schtick is.

Rob Maysey says that ignorance is not the reason for the misrepresentations being made by the media in covering UFC.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 50 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

50 Responses to “Thoughts on ESPN E:60 video piece on Dana White”

  1. doctormma says:

    Clearly you were biased and waiting for a certain result.

    NFL is only big in the USA… although in Canada they give it a view.

    Very myoptic view of Dana and MMA as a whole.

    The reason traffic is down is because everyone is rehashing everyone elses stories.. it becomes redundant and the power users get turned off. They tune into few channels and would rather converse with fellow fans than to listen to the opinions of most others trying to push their biased views upon them.

    Although I find issue with quite a few things, I do acknowledge some credit when it comes to Dana and the UFC. I am the first to believe that the product (athletes) should get paid the most but you only have to look around at Pride, Elite XC, and soon to be Affliction to show that the wrong plan is not helped out throwing money at the problem.

    Clearly you have an axe to grind with Dana, so I will just let you sharpen it up.

  2. jr says:

    ESPN was like the ShamWow guy trying to sell Dana

  3. Zack says:

    He has an axe to grind because he wants the media to call something straight and actually do their homework?

  4. Zach Arnold says:

    Clearly you were biased and waiting for a certain result.

    I didn’t watch any of the trailers for the video segment heading into it. I watched it cold, sorta speaking, and I gave my raw honest impression of it after watching it on TV.

    But let’s say it like it was — we were led to believe that this was going to be a fair, but ‘controversial’ piece — and it was not that at all. Really, it wasn’t all that different from other media profiles.

    I’m not blaming Dana White here for getting positive press — that’s his job. It’s the job of the person on the other side of the equation to bring more to the table.

    NFL is only big in the USA… although in Canada they give it a view.

    Which is why 8 games for the Buffalo Bills may be played in Toronto soon at the Sky Dome (Rogers Centre), right? Wonder why the Argonauts are not thrilled with the Bills possibly relocating over the border?

    Plus all that talk about perhaps the Super Bowl possibly being hosted there as well…

    The reason traffic is down is because everyone is rehashing everyone elses stories.. it becomes redundant and the power users get turned off. They tune into few channels and would rather converse with fellow fans than to listen to the opinions of most others trying to push their biased views upon them.

    I agree. I also think the decline is a byproduct of the industry overall with one major player and the activity happening outside of UFC’s base being insignificant. Alan at Total MMA talked about this bizarre viewpoint some have that we are seeing a territory-like system crop up for MMA and how we should be paying attention to what’s going on.

    I enjoy watching UFC. I also take UFC for what it is and what it isn’t. I despised what was going on behind-the-scenes in PRIDE, but I also understood that PRIDE, K-1, and other stronger competitors in the marketplace made news a lot more interesting and activity more exciting for fans.

    Clearly you have an axe to grind with Dana, so I will just let you sharpen it up.

    I don’t have an axe to grind with him — I have an axe to grind with the people who claim to be covering him and his business, but never seemingly deliver the goods when it comes to actually telling the truth.

    Let me spell this out clearly — unlike a lot of sports writers, I don’t hate ESPN. In fact, far from it. I’m as big of a consumer of their news as anyone else, but when it comes to covering MMA (a sport they tout as the next big thing), they aren’t living up to their name as top dog in the media business doing it. It shouldn’t be left up to UFC management and employees to smarten them up on what is true and what is false about MMA’s history and current activity.

  5. Rob Maysey says:

    My only quibble with the analysis offered by yourself Zach and Trembow is this. I was taught, early on, never assume ignorance. If something seems incredible, there is likely a reason–keep looking. More often than not, in the legal world, this is very sound advice.

    That said, lets call a spade a spade at this point. These oversights can no longer be chalked up to lack of preparation or ignorance–call it what it all evidence indicates–despite what we do not care to believe, intentional acts.

  6. kjh says:

    I suppose a lot of mainstream journalists will choose the path of least resistance. Lie and be Dana’s bitch rather than call him out for his hyperbole, lies and spin, with the odds being high that Dana will put you on his hit list and if you particularly nark him he’ll go on his vlog and discredit you as a journalist. Especially journalists working for a company that has shown interest in snatching the TV rights to UFC shows from Spike TV in the past.

