« WEC 2/13 New Mexico event announced | Home | Fight Network Radio (1/9/08) »
Tuesday news update (1/8/08)
By Zach Arnold | January 8, 2008
Steve Sievert has an update about the proposed Frank Shamrock vs. Ken Shamrock fight. He linked to this web site and wondered if it was real or not. A quick domain search claims that the web site is registered to “Frank Shamrock USA,” using GoDaddy. It was registered on December 21st.
Here is a new interview with Vadim Finkelstein.
Good news for Gina Carano — the ratings were decent Monday night for American Gladiators. (Hat tip: Mikeinformer).
Adam Swift has a breakdown comparison of UFC PPV buyrates between 2006 and 2007. Adam will be a guest on the next edition of Fight Opinion Radio.
Eddie Goldman has details about Larry Hazzard’s lawsuit against the state of New Jersey.
Topics: M-1, Media, MMA, Pro Elite, UFC, Zach Arnold | 59 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
WEC is running their first show of the year in Albuquerque, NM. Carlos Condit, who is from the area is headlining the show. I really like the way Zuffa is running this business. It is everything the IFL should have been. The WEC was basically a Las Vegas house show for the first year. That allowed them to cut costs and establish their brand on TV. In it’s second year, they are taking it on the road. Zuffa ain’t perfect, but with business strategies like this, it is easy to see why they are head and shoulders above the competition.
*******
I know it is a few days old, but I got around to listening to Josh Gross’s Saturday Podcast. I believe it is called Point Blank, or something like that. I ended up deleting it after the first commercial break.
Beyond being a UFC hater, Josh Gross really is clueless when it comes to how the sport should be run. He talked about Fertitta’s interview with Kevin Iole and how Fertitta said MMA fighters get paid less because they do the in house production and because of that, the fighter pay will always be lower. Josh Gross then started to spout off how it should be all about the fighters…. There were multiple issues I had with Gross’s commentary.
1. He stated that Chuck Liddell made $500,000 for his fight with Wanderlei Silva. I’m sorry, but if he still believes that, he shouldn’t be editor of Sherdog.com. Even Dave Meltzer laughed at Max Kellerman for still believing that Wanderlei Silva only made $150,000 for his fight. Liddell has made $2.5 Million for his fight with Ortiz and $1.5 Million for his fight with Jackson. He likely will end up with over a million for each of his fights with Jardine & Silva.
2. Gross says it should be about the fighters first and not the organization. To me, that is called BOXING. And it is a failed method. The organization has to come first. It does so in baseball. Ever hear the expression: “No player if bigger then the game”? What makes all these other sports so successful is that the organization is first. That is a few players faulter, the sport can still succeed. Even with singles sports, it is the organization first. It is with NASCAR, PGA, & Tennis. Yes, stars are created to help sell the product (such as Tiger Woods), but that one major sanctioning body is needed in order to keep the sport unified… AKA, not turn into boxing.
3. He thinks MMA fighters should be paid like boxers. I couldn’t disagree more. Boxers can now make up to, if not over 75% of the revenues for an event. That is BAD BUSINESS. It is taking everything for yourself and not giving anything back. Even the NFL pays out only 60% to it’s players. If MMA fighters start getting 75%+ of the revenues, MMA will suffer. The cards won’t be loaded. The sport will be fractured with no champions like we have now in the UFC (not perfect, but close to it).
Sorry for going on and on… But Josh Gross is such a clueless journalist that he continues to justify Dana White’s hatred for him, Sherdog, and the rest of the site. I am so happy the sport is not in the hands of a clueless journalist such as Gross. It would be bankrupt by now.
I’m sure Gross really wishes he were an anonymous poster on someone else’s web page.
http://abowlofstupid.com/wp-content/2007/04/hateraid.jpg
45, could you chill on Josh Gross? If you listened to Gross, you’d know that he thought that PRIDE superstars were over-rated and given a smokescreen larger than life mystique. So he doesn’t have a positive view of PRIDE either! Josh Gross I think is just a negative person in general.
Also I doubt Gross really believes that Chuck made only $500,000. He probably was referring only to base pay. We have no clue what Chuck is making when you take into account his PPV cut. What we do know is that Chuck made a lot more than 1/2 million. As for Meltzer laughing off the notion that Wand only making $150k, would this mean that Meltzer has inside info about Wand earning PPV bonuses? I’d imagine that Wand would get a PPV percentage considering his status. Wand made $150k base pay + $50k FOTN but with a PPV percentage, he’d be making a lot more obviously.
i am really struggling to understand what vadim’s co-promotion means other than just managing Fedor and getting M1’s logos on things
K1 is now gathering the ex pride staff and will probably provide the TV coverage to whatever this new group is called (heros, ex pride, m1, world victory road whatever)
this means k1 runs the shows (in Japan) and will make all the money – but i suppose as long as vadim gets his logo on the ring, he can boast that he is a co-promoter to his mates, John Claude Van Damme and various other random Russian people and he gets to pick who fedor fights and fedor gets to fight in sambo)
problem is, k1 is not known as being that generous in paying, so you can bet fedor is not making anywhere near UFC money for his fights
The Shamrock countdown now has the fight in December. 351 days and counting.
I agree with 45 Huddle on the Josh Gross thing. In much less words, I think that Gross has become jaded by the UFC/Dana White/Press Credentials saga and that has moved his emphasis some.
Also, how good is the editing at Sherdog.com? I mean, we have all found examples of blatant errors or miscalculations, such as referring to Guy Metzger as the President of Art of War and what not.
I still visit Sherdog.com and I still read a lot of their stuff and I still listen to Jordan Breen’s radio show. I just think that Gross is mistake on a lot of his points.
“Gross says it should be about the fighters first and not the organization. To me, that is called BOXING. And it is a failed method. The organization has to come first. It does so in baseball. Ever hear the expression: “No player if bigger then the game”? What makes all these other sports so successful is that the organization is first.”
