Will the new ESPN+ deal affect the fighters? If so, how?

[Verace]

Just saw this exchange on twitter and thought it was interesting/worth discussing.

Do you guys agree ? Seems possible, but in this case it would only affect a handful of them.

Are there any other ways in wich it could potentially affect the fighters ?

 

[Sansnom]

No worries, Rebook is going to take care of them.

 

[Moral Victory]

Dana said it's great for fighters and incredible for fans.

Spoiler

 

[nostradumbass]

Is this guy suggesting they want fewer people watching the events? Ah the old "let's get fewer customers to screw our fighters over" business model.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

The PPV cards are gonna be fucking garbage. Why load up a card when they are getting the same amount no matter how many people watch.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

At a glance, it seems like it could in part help to lift base pay a bit across the board with the increase to guaranteed revenue, but of course there are many factors to consider there being that all fighters are on independent contracts.

As for the top earners, it looks like an immediate detriment to their bottom line. At the end of the day, this is going to reduce PPV numbers, and so guys like Jones or Conor will obviously be looking at renegotiating.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

Doubt it. Here are some points:

1) it's common theory that PPV points start at 500k.
2) Recently (since 2015) the only PPV's that have hit that mark are Jones, Conor, Bisping v GSP, Rousey v Nunes, and Tate v Nunes.*

Of those, only Nunes will be hurt. Because casuals will get ESPN+ to watch Jones or Conor. IMO.

And you know what? Most will end up keeping ESPN+. Also IMO. That's ESPN's gamble, and having used it the last few months, I think their gamble will pay off.

*my source for PPV buys is this, then I copied the data into excel then sorted by date. Sounds complicated but it only too about 3 minutes.

 

[Draxton]

Doubt it. Here are some points:

1) it's common theory that PPV points start at 500k.
2) Recently the only PPV's that have hit that mark are Jones, Conor, Bisping v GSP, Rousey v Nunes, and Tate v Nunes.*

Of those, only Nunes will be hurt. Because casuals will get ESPN+ to watch Jones or Conor. IMO.

And you know what? Most will end up keeping ESPN+. Also IMO. That's ESPN's gamble, and having used it the last few months, I think their gamble will pay off.

*my source for PPV buys is this, then I copied the data into excel then sorted by date. And by "recently" (in point #2) I went back 2015. So I didn't include Rousey v Holm, which was Nov 2015. Sounds complicated but it only too about 3 minutes.

A lot of those numbers from UFC 200 were carried by Brock, and also the DC V Jones match that was canceled 3 days before the event.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

A lot of those numbers from UFC 200 were carried by Brock, and also the DC V Jones match that was canceled 3 days before the event.

I said "recently" and then later in the post explained that I only looked at 2016 thru now. I updated my post to be more clear. Sorry about that.

Brock was indeed a huge seller, but was not applicable to the data I was presenting.

 

[ViolenceFight]

It’s most certainly going to be amazing for the fighters. I heard Uncle Dana has already sent them free ESPN mugs & coupons for the Cheescake Factory.

 

[svmVR2097]

eventually there will be a fighters union or an ali type act implemented in mma, don't think it's anytime too soon but things will build up eventually and be used as arguments when the fighters finally have enough of it.

 

[Meathead Jock]

UFC is getting guarenteed money in exchange for what will end up being lower PPV buys. So the UFC is fine.

But if you are one of the handful of fighters benefiting from PPV points it's hard to imagine it won't hurt them unless they lower the buyrate numbers required to start seeing the money.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

UFC is getting guarenteed money in exchange for what will end up being lower PPV buys. So the UFC is fine.

But if you are one of the handful of fighters benefiting from PPV points it's hard to imagine it won't hurt them unless they lower the buyrate numbers required to start seeing the money.

Think about the casuals you know. They're into sports, right? They know who Conor is, right? They probably bought Conor v Mayweather. They maybe bought one of the last 2 Jones fights. Maybe one non-Conor / non-Jones PPV in 2017.

Those guys wouldn't buy UFC 237, regardless of whether they had to purchase it on Comcast, ESPN+, Amazon Prime or X-Box. On that we agree. But do you really think being forced to get ESPN+ for a month is going to stop those guys from buying, say, Conor v Holloway?

