« Report: Forrest Griffin out of action for all of 2009 | Home | Video: Dana White on the Road to UFC 93 »
Ticket information for Affliction 1/24 Honda Center event in Anaheim
By Zach Arnold | January 13, 2009
So, I went to Ticketmaster to look for available seats for the January 24th event headlined by Fedor vs. Arlovski. The first thing you notice is that Affliction is giving away a ‘free t-shirt’ to anyone who buy a ticket with a face value of $200 or higher. Underneath the t-shirt offer are prices for parking, which range from $15-40 USD.
In short, you can pretty much get whatever kind of ticket you want for the show. More information here.
I know that on a mailing list for MMA writers, the organization yesterday (like for the first show) was offering free t-shirts as a way of saying ‘thank you.’
Topics: Affliction, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 102 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
What IceMuncher said.
I typically get together with a group of 5-10 friends, we each kick in $10 to $20, and that covers the cost of PPV, beer, and pizza for the evening. I actually SAVE money versus the typical Saturday night out at the bars.
The “pizza and beer” thing was the defense for boxing moving to PPV years ago. Look how well that ultimately turned out; we now get monthly articles about its demise.
Ice,
Oh, I assure you. That\’s how I survived much of the time period between the advent of PPV in the early \’80s right up until 2004.
It was great getting together with good friends & like-minded individuals every couple/few weeks. But, through an odd set of circumstances in which my three closest friends ( & the core of the group ) each wound up relocating out of NYS within a period of only a few months, I was left holding the bag.
Since then, everyone I\’ve met who\’s displayed an interest in fightsports has made it clear that they\’d rather scratch that itch by going out to the various sportsbar chains. Which, seemed like an option for a short while until I realized that my bill at the the end of the night was roughly the same, if not more than the cost of the PPV would be. Not to mention the worries of having to arrange for safe transportation home should I decide to have a few beers & not risk driving under the influence …
Definitely better to watch in a group and have everyone kick in for the PPV…who’s paying $45 +tax and sitting there to watch an event alone??
Gonzaga, who is not really a ‘name’, fighting someone the average fan has never heard of? I doubt this is the main event…is it?
Meh,
I don’t give a shit about economic theory. I’m just telling you how I pay for UFC cards.
Besides, I don’t think the UFC is a good comparison with boxing. They have been going out of their way to put good cards on free TV. It’s not like Boxing where your choices are (1) buy a PPV or (2) subscribe to HBO.
Anyone with basic cable can see 8 live UFC cards per year without paying an extra penny over their normal cable bill. We didn’t even get that many PPV’s back in the pre-TUF era. We were lucky if we got six PPV shows per year.
I purchase every UFC PPV. I don’t always have people over. If I do, I don’t charge them for it.
I’m not rich, but I make the PPV’s a priority in what I want to spend my money on.
Besides, I don’t think the UFC is a good comparison with boxing. They have been going out of their way to put good cards on free TV. It’s not like Boxing where your choices are (1) buy a PPV or (2) subscribe to HBO.
No offense, but the level of most HBO cards is a lot, lot higher than what the UFC provides for Ultimate Fight Nights. Putting Margarito/Mosley on “normal” HBO would be like showing Sherk/Florian on free TV. Plus, with HBO, you get, you know, HBO.
There’s definitely a trend starting of putting more shows on free TV with lesser quality main events. This is because they need to get all these guys 3-4 fights a year and there’s no room on PPV, and also because they want to saturate the market.
I think they are going to have upwards of 8 free Spike TV specials this year, in addition to Ultimate Finales. The show the week after UFC 94 is kind of a perfect example…the fights aren’t great, but it’s better than no show at all I think.
WEC puts the #1 Featherweight & Bantamweight Fighters in the world on free TV. And UFC money is what funded (and might still) those cards.
And for the UFC Fight Nights vs. HBO Boxing…. It’s Apples to Oranges. UFC puts on 2 to 3 hours of solid fights with Top 30 level fighters. HBO Boxing gives you one, maybe two fights. And many times those fighters are just to showcase noe fighter. At least with UFC Fight Nights, they are evenly matched up fights, which makes for a more compelling viewing experience.
Just look at the first 4 months of 2009. Zuffa is putting on 10 total cards. 4 of them pay, 6 of them free. Hard to complain about.
Klown wrote: “The “free market” crowd (for lack of a better label) essentially argue against intelligent analysis of any kind. In their circular world, if PPVs are sold, the product is good, period, and anyone who criticizes the product or points to dangers down the line is some kind of elitist. This is a mindless position to take. The reason we go to sites like Fight Opinion is because we have opinions and want to exchange them with others.”