I’m going to expose your shameful Pro-UFC bias right now. You say a fighter is not bigger than the sport but what about the promoter, Dana “What’s MMA? You mean ultimate fighting?” White. The UFC is NOT the sport. No single fighter is bigger than the sport but no single promoter is bigger than the sport either. Also, don’t equate the sport with an organization. The UFC promotes its brand as bigger than the sport itself and yet only the fighters should feel guilty if they think they are bigger than the sport?
I think the sport should be more about the athletes than the organization to the extent that you see in mainstream sports leagues. For eg. Who is the face of the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL and FIFA? The Players. Who is the face of the UFC? Dana White. He’s made himself into the company’s most recognizable face just as Vince McMahon has done with the WWE. The UFC business model in this respect is closer to the WWE than mainstream pro sports leagues.
The commissioners/presidents in the mainstream pro sports leagues take more of a back seat to the athletes in the media spotlight. Dana White puts himself on Spike TV a lot and has more interviews than anyone else besides maybe Chuck Liddell.
This article discusses this and also the many other similarities that Dana White has with Vince McMahon.
http://www.blickees.com/articles/35/2/Dana-White039s-Blueprint/Page2.html
Now to what Gross says about fighters needing to be paid like boxers. While I’m all for an overall increase in fighter pay to boost the professionalism of the sport, I disagree with Josh Gross’ suggestion that fighters should be paid like boxers. I think the UFC should improve things for guys on the lower-end before even considering to pay the top dog millionaires like top boxers. It’s much cheaper to ensure that the lower-tier UFC fighters can at least be able to afford to train full-time than to pay obscene amounts of money to the top guys. More full-time training means more building of prospect talent, more quality fighters and better competition. If you’re going to invest more money in the talent (which I am all in favor of), I’d rather see a higher full-time fighter ratio in the UFC than to give all of the spoils to the top stars like the boxing guys. The top guys in the UFC are taken care of. God forbid things turn out like boxing.
I don’t want the UFC or any MMA to become like boxing where everything is about the top stars and the guys without the big name get the scraps and little recognition. That’s why boxing has been stale and only recently recovered because of two big fights in 2007.
“That’s why boxing has been stale and only recently recovered because of two big fights in 2007.”
2006 was a successful year for boxing PPV’s as well.
It was. It had the highest buyrates since 1999? But the UFC beat out Boxing in 2006 whereas boxing won in 2007. That a is significant change, even if 2006 already showed improvement. Dana was spelling doom and gloom for boxing and then they come out beating them in 2007.
I don’t see any room for growth with boxing. That’s their biggest problem. The UFC I think still has potential to grow, but I think boxing has hit the ceiling. It’s a low ceiling too, if an upstart company like Zuffa is giving a long, storied sport like boxing a neck-and-neck battle for PPV numbers.
The problem is that it’s so fractured. Each boxing match is a completely independent event. The promoters put together one big fight at a time, get paid for it, then wait to set up the next one.
There’s nobody left to invest and grow the sport, unless they can create that growth within a single fight… and do so profitably.
It’s bad business for a boxing promoter to take temporary financial losses (or even oppurtunity losses) to build and develop new markets, like Zuffa is doing. If a boxing promoter took a hit in the wallet trying to do so, it’s his competitors that benefit the most, not him.
I think that if the UFC can land itself on a major network, it will leave boxing behind. Boxing won’t have enough big Mayweather vs De La Hoya fights to compete.
“Also, how good is the editing at Sherdog.com? I mean, we have all found examples of blatant errors or miscalculations, such as referring to Guy Metzger as the President of Art of War and what not. ”
The beef was over Mezger being referred to as HDNet Fights president, which he is. Andrew Simon is the CEO. No error there.
Also, Josh Gross doesn’t handle copy editing. That’s Joe Hall, and the guy is pretty damn good when it comes to the ticky tack rigors of formatting, which largely go unnoticed.
I don’t agree with a lot of Gross’ opinions, which may shock a lot of people given the seemingly unanimous thought that Sherdog.com all share the Kool Aid. However, attacks on Gross’ knowledge of the sport are laughable. He and I share very little in common when it comes to what we think is ‘good for the sport’, but the notion of him being ‘clueless’ in such regards is foolish, even if I disagree with him. But I suppose “Sherdog.com is anti-UFC!” makes discourse for other relatively unchallenging.
“I don’t see any room for growth with boxing. That’s their biggest problem”
This isn’t even remotely true. The power that boxing has is that any time a guy from a small nation becomes a champ, he becomes a hero. Boxing exploded in the Philippines when Manny Pacquiao iced Barrera. Denmark started putting together cards and putting out talent when Kessler became a highly respected champion. Germany is like the new Vegas. Boxing is starting to get on CBC and TSN here in Canada because of the success of Steve Molitor, Joachim Alcine, and other prospects. Boxing is undergoing a period of rebirth in Japan, even without the Kamedas, with guys like Naito and Hasegawa getting considerable love. The rebirth of quality UK fighters in the last couple years has seen the sport blow up there. South Africa just had a very big year in their local boxing scene with a lot of their locals fighting for world titles.
How much potential boxing has to carve into the American sports market is one thing. For sure you can cast doubt on boxing ever being a network TV sport on a a Saturday afternoon the way it was twenty years ago. But boxing is global in a way MMA could never imagine and has a ton of logistical advantages in terms of culling fighters from all over the world, and then piggybacking success based on the regional success of those fighters.
It was. It had the highest buyrates since 1999?
Here’s what people have a hard time understanding. HBO had 10 PPVs in 2006. It had less than half that in 1999. In 2006, its revenue from PPV was spread out over a number of shows. 2007 was a different story. They knocked it down to 8 PPVs for the year, expanded free boxing coverage, and reaped the benefits.
What’s really hilarious are people here claiming that boxing only had “one mega fight” this year when there was a second boxing event who’s buys eclipsed all but one MMA event in history. Hatton/Mayweather can be argued as some sort of failure till you’re blue in the face should you want to do that, but 850,000 is a failure I’m sure a lot of companies would be overwhelmingly happy to have.