If I'm off base here, please let me know.

 

[lfd0311]

Is this guy suggesting they want fewer people watching the events? Ah the old "let's get fewer customers to screw our fighters over" business model.

No, he's saying the exact opposite. You will now have to be an ESPN+ subscriber to even be able to buy a PPV at all. That is going to no doubt hurt PPV numbers, because very few people are going to get an ESPN+ subscription to then have the "privilege" of then paying for an additional PPV. Who is honestly going to do that? Nobody, and that's the point. This is just as shortsighted and greedy as the Rebook deal. Again, that's the point. If you're under contract as making most of your money from a cut of PPV buys the UFC just cut you off at the knees to make themselves richer, again. This guy isn't arguing that fewer customers is better, he's saying that the UFC just put themselves voluntarily in a position to have fewer customers regardless of the consequences for it's top fighters.

 

[rurouni]

plus 50% off any Disney dvd

 

[Chet Ubetcha]

Think about the casuals you know. They're into sports, right? They know who Conor is, right? They probably bought Conor v Mayweather. They maybe bought one of the last 2 Jones fights. Maybe one PPV in 2017.

Those guys wouldn't buy UFC 237, regardless of whether they had to purchase it on Comcast, ESPN+, Amazon Prime or X-Box. On that we agree. But do you really think being forced to get ESPN+ for a month is going to stop those guys from buying, say, Conor v Holloway?

Are they being forced into a year of ESPN+, or can you just order the PPV and not have a monthly/annual subscription to it? Even if they don't understand that it's not really a bad deal, the increased initial price and the fact they feel forced to pay for a month or a year of service may turn off a casual. I don't consider myself a casual, but I only purchase a handful of PPVs a year. I watch most of the free stuff on TV, and tried ESPN+. Even with a repeater right by my computer, the stream was still pretty shitty. If ESPN offered a way to still buy the PPV on TV, I'd probably go for it. I have no use nor want for ESPN+, though. I have a feeling many "casuals" are going to come to that same conclusion for themselves.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Yes, it will be good for the fighters.

Dana said so.

Duh.

UFC is getting guarenteed money in exchange for what will end up being lower PPV buys. So the UFC is fine.

But if you are one of the handful of fighters benefiting from PPV points it's hard to imagine it won't hurt them unless they lower the buyrate numbers required to start seeing the money.

This.
And ESPN is fine with it because despite the numbers drop for the PPVs it will drive more subs to their service. In their eyes the subs are worth more than the additional content.

 

[lfd0311]

But do you really think being forced to get ESPN+ for a month is going to stop those guys from buying, say, Conor v Holloway?

If I'm off base here, please let me know.

YES. Honestly, who is doing that? You have to buy a subscription and then also buy the PPV. Who is going to do that?

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

Are they being forced into a year of ESPN+, or can you just order the PPV and not have a monthly/annual subscription to it? Even if they don't understand that it's not really a bad deal, the increased initial price and the fact they feel forced to pay for a month or a year of service may turn off a casual. I don't consider myself a casual, but I only purchase a handful of PPVs a year. I watch most of the free stuff on TV, and tried ESPN+. Even with a repeater right by my computer, the stream was still pretty shitty. If ESPN offered a way to still buy the PPV on TV, I'd probably go for it. I have no use nor want for ESPN+, though. I have a feeling many "casuals" are going to come to that same conclusion for themselves.

You only have to buy it on ESPN+. You can watch it from any of the other places.

https://mmajunkie.com/2019/03/ufc-m...ew-provider-in-us-extends-espn-broadcast-deal
But for fans watching UFC pay-per-views from home, it now will be one-stop shopping. Events will be ordered online, then will be able to be streamed online or through connected devices like Apple TV, Roku, PlayStation 4 or Amazon Fire, for example.​

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

YES. Honestly, who is doing that? You have to buy a subscription and then also buy the PPV. Who is going to do that?

Every casual I know would do that. Not for a Nunes fight, but they aren't going to miss a Conor fight over this.

That's why I was asking you to put yourself into the shoes of your friends. My friends all would. Apparently your friends wouldn't. That's interesting to me. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 290675]

Dana will give them free one-year ESPN+ subs.