  7. 45 Huddle says:

    http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/5/12/873400/dana-whites-key-decisions

    Mike Rome, as always, is the one shining star over at Bloody Elbow. Fantastic article about Dana White.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter what he does, he will get bashed. I’ve always known this, but it was never more evident during the Roy Jones Jr. discussions. Dana White was bashed online for his decision to decline RJJ. Then Strikeforce and Showtime basically said the same thing, and they were praised for their protecting of the sport.

    Whether it is fighter pay, matchmaking, or anything else… People are looking for things to hate on Dana White. It is one of the things that has recently pulled me away from posting on my blogs lately. I’d rather just watch and enjoy the sport.

    Just to clarify, when I say “no matter what he does” I’m referring to Dana White… The way I wrote that, it almost makes it look like I was talking about Mike Rome for a second…

  8. Zach Arnold says:

    I’ll stress this again, 45 – the heat should be on the media here, not necessarily on the UFC President. He’s a front man and he’s going to say things that make him and the company look good.

    It’s up to the media to rise to the challenge and time after time, they simply haven’t risen to the occasion.

  9. 45 Huddle says:

    I think the two are related. Not talking about you specifically here, but just in general.

    The Hardcore MMA Fanbase has a negative slant towards the UFC and towards Dana White. So when the larger media doesn’t go after him, there is a certain level of disappointment from these fans.

    Everything in life can be put down. Any major company is doing something to make things work better that would not jive properly with regular people. I think people just have to realize that in the overall scheme of sports, White & The Fertitta’s really do have the sports best interests at heart, and they operate on that manner. They are not perfect, but they are better then basically every other potential option at this point.

  10. Per the contraction in MMA web traffic, in the last month I have seen slightly less pageviews but more visitors. I attribute this to there not being any major events for over a month and the fact that we already know of almost every major bout which will occur through late-August barring any injuries. Plus, we’re now heading into summer which is generally the lowest traffic season anyways. Right now there’s nothing to keep the casual fans logging on.

    I’m not sure what timespan you were referencing with regards to traffic declining, but MMAFrenzy had our best month ever in March in terms of both revenue and traffic. In general though, I think traffic to MMA sites has or is stabilizing, I think the decline we’re seeing is just short-term from what I referenced above.

  11. Zach Arnold says:

    The other major factor is that a lot of the MMA site audience is made up of college-aged kids and once they are out of school, they’re less likely to check out the sites like they might if they live on campus.

    As I stated up above, there’s evidence that things are contracting and not expanding with UFC being the only major player in town right now in the scene.

  12. Aika says:

    Over at FightForum, there is always a noticeable drop in both new registrations and in posting over the summertime. We aren’t a news site just simply a forum, and our traffic has dropped off lately. I equate it with both the UFC contraction issue and with general burnout. Prior to the UFC having PPVs on a monthly basis, there was a big buildup between events with each new fight added to the card stirring debate and anticipation. Now with the oversaturation in events, people tend to pay less attention to bits of news.

  13. Mark says:

    Yeah, Dana thinking the UFC will be bigger than both versions of football is laughable. Even more so is the “UFC is bigger than NASCAR” myth.

    People are panicking at NASCAR because they’re averaging 8.9 million viewers for their Fox broadcasts this year, which is down from their 11.5 million viewers average a few years ago. Dana White would suck Tom Atencio’s cock for 9 million people to watch Fight Night. I think 3.6 for Tito/Ken III is as high as they ever got, which the average I usually see as 1.5 for the standard Spike show. NASCAR executives would blow their brains out if they got that rating. Stop lying, Dana.

  14. Grape Knee High says:

    My only quibble with the analysis offered by yourself Zach and Trembow is this. I was taught, early on, never assume ignorance.

    Assuming you’re referring to the Zuffa Myth, it IS ignorance. And laziness.

    The Zuffa Myth has been repeated often enough that mainstream writers have no reason to challenge it. It has been repeated in every respected, major news publication that has had any articles at all on the UFC.

    Considering that most of these journalists barely understand MMA on a sporting level, why would we assume sinister motives on their lack of accuracy regarding its history?

    I believe a commenter repeated this famous quote here a while ago and I think it applies very well: “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

  15. Mike Rome says:

    I don’t know, I think analysis online is often as bad as ESPN.

    For example, the endless obsession with Dana White’s hypocrisy. He’s a promoter, he’s not trying to avoid cognitive dissonance. It’s such a waste of time to focus on how he said one thing here and another thing there. Dana lies? What a huge revelation!