I don’t see any room for growth with boxing. That’s their biggest problem. The UFC I think still has potential to grow, but I think boxing has hit the ceiling. It’s a low ceiling too, if an upstart company like Zuffa is giving a long, storied sport like boxing a neck-and-neck battle for PPV numbers.
If 2.4 million buys is a low ceiling, well, I hate to tell you this, but MMA’s got a ways before it clears that. A long, long ways. The UFC could grow further, but they’re going to need new TV outlets and new ways to expose their sport to the mainstream. Without HBO or a network (what happened to the CBS talk?), growth ain’t happening on Spike. That comes down to someone being willing to ceed control, and, well, do you really see an ex-boxing promoter in Dana White doing that?
It’s bad business for a boxing promoter to take temporary financial losses (or even oppurtunity losses) to build and develop new markets, like Zuffa is doing. If a boxing promoter took a hit in the wallet trying to do so, it’s his competitors that benefit the most, not him.
Name some markets boxing has to break. Seriously. Make me laugh.
I think that if the UFC can land itself on a major network, it will leave boxing behind.
If promoters were able to curb costs enough that most major cards no longer needed PPV revenue to make them money, boxing would be competely on fire again and on its way back. But that’s not happening and thus far, I’m not seeing UFC on CBS/NBC/Fox/ABC happening right now.
“Here’s what people have a hard time understanding. HBO had 10 PPVs in 2006. It had less than half that in 1999. In 2006, its revenue from PPV was spread out over a number of shows. 2007 was a different story. They knocked it down to 8 PPVs for the year, expanded free boxing coverage, and reaped the benefits.
What’s really hilarious are people here claiming that boxing only had “one mega fight” this year when there was a second boxing event who’s buys eclipsed all but one MMA event in history. Hatton/Mayweather can be argued as some sort of failure till you’re blue in the face should you want to do that, but 850,000 is a failure I’m sure a lot of companies would be overwhelmingly happy to have.”
Yeah, a lot of people have said that Mayweather v Hatton was a failure but in reality, 850,000 PPV buys is more than any other UFC event bar UFC 66: Liddell vs Ortiz II, which had 1 million buys. Actually, if you take into account, PPV gross revenue rather than PPV buys, even Mayweather v Hatton beats out UFC 66. UFC PPVs are $40 now and Mayweather/Hatton were $55. So yes, boxing had two big events in 2007. They had two other events make the top 15 but not the top 10 whereas 4 out of 8 boxing events didn’t crack the top 15.
They had two other events make the top 15 but not the top 10 whereas 4 out of 8 boxing events didn’t crack the top 15.
Let me also say something else that really needs to be said: At this point, the number of people willing to buy a PPV that’s just below par for a $45-50 boxing show(ie, Cotto/Judah or Pacquiao/Solis) is about 200,000, and the people willing to buy a decent PPV with big headliners has been about 300-375,000 for, what, years? In case no one noticed, the one really subpar UFC PPV did 200,000 buys. The mediocre ones did a little over 300,000. The really good ones though, didn’t do all that well.
As a final note: Does anyone have any hard information about UFC 79? Throwing out a number like 600,000 minimum when the biggest regular season football game in a decade was the same night overrunning it by almost two hours seems sorta ridiculous unless someone has information to back it up.
Err, lemme clarify something:
By “not doing well”, I mean “not doing 750,000+” or the supposed reord breaking stats of UFC 71, which were the premier piece of PPV buy vaporware in ’07.
UFC doesn’t need to eclipse or displace boxing to be successful. It’s apples and oranges. They have different business models even though they’re in the same industry (sports entertainment and digital media).
Suggesting that the heads of other sports stay in the shadows is misleading. First you have the difference that the commissioner of a league doesn’t have the same direct relationship with the fans and players that the owners of a team do. Dana is a weird combination of Jerry Jones, Roger Goodell, and Bill Parcels.
And it’s not uncommon for commissioners to do things that do bring them a lot of attention and flak at times. For baseball fans, Bud Selig is a frequent topic of discussion because of his ties to one specific team, his appearances of partiality, his poor relationship with the union, and of course the entire steroid situation. Bettman in the NHL is the same way. Even Goodell had an unusual amount of attention this year (for an NFL commissioner, where they usually get NO attention because everything is going well and the league is practically on autopilot) related to his crackdown on players with off-field criminal activities and associates.
If there are 1.5 million people watching a UFN on any given night, I can almost guarantee that if you polled them, at least seventy-five percent would have not even an inkling of the “controversy” that “haunts” him on the internet. Probably the only story of the year that would hit most of the non-hardcore fans that he was involved in was the Couture situation, and from a PR standpoint, that was extremely well managed by the UFC (they minimized the impact, and even managed to do a lot to reverse the public perception, and give the impression that Couture was disgruntled for invalid or unspecified reasons and that they legitimately weren’t aware of his issues, whether that is true or not).
If the worst thing that Dana’s said this year was his off the cuff comment on Randy’s agent, well, that’s not that big a deal on the grand scale of things.
I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate beefs about Dana’s obvious love and libertine exercise of his free speech rights, but I am saying that we are viewing this stuff with a microscope and the general public isn’t seeing it at all. Even if UFC was a high profile league like the NFL or NHL, most people would be similarly oblivious to his “controversy” as they are to the “controversy” swirling around Bettman, Goodell (less so), and Selig (probably the best chance that they would be aware of it).
I don’t know the name of the NBA commissioner at this time, but he’s had a hell of a year too with the ref bribery scandal and the allegations of ref foul racism and Cuban’s near constant railing about attempting to determine the outcome of the games through reffing decisions.
But for us to take note of his problems in the same way that we talk about Dana, he would probably have to be caught sodomizing a player while snorting cocaine off a transvestite prostitute’s ass. Otherwise, it doesn’t register on our radar because, I assume, most of us don’t pay much attention to the NBA.
