Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


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."

Miserable FS1 ratings could help UFC transition away from so many PPVs

By Zach Arnold | August 28, 2013

You knew it was going to be a tough start for the Fox Sports empire with the launch of FS1. After all, CBS Sports has their own cable channel and the channel formerly known as OLN/Versus (now NBC Sports) is owned by Comcast. There is competition for ESPN, but Fox was supposed to be the competition. You wanted an alternative? You got it. The general sports media has been groaning about ESPN’s transgressions, and rightfully so, but in the process got caught up in believing that the masses would rush to an alternative sports channel.

Not so fast.

As opinions on Fox Sports 1 harden, we can see that the early reviews signal FS1 being much closer to NBC & CBS cable channels than to ESPN. ESPN mocked FS1 (correctly so) but wanted to see FS1 do solid enough numbers that NBC & CBS would get buried down the depth chart. NBCSN, being owned by Comcast, is theoretically a threat to ESPN. The reality appears to be that NBCSN has scored big with EPL programming and will cash in with some NASCAR content. Since Comcast owns NBCSN, the issue of carriage fees is not as crucial as it would be to, say, CBS Sports and FS1. They are in the carriage fee game. They gave up a lot of money by not getting new deals cut with cable/satellite providers for FS1.

Simply put, you’re not going to get a bump up from 23 cents a viewer to 80 cents a viewer if the following happens:

0.0 ratings for some programming is absurd. Regis Philbin’s new show, opposite Around the Horn on ESPN, is drawing 29,000 viewers. That is not a typo. When you have programming drawing less than 50,000 viewers, you are in trouble. Misery loves company and FS1 has plenty of it right now. And that misery is giving UFC a hell of a lot more leverage at the bargaining table for future projects.

Dana White has preached about wanting weekly fight cards. If the trend is your friend, Dana White’s wish for weekly UFC shows could happen sooner rather than later. That’s a link to an article I wrote last week about how UFC is in great position to capitalize on FS1’s weakened position. FS1 needs UFC so badly. Without UFC on Fuel/FS2, a significant portion of FS2 programming draws less than 1,000 viewers.

FS1 has to be prepared to shell out more cash to UFC in order to get weekly cards. It’s not a matter of if but when it happens. It will be a positive development for MMA fans. It will be a step in the right direction for FS1, which desperately needs UFC programming in volume in order to get a carryover effect to bump up ratings for other shows. Without that UFC effect, FS1 is gasping for air. Sure, NASCAR gave them a nice little bump (half million viewers) & college football games will somewhat help. However, UFC right now appears to have the hardest of the hardcore viewerships that FS1 needs for survival.

It’s almost a fait accompli that we’re going to get weekly fight cards. I suspect they’ll draw more than 150k viewers like the Golden Boy fight from New York drew last Monday. The next step up will be for the suits at Fox Sports 1 to pony up enough cash to convince UFC to eliminate some of their scheduled PPVs in exchange for bigger, marquee fight cards on FS1. It’s a situation that both parties need to consider and embrace. If UFC can trim down the amount of PPVs to 10 (or less) and FS1 can get some UFC shows with bigger names, it would prove to be successful for both parties. It would prove to be the right move to give the fans what they want.

The UFC is in a terrific position here. Their casino money gave them an advantage over the competition to get the ball rolling in the MMA space for financing. Only yakuza cash could compete (somewhat) on that front and now it’s largely out of the fight space in Japan. Japan doesn’t even have a national MMA player now. Along with the casino money, UFC has the big advantage of cable being a powerhouse in the States. In Japan, being ‘cable strong’ would get you laughed out of a television executive’s ivory tower office. In America, being cable strong with a partner like Fox not only gets you a big multi-year deal, it gets you in a position to significantly leverage a hardcore fan base and convince suits at FS1 that they need your product to help support their network when the chips are down. In Japan, the Bushido series PRIDE produced drew a few million viewers on tape delay a week or so later on broadcast television. PRIDE’s hardcore fan base was mocked and looked down upon as a bunch of otakus. Imagine how much more cash UFC could command if their lowest-rated telecasts drew 5 million viewers a show.

Jack Encarnacao recently did an interview with Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand about how UFC is viewed by network television executives. He basically stated that UFC is in the same category of EPL in terms of being a niche but a strong niche that can deliver a precise demographic. EPL soaked NBC out of a lot of cash and the UFC is in prime position to do the same with Fox.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 23 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Bellator on War Machine rape quips: He really doesn’t mean to offend you

By Zach Arnold | August 22, 2013

War Machine wrote on Twitter that he was going to rape his girlfriend. Read Matt Roth’s item here about what exactly was said.

Subsequently, Bjorn Rebney went into damage control mode while Machine said his remarks were “taken out of context” and called critics “sensitive ass bitches.”

Jamie Penick says that War Machine’s rape tweets bring a small time response from Bellator to a big league problem:

If Bellator and Viacom want to be seen as on par with the UFC, and if they legitimately have aspirations to take on that top mantle themselves, then the handling of this is simply not good enough. It hurts their image for continuing to employ him with nothing more than a simple statement being made hoping he’ll learn his lesson. There’s no consequences here for him.

Bellator is a big league promotion now, and wants to be seen as such, so they deserve the same type of scrutiny the UFC receives when something like this happens. This reaction from Rebney and simple acceptance of the situation just isn’t good enough. The disdain towards his spot on the roster and the fact that they promote him more heavily than some others is going to be felt through the fanbase, and that’s a continued negativity they just don’t need.

The good news is that War Machine has some new updates for you:

Don’t worry, War Machine is still accepting sponsors for his upcoming fight in September. Cashing in with Bloodstain Lane or War Machine, who’s better to invest your sponsorship money with?

In an interview on Tuesday afternoon with Jordan Breen of Sherdog, Bjorn Rebney was asked about War Machine’s rape comments and why Bellator is keeping him around when other fighters have gotten axed for transgressions.