    Or take Ivan’s piece where he says MMA will never be mainstream with such a vulgar leader. This is borderline insane, as if the sport’s acceptance is going to be hindered or hastened by Dana White’s swearing. If you really believe certain network deals fell apart over his abrasive personality and not over the essential elements like money and control, you live in an alternate universe where network executives don’t deal with complete egomaniacs all day every day. Lots of executives actually like White’s style, though that doesn’t fit the prevailing online narrative where writers with no business success slam Dana.

    It’s hard not to chuckle at the idea that the UFC would be mainstream if not for White. If only they were more professional, the journalists that can’t be bothered to learn a thing about MMA would embrace the sport with open arms! Oh wait, no, they wouldn’t.

  16. Zack says:

    “Or take Ivan’s piece where he says MMA will never be mainstream with such a vulgar leader. This is borderline insane, as if the sport’s acceptance is going to be hindered or hastened by Dana White’s swearing.”

    I agree that this seems like a ridiculous idea, but did you see the quotes from the guy in NY considering sanctioning MMA? He seemed negative on the idea because White is steering the ship.

  17. Rob Maysey says:

    Agree to an extent with those comments as well Rome, but like Zach said above, I don’t believe Zach’s post has much to do with White–he is doing exactly as we expected, and he does it well.

    As Zach noted, in this instance, the “spin” wasn’t always said by White–it was NARRATED by ESPN. Are we to believe ESPN researched this, and just missed it? ESPN took Zuffa’s draft, and didn’t bother to fact check it at all?

  18. Mike Rome says:

    The Zuffa myth is so engrained now it’s almost impossible to dispel. Just an example: almost everyone thinks Joe McCarthy was on the house on unamerican activities committee. One problem: he was in the senate, being on that committee was impossible. However, it’s such an ingrained myth among political reporters that it gets repeated all the time.

    I think it’s analagous in ways to the Zuffa myth. Of course Zuffa had nothing to do with weight divisions and the rules. But they did popularize the sport under those new rules, and have become so associated with them that people just give them credit.

    As far as Reilly goes, the guy always hated MMA, and now he’s just adding another reason. He was just as opposed before the White rant. The guy is seriously a protectionist, union-bought moron whose day in the sun on this issue will be over soon enough.

  19. smoogy says:

    “Of course Zuffa had nothing to do with weight divisions and the rules. But they did popularize the sport under those new rules, and have become so associated with them that people just give them credit.”

    They’ve become so associated with them because part of their PR campaign has always been explicitly taking credit for “cleaning up the sport” and even suggesting they added weight classes, new rules etc. There can be no question the Zuffa Myth is pushed upon writers by the UFC.

    Zach is right, we should expect a little more from the media than just accepting the UFC’s version of history without trying to cut through the oft-repeated BS.

  20. 45 Huddle says:

    Company’s like Harley Davidson & Budweiser know exactly what they are getting into when they sign on as a sponsor for the UFC. They sell Motorcyces and beer and they know their consumers. Not the types of people who would get offended by White. If anything, they would be attracted to his honesty.

    As for why Zuffa isn’t mainstream:

    1. Time – Haven’t been around long enough, and that includes the older generation not being use to them.

    2. Money – They are not getting good network deals. It makes ZERO sense to move from a PPV model where they are making millions for a card, to then take that same card, put it on network TV, and get $250,000 for it. Even with added exposure, it makes no sense. Plus, once you give it away for nearly free, it is impossible to then ask for more money unless rating go up to crazy levels (which is HIGHLY unlikely).

    They are much smarter then their fan base. Which makes it that much more comical when the fans bash them for bad business practices.

  21. robthom says:

    Is ESPN supposed to be cutting journalism?

    I dont read it, but I’ve always been under the impression that it was pretty much people magazine for sports.

  22. Ivan Trembow says:

    Rob— You may be right with your “intentional acts” point.

    45 Huddle— You are assuming that they would have to take a PPV card and put it on network TV. Control of production is what the deals with HBO and CBS came down to, not control of matchmaking. If Zuffa put a UFC Fight Night-level card on CBS, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t draw big ratings, while also exposing a much larger audience to their PPV commercials and giving the UFC a lot of exposure.

  23. Mark says:

    A Fight Night card would not work out for network television.