The numbers still show concern about boxing’s future though. It’s known that 8 out of 11 UFC PPV events (70 and 75 were on free-to-air TV) cracked the top 15 Meltzer published (with UFC 79, it will be 9 at the expense of one WWE event). For boxing, only 4 out of 8 cracked the top 15. WWE has 3 out of 15 currently but will be bumped down to 2/15, leaving only Wrestlemania and Summerslam (ouch).
Without a doubt, boxing is the winner for 2007 but it seems that they’ve been riding on the backs of Golden Boy/Mayweather and Mayweather/Hatton this year. Manny Pac and Cotto/Mosley made the top 15 but couldn’t crack the top 10. When the UFC has all of their PPVs bar 2 make the top 15 whereas half of boxing’s events don’t make it, that shows some concern.
Dana White and certain UFC fans are insecure when they say that UFC is killing boxing (LOL, more like boxing has been hurting itself) but I think the numbers reflect the need to change the current boxing business model where cards are carried by main events. The UFC has done consistently well in promoting their product because their cards have more depth and they rely on brand recognition.
The top 15 isn’t going to tell you whether there is a rising tide effect though. If events 16 through 30 are all boxing cards, then you would be forced to at least re-assess your conclusions.
Plus those top tier boxing cards certainly seem to be putting a bigger share of the advertising, sponsorship, and PPV share dollars into the headliners pockets. Lower tier boxing cards might well generate more profit than higher tier ones.
The same is potentially true in UFC. UFNs have relatively small purses, smaller venue costs, but return much more in terms of sponsorships and advertising than a PPV event because of the eyeball effect. I think that the PPVs are probably, dollar for dollar, a bigger contributor to operating income for UFC, but that may not remain that way for long.
You can apply that same lesson to boxing, where so many of their fights have migrated to basic cable channels.
The branding point is valid as well.
UFC has an easily defined brand. Boxing PPVs don’t have one unless the promoter is someone like Don King, that people view (maybe not consciously) as a brand in and of himself.
Boxing on the other hand is increasingly branded by WHO is carrying the event. So you have the Friday Night Fights brand, etc.
That’s what HDNet is trying to bring to MMA, the distribution side brand.
As for UFC PR over the Couture situation, I doubt that referring to Couture’s agent as a “scumbag agent” and saying that he “bitchslaps agents” is good PR. This article below discusses the need for Dana White to be more level-headed, professional and perhaps even replaced by a new president. Commissioners screw up from time to time but Dana White’s professionalism as the head of the company is very lacking by comparison. Zuffa is a privately-held limited liability company though so I doubt Dana would ever be replaced since he’s buddies with the Fertittas.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/10/12/is-dana-white-bad-for-mixed-martial-arts/
I disagree then.
PR isn’t measured by what you say or how you say it, it’s about whether you are able to successfully frame the argument in terms that are favorable to you and increase awareness of your brand.
It’s fashionable to take Dana quotes and based on them say that he’s bringing the entire operation down. Really, how does he compare with Don King? I didn’t grow up with boxing, so that’s a genuine question that I’m interested in.
And I think that Dana just doesn’t have much of a name id out there. UFC’s brand is far more widespread than the Dana brand. There are people out there who have seen a UFC1 video or something, who have a concept of what UFC was, and understand that it’s something somewhat different now, but they don’t watch UFC events (even UFNs), and they certainly don’t know who Dana is.
The general public, the sporting public, even the fight public does not know who he is. They certainly aren’t hanging on his every word that’s published in this or that obscure source. They aren’t reading the AP wire. That stuff is used to provide two paragraph column filler in real newspapers, and they routinely cut the stuff at the bottom right out.
People increasingly get their news online, but they’re filtering it according to their own custom searches or just checking out the front page of Google news or US News.com
They aren’t seeing Dana’s quotes. I’d be really interested in seeing the pageviews and referrers for some of these articles. I would be not at all surprised if a plurality of the readers of those articles were being directed to them by blogs like this one.
It’s important to us, but it isn’t Important.
Far more people read the puff piece that was printed earlier this year in the Improper Bostonian than read Dana’s quote about scumbag agents. I can practically guarantee it.
I keep saying this year, but apparently I’m still living in 2007. Please forgive my temporal displacement.
It’s fashionable to take Dana quotes and based on them say that he’s bringing the entire operation down. Really, how does he compare with Don King? I didn’t grow up with boxing, so that’s a genuine question that I’m interested in.
Don King was a promoter, and when he first entered the business and began to make a name for himself, people honestly believed he was the saviour of boxing. He displaced the mob affiliated guys almost overnight, promising big fights and signing everyone. He’s, IMO, probably the finest pure promoter from the aspect of garnering attention for events that’s been around in the last half century.
What ended up happening in the long run is obvious to all of us, and it should be no surprise that boxing is being pushed forward at the whim of its new saviour and mass promoter, Oscar De La Hoya, who is essentially getting public interest once more by providing the megafights the folks on the street want while paying his fighters more than anyone else will. It should also be no surprise that there’s been some really dodgy scorecards on some fights he’s promoted (the entire Barrera/Marquez card, for one).
Whether Dana White’s comments matter or not, he has still thrust himself into the spotlight as the face of the UFC. Of course I disagree with him doing that in the first place as I feel he should take more of a backseat as sports league commissioners do. But when you’re on the spotlight like that, it matters what you say. I believe in free speech and everything but that doesn’t mean that what the head of a company is important to the reputation of a company. Maybe as more hardcore marks we’re out of touch with the casual fan.
But I don’t think the casual fan is as casual as we think they are. Sherdog is the most popular MMA site on the internet and it’s quite apparent if you look at their forums that they aren’t short on the casual fan supply. This is the internet generation, they are on the internets. There is no way that all of those fans are hardcore and that’s apparent right away if you actually read what’s posted there.