Exactly.
Michael Rome wrote: “I think UFC 93 is a fine card, somewhere between Spike and PPV level lineups, but again fights are so widely available within a day of the show that it’s not exactly worth complaining about.”
Are you seriously using piracy of fights as a reason for why it is or isn’t “worth complaining about” lower-than-usual PPV quality?
WEC puts the #1 Featherweight & Bantamweight Fighters in the world on free TV. And UFC money is what funded (and might still) those cards.
The top fighters in lesser known weight classes have fought on free TV for boxing too. On Versus in the last 45 days, no less!
And for the UFC Fight Nights vs. HBO Boxing…. It’s Apples to Oranges. UFC puts on 2 to 3 hours of solid fights with Top 30 level fighters. HBO Boxing gives you one, maybe two fights.
Most HBO cards run about 2 hours and feature no commercial breaks. You’re right: they don’t often feature top 30 fighters. Top 30 fighters fighting each other is for ESPN2 and Azteca America.
“Are you seriously using piracy of fights as a reason for why it is or isn’t “worth complaining about” lower-than-usual PPV quality?”
What is your complaint again? That you have to pay to see it? The fights are available on UFC.com for a couple dollars too almost immediately if you have such a high standard of honor.
You keep changing the goalposts because your complaints make no sense. The bad cards happen when the stars don’t align, why do you suppose they stacked 92 even though they have no competition? Why do you suppose they are trying desperately to get Rampage and Rashad to fight on short notice in March? The only meaningful criticism is they do a bad job spreading out their talent on PPV. The idea that they’re trying intentionally to give out weak cards due to lack of competition is completely bogus.
Their whole model is based on convincing people to pay for shows. If you’re not convinced, you don’t need to buy it. This, like UFC 80, is just an additional show inbetween two big ones aimed at building a smaller European market and giving the hardcores more fights.
2 fights on HBO. That’s it. Typical Fight Night, we see around 5 or 6. And Top 30 talent for MMA is about the same as Top 10 talent for Boxing. With all those weight classes, if they actually condensed a few of them…. the “prospects” they show on BAD, wouldn’t be borderline Top 10 when they are first introduced.
This is why I say it’s Apples to Oranges.
2 fights on HBO. That’s it. Typical Fight Night, we see around 5 or 6.
There’s 5-6 because the fights are generally shorter.
And Top 30 talent for MMA is about the same as Top 10 talent for Boxing. With all those weight classes, if they actually condensed a few of them….
Or if there weren’t like, tens of thousands more boxers than MMA fighters.
the “prospects” they show on BAD, wouldn’t be borderline Top 10 when they are first introduced.
You want to point out some examples? Thinking back, I’d say guys like Gamboa, Kirkland, or Paul Williams were close to it or already there. Certainly a lot closer than a Josh Burkman.
In my household, HBO is exclusively for True Blood and Bill Maher…not for watching 96-pound Latinos swat at each other with massive leather-bound pillows.
If the UFC wants to put on 22 cards that are slightly watered down, versus 14 slightly more stacked cards…..
….then just pick and choose the events you watch. Not a huge deal and not worth microanalysing the company, trying to pinprick holes in their marketing strategy, talking about how they are doing the wrong thing. Because if that’s the angle people want to take (and some seem to be doing that), then they have no case. The UFC is selling good ppv numbers for all their shows currently. It’s working. When it doesn’t, they’ll probably change course.
Dont forget guys that zuffa had originaly planned to show 93 for FREE on spike but spiketv vetoed it for financial reasons? it’s also being heavily rumore all over the net that rampage/rashad will be the main for 96 as well as silva/lietes. does anyone really believe that the ufc would actually have carwin/gonzaga as the main for 96? the ufc is not stupid.
“The “free market” crowd (for lack of a better label) essentially argue against intelligent analysis of any kind. In their circular world, if PPVs are sold, the product is good, period, and anyone who criticizes the product or points to dangers down the line is some kind of elitist. This is a mindless position to take. The reason we go to sites like Fight Opinion is because we have opinions and want to exchange them with others.”
Nonsense. Opinions are perfectly valid, as long as there is some reasoning behind them. “Hendo vs. Franklin is a shitty main event” is not valid reasoning, because of the free market response. There already exists a response in the market to the fact that Hendo vs. Franklin is a main event. If its a bad main event, it will sell few PPVs, and the UFC will adjust accordingly. Basically, Ivan keeps moving the goalposts to find something to bitch about, because he isn’t ever happy. His being unhappy is not any sort of insightful commentary. Its just whining.