    No big network is going to accept “We’ll do shows for you, but we’re only giving you our C-List fighters.” They’d have to step their star power big time.

    Plus they wouldn’t tolerate the ratings Pro Elite got from the UFC. They would be much more demanding due to them being “the NFL of MMA” and a Fight Night card wouldn’t do much better than the 6 million viewers Elite got for Kimbo and Gina. If solely the UFC brand name was as strong as Dana believes, why don’t Spike cards do better?

  24. Ivan Trembow says:

    The novelty of it being the first UFC event on network TV would draw a big rating the first time out, regardless of who was on the card. Beyond that, the most that they would have to step it up to would be a UFC UK-level card, which are one step above UFC Fight Night cards but still below “normal” UFC PPV events. They already put two UFC UK-level shows per year on Spike TV. If you don’t think that the same level of show would draw big ratings on CBS, I think that you are underestimating the UFC’s ratings-drawing power. And if a UFC UK level of star power didn’t draw big ratings on CBS, the UFC would walk away from it before they would put legitimate PPV main event fights on CBS. Remember, control of matchmaking has never been an issue that has been on the table, regardless of what Dana White might say or what his employees might leak out. It was control of production was the issue that killed the deals with HBO and CBS, whereas NBC just wasn’t interested in doing business with the UFC.

  25. Mike Rome says:

    “Control of production is what the deals with HBO and CBS came down to, not control of matchmaking. If Zuffa put a UFC Fight Night-level card on CBS, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t draw big ratings, while also exposing a much larger audience to their PPV commercials and giving the UFC a lot of exposure.”

    No, you’re wrong. The essential elements were money, ratings, and control. You can repeat this absurd bullshit over and over but it doesn’t make it true. Production was one of many items on the table for negotiations.

    The UFC’s highest rated show ever was a 3.1. That would barely cut it on a network. Their fight night level or UK level shows would do in the 2.0-2.5 level. After a few low ratings and pressure from advertisers, they would have to put bigger main events on television. Then they’d be giving away their key to success for nothing, and it would be harder and harder to get people to pay. I’m interested to hear how they would “walk away” while under contract to provide a certain number of events.

    This was the key problem that made Pro Elite doomed to fail even if not for the Kimbo scenario. In order to do well enough on CBS, they had to give Gina and Kimbo away for free, and by doing that they couldn’t put them on PPV to make any money. The structure of these network deals makes it impossible to make money given what they pay right now.

    Networks wanted shows like Mir-Lesnar from the UFC. That is what CBS asked for. They wanted the big main events, otherwise they were unwilling to pay enough for the shows. The networks weren’t asking to be able to book the fights, but they wanted substantial input on picking the fights to get them ratings. In 2008, they wanted fights like Mir-Lesnar, Chuck-Rashad, Rampage-Forrest, and other big main events.

  26. Mike Rome says:

    I should also note it’s beyond amusing that we’re criticizing the decision not to take network deals given their stunning success for MMA companies so far. This is a bit like hearing GM tell Google how to run an internet company. It’s funny until you realize they’re saying it with a straight face.

    There would be a benefit from doing one network show a year, or moving Fight Nights to HBO. They still regularly talk with HBO, the idea that the relationship is dead is flat-out untrue. The main problem is that in addition to losing their biggest advocate, HBO only wants to pay about 60% of what Spike pays for free events, so they’d be sacrificing a lot of eyes on their product for less money, just to get shows on HBO. I think that deal will happen eventually though, but it’s a few years away.

  27. Bryan says:

    LOL, when I saw the zuffa myth reported by the ESPN dummies, I just knew there was going to be a rant about it here.

    The NFL isn’t just popular in Canada. It is popular in the UK as well. The NFL has held regular season games there the past two seasons which sold huge stadiums in no time.

    Mike Rome—

    I’m pretty sure that they measure cable ratings differently than network since not everyone has cable. In any event, it’s not a fair comparison since everyone has the basic network channels, while significantly fewer have access to the cable channels. It’s probably fair to assume that some people who do not have cable would watch a UFC even on network tv.

    Criticizing Dana White for not landing a network deal is hardly laughable. Since, you know, he’s the one telling anyone who will listen that the UFC is going to be bigger than the NFL or Soccer.

    The first step is getting it on an actual network during prime time. The XFL got a prime time slot on a network, for crying out loud. And that was before the current slump some of the networks have slid into.