This isn’t 2004 where the MMA internets were dominated by PRIDE fanboys. I bet that most sherdoggers got introduced to MMA with TUF (nothing wrong with that, you gotta start somewhere). A good chunk of these people on the internet saying that they started with UFC 1 are full of it most likely. I never even heard of the UFC myself until like 2002 through word of mouth and that’s how I got into MMA as a fan. UFC brand recognition was non-existant in the past and only has exploded in the past 2 and a half years. The explosion in UFC brand recognition is why I think you see a lot of UFC fanboys on the internet now while the PRIDE fanboys subsided.
This is from the Dana’s Blueprint article I posted earlier in this comments section explaining how Dana White puts himself in the spotlight.
“Dana White, while creating the previous mentioned Ultimate Fighter series, decided to steal this page [from Vince McMahon] and put himself in front of the camera. Along with Joe Rogan and maybe Randy Couture (no longer with UFC by the way), Dana White might be the most recognizable face in the sport now. He’s placed himself ahead of most fighters in his company, compiling more interviews and more profiles than any fighter next to Chuck Liddell (who’s arguably on his way out of the sport). As long as Dana is around (presumably as long as he wants), then UFC will always have a recognizable face.”
Who do you want speaking for the organization, other than the president of the organization?
If you’re talking to Major League Soccer, then you interview either Don Garber or Ivan Gazidis (spelling?). It makes sense that when someone wants to know about UFC, they would talk to Dana White.
On the other hand, when someone wants to know about Rampage, they should be talking to Rampage or to his manager or maybe his trainer or the head of his gym. I do see situations where apparently certain writers contact files only have Dana’s phone number in them. I’m not sure who to fault on that.
I’m not sure who is wagging the dog on this stuff. Then again, I’m kind of uncertain who’s wagging the dog on the Zuffa myth too. Is Zuffa actually putting that stuff forward, or is it just lazy and ill-informed journalists cribbing from other lazy and ill-informed journalists?
Reportedly Zuffa disagreed with things that were in the CNBC piece that was interpreted as being largely puff. It’s still in rotation on that channel, I surfed past it last night, BTW.
If Zuffa believed the sport could sell itself to an audience, there would probably be a deal with a major network by now.
I don’t understand why CBS/HBO feels the need to control the production/broadcast of the UFC like they do baseball and football, because it’s not like they have a panel of experts ready to banter in the pre and post fight shows, and it’s not like we’d be likely to get anything more sophisticated that Rogan’s commentary out of it.
But Zuffa’s hard line on owning the production and putting over the product will likely soften if a competitor gets some kind of deal, or even if a boxing brand scores a timeslot on one of big broadcast networks. MLB and the NFL haven’t suffered from a lack of control over the product.
If Zuffa wasn’t so obsessed with shoving the brand down everyone’s throat, we’d probably be watching Hendo/Silva on CBS with our grandmas.
“Who do you want speaking for the organization, other than the president of the organization?”
Dana White is the spokesperson for the UFC and that’s fine. What I am critical of is the fact that he thrusts himself into the spotlight constantly ahead of the fighters. With the amount of airtime that Dana White gets and the amount of time he’s in the spotlight, you can’t help but make the comparisons with Vince McMahon
Read this again (from that article)
“He’s placed himself ahead of most fighters in his company, compiling more interviews and more profiles than any fighter next to Chuck Liddell (who’s arguably on his way out of the sport). As long as Dana is around (presumably as long as he wants), then UFC will always have a recognizable face.”
Off-topic, but interesting piece concerning Station Casinos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/us/09casino.html
I don’t understand why CBS/HBO feels the need to control the production/broadcast of the UFC like they do baseball and football, because it’s not like they have a panel of experts ready to banter in the pre and post fight shows, and it’s not like we’d be likely to get anything more sophisticated that Rogan’s commentary out of it.
The PBP guys in MMA right now are totally horrible. Honestly. You look at the two biggest names (Ranallo and Goldberg), and they’re just flat out bad. To compare them favorably to someone like Lampley or even Joe Tessitore is an insult. Not only can a network find someone who can do the job better (and who will prepare well), but they will be honest about what you’re seeing. Sure, Rogan and Goldie trashed Eddie Sanchez’s fight at UFC 79, but boy, wouldn’t it have been something if a Larry Merchant/Jim Gray style interviewer stepped in afterwards to ask some tough questions? Or to do the same when Tim Sylvia squashes Noguiera up against the fence for 25 minutes and “wins the world heavyweight title”?
He’s placed himself ahead of most fighters in his company, compiling more interviews and more profiles than any fighter next to Chuck Liddell (who’s arguably on his way out of the sport). As long as Dana is around (presumably as long as he wants), then UFC will always have a recognizable face.
This is cute and stuff, but no one is buying PPVs to see Dana White.
Like I know that Dana White has been important to the industry but I do think he needs to take a step back in the spotlight and concentrate more on the traditional roles associated with heads of sports leagues.
His constant tourettes torrent on TUF is childish, having a hyped up exhibition fight vs. Tito Ortiz, etc (thank god it didn’t happen). I mean come on. He’s on Spike TV a lot, and as the article stated, “he’s placed himself ahead of most fighters in his company, compiling more interviews and more profiles than any fighter next to Chuck Liddell.” Dana White, you’re a promoter, you’re not a UFC superstar. Please stay away from the camera A LOT more. Dana should strive to be less in the spotlight like the mainstream sports commissioners are. He’s the spokesmen of the company but he should let the fighters be the stars of the show thank you very much. That’s where I agree with Josh Gross on how the organization should be about the fighters.
“This is cute and stuff, but no one is buying PPVs to see Dana White.”
That’s EXACTLY why I think Dana White should lay off being in the spotlight so much. No one is watching mainstream team sports on TV to see the sports commissioners or sports team owners and no one is watching Spike TV or buying PPVs to see Dana White.
Harris and Mir on WEC are good.
