How many fans and potential fans has the UFC lost due to the PPV model?

S

superpunch

Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
21,164
Reaction score
4,680
Obviously any fans under 21 can't get into the sport. So, you lose generation after generation of potential fans.

And people over 21 have to both live near bars and be willing to go out and be willing to drink. That cuts out most people.

I think this stops 90% of people from ever becoming fans, or makes them stop being fans. Even as a hardcore with a borderline autistic obsession about the sport, I have a hard time and have almost just given up many times.
 
Hundreds of millions.. WWE shows free fights twice a week for almost a century now. We know that's sports entertainment.. but ufc is becoming more and more like them as the day goes by.. They still charge outrageous money for the simps that are dumb enough to pay for it.. believe me there's a good chunk of them cause that's how ufc been able to stay afloat all these years.
 
While I haven't bought PPV's in a long time for various reasons(watch for free at bww, a few hours later etc) I probably would have ended up buying some at some point in the future. The added cost of ESPN plus which I do not want and will not pay for means that's not going to happen. Find it hard to see anyone who wouldn't be interested in ESPN plus independent of MMA buying PPV's when there's so many alternatives to buying the fights. And that's non casuals imagine casuals?

There's probably some sports fans/non MMA fans who would pay for ESPN plus anyway who might pay for a big UFC PPV. ESPN plus is bringing some sort of potential new audience to the table but given these people would need to pay even more to watch these events I see the PPV audience more or less capped outside mega events. Can't see the gain being close to what they're turning away. Dana can trash streaming and other methods of watching all he wants that's how the sport will continue to grow. There's very few people who aren't MMA fans who'd be open to watching MMA who are going to be able both to stomach the PPV cost and the ESPN plus cost. Most people don't spend what 140 dollars to try something new once.

This is part of why I said that Bellator had the opportunity to make up serious ground on the UFC after the ESPN deal was signed as the UFC was handicapping itself. While the deal is no question worth it in a vaccum, that deal being reupped is no guarantee especially given how good a deal for the UFC it is. All it takes is a change in Disney management and UFC is back to their more PPV dependent business model.

That being said the PPV numbers(the ones reported) actually seem to be doing better than they were in the mid/late 2010s when they were doing bad. If this is sustainable the paragraph above is irrelevant. But numbers done when you have a captive audience with Covid who'd be doing other things on Saturday nights aren't going to be the numbers you do permanent. Dana might have bitched about Covid but long term in terms of the PPV numbers this probably helped the business way way more than the loss of live gate hurt the business(if live gate mattered financially no American sport would be on during Covid, sports make most of their money through tv contracts and or PPV, live gate is just extra money).
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure if they’ve actually lost fans per se. I think that a lot of people are saavy enough now to find a stream if they really want to watch something.

P.S.

Links sent to my inbox are always greatly appreciated.
 
They are trying to optimize $$$s, not ###’s.
 
I think the model is as flawed as the next guy but actually dsagree with the premise of the original post.

Back in the DAY you could only watch UFC on PPV. Nowadays anyone of any age can watch tons of UFC free on the various ESPN channels, with only a tiny sliver of the cards (arguably not even the best ones) on PPV.

I think that the model is broken more because they're training people to appreciate tons of good free fights and then arbirtrarily pay for the ones that are PPV when value isn't there.
 
You don't have to be 21 to stream an event. I don't think the ppv model is their biggest problem though.

Their biggest problem is really shitty, watered down cards and over saturation. UFC events used to be more rare, they were a treat. The cards were really strong, pretty much only involving the top fighters in the world