  28. Mike Rome says:

    Getting the slot isn’t hard, there’s a number of deals they could have taken and still could. It’s about getting the right money and making it work within your model. Right now they are hemmoraging money, they want to pay the UFC 2-3 million per event for big main events. It’s like asking them to burn money. Maybe worth it for one time only, nowhere near worth it for 4 shows a year, which is what networks want in order for them to commit to promoting it. Otherwise they are just promoting competition.

    You repeat the 10 year biggest sport in the world canard as if it means anything. It’s just Dana blowing smoke, ignore it.

    By the way, Dave Meltzer reports today Josh Barnett says he’s never been contacted about a Fedor fight. I’m sure Sherdog and the rest of the MMA Media will be jumping to slam Atencio for “lying” about working hard to make that fight happen.

  29. 45 Huddle says:

    Network TV isn’t half as important as it use to be. There is still a difference between NBC and TNT, but not as much as one would think. Of course, TV is still vital to the success of a MMA company. If I ran a MMA organization, I would rather have a sole deal with SpikeTV then a sole deal with CBS.

    The UFC has a lot of airtime on SpikeTV and not tons of pressure to perform. Their UFC Fight Nights get good ratings, but nothing out of control. They are just required to bring in that specific male demographic, which they deliver each and everytime. This is because SpikeTV sells airtime to those companies looking exactly for those buyers.

    Network TV, due to the ratings they are trying to obtain, requires a watered down, very generalized product. It’s why most Network TV shows aren’t very good or are dumbed down. Heroes and Lost are two good shows on Network TV, but could be so much more if they were on HBO or even FX or TNT. Plus, with them bringing in such a general audience, they can’t advertise to a specific group. They need to advertise using Ford, GM, Apple, Microsoft, and other such major brands.

    Mike Rome is very correct with that he is saying here. Let’s not forget the IFL’s success on Network TV. Or EliteXC being one show away from losing their CBS spot because they put Robbie Lawler in their second main event.

    If Strikeforce signs Tito Ortiz (which I doubt because of money and because they don’t allow elbows), CBS will want him on their station. And once they do that, he won’t be as valuable of a PPV entity.

  30. Jeremy says:

    The ratings a company gets on cable are not nec indicative of what they would do on network tv.

    Look at the dif between what ratings Elite did on Showtime and what they did on CBS.

    I think it is safe to say that the UFC would draw better than Elite did.

    I do disagree with 45 on how important network is. If the UFC did sign a deal for network television, it would seriously increase their mainstream exposure.

    That said, I don’t think it is vital to the UFC for growth.

    As far as Dana’s claims that the UFC will be..whatever he claimed…in ten years. As Rome said, What the hell do you expect him to say?

    “I think that, if we work really hard, we can attract more viewers.”

    Yeah, that would certainly give the impression of a hot product.

  31. Alan Conceicao says:

    Getting the slot isn’t hard, there’s a number of deals they could have taken and still could. It’s about getting the right money and making it work within your model.

    The problem for the UFC is that they’ve shown no willingness to take these offers because they can make more on PPV right now. Justified right now. Notice that no one ever stops to ask whether or not putting on 12 PPV cards a year is a good thing in the long run. That’s a legitimate question, and I don’t think anyone’s gonna imagine any position apart from PPV being the golden goose for all time.

    In order to do well enough on CBS, they had to give Gina and Kimbo away for free, and by doing that they couldn’t put them on PPV to make any money.

    This is preposterous. Is the issue for Rich Franklin’s ability to draw major buys that after a couple free appearances on TV (like the Ken Shamrock fight), people perceive him as a “free TV” fighter? Kimbo and Gina’s problem is that they were still being built as mega stars and their compelling bouts being set up when the company capsized from absurd spending.

  32. 45 Huddle says:

    I don’t think EliteXC was attracting the demographic that would likely be purchasing their PPV’s. If I remember correctly, the average age of a viewer for the EliteXC CBS Shows was over a decade higher then the UFC events on SpikeTV.

    “I do disagree with 45 on how important network is. If the UFC did sign a deal for network television, it would seriously increase their mainstream exposure.”

    The WWE showed no increase in popularity from doing Saturday Night’s Main Event.