This is a problem that plagues most new sports. I know we’ve seen it over the last dozen or so years in MLS. At least in that case you were talking about a situation where you could bring in guys to do the job from out of country, but the home grown commentators are only starting to come into their own, largely due to the retirement of players who are joining the ranks.
The more former fighters and refs who go into the booth to do calls and analysis, the better. Couture was a natural analyst, I think people have high expectations for Big John, Mir has proven himself quite capable on color, and I think it would be hilarious to have Tito in the booth. I don’t want to see him fight, but listening to him break down a round would potentially be extremely interesting.
Of course they’re horrible, but that’s not the point. I’m not really arguing that anything CBS comes up with wouldn’t be better. I’m arguing that it shouldn’t feel compelled to have that kind of control over the product.
Whether or not CBS knows it, the UFC could make it some money, since it’s broadcast fees aren’t going to be nearly as expensive as the NFL’s, and the product is geared towards young males, a demographic that has largely eluded CBS in recent years. And most important, big fights will draw good ratings, if UFC 75 is of any indication. And I’m sure someone at Zuffa could convince the network execs that the sky’s the limit for the sport.
There’s just too much upside for the network to ignore. If I was CBS, I’d give the UFC its shitty commentating in exchange for a couple of big checks. If it wants to play hardball, it’ll regret it when the UFC eventually inks a deal with a different network.
Also, I’m not really impressed with Mir. He talks too much and gets too excited and kind of loses his wits in fast-paced fights. Although with the slower-paced fights, he’s good for strategic commentary.
I always preferred Quadros for PBP, and I have a soft spot for Bas on color. He does pretty decent color for the IFL, although it’s pretty clear he’s trying to sell the product in his commentary. I liked when Couture and Bas commented on a couple of fights in PRIDE, and you know what? I thought Phil Baroni was a great color guy for the few fights he did.
I like Rogan, though, even though it’s obvious he’s toeing the company line most of the time. But that’s not really his fault.
Oh, almost forgot, whatever happened to Eddie Bravo? I’d like to see him take a shot at doing color. Maybe EliteXC will fire the 1824q23598125534s8* guys they have doing commentary now and give him a shot or something.
Bas freaks me out. The energy level is waaay too high. I mean, I want to be into the fight, but I don’t want to be tired out just listening to the commentary.
I think getting pysched about a fight is totally acceptable, as long as it’s a big fight. But if it’s just two middle-of-the-road (IFL) fighters or an otherwise boring fight, then yeah, it gets old. Hyped-up commentary helps me really get involved in the big battles. What always sticks out is the second Couture/Liddell fight. Rogan and Goldberg were absolutely jacked for that fight, and it made it a lot more intense.
Besides, I don’t (always) watch fighting with my legs crossed smoking cubans and drinking scotch in the parlor.
I might be in a very, very small minority here, but I thought Lon McEachern did a superb job doing PBP for PRIDE 33.
Of course they’re horrible, but that’s not the point. I’m not really arguing that anything CBS comes up with wouldn’t be better. I’m arguing that it shouldn’t feel compelled to have that kind of control over the product.
I hate these arguments. Sports in this country have been televised by third parties for as long as they’ve existed. People have wanted and demand impartiality from their announce crews, and when they don’t get it, it becomes part of the burial. No one is going to accept MMA at face value because they don’t have to. MMA might make them money, but its hardly guaranteed, and no matter how well it does on cable, the 1.1s of Ultimate Fighter 6 and 1.3s of various UFNs leads networks (rightly) to think that they putting on MMA (in this case, provided by UFC) is more a gift on behalf of them due to tough times than it is something that MMA currently demands as a sport due to the public’s reaction.
In that sense, its clear. MMA can play by its own rules with the small dogs, but when it comes to the big boys, it, like every other sport in the entire country and history of TV, must play by its rules.
Yeah, the UFC’s TV ratings leave more to be desired for them to even try to get a good network TV deal. Same with their lack of blue chip sponsors aside from Harley Davidson. UFC 75 had a great rating and the Ultimate Fighter Finale 6 did well but the Ultimate Fighter episode ratings and Ultimate Fight Night ratings leave more to be desired. Didn’t WWE RAW! programming on Spike TV average at least a 3.0 rating when RAW was still on that channel?
As Meltzer has said, the UFC’s insistent on maintaining control over production and announcing has a lot of resemblance to the WWE business model. Dana White will eventually have to give up some of his control to a third party if they want to play ball in the bigger leagues. The WWE business model isn’t all bad. For eg. Brock Lesnar is a 1-0 MMA newbie who didn’t pay his dues in the sport but he’s a draw and that’s why I feel his presence in the UFC is justified. Hence why I agree with Zach’s entertainment first, sport second philosophy.
But the UFC is only stunting their growth by being uncooperative with Network TV, HBO, etc. Spike TV deserves credit for giving the UFC a shot but let’s be honest with ourself, it is a wasteland. That channel is an embarrassment with crap like world eating league, manswers, guys awards and other stupid stuff that’s supposed to be a hit with young males apparently. WWE used to get great ratings on Spike but the programming on Spike now is a total joke. So that’s probably why Spike is grateful to have the UFC around despite the low ratings.
The last time TV execs were left in charge of MMA programming, we were gifted with the “someone is leaving the ring in a strecher” promo on IFL. Most of the TV programmers have no idea with this sport is really about and I think the UFC has very legit concerns about protecting the brand and the sport.
My favorite Josh Gross pet peeve is the amount of air time he spends arguing in favor of third-party broadcasters. Several promotions like HDnet have used third-party commentators and it hardly revolutionized or barely even enchanced the show. As far as the public “demanding it”, when MSG Network fired Marv Albert, Knicks fans hardly gave a rat’s ass. It really doesn’t effect the bottom line much as far as dollar and cents goes.
The last time TV execs were left in charge of MMA programming, we were gifted with the “someone is leaving the ring in a strecher” promo on IFL.