D. Capitated’s responses are much more insightful. I think he’s a bit of a negative nancy too, but he’s a smart, contributing negative nancy. 😀
Anyway, there are a few more comments I want to add. The market structure of MMA will make it impossible to EVER make Ivan happy, because the number of top-level “interesting” fighters has a limit, but it is also controlled by how much attention each fighter receives. Gonzaga vs. Carwin, for instance, would be a much more interesting fight if Carwin had been present on the main cards of the cards he was on. It is directly influenced by how much focus fighters get, which is controlled by the number of cards and main event bouts.
Limiting the number of cards to those with “acceptable” main events would limit the number of quality events, which would limit the number of fighters getting attention, which would limit the number of fighters worthy of main-event status, and so forth. Vicious circle.
Once again, main event quality is not a function of the UFC. Its a function of the structure of MMA.
I think the UFC is about 4-5 main event level fighters short of never having to worry about stuff like this. Lucky for them, it looks like they’re gonna pull Rashad/Rampage out of their hat and make it a good show. Anyway, for all the complaining, and I have complained too, the Spring looks like:
96: Rashad-Rampage, Carwin-Gonzaga
97: Leites/Silva, Chuck/Shogun
98: Brock/Mir, Hughes/Serra
Those aren’t a bad set of main events by any means.
If the UFC can put together Evans-Jackson on the March PPV event, that will be a great three-month stretch of PPV main events in March, April, and May.
Also, in response to this from “Michaelthebox”:
“…the number of top-level “interesting” fighters has a limit, but it is also controlled by how much attention each fighter receives. Gonzaga vs. Carwin, for instance, would be a much more interesting fight if Carwin had been present on the main cards of the cards he was on. It is directly influenced by how much focus fighters get, which is controlled by the number of cards and main event bouts.”
You would be right about the main card bouts to build up fighters if I was saying that they should cut back on the number of PPV events AND the number of TV events, but it’s just the PPV events that I think maybe they should cut back on slightly (and I do mean slightly, maybe from 12-13 per year to 10-11 per year).. A cable TV event with a decent-but-not-great main event is perfectly fine by me. A $45 PPV event with a decent-but-not-great main event is what I object to, although I suppose I should check with you in the future to see if I’m allowed to have that opinion or to express that opinion. If, theoretically, they were to cut two PPV events per year from their schedule, they could still have the same number of total main card slots in which to showcase fighters if they were to also add two TV events per year to their schedule (or, for that matter, they could add more than that). They run into these problems where they are scrambling to fill all of the PPV main event slots with great fights, but that would happen less often if they didn’t have quite as many PPV main events that they had to book in the first place.
“If, theoretically, they were to cut two PPV events per year from their schedule, they could still have the same number of total main card slots in which to showcase fighters if they were to also add two TV events per year to their schedule”
The problem is that 90% of the UFC’s revenue comes from their PPV events. Your plan is basically chopping 15% off their bottom line. It’s like asking the NFL to cut back to 14 games or the NBA to cut back to 70 games.
The UFC is merely trying to supply consumer demand. The demand is obviously there, just look at the buy rates. Until those numbers start dipping, I think any conjecture about over-saturation or some hypothetical accumulation of fan angst is unwarranted.
But Ivan, it once again comes back to your opinion of what makes a PPV-worthy main event. The whole point is that the UFC doesn’t cater to one specific opinion. They load up some cards, like 92, to draw in everybody, even the people who only buy a PPV once a year. Other PPVs are aimed only at those who buy whatever is put out there because they have plenty of money and love the UFC product; cards like the Europe cards are generally built that way. You aren’t obligated to buy UFC 93. And all the people who would be disappointed by the quality? They aren’t buying it either, so no worries for them.
The UFC is not going to standardize their product to your expectations. They provide a product that caters to different levels of demand in the market, and the market responds by purchasing the PPVs it desires. You want more free events? Thats fine, but don’t couch it as being about what the UFC SHOULD do. What they do works just fine.
Josh Gross put it a lot better than I was able to (he’s making a slightly different, but similar point about PPV events): http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/josh_gross/01/13/ppv-saturation/index.html?eref=writers
I think the only real solution to this is that we all agree that Hendo/Franklin should be a Spike TV card. I’m pretty sure Spike TV just wouldn’t give them the TV time for it. If not, well, they are foolish.
Oh Ivan. I kind of want to give you the whole ‘get a tape recorder and record everything you say and listen to it’ advice, but I know that it will fall upon deaf ears. “Oh Ivan, you blowhard!”
The problem is that 90% of the UFC’s revenue comes from their PPV events. Your plan is basically chopping 15% off their bottom line. It’s like asking the NFL to cut back to 14 games or the NBA to cut back to 70 games.
Again, the problem with that strategy is that the UFC has gotten offers to be televised elsewhere, possibly for more money. They traded it for control. Is this a canny move that benefits the UFC right now? Sure. Over the long term, the only other PPV properties that we can look at are boxing (slow slide in viewers, often attributed to PPV) and wrestling (slow slide in viewers, no one has bothered to consider PPV’s role).
The UFC is merely trying to supply consumer demand. The demand is obviously there, just look at the buy rates.
The buyrate for this show will probably be in the 200Ks as previous mediocre UK cards were. Will that prove anything to anyone? Probably not.
For following the sport for so long, Gross is still not a very good journalist.
1. Each PPV is $45, not $50. I have not heard of one cable provider who is charging $50.
2. He is putting UFC 94 and Affliction 2 in the same boat, and acting as if UFC 93 is the outcast. If anything, both Affliction & UFC 93 are on the same boat, and UFC 94 is the must buy PPV.
3. Gross is the guy who has always yelled for “MORE COMPETITION”. Now we get it, and he wants to complain about more PPV money? Give me a break. More proof that his model of doing things is not good. It is proven by his very own article.
I’m pretty sure Gross threw UFC and Affliction in the same boat, 45, because he was writing about MMA, and both are MMA organizations. I dunno, you could have read the article.
I did.
” Billed as a “dream card” for longtime MMA fans, UFC 93 feels more like a speed bump on the way to Jan. 24’s heavyweight showdown between Fedor Emelianenko and Andrei Arlovski, and the following week’s mega-fight pitting B.J. Penn against Georges St. Pierre.”
The way he wrote the article, he is putting Affliction and UFC 94 in the same boat. As if they are the same quality of cards. This just isn’t true.
It should have really said, both UFC 93 AND Affliction 2 feel like speed bumps on the way to UFC 94.
You might want to read both the articl and my response again. It’s all very clear.
Yeah, well, Gross considers a fight with the top and (in his esteemed opinion) second best heavyweight on par with GSP/Penn. I guess this is where you make the argument that Fedor really needs to prove his worth against Frank Mir.
You peope still trying to hold onto the myth that Arlovski is Top 3, after beating the best that the IFL had to offer?
D.Cap,
The UFC passed on CBS deal not for control, but because of money. The deal was pretty close to that of the one that Elite got.
I do think the HBO deal was because of control, but the bulk of the HBO folk did not even want the UFC. Would you have given production control to a station whose politics could see your product in the hands of those that dislike you and your company?
The HBO deal would was nowhere near the revenue of the PPVs. It would have been cards that lie between UFN quality and that of PPV.
I think that we will eventually see the UFC will a second television deal for these kinds of shows, with the number of ppvs staying somewhere around 10-12.
But network television is going to have to embrace MMA, not throw it a bone like CBS did. The attitude of “We will allow you to be on our network, you are so lucky.” That is not going to get the UFC, or any other smart promoter, on board.
Yep.
CBS basically bent ProElite over, gave ’em a proper buggering, and then tossed them some spare change for the cab ride home. In the process, they gained a pretty substantial ownership stake in the company and pressure ProElite into some horrible decision (ie … the second CBS show). No wonder the UFC wanted no part of that deal.
With HBO, the UFC had one ally (CEO Chris Albrecht) within the company. Everyone else, especially the guys running HBO Sports, was openly hostile towards the idea of MMA on HBO. When Albrecht’s career went down in a blaze of alcohol-induced domestic violence, the remaining folks at HBO scuttled any plans for MMA on the network.
Thank GOD the UFC passed on the HBO deal. Could you imagine the nightmare of giving up control of your product to a company that despises what you do? The UFC dodged a serious bullet there IMO.
For the record Time Warner adds $10-$15 in license fees and taxes to MMA and boxing PPVs in New York. I know this doesn’t affect everyone, but since comment 77 mentioned never having heard of it I thought I’d bring it up.
You peope still trying to hold onto the myth that Arlovski is Top 3, after beating the best that the IFL had to offer?
Arlovski, winner of his last 3 in the UFC, and the #1 contender in the heavyweight division when he departed? If only he had lost to a 2-1 former pro wrestler….
The UFC passed on CBS deal not for control, but because of money. The deal was pretty close to that of the one that Elite got.
The CBS deal isn’t the only one that fell apart over control. You know that.
I think he got the $50 figure because the HD versions of the events can be more than that, and there are also those damned “special event fees” from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc.
The best guy he has beaten in the last 3 years is Werdum. That does not make him Top 3.
And you can throw around that Pro Wrestling insult about Lesnar all day, but the guy beat Herring & Couture in back to back fights, and I would bet my money on him beating Mir next. The guy is the real deal. And last time I checked, I’m not ranking him Top 3 in the world either.
Let’s say Arlovski is ranked #4 and is indeed “not top 3” at the present time. I would say that a fight between the #1-ranked heavyweight in the world and the #4-ranked heavyweight in the world is still a pretty big fight. In terms of the comparison that you made, I’d say that main event is a heck of a lot closer to St. Pierre vs. Penn than it is to Franklin vs. Henderson.
That’s if your article or point is primarily about the PPV main events, as Gross’ is. If one is talking about the whole entire card, then the Affliction event becomes a lot less impressive (especially because of Barnett’s opponent being Yvel), and the UFC event becomes a lot more impressive (especially because of Machida vs. Thiago Silva in a battle of undefeated, top-ten-ranked fighters).
But ultimately, I think the point of Gross’ article was not, “X event is better than Y event,” it was that there are too many PPVs and that if this continues, it’s going to catch up to the MMA industry at some point like it did with the boxing industry.
Control of production was a significant factor in negotiations with CBS and HBO, as well as being a significant factor in preliminary negotiations not getting very far with NBC or ESPN. It is very important for the UFC to have control of production (ie, like a pro wrestling company does), as opposed to giving that up to the networks (ie, like every other sport does, including the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc).
(I should have worded it that the UFC feels it’s very important for them to retain control of production)
Arlovski isn’t Top 5. I’ve had this debat before. Others agree with me. Some don’t.
For the PPV price… Not sure where you people live, but I have Comcast and don’t get any special fees whether it’s for regular or HD PPV. The price tag is $45.
Also, Gross’s point is just not about the main events. The article specifically talks about the undercard of UFC 93 as a reason for not purchasing the PPV.
And this is why I am bashing Gross on this one:
“3. Gross is the guy who has always yelled for “MORE COMPETITION”. Now we get it, and he wants to complain about more PPV money? Give me a break. More proof that his model of doing things is not good. It is proven by his very own article.”
He is a walking contradiction. All he ever spewed for 2 years on Sherdog Radio was how the UFC needs competition. Well, we have that now… And he is complaining about it. Sounds like he just can’t be happy with the UFC.
*********
As for the reasons why the UFC is not on HBO or Network TV. Do we really have any true confirmation of the negotiations. I know Meltzer has discussed it in the past, but no difinitive information has come out to what exactly broke down talks.
If you remove the Affliction PPV from that article entirely (if it weren’t happening), I think his point would still stand about too many PPVs and the long-term risks that this poses for the industry.
If you remove Affliction from the equation, the UFC is doing exactly 4 PPV’s in the first 4 months of the year. If UFC 94 was one day later, it would be one for each month through April. That’s not a big deal, especially when Zuffa is giving away 6 free cards during that same time period.
And if you it over the course of 15 years, the UFC only really averages a PPV show once every 2.5 months! Oh, 45.
Can’t find a way to have a legit response so you have to make a joke?
During 2008, the UFC offered only one paid event per month. The last time (before UFC 93/94) that Zuffa offered two PPV’s in the same month is… Yep, you guess it… Never.
There are no signs of weakening. Even if Meltzer’s numbers ren’t perfect, it shows an UPWARD trend of PPV Buys, not a downward. Zuffa likely expects around 200,000 for events like UFC 93. And most fans are going to pick and choose their events anyways and purchase anywhere from 2 to 6 a year, depending on the cards.
We get that, 45. Hey, HBO’s two biggest years for total buys came in the last 4 years also. Yet, somehow, you’re the first to say its dying?
“Hey, HBO’s two biggest years for total buys came in the last 4 years also. Yet, somehow, you’re the first to say its dying?”
ODLH can’t fight forever. Heck, after watching his last fight, it looks like his career as an elite level competitor is already over.
Excluding ODLH, boxing’s recent PPV numbers have been abysmal. I think that is where the ‘boxing is dying’ talk comes from. There is no one waiting in the wings to carry the load after Oscar retires.
Mayweather/Hatton did better than, what, all but 2 MMA PPVs ever? And don’t give me that he’s “retired”. His reps are already out hustling for a fight with the Hatton/Pacquiao winner.
Ivan,
One of the execs at CBS once made a public statement that control was not the reason the UFC was not on CBS.
From what I had heard, both the UFC AND CBS acted as though the other was lucky to be talking to them.
The numbers were nowhere near being close.