  33. Mark says:

    I don’t seem to buy into the “UFC As Brand Power” tale as much as you do. Look at individual ratings/buyrates and you will see that the star power of the show does indeed matter. For instance the UK show with Henderson/Jackson as a main event did much better than the Bisping/Leben show did, if I’m not mistaken it is #2 behind Tito/Ken for Spike shows. There’s 1.3 million UFC fans that will watch whatever they toss on Spike and 260,000 that will buy any PPV no matter how lackluster. Outside of those numbers the rest is all dictated by star power quality (except for Anderson Silva who never draws good numbers for some reason.)

    I also don’t buy into the theory that the novelty of UFC on network television would matter much. Maybe for people who don’t have cable, but since 2006 if you have had any interest in seeing the UFC whatsoever, you probably have already. It’s not like people don’t know it exists on free TV, since UFC is completely synonymous with Spike and advertised on all Viacom networks.

    I just don’t believe there’s a large audience to be tapped into in America. Maybe casual fans getting deeper into MMA, but it’s not going to go any further.

  34. Jeremy says:

    45,
    There is a big dif between late Saturday night and a prime time slot.

  35. Zack says:

    UFC definitely does not need network TV to sustain itself, in fact as stated on here in the short term it would actually be detrimental to their cash flow. At the same time, you’re never going to be as big as any of the mainstream sports if all your top level talent is only seem on PPV.

  36. Mr. Dream says:

    I wasn’t paying close attention the entire time, but as to the “Zuffa Myth”…

    Listen beginning at 8:13 – the narrator specifies rules and weight classes as some of White’s changes – to the UFC.

  37. Mr. Dream says:

    Also interesting for those who denounce the UFC’s bonus system. During his address to the fighters before the PPV (UFC 94), he states that KOTN is $65,000 and any fighter who wins by submission is to earn $20,000.

  38. klown says:

    Great analysis by Zach, and it stirred up a fantastic discussion.

    That’s why I come to Fight Opinion.

  39. robthom says:

    “Great analysis by Zach, and it stirred up a fantastic discussion. That’s why I come to Fight Opinion.”

    Oh dear!

    Ed. — You’re welcome.

  40. IceMuncher says:

    Network TV is a bit of a sham. They could never be as big for the UFC as Spike already is for them.

    Go to the UFC website, and click on “Calendar” underneath the “Schedule” tab. It’s ridiculous. Next week, as lead-in to UFC 98, Spike has 18 hours of UFC programming scheduled. That saturation is arguably the reason why the UFC gets a minimum of 250k buys every PPV. Millions of fans tune in every week (every day?) to get their UFC fix. It creates a loyal, interested fanbase that’s eagerly anticipating the next live event.

    With network TV, interest would wane in the months between the aired fights, and there probably wouldn’t be any other UFC programming to help bridge the new viewers from the free show to the PPV. I don’t see any reason for doing it, outside of earning bragging rights.

  41. Ivan Trembow says:

    IceMuncher— I don’t think it would be an “either/or” situation. Their contract with Spike TV only makes Spike the exclusive home of the UFC on basic cable. There’s no reason that they couldn’t continue to have the flood of programming on Spike TV, while also producing four network TV specials per year.

    45 Huddle— I agree with Alan C. that putting fighters on free TV fights only makes them bigger potential PPV draws in the future. That’s already a big part of the UFC’s business model: Put the TUF fighters and other up-and-coming fighters on free TV fights and build them up until they’re “ready for PPV.” The UFC would not give away legit PPV main events on network TV, nor would they have to, and I disagree with the notion that a fighter being in a free TV fight will make people perceive that fighter as a “free TV fighter” in the future.

  42. Alan Conceicao says:

    Spike TV is obviously going to give them more play than a network because they’re really the only solid original programming that network has. Imagine Spike without the UFC. No one is advocating they depart Spike entirely either. Why would they have to?

    Also interesting for those who denounce the UFC’s bonus system. During his address to the fighters before the PPV (UFC 94), he states that KOTN is $65,000 and any fighter who wins by submission is to earn $20,000.

    Interestingly: No submissions at UFC 94.

  43. Dave2 says:

    How do we know that Dana White wasn’t just playing to the camera when he was like “alright, $20,000 for every submission”? He was probably just doing that to try to make it seem like he takes care of his fighters every event. But how do we know that? How do we know for certain that Dana White normally gives everyone $20k for a submission?