Those are also people from MyNetwork TV. Not the brightest bunch in the world. Besides, it was IFL who had hired the new production company for those opening shows and they quickly apologized and changed.
Most of the TV programmers have no idea with this sport is really about and I think the UFC has very legit concerns about protecting the brand and the sport.
You associate protecting the brand as being the same as protecting the sport. It isn’t. They certainly have concerns about the brand being damaged the second someone starts talking about Fedor or Randy Couture’s supposed “retirement”.
My favorite Josh Gross pet peeve is the amount of air time he spends arguing in favor of third-party broadcasters. Several promotions like HDnet have used third-party commentators and it hardly revolutionized or barely even enchanced the show.
I was pretty okay with Yarennoka on HDNet, honestly. I enjoyed that telecast’s production more than I have most from any company.
As far as the public “demanding it”, when MSG Network fired Marv Albert, Knicks fans hardly gave a rat’s ass. It really doesn’t effect the bottom line much as far as dollar and cents goes.
Did they replace Marv Albert with a paid schill? I thought not.
The one thing I really hated about the telecast of Yarennoka! was how they were talking over the whole intro show and didn’t take good shots of it. The PRIDE-styled pageantry adds to the show and it pissed me off that they did that. The Americans don’t place the same emphasis on pageantry in the fight game that the Japanese do and that’s why HDNet Fights butchered it I guess. But they did a good job overall aside from that part.
I think HDNet is coming into the show assuming you know most of the main fighters on the card. They can worry about telling you who Mike Russow is later when he actually fights. Additionally, all the good shots and rigs were likely being used by Japanese equipment rather than the US HDTV cameras.
The main audience for Yarennoka! consisted of PRIDE fans and most westerners who enjoyed PRIDE appreciated the intro ceremonies. They added to the events.
[quote]I hate these arguments. Sports in this country have been televised by third parties for as long as they’ve existed. People have wanted and demand impartiality from their announce crews, and when they don’t get it, it becomes part of the burial. No one is going to accept MMA at face value because they don’t have to. MMA might make them money, but its hardly guaranteed, and no matter how well it does on cable, the 1.1s of Ultimate Fighter 6 and 1.3s of various UFNs leads networks (rightly) to think that they putting on MMA (in this case, provided by UFC) is more a gift on behalf of them due to tough times than it is something that MMA currently demands as a sport due to the public’s reaction.[/quote]
I don’t think you’re being completely fair here. Most NBA, NFL and NHL teams rely on small markets to make money. The FSN networks and numerous other smaller networks broadcast the majority of regular season games in those three leagues. And as you’re likely aware, the broadcast teams for many of the stations are hardly impartial, as they’re broadcasting predominately to the home team’s market. I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone that people demand impartiality. People demand to see the sport played.
And let’s not forget that ESPN has a long been pretty ambivalent with regards to objectivity, at least in its production. As a national network, it sells the big stories and generally favors the big teams and star players in its coverage. And in TBS’s cherry-popping broadcast of the MLB playoffs…we all know how that went. Hardly impartial.
I know no other person that has bitched about how shitty and terrible and awful and godawful Rogan and Goldberg can be more than myself. And being a media dude, I completely understand and appreciate the value of good PBP and color commentary.
But this seems pretty simple: CBS skews older. The UFC caters to the exact demo that CBS has tried so desperately to target in its programming. Moreover, it’s not like there’s THAT much risk involved. It’s more just an issue of pride and tradition, the old guard wanting it their way. And despite what average PPV numbers might suggest, the UFC is clearly growing in the public consciousness. CBS should get over itself and at least sign up for a few events. It’s bled itself dry on failed sitcoms on reality shows. I don’t see how a three or four-event contract could be considered remotely bad business, contextually.
The FSN networks and numerous other smaller networks broadcast the majority of regular season games in those three leagues. And as you’re likely aware, the broadcast teams for many of the stations are hardly impartial,
Woah, wait, the NFL uses local broadcast teams? Since when? We’re talking about national telecasts here, and last I checked, ABC/TNT/ESPN don’t typically utilize hometown crews unless they have to.
That said, discussing the use of less known announce teams for local radio and TV versus that utilized by the UFC is a silly comparison.
And let’s not forget that ESPN has a long been pretty ambivalent with regards to objectivity, at least in its production. As a national network, it sells the big stories and generally favors the big teams and star players in its coverage.
No. Get out! You mean they highlight the things most people want to see?
But this seems pretty simple: CBS skews older. The UFC caters to the exact demo that CBS has tried so desperately to target in its programming.
That’s fine and dandy, but, you know, CBS doesn’t owe it to anyone to test out network TV MMA.
Moreover, it’s not like there’s THAT much risk involved. It’s more just an issue of pride and tradition, the old guard wanting it their way.
And what’s wrong with the “old guard”? I like how this becomes an indictment of CBS being too dumb to make money when in reality, they’re doing business like they always have and in a fashion everyone respects. CBS is the multibillion dollar network. CBS is the most watched network in the country. UFC is an organization operating a niche sport who’s demanding other people do what they want, and is crying when they don’t get it from people far more important than them.
And despite what average PPV numbers might suggest, the UFC is clearly growing in the public consciousness.
How is it “growing”? Ratings are down for its major programming, coverage on sports networks is very minimal, PPV numbers aren’t rising, etc. It exists and it is popular, but to say that CBS should do anything with it, regardless of the cost to the network, is silly. UFC as it is on CBS could turn out to be a XFL level boondoggle. Do you think they want to be associated with that when they have the option to pick up literally anything else in the world for programming?
I meant NHL, NBA and MLB. You’re so cute when you try to be condescending. And you’re also happily dismissing the argument that people don’t generally demand impartiality in broadcast, because they don’t. “Respect” for networks? Who the hell do you think the average TV watcher is, Roger Ebert? Not everyone is a media critic, otherwise shit shows like Survivor would’ve been nerfed years ago.