“Yeah, you know, I mean, look… the vast, vast majority, the overwhelming majority of guys, um, are cognizant of the voice that they have and use a good amount of restraint. I mean, you know, you look at, you know, fighters that we’ve got under contract, guys like Pat Curran and Eduardo Dantas and Michael Chandler and a series of guys that, you know, they’ve always got something positive to say and they’ve got an opinion on things and they voice it but they do show a lot of restraint.

“And then you know, look, you’ve got guys like Jon that just are absolute wildcards and, you know, when God was putting those chips in everybody’s heads that stopped them from saying exactly what they were thinking, he never got one and he just says whatever he thinks and often times disregards who it will offend or how it will impact people and just goes. And that’s, you know, that’s a tough part of it and it’s been a balancing act on my part talking to Jon and explaining, man, there’s certain things you just can’t say and here’s why it offends people and, you know, look…

“The reality with Jon, and that’s the reason that we’ve kept him and I’ve kept working with him is I don’t think his intent is to offend people. I honestly don’t think that he’s intending to offend people and there’s no doubt that he does. But I think that he has a very different perception of things than, you know, almost 100% of the rest of us. You know, it’s just, he just doesn’t, I mean if… and I know it’s hard for people who have a certain degree of animosity towards Jon to understand or hear this and I get it, I get it completely. Some of the things that he’s said, has said in the past just make my skin crawl. But if you met Jon and you spent time with him, what you’ll get out of most people that have spent time with him is that he’s not a bad guy, he’s not an animosity-driven hating type of personality. He just, he just digests information and spits it out differently than anyone I’ve ever met and sometimes it offends the heck out of people and, you know, we’re trying to keep him in the organization and trying to put a cap on some of that but, you know, we’ll see where it goes. I wouldn’t want to make like a future prohibitive statement about Jon Koppenhaver but, um, you know, he understood what he did wrong and that when those comments about rape he was apologetic about it. Um… and hopefully a guy like that can learn from something like that.”

Later in the interview, Rebney said this about War Machine and Rampage Jackson:

“I always view the cup as half-full and I will tell you this, Quinton “Rampage” Jackson has been amazing for this brand and, as he said, he and I are still in the honeymoon phase and we’re still open-mouth kissing.”

We’ll see how long that lasts. Bjorn also said that Michael Chandler is the best Lightweight in MMA and says he has no idea what will happen in regards to Ben Askren staying with Bellator or signing a contract with the UFC.

Topics: Bellator, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 40 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

“Why yell about testosterone when fighters are using better, undetectable drugs?”

By Zach Arnold | August 21, 2013


HOW DARE YOU! Jon Taffer, Luca’s favorite screen capture target

That’s not my question. Rather, it’s a question being asked by handicapper of MMAOddsBreaker.com. And his timing for asking this question couldn’t be any better because of this following development:

It does appear that we’re going to close out the year with Vitor Belfort vs. Dan Henderson in the double testosterone death match in Brazil and Chael Sonnen vs. Wanderlei Silva, perhaps for the NYE weekend show in Las Vegas.

Naturally, the online fan reaction has been quite explosive. My issue with testosterone usage in MMA has nothing to do with the win/loss aspect of the debate but rather the health & safety aspect. If you use testosterone, you naturally are going to have more punching power. You’re also extending your career so that you can both deliver more head trauma and receive head trauma yourself. In combat sports, retirement is not always a bad thing. Too many guys have too many reason$ not to quit when they should and, before you know it, the damage has been done. Someone is going to get seriously hurt in the future and then a news entity like Outside the Lines will start digging deeper into the testosterone enabling in MMA and it will rightfully be a big embarrassment.

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 23 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Translating UFC’s big ratings for FS1; what’s with UFC’s reported DMCA copyright claims for child porn?

By Zach Arnold | August 20, 2013

I had a chance to sit down last week (before the UFC show on FS1) and do an interview with the Hot Cage Daily about what the expectations are for those in traditional media circles about the benchmarks for success/failure of UFC on the brand new sports channel. Given that the conventional wisdom is that UFC draws most of their casual fans from the pro-wrestling industry, would FS1 be able to capitalize and generate interest amongst traditional sports fans for UFC programming?

So far, so good for FS1 & UFC.

A 1.4 rating translates into 1.8 million viewers. Say this about UFC — it’s a “strong cable property” as opposed to a “strong network property” in television circles, but UFC viewers will walk over burning embers if a fight card has appeal and it’s not on PPV.

The UFC effect carried over onto other FS1 programming on Saturday night:

When UFC wasn’t on FS1 on Sunday, look out:

It was a combination of two factors — first, no UFC carry over. Second, the programming on Fox Sports 1 sucks royally. The two goofy Canadians from TSN that were so heavily touted as can’t-miss-stars are hideous. The panel of ex-jocks and No Charissa-ma Thompson flopped as you would expect. And the Monday programming proved to be even worse than I thought it would be. Crowd Goes Wild with Regis Philbin is a hot mess.

While NBC Sports Network didn’t have the buzz of FS1 heading into the weekend, their rollout of the EPL was brilliantly executed. It had some real character and substance. All the reviews have been positive. In ESPN circles, they would much rather see FS1 succeed than the NBC/Comcast behemoth. It doesn’t mean that ESPN’ers aren’t mocking FS1 — and the mockery is well-deserved. However, the Mouse can’t be thrilled that Comcastic NBCSN is stepping their game up in the right way while FS1 is basically UFC dragging mediocre programming along for the ratings ride. No wonder Fox Sports suits want UFC to run so many shows, no matter how watered down the fight cards are.

The Boston crowd was great. The show turned out to be great, despite the hideous judging on display by the officials appointed from the Massachusetts athletic commission. Mario Yamasaki still doesn’t understand or comprehend all of the Unified rules. However, a couple of non-show related issues are surfacing publicly.

First, there’s this bizarre made-up controversy by Dana White about how Chael Sonnen is ranked by the media in lists:

What makes the criticism so strange is that the lists are meaningless and yet the UFC is now using these rankings on television graphics. Imagine if Vince McMahon had used rankings from Pro Wrestling Illustrated on Wrestlemania broadcasts and had figurehead Jack Tunney lecture everyone after a card that Ricky Steamboat deserved to be ranked higher than Randy Savage in PWI magazine. Then again, boxing promoters used to take credence in Ring magazine rankings over alphabet soup sanctioning body rankings. The difference, of course, is that the sanctioning bodies control purse bids for title fights whereas the UFC is completely self-contained and is producing their own rankings system — which makes no sense in the first place.

The reality is that these kinds of gripes from Dana is Silly Season material. What isn’t Silly Season PR-wise is when your company gets entangled in this kind of story on the abuse of copyright claims.

How would you like to have your company associated with filing DMCA claims in which the claims state that you have copyrights to child pornography?

I’ve contacted the companies IP Arrow is currently issuing takedowns for (along with IP Arrow itself — whose site is now mysteriously down) and will update if I receive any replies. While I appreciate the fact that these companies are seeking to protect their copyrighted material, I think they should be concerned that the agent representing them is now linking their names with very questionable porn. They should also be concerned that these sworn statements are also claiming they “own” copyrighted content belonging to others, but I would imagine things like “incest porn” and “15 year old vaginas” appearing on takedown requests in their names will be more troubling to them than the serialized false statements IP Arrow is issuing.

This kind of overreaching by the UFC on eliminating piracy, a battle that simply cannot be defeated, will backfire in a big way. It’s also illegal to file DMCA claims on material that you don’t have copyrights to, although enforcement of such provisions in the law is like trying to find someone who will prosecute a television network or promoter for violating The Ali Act (it just doesn’t happen). Unless, of course, your name is Righthaven.

These kinds of stories involving the UFC will attract more media attention in the future, especially given their platform with Fox Sports. There’s no need for UFC to be picking these kinds of fights where the outcome is largely a fait accompli. Zuffa is on the losing end of this battle and they’re simply throwing away cash into a cyber money pit and the end result is that their names are attached to copyright claims for child pornography.

Exit questions: What happens if it is UFC that ends up carrying FS1 and saving the channel’s bacon as opposed to FS1 giving UFC mainstream credibility? Will it mean more Fox cash to UFC in the future or will it mean an artificial glass ceiling for future growth if UFC has to continue carrying dead weight of awful Fox Sports 1 programming? Will FS1 become for Fox Sports what MSNBC is to NBC News?

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 12 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

PRIDE goeth before the fall with Overeem & Shogun obliterated in Boston

By Zach Arnold | August 17, 2013

Dana White was all smiles after the event, but the man has every right to be upset with the Massachusetts state athletic commission and I would not begrudge him if he didn’t return to Boston any time soon.

The judging from those appointed by MAC was nothing short of horrific. To top it all off, Tony Weeks and Sal D’Amato worked as judges for the main event. What a nightmare. The athletic inspectors assigned to the bouts were too busy either staring off into space and not watching the fighters or they were clapping for the fighters like fans. A disgraceful showing.

I thought UFC delivered in a big way for Fox Sports 1. The network’s launch has been, to put it mildly, dreadful. The Fox Sports Live program after the UFC show looks awful. The College Football show with Clay Travis is a hot mess. NBC SN stole the show today with their EPL debut. NBC gets it. I don’t think Fox does, yet.

There were some interesting production edits on the UFC telecast, including using a cageside camera with slower fps (frames per second), new music, and some new graphics. I thought most of the changes were nice, minor tweaks for the most part. Jon Anik over Mike Goldberg on the telecast turned out to be a big plus.

It is interesting to see how much pressure there is on UFC to deliver big for Fox Sports 1. No matter what ratings UFC attracts for their shows, they will either be used as proof that FS1 is here to stay or be unfairly used as a sign that the network is a failure and that UFC has no more room for growth.

Exit question: What will be the conventional wisdom in media circles if, a year from now, UFC remains the highest-rated programming on FS1 (even over college football)?

Events: UFC on Fox Sports 1 (Saturday, August 17th in Boston at the Garden)
TV: Fox Sports 1

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 84 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Viacom’s Bellator problem; triumph or turmoil for UFC on Fox Sports 1?

By Zach Arnold | August 14, 2013

“I know a lot of fans are hating on this fight (with Tito) but when the fight actually happens, they’re going to feel like the dumbest people because I know for a fact that Tito’s going to bring it. I know he is. … Listen, it don’t bother me. I just block them (on Twitter) and I laugh. These guys are idiots. They’re sheep. You know what I’m saying? They’re sheep. What I mean by sheep is they don’t think for themselves. THey’re sheep. They’re MMA sheep.” — Rampage Jackson in interview with FighthubTV.com

It’s been a rough go of things for Bellator lately. They need a successful PPV showing on November 2nd. Running a show like this during the college football season is challenging. At least they’ll have Eddie Alvarez vs. Michael Chandler as the semi-main event fight. However, Bellator is ending women’s MMA and releasing their female fighters from existing contracts. And, on top of everything, Bellator’s allegedly onerous fighter contracts just got one more contractual clause called the “champion replacement clause” and the formula is as confusing as hell to comprehend. This is one of those moments where Rob Maysey of MMAFA would love to see the Ali Act applied to MMA.

As if that isn’t enough, Fight Master ratings are collapsing faster than a Florida sinkhole and Spike TV’s only prescription for saving the show’s ratings is to move the final airings to Thursday nights at 11 PM in hopes of getting a strong lead-in from TNA pro-wrestling. Before this news broke, I wrote a column about the marriage between TNA & Bellator getting stronger because Spike/Viacom thinks that the wrestling tie-in is the only way to save their investment in Bellator. It’s a great twist of irony — Bellator’s failures are worse than TNA’s failures, therefore TNA’s failures will continue to be financially rewarded (Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff must be delighted) because Viacom sees TNA as Bellator’s lifeline. I don’t know how we got to this point but we have. Read the linked article for more about the absurdity of the entire situation on behalf of all parties involved.

Will UFC’s slate of August fight cards prove to be feast or famine?

Want to know one great reason why UFC is considered valuable in the world of Fox Sports?

I guess the Hooters pageants with Kenny Florian & Chael Sonnen as hosts aren’t exactly attracting a lot of eyeballs?

UFC’s event this weekend in Boston with Chael Sonnen (3-to-2 favorite over Mauricio Shogun) will apparently have 11,000 fans in the building. The only question is how many tickets will be sold versus comped. On paper, sounds like a relatively decent gate. However, comments made by Dana White recently about his frustrations of putting on a UFC show in Boston given the Massachusetts commission wanting Social Security Numbers for foreign fighters and the whole licensing issue with Sonnen cane across as … curious. The Culinary Union and other political groups asked for the commission to not license Sonnen but the commission did anyways and wouldn’t let the groups speak publicly at a hearing.

While the letter CU sent to the commission was well-written in citing case law, the reality is that Sonnen was going to get licensed no matter how many letter-writing campaigns there were. So, given the solid Boston gate, why would UFC care so much about a letter-writing campaign? Because the tactics of the Union are working to a degree — maybe not so much in terms of a direct impact but most certainly in terms of getting under the skin of the Fertitta Empire. They hate anyone that puts up a fight or challenges them, no matter how big or small you are.

Don’t believe me? Tim Marchman at Deadspin posted the MMA media article of articles this week regarding 8 things you shouldn’t do to piss off the UFC if you’re a writer.

Don’t talk about UFC financials or fighter pay. Don’t break news without two sources. Don’t report anything from fight agents/managers. Don’t speak on behalf of a fighter. Don’t mention Dana White’s mother. Don’t write anything negative about Zuffa unless you use the word ‘opinion.’ You can’t be “too negative.” And, finally, every writer is being watched like a hawk. No wonder nobody ever writes about a Fertitta corporate board member being a member of the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s steroids & drug testing panel.

What’s definitely legitimate to write articles on is the upcoming challenges that Fox Sports will have in launching the FS1 & FS2 channels.

Dana says that he’s not worried about Fox Sports getting a deal with the major satellite/cable providers done in time for Saturday’s launch. He may find out that not everybody is going to have a chance to watch the Boston fight. Fox Sports needs the UFC right now, which is why the spin from Los Angeles about UFC’s ratings has been so rosy.

Topics: Bellator, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 21 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Are UFC’s demographics for Fox Sports overrated in value?

By Zach Arnold | August 12, 2013

If you believe Les Moonves, the long-time CBS network executive, the answer to the question headlining this post is: yes.

A recent Bloomberg article titled CBS rediscovers fogey power opines that Moonves is onto something. The long-and-short of the article: the 18-to-34 year old demographic is shrinking in numbers and the “disposable income” argument that has been made for years about this demographic is being dismantled. Why? High/chronic unemployment or underemployment given that the heavy majority of jobs being created in the last several years are part-time. So, the new logic is that the old folks aren’t so bad after all since they’re the ones with cash still and are the most loyal television watchers. “Zero TV” has less of an impact on the old fogey demographic than the youngsters.

Peter Vesey, the Vice President of advertising sales for Fox Media Group, shared a different opinion during a recent Sherdog radio interview with Jack Encarnacao. A few notes from the interview…

Vesey also stated that the Culinary Union and other anti-Zuffa political groups are having no impact on chasing advertisers away from buying inventory on UFC telecasts.

One party that is having fun with the launch of Fox Sports 1 is ESPN. Normally, ESPN has employees tight-lipped about the competition and lets the suits handle the trash-talking. Not this time around. Ever since David Hill and other Fox Sports suits have pushed “fun” and “jockularity” as the buzzwords for the new FS1 channel, they’ve been the subject of mockery.

If you haven’t seen the long-promos on Speed for the upcoming FS1 launch, consider yourself lucky. They left a negative impression on me. I’d replace the words “fun” and “jockularity” with “vapid” and “obnoxious” as far as a first-impression goes. Not feeling it.

FS1 feels entirely like Best Damn Sports Show Period on testosterone. In the case of FS1, they had one of two choices to be different than ESPN: be different politically or be different in terms of seriousness. Given the heavy percentage of those in sports media who are left-of-center and heavy percentage who are left-of-center in Fox Sports & Fox Entertainment, there was no way that FS1 was going to be “the conservative alternative” to ESPN as a sports channel ala the Fox News Channel.

So, FS1 could either be the hard-hitting serious sports network or else morph into what they are marketing right now – celebrity, pop culture, FUN, flash. And UFC is a cornerstone of what Fox Sports envisions FS1 blossoming into in terms of becoming a serious network player in the next 5-to-10 years.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 20 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Several MMA agents looking to modify or lighten their industry footprint

By Zach Arnold | August 9, 2013

Ken Pavia and Malki Kawa, two of MMA’s biggest names in the agent/manager space, are indeed colorful characters. They also make waves when they drop comments on business issues in the industry.

Case in point: Malki recent commented on why MMA fighters should not unionize:

“A lot of people seem to think we need a union,” Kawa said. “What I don’t think they realize is that with unionization, like in football, the managers and the athletes are both regulated by these unions, and everything ends up becoming slotted. So you fall into a slot, and that’s what you get paid. Unless you’re at the very top of the game, that’s just what you’re getting paid, and you really don’t have an opportunity to make more money. There’s a minimum standard set, and because of that, the manager’s rate may go down to as little as 2 percent or 3 percent, because there’s no more negotiations. I would much rather there be negotiations so I can try and get more than the minimum standard for my client.

“Maybe a guy doesn’t sell pay-per-views the way Georges St-Pierre does, but he still sells tickets. You make an argument for that guy. You can say, ‘Hey, he deserves it. You make money off this guy.'”

And he believes the economics of MMA still provide plenty of opportunity.

“If Jon Jones was saying what Tim Kennedy was saying or Benson Henderson was saying what John Cholish was saying, I would tell you there’s a huge problem in the UFC because those are guys who are selling tickets and who people want to watch,” Kawa said. “I’m not trying to bash Kennedy or Cholish or Fitch. I’ve met them, and they’re great guys. But let’s not throw out all the hate and the blame on the UFC and call Dana a jerk and Lorenzo Fertitta greedy. At the end of the day, Viacom has more money and more reach than a lot of people, and you still have fighters making $2,000.”

Naturally, Kawa’s comments drew a lot of heat online from both people inside and outside the industry. Offline, some of the comments were harsh as well.

One of the notions that has been floated around is the value of an Ali Act in MMA. The UFC has tried to fight this wherever possible. Yes, the prospects of having an Ali Act should scare a fight promoter… but the obvious has to be stated:

Rob & I went back and forth on the true value of the Ali Act (mostly on the civil litigation side). I agree that having an Ali Act would not be a fruitless endeavor for MMA, but it’s not a cure-all panacea.

As for Kawa’s arguments against unionization, wouldn’t a rising tide lift all boats when it came to negotiated rights and salaries? Conversely, Kawa seems interested in having leverage only for the fighters he represents and getting as big of a % there rather than seeing the floor for fighter salaries get elevated. I don’t know if that’s short-term logic or if it’s grounded in long-term realities for the business. Not every agent in MMA is going to stay on top long-term…

Interesting that Malki also raised the issue of a Fighters Association perhaps regulating agents (similar to what the NFLPA does).

One thing is for certain: reputable names in the world of MMA agents are looking to either lighten their footprint or get out of the business entirely. I won’t mention specific names but I can assure you that a couple of agents (who are not uncles, cousins, or family flunkies of fighters) who have made a good career representing successful MMA fighters are looking to invest their time and money elsewhere. The universal complaint about where things stand right now has to do with sponsorship money. The combination of UFC’s sponsor tax/bribe and companies not seeing enough value in putting money into sponsoring non-main eventers has caused a collapse for sponsor revenue. Fighters who are not upper-echelon simply aren’t attractive now to potential sponsors in 2013. It’s why potential sponsors are considering unconventional deals (like sponsoring Bloodstain Lane).

Without sponsorship money, it’s harder for fighters to get quality agent/manager representation because the money that once existed a few years ago doesn’t exist now.

The agents in question that I’m referring to would rather put their resources into investing in businesses that are combat sports-themed or into ventures outside of MMA altogether. The bottom is falling out relatively quickly here and the end result is that the Malki Kawas and Ken Pavias of the world will benefit from consolidation. It may or may not mean that their clients will benefit but consolidation means that agents such as Malki will fight hard against any sort of Fighters Association — and UFC loves seeing this play out publicly. As long as agents and runners keep telling fighters they don’t need any sort of Fighters Association protecting their rights, promoters can maintain their current power structure.

Another trend that’s changing in MMA – knees

There has been discussion about the elimination of a rule that prevents a fighter from giving a knee to a grounded opponent who utilizes a last-second three-point stance in order to cause a referee to issue a warning or disqualify the striker. At the Association of Boxing Commissions meeting a couple of weeks ago in San Antonio, the following line of thought was agreed upon by the major state athletic commissions: allow referees to interpret the rule in the rules meeting before shows.

So, in a state like California, a referee like Herb Dean, John McCarthy, Mike Beltran, or Jason Herzog will be able to tell fighters that the last second attempt of a grounding technique, like a three-point stance in order to avoid a strike, will not save you from getting blitzed and it will not result in your opponent losing a point on scorecards. The general reaction in the business to this new interpretation of the rule has been relatively positive. It will be interesting to see how long it takes a state like Nevada to implement a new interpretation of the rule for UFC events.

Topics: Bellator, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 16 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Will Hollywood step in to crash UFC’s party with Ronda Rousey?

By Zach Arnold | August 7, 2013

2013 may be the year of Ronda Rousey in the UFC. However, it’s also been the year of UFC trying to dumb down her rhetoric in order to generate mass appeal. It’s grating. It’s irritating. It’s beneath her. It’s beneath us.

When marketing tells you to get involved in empty sloganeering, school grade mudslinging, and constant lying, it’s hard to justify and rationalize the remarks you make. It’s like constantly running on a treadmill. You can only tell so many lies before you get exposed and people just tune you out. Call it Hulk Hogan syndrome, if you will.

Ronda Rousey is the best female fighter the UFC has. She’s the best female fighter in the world. So, why does UFC constantly feel the need to put her into positions where she’s having to play the role of Gina Carano in the press most of the time? Because it’s the only playbook that UFC is interested in using, much like Gary Shaw did when he promoted Gina on CBS & Showtime.

It’s a strategy that undersells Ronda Rousey’s value as a fighter. It’s also the laziest marketing strategy. Rather than spend energy promoting Rousey’s credibility as a fighter, UFC spends most of their energy pushing her sex appeal and catfighting with other girls. I’m not suggesting that it’s debasing her marketing potential — but it is debasing to Rousey on a personal level.

Case in point: touting sexuality. When the UFC sent Rousey out on a media blitz regarding her fight with Liz Carmouche, Rousey spent time on HBO Sports talking about being a sex symbol and had an infamous exchange with Jim Rome on Showtime about pre-fight sex. Here was that exchange:

JIM ROME: “Some boxers abstain from sex for up to six weeks before the fight. What is your philosophy on this?”

RONDA ROUSEY: “Um, on the guys or the girls?”

JIM ROME: “Both.”

RONDA ROUSEY: “Um, I mean for girls it raises your testosterone so I try to have as much sex as possible before a fight, actually. Not like with everybody, I don’t like put out Craigslist ads or anything but, you know, if I’ve got a steady I’m going to be like, ‘yo, fight time’s coming up.’ ”

JIM ROME: “That’s great. That works for you.”

It was creepy to watch… and it opened up Pandora’s Box. Now that Rome had asked the question and Rousey played along by answering it, she opened the door wide open for everyone to start prying into her sexual endeavors. Why should anything be off limits? The justification for a complete invasion of privacy was established. And not just an invasion of privacy, but an invasion by complete strangers and fans. The fans and press simply pick up their cues from the UFC.

Which is why when a fan asked Rousey the same question that Rome and other sleazy male interviewers asked in the past, Rousey got uncomfortable.

Rousey drew quite a reaction on social media for rebuffing the fan’s question. She had every right to react the way she did. Her problem? It was a moment of candor and honesty and given the act that UFC has been wanting her to push, it’s a headache. The problem with Rousey pushing back against the fan and not pushing back against media types who ask her the same drivel is that it’s a double standard that basically sends the following message: go with the program, don’t ruffle any feathers, do what Uncle Dana says or else you’ll get labeled as a “bitch in a beauty salon.”

And with that, the circus in promoting the upcoming season of The Ultimate Fighter on Fox Sports 1 continues. Miesha Tate and Karyn Bryant are gossiping about whether or not Ronda Rousey can keep a boyfriend. Rousey is cracking Cupcake jokes and ripping into Bryan Caraway, Tate’s man. Then she’s flipping the finger to Tate at “World Tour” pressers. Why are these antics necessary to promote the show? Because the franchise (Ultimate Fighter) is on life support. Because Rousey had little trouble with Tate the first time they fought and distractions are needed to sell a rematch where Rousey is a 10-to-1 favorite. I’m sure it will be Michelle Beadle-approved material. With Ronda Rousey and the UFC, life is reality TV.

At some point, however, when you start engaging in non-stop bullshitting you reach a crossroads. You either get fatigued and stop the campaign or you become delusional and buy into your own rhetoric. In the case of Ronda Rousey, the fantasy land of Hollywood is ready to give her a reprieve:

The pay is better. The insurance coverage is better. The perks are better. It won’t be long before we see Rousey and UFC work out an arrangement similar to WWE and Rock.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 16 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

How will UFC and Bellator handle potential Biogenesis scandal fallout?

By Zach Arnold | August 2, 2013

Here’s a story that provides no ‘fun’ or ‘jockularity’ for David Hill of Fox Sports or Kevin Kay of Spike TV.

The Feds are coming after everyone involved in the Biogenesis drug scandal. And it is expected that as many big-name clients that the Feds can get their hands on will be called to testify or provide evidence against Tony Bosch, the accused ringleader.

Last week, disgruntled Biogenesis employee Porter Fischer claimed that there were names from both boxing & Mixed Martial Arts on the Biogenesis clients list. There has been lots of skepticism about any impact there would be if a big-name MMA fighter/fighters was implicated in the scandal. After all, Shane Carwin didn’t draw much heat for his drug scandal. We addressed those issues last week.

However, there’s a difference between the mail order drug scandal that Carwin was named in and the Biogenesis scandal. The Feds see the Biogenesis scandal as this decade’s BALCO scandal. And one man in particular who made the lives of Barry Bonds & Lance Armstrong a living hell is getting into the fray: Jeff Novitzky. If I’m UFC or Bellator, I’m nervous about Novitzky potentially going after fighters. He’s relentless. He’s gotten in trouble for unreasonable searches for evidence against people he has targeted. Deadspin labeled Novitzky as a man who “continues his myopic, monomaniacal quest to bring down the users.”

Now that Novitzky and the Feds are investigating Biogenesis, it will be easy for UFC and Viacom to run away from further commenting on the story. They will hide behind the “we won’t comment during an ongoing investigation” smoke screen. Allen Barra wrote an article last week for The Atlantic asking why other sports leagues are not asking to see the Biogenesis client records. Barra also chided Dana White for his response regarding the potential of a currently active UFC active being named on the client list. While Barra’s article made a factual error or two, his general point was correct — why are leagues like the UFC seemingly not-very curious about who might be named on the Biogenesis client list? The answer: it goes back to Zuffa’s experience with Shane Carwin. There was no fallout when Carwin was named during the mail order anti-aging clinic drug scandal. So, therefore, why worry about the Biogenesis situation? Furthermore, Chael Sonnen continues to remain a big PPV draw for the company despite his shameless testosterone drug usage.

If the fighter/fighters in question named in the Biogenesis scandal are retired or no-namers, then nobody is going to care. If the participant(s) are currently active, some reason to care. If the participant(s) happen to be active and title contenders? Different ball of wax. Two factors about Biogenesis that could make it potentially hairy for UFC or Bellator: 1) the media is paying attention because the scandal involves high-profile names like Alex Rodriguez and 2) Jeff Novitzky is involved and he doesn’t go after small names, he only cares about snagging big fish.

The intrigue now is if the fighter(s) in question happen to be in the title picture. If that’s the case, how will UFC or Bellator handle the situation? Will they ‘freeze’ a fighter’s contract and try to use a lame punishment to deflect media attention? Will they cut a fighter? The options on the table for handling a potential bombshell are limited.

One counterproductive scenario would involve the promotions backing the fighter(s) and not levying significant punishment. For the sake of argument, I won’t mention any fighter names but… let’s say a fighter who happens to be in title contention is named on the Biogenesis client list. And let’s say that the fighter in question is booked for a big fight on an upcoming PPV. Then what? Do you pull the fighter off of PPV and ice them on the sidelines or do you move ahead, given the cost of promoting a PPV show, and basically dismiss any sort of punishment by hiding behind the lame excuse that “the Government” drug tests fighters?

Here’s the risk for UFC or for Viacom if the fighter(s) on the Biogenesis list happen to be active, a big-name, and/or a title contender… if you don’t drop the hammer on the fighter(s) in question, then you risk facing the wrath of Jeff Novitzky. Novitzky’s track record indicates that he can get very fixated on a target and will spare no lengths in going for blood. He’ll spend all the time and money in the world to go after anyone he thinks is a drug cheat. I suspect that Viacom would be more willing to drop the hammer on a fighter named on the Biogenesis client list than the UFC would be.

However…

The last person in the world the UFC wants to piss off is Jeff Novitzky. Ask Bud Selig all about Novitzky’s tenacity. If Novitzky views the UFC as being drug enablers, he will start digging dirt on everyone involved. He is the type of person vindictive enough to go after Dr. Jeff Davidson (Zuffa) and/or Dr. Tim Trainor, Keith Kizer’s self-professed top sports doctor in America, in regards to the enabling of testosterone usage by fighters. The UFC really doesn’t want to deal with a headache like Novitzky. It would be in their best business interests to cut the fighter(s) in question if they happen to be high-profile and take the short-term money hit rather than deal with the Feds investigating their business & medical practices.

Dana White loves to use the phrase “the Government” when it comes to defending drug testing in Mixed Martial Arts. It’s the kind of focus-tested political linguistic marketing that you would expect Frank Luntz or George Lakoff to advise a Congressman to use. Keith Kizer is not “the Government.” He’s a hack from the Nevada AG’s office who gives two or three days public notice on steroid & drug panel commission meetings. Jeff Novitzky? Now, he is “the Government.” He’s a guy that acts as if he has nothing to lose and doesn’t care about politics. He has Uncle Sam’s resources and isn’t shy about using them.

The two major players in MMA better hope that none of their currently active title contenders are caught up in the Biogenesis scandal. If the worse case scenario happens, UFC and Viacom better have an emergency strategy in place to deal with the potential fallout. Let’s just say that Jeff Novitzky may treat MMA names on the Biogenesis list a bit differently than, say, a pro-wrestler caught on a steroids list. That’s the price you pay for wanting MMA to be a ‘mainstream sport.’

Topics: Bellator, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 10 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

The bright side of Tito/Quinton: At least Roy Jones won’t destroy Rampage

By Zach Arnold | July 31, 2013

Jeremy Botter: Bellator makes great decision with Rampage Jackson vs. Tito Ortiz on PPV

Tito Ortiz vs. Rampage Jackson. Bellator PPV. November 2nd. Long Beach, California at LB Arena. Not a lot of time to promote the event and get the ground game going for promotion, even with Viacom’s resources.

The good news is that we won’t see RJJ destroy Rampage in a boxing fight. Additionally, the fight should draw a pretty decent gate in California. Right location to draw a crowd that will be interested and sympathetic to both fighters.

I am not sure what the price point would be. I’m thinking $30 is about right. Over/under -> 75,000 PPV buys. I’ll say barely over that benchmark. Anything over 85,000 PPV buys would be gravy.

There was quite a bit of mockery of the Tito/Rampage fight announcement. It was interesting to watch the rather mild response of the Bellator crowd in Albuquerque to Tito Ortiz’s ring entrance with the US flag. Naturally, Viacom & Spike love established names instead of building stars.

Who will be next? Ken Shamrock?

At the Albuquerque event on Wendesday night, Michael Chandler and Ben Askren toyed with their respective opponents and retained their belts. Chandler is going nowhere given his new contract with Bellator. Will Chandler get an opportunity to fight Eddie Alvarez again?

The inimitable Rich Hansen brings up the obvious. Eddie Alvarez doesn’t have the cash to keep fighting Viacom in court. His one route of trying to break out of his Bellator contract without spending significant cash would be to file a motion with the California State Athletic Commission to try to get an arbitration hearing with Andy Foster. Bellator is now a California-based promoter, so this would seem to be (on paper) a viable option for challenge. The problem is that the Executive Officer wants business in California and Bellator is a key player for live events in the state. The Long Beach show means $ for Sacramento. I don’t see how the commission would have the heart to side with Alvarez over Bellator.

A settlement that would make sense for all parties involved would be to reach some sort of cold peace, give Alvarez an immediate match with Chandler and book that fight as the semi-main event of the November 2nd PPV in Long Beach. This is something that would actually make sense for Andy Foster to try to push to both Bellator and Alvarez. It would be in everyone’s best business interests to do so.

Unlike Michael Chandler, Ben Askren now is technically a free agent. However, the reported & alleged nature of the Bellator boxing-style contracts with options upon options will make it more difficult to break away from the promotion. As for Matt’s question about whether or not UFC would want to sign Askren, my feeling is they would do it — simply to screw with Viacom and take away the best fighter they have. Askren’s fight style will not appeal to the UFC fan base but if signing him away from Bellator causes significant damage, Dana will make it happen.

Exit question: Other than some glorified camera time & press mentions, what exactly did Roy Jones get out of the fawning from both Viacom and the UFC?

Exit question II: How much pressure will there be on Andy Foster to allow Rampage to use testosterone? DCA lawyer Michael Santiago recently said no new testosterone hall passes. With money on the line, who will blink?

Topics: Bellator, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 39 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Why UFC isn’t catching on with traditional sports fans

By Zach Arnold | July 30, 2013

Because the North American audience that largely watches UFC isn’t representative of the typical sports fan. Most fans of the UFC watch maybe one other sport, at most. Furthermore, many of the fans that make up UFC’s audience come from professional wrestling. It’s an audience built from entertainment more than sports.

It’s why Fox Sports is having trouble seeing growth with their investment in UFC as a television property. MMA is quickly becoming a fixed ratings proposition. You can’t grow the television property without appealing to fans from other sports. Unlike the occasional big boxing fight, UFC has been unable to appeal to fans from contact sports like the NFL. The assumption on all sides was that the UFC would appeal to fans from sports that are heavy on action and physicality. So far, the gamble is failing.

UFC fans are tuning out fighters like Demetrious Johnson

The UFC prizes fighters who both look and live up to their skewed idea of what MMA fighters should be — bricked-up automatons programmed to recreate key scenes from 300. Watch any UFC commercial and you’ll have a hard time sorting out if you’re being sold a sport or the fever dreams of a violent shaman.

For all of Johnson’s dominance, it was most certainly not a performance befitting the UFC’s aggro ultra-violence marketing aesthetic. Johnson’s style is rooted in timing, angles and strategy — the exact same principles most any athlete relies on to establish primacy. However, Johnson’s brand of fighting is not the one the UFC sells to the public. The result is that fans largely tune out fighters of Johnson’s ilk, presumably for failing to escape, face the pain, and “step to this” in the correct order. Were Johnson an isolated example, he’d be a problem the UFC could live with. However, he’s quickly becoming the norm.

There is always going to be value in MMA as a television property and on an independent scale. However, you can pretty much slot MMA in the combat sports scale as following: above pro-wrestling in value but below boxing.

Two of the biggest flaws for MMA”s limited appeal: 1) “it’s a West Coast sport” and 2) “it’s largely a white man’s game.” In the case of point one, many of the power players in boxing are located on the West Coast. However, boxing historically has deep roots on the East Coast and many of the television executives who make big decisions on which fights to invest in are located back East. With the UFC, everything is largely centralized in Los Angeles or Las Vegas.

As for point two, some in-roads have been made into minority communities for MMA… but not enough. And this is one of the hidden issues that few discuss when it comes to talking about MMA legislation in New York state. Sure, there’s plenty of underground MMA happening (ask Jim Genia, he wrote the book on the topic), but UFC not being able to run shows regularly in the New York market is having a direct impact on not only their ability to expand their fan base with minorities but also with television executives.

Since I spend a lot of energy focusing on California, let’s take a look at the current marketplace situation. Despite most of the major players in MMA being based in California or Nevada, boxing continues to dominate the landscape in terms of fan appeal. Boxing is the key revenue driver in California. It’s why Andy Foster as CSAC Executive Officer is such a fascinating choice for Sacramento. He’s an MMA guy. MMA is what he knows. He doesn’t know boxing. It doesn’t mean that he hates boxing and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t want the big boxing fights to happen. However, many people in the boxing community can see what Andy’s background is and what his preferences are. Boxing is the major leg of the combat sports stool in California. California is a state where the white population is quickly becoming the minority population. The UFC has failed to grow MMA in their own backyard, let alone the rest of the country. They’re hoping that they can make significant headway in China. Most of Europe is a lost cause for them right now.

In regards to why MMA is not growing under the Zuffa banner, it’s pretty self-explanatory. If you pitch a product in a certain, predictable manner, you will always limit your scope and fail to expand the base. A lot of the production values being used by the UFC today were the same ones they were using 10 years ago. This same problem is infecting the WWE. Every year, we hear all about new forms of technology being implemented for NFL, NBA, and even MLB broadcasts. We never see this kind of shift in UFC’s television production department. Yes, a fight is a fight and there’s only so much you can do. However, the viewing experience is still the same. Dana White hates PRIDE-style ring entrances. He didn’t like a lot of what Fuji TV, the best television network in the world for production values, did with PRIDE. There was a reason Fuji TV was able to attact 20 million viewers for PRIDE telecasts — because they knew how to grow the sport, how to produce a product light years ahead of other television properties, and knew what Grandma and Grandpa wanted to see. Fuji TV knew how to expand their audience scope. The UFC does not. When Fuji TV got out of the MMA space and anti-yakuza banking laws were implemented, Japanese MMA on a national level died in the country. The importance of Fuji TV in the history of global MMA growth cannot be understated. Their absence in the current MMA scene has significantly hurt the sport.

The relationship between Fuji TV & PRIDE was significantly different than the relationship between UFC & Fox Sports. Kunio Kiyohara, the Fuji TV producer who was disgraced in the yakuza scandal, had enormous influence on the direction of PRIDE. Conversely, the UFC has maintained a lot of editorial control with the Fox broadcasts. If UFC had signed a deal with HBO, that editorial control would have been acquiesced much like PRIDE did with Fuji TV.

Fox Sports invested a heavy amount of cash into their soccer television properties. They even created a channel, Fox Soccer. However, soccer television ratings plateaued for them & ESPN. When it came time for a bidding war over the rights to broadcast English Premier League games, NBC was the only serious player. Perhaps with the rise of USA Soccer, ratings will increase. However, Fox saw that the price of doing business to keep soccer around was too rich for their blood. Fox is in bed with the UFC for many years to come. If ratings growth does not happen for the UFC on television, they will quickly discover that beggars can’t be choosers and that Fox will pull the rip cord out of their business relationship if it doesn’t make financial sense.

Topics: Boxing, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 35 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Less excited about prospects of GSP vs. Rory MacDonald?

By Zach Arnold | July 27, 2013

LATEST ARTICLE COMMENTS HERE.

Dana White has been spending the week touting the prospects of a future fight between Georges St. Pierre and Rory MacDonald. St. Pierre has a fight coming up with Johny Hendricks but it seems clear that the desire to get to a fight between the two Montreal teammates.

And then Saturday night’s semi-main event fight happened between Rory MacDonald and Jake Ellenberger. It was awful to watch. Instead of Rory looking like a beast like he did against BJ Penn, he put on a technical clinic without going for the finish.

Ellenberger put on a horrible performance. Rory showed great hips and an even better jab. However, if this is the fight that UFC wanted to use as a launching pad to get GSP/Rory… well, not so much. The only thing that fight will launch is a Dana White tirade about how Firas Zahabi is a sport killer like Greg Jackson.

Event: UFC on Fox 8 (Saturday, July 27th at Key Arena in Seattle)
TV: Fuel TV/Fox broadcast

There was some criticism about DJ being in the main event slot instead of MacDonald/Ellenberger. DJ in the main event turned out to be the right call.

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 59 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

« Previous Entries Next Entries »