    It’s a slap in the face for Dana White to not pay for Tito Ortiz’s surgery. Not that Ortiz needs the money but out of principle, it’s only fair that the UFC recognizes his 11 years of service to the company. Dana was trying to make it out like he didn’t do it because Tito was being an ahole to him. But would Dana do it for every fighter that isn’t on bad terms for him? I very much doubt that.

    Dana is trying to make it out like he’s not doing this for the money and in the beginning, that probably was true. But with the UFC being worth $1 billion now and Dana owning 10% of that pie, I don’t buy into that. If it wasn’t about the money, Dana and the Fertittas would take care of all their guys. I’m not saying everyone should be paid big money but every UFC fighter should be paid enough to practice their love full-time. The UFC is the major leagues after all. This isn’t the minor leagues where it’s expected that most athletes can’t make their sport their full-time job.

  44. The Gaijin says:

    “The WWE showed no increase in popularity from doing Saturday Night’s Main Event.”

    El Strawman-o.

    Wrestling is done in terms of being the big craze it was from 1997-2001. UFC is the new “attitude era” for the 21st century. To say that there was no increased popularity from doing these new SNME shows, is in no way indicative of what it would do for a white hot product like the UFC.

  45. MIchael Rome says:

    But you act like they haven’t researched what they think they can pull on a network. With a show like UFC 90, that thing is not breaking a network 2.0.

    If they sign a 4 show per year deal over 2 or 3 years, it’s not unforseeable that they end up in a position where they face cancellation if they don’t put on bigger main events. It could create a situation where they have to put shows like 92 on networks and shows like 90 on PPV, which would be a disaster given what networks pay.

    There are some potential benefits from being on a network, but really they are one-time benefits. More people will probably end up watching the fights online than see them on a network show. The days of that having such huge impact are over. Their first network show would get a ton of press, after that the returns will diminish.

    TV can build stars, but the UFC’s idea of a network deal is short term. That was a big issue in the negotiations too, if we can ignore Mike Goldberg for a second. The UFC wants to do a couple network shows, get that rub, advertise their product and stars, and then leave and make people pay to see them. They don’t want a permanent free outlet for their shows.

  46. Alan Conceicao says:

    With a show like UFC 90, that thing is not breaking a network 2.0.

    Irvin/Silva did over a 2.0 on cable with far less fanfare than the UFC would get on network TV. This is preposterous.

    If they sign a 4 show per year deal over 2 or 3 years, it’s not unforseeable that they end up in a position where they face cancellation if they don’t put on bigger main events.

    You’re right. HBO would want something at least like a UFC 90 for their TV programming…which incidentally is the kind of show the UFC was looking for an outlet for outside of PPV. Of course, PPV money was so alluring, they chose that instead of the potential gains of network TV. What could go ever wrong, right Mike?

    It could create a situation where they have to put shows like 92 on networks and shows like 90 on PPV, which would be a disaster given what networks pay.

    Based on what? This is some ridiculous slippery slope talk. You’re demanding people see the worst possible situation, one the UFC would rather scuttle the TV contract over than end up in, as being the only way a TV contract would end up.

    TV can build stars, but the UFC’s idea of a network deal is short term.

    You don’t build stars on PPV. You can’t. The audience is too small. You slowly kill yourself trying to play that game.

  47. MIchael Rome says:

    Irvin/Silva did very well based on a lot of hype around Silva moving up a division. Even then, we have a number of events that generally do in the 1.8-2.1 range, the best of all time being a 3.1. Even that number isn’t great. Convert them into millions of viewers and these numbers are hardly anything special on network television.

    You continually conflate HBO and networks, but the issues were different. What i pointed out is far from the worst case scenario, it is just a possible bad outcome. They would have been happy to take a 4 show per year deal with HBO, but they lost their main advocate and a lot of concessions that HBO had made in negotiations were all swept away, and they took a much harder line. I still think HBO is the optimal place for UFC 90 level shows.

    Regarding networks making stars, it’s a mix. It’s not like anyone gives a shit about Jake Shields or Robby Lawler because they were on TV, Lawler had this huge fight seen by 6 million and almost none of them came back for the rematch 2 months later. The UFC makes stars on PPV and also by airing their fights over and over on Unleashed and other repeat style programming.

    The UFC is surely slowly feeling the pain of killing themselves. If only they modeled themselves after your ideal promotions Affliction and Pro Elite they’d surely be in the clear. If the day comes when PPV business slows down, they can obviously reevaluate their PPV schedule then.

  48. Alan Conceicao says:

    Irvin/Silva did very well based on a lot of hype around Silva moving up a division.

    So Silva defending a world title would be of less interest than Silva fighting a nobody?

    You continually conflate HBO and networks, but the issues were different.

    You constantly sound a drumbeat of doom for the idea of the UFC moving to a new network. Listen, Spike has virtually no built in audience of people. Its only valuable programming is UFC. You take away UFC and all they’d have are some network reruns and some awful original shows. They’d make WGN look incredible.

    Meanwhile, look at your arguments: “HBO would also have paid 60% less than Spike”. That’s not all of it, is it? You’re acting like UFC would have the same costs, but they wouldn’t. HBO would pick up the costs of production and pick/pay the announcers. HBO would be actually be removing a good chunk of the risk and adding in the legitimacy and influence they’ve exerted for the last 25 years. Spike can’t do that for them.

    What i pointed out is far from the worst case scenario, it is just a possible bad outcome.

    No, it is. Its a ridiculous outcome. CBS/NBC/HBO/whatever couldn’t force them to put UFC 100 on free television and you and I both know this.

    The UFC is surely slowly feeling the pain of killing themselves.

    Jesus, Mike. I can’t believe I have to spell this out: You may make money on “smaller” PPV cards for a while. Even a few years. Inevitably, the guys you try and build on the undercards (which no one cares about) won’t turn into megastars, and you’ll have more and more small PPV cards with longer distances between major shows. Eventually you will burn out the people who are buying. It happened in wrestling. It happened in boxing. Having a billion competing promotions won’t help, and the UFC is gonna be stuck competing against a cavalcade of names till the end of time.

  49. The Gaijin says:

    “But you act like they haven’t researched what they think they can pull on a network. With a show like UFC 90, that thing is not breaking a network 2.0.”

    No I didn’t. I pointed out that using WWE’s (a completely stale product, shrinking in popularity) lack of ability to draw new fans (no surprise) with a network show (that’s watered down compared to its cable shows let alone compared to its ppv product) has no bearing as an indicator of what someone like UFC (a rapidly growing and “it” product) could do.

    I agree that right now it’s not in their best interest to do it, but to say “It didn’t work for WWE” is not the reason, not even close.

  50. Wow, this is the first time I’ve seen this, but it doesn’t really surprise me.

    I recently checked back on an old Cage Potato article about my struggle with Xyience and found a comment railing about the lack of integrity involved in reporting about Zuffa. The commenter was incensed that folks at Cage Potato, like others in the media who write or report in glowing terms about Zuffa and the UFC, seem to want to be friendly with the successful organization as its popularity continues to increase.

    I’ll let this guy speak for himself for a second here:

    “I will still view this site, but only to see how mother*$%#ers like the writers of this site still try to maintain an air of integrity when Fertitta cock is firmly shoved up their ass.”

    You can see the whole comment and story here:

    http://www.cagepotato.com/2008/02/06/ufcxyience-case-gets-dirtier-zuffa-sues-former-pride-owners

    As far as ESPN, I know they would love to have an ongoing partnership with the UFC and cover more UFC news, but they appear to still be in the courting stages of such an arrangement. This piece certainly makes them look like they still need to impress Dana and his Fertitta family bosses. They mention Dana’s dealings in the past with Mafioso but neglect to describe how right now he’s producing a television project about folks in the same organization that tried to shake him down in Southie. Also, what about the Fertitta family’s mafia history.

    Most offensive of all, beyond the Zuffa myth being perpetrated, is the “billion dollar” assessment of the UFC and its assets. Is this really a billion dollar company by any stretch of the imagination? Where does this figure come from and why are so many news outlets embracing it without citing any source? It’s a Forbes Magazine piece that gave rise to that price tag, and there was no justification or citation given to explain that analysis. Yet, now it’s on the tip of everyone’s tongue when talk of selling the UFC arises. A billion dollars buys a lot in these bad times, and the UFC just isn’t the kind of business that should command that kind of asking price.

    I just don’t understand how Dana continues to get away with claiming he did it all by himself. Like he had no staff? Like none of the fighters lifted a finger? Like nobody gave a rats ass about the sport but Dana White himself. He calls Loretta Hunt out for speaking her mind and specifically uses the word “pussy” when a lot of folks would use the same word to describe him bailing out of South Boston to avoid paying tribute to local gangsters.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image