As far as ESPN is concerned, I suppose we could argue this until we love each other, but there’s no way to tell whether everyone that watches ESPN wants to hear more about Roger Clemens. Knowing media types, I can say that, at least news media, deciding what stories to run and how to run them is largely an arbitrary, top-down affair. Figuring out “what people want” is typically a guessing game. Occasional market research can lead to the opening of new sections or features on particular subjects, but saying that the “people” want to watch/read anything is ultimately just conjecture.
I’m not indicting CBS for being dumb. The people negotiating with the UFC are obviously not dumb, because they realize how vacuous and artificial the broadcast is. They’ve watched WWE before. and they don’t like the similarities. And I can’t blame them.
I’m not really saying that the UFC is operating in any kind of position of power, since it’s clearly not. But CBS wouldn’t be in the discussion at all if it didn’t do its homework and decide that there’s some potential there. And unlike most programming, which falls into traditional categories – sitcoms, dramas, reality, gameshows, whatever – the UFC offers a type of popular entertainment, an altogether new sport, that CBS would have an absolute monopoly on.
Even though the UFC’s PPV numbers aren’t really growing, they’re certainly stable. Not to forget that it put on more free shows on Spike in 2007 than it did in 2006. Plus, the Sports Illustrated spread, Yahoo!’s coverage, UFC highlights on SportsCenter, Liddell in ESPN the magazine, the UFC workouts in the fitness magazines, the CNBC special, other features and spreads … all that happened in 2007. Not 2006. To say that doesn’t reflect a growing awareness is to ignore the obvious.
I wouldn’t dissuade CBS to give up the good fight in pressing for control over the broadcast of the product, but I would certainly suggest that if all else fails, to give it a shot. No matter how bad the UFC can be, it could never be worse than Million Dollar Password. Or draw more abysmal ratings than Swingtown. Taking risks is how CBS landed Survivor in the first place and started a revolution in TV. Now the UFC won’t be the next Survivor, for sure. But it we’re not having this pleasant chat on XFLOpinion.com, either.
And you’re also happily dismissing the argument that people don’t generally demand impartiality in broadcast, because they don’t.
And yet all nationally televised sports (like when NBC runs NBA games) feature their own crews rather than the locals. Astonishing that this would be the case. Perhaps there is a reason why networks don’t just use whomever an organization wants?
Not everyone is a media critic, otherwise shit shows like Survivor would’ve been nerfed years ago.
Survivor is looking for coverage from mass media? That’s what CBS is or what HBO was, afterall, nothing but the easy means to that end. MMA is not going any further unless there is a change in the fashion in which its covered. Period.
As far as ESPN is concerned, I suppose we could argue this until we love each other, but there’s no way to tell whether everyone that watches ESPN wants to hear more about Roger Clemens.
All I’ve heard people talk about is Roger Clemens the last week in person. Why not? One of the most dominant athletes in his sport’s modern history getting caught doping and then being embroiled in media warfare in an attempt to clear his name. There’s naturally going to be interest.
I’m not really saying that the UFC is operating in any kind of position of power, since it’s clearly not. But CBS wouldn’t be in the discussion at all if it didn’t do its homework and decide that there’s some potential there. And unlike most programming, which falls into traditional categories – sitcoms, dramas, reality, gameshows, whatever – the UFC offers a type of popular entertainment, an altogether new sport, that CBS would have an absolute monopoly on.
Unless they’re willing to buy out TUF, they aren’t in a position to have an absolute monopoly on it. Besides, CBS isn’t stupid, and they know that if they get involved in the sport all it takes is a couple big names going out looking for money to change the structure of it. We review this time and time again: UFC is an MMA organization, but MMA is not UFC.
If CBS is going to throw money into UFC, they’re throwing money into the sport, and I think they understand that fact very well.
Even though the UFC’s PPV numbers aren’t really growing, they’re certainly stable. Not to forget that it put on more free shows on Spike in 2007 than it did in 2006. Plus, the Sports Illustrated spread, Yahoo!’s coverage, UFC highlights on SportsCenter, Liddell in ESPN the magazine, the UFC workouts in the fitness magazines, the CNBC special, other features and spreads … all that happened in 2007. Not 2006. To say that doesn’t reflect a growing awareness is to ignore the obvious.
I think the awareness has grown but I don’t think its continuing to grow. Liddell having a magazine spread in April/early May and then proceeding to lose twice in a row didn’t shoot the sport into the great social conscious. It had the exact opposite effect. We haven’t seen tons of coverage since then. In fact, apart from title fights, UFC highlights don’t appear on ESPN. UFC 72 and 73 got no mention on Sportscenter.
No matter how bad the UFC can be, it could never be worse than Million Dollar Password. Or draw more abysmal ratings than Swingtown. Taking risks is how CBS landed Survivor in the first place and started a revolution in TV. Now the UFC won’t be the next Survivor, for sure. But it we’re not having this pleasant chat on XFLOpinion.com, either.
I think I’d like to return to a point that people like to keep making. Zach and many others are gleeful to point out how the UFC is “sports entertainment” in that it seeks to entertain first. Dana can want this all he wants. In the end, when he goes to HBO or CBS Sports, they are looking for “sport” first. They can do lots of entertaining stuff with it themselves. After all, the 3 of the 5 most successful PPVs in history are all from TVKO/HBO (the only two that aren’t are SET’s two Holyfield/Tyson bouts), while CBS only televised and built minor sports like the NFL and NASCAR. These are only the best production crews in the world working with the best equipment and more money than God. What makes them think that they can do a better job promoting and producing television than a failed boxing promoter and his band of Vegas based camera/editor guys? Oh, that’s right, they probably can and would.
The problem is that Dana White is afraid they might actually, you know, let people in on the fact that there’s a whole sport out there and not just his little company. So what’s great for MMA in general (MMA on major network/HBO) is bad for Zuffa, and that’s why you won’t see it unless its on their terms, which is why they’re trying now to get the TV time when they feel the networks are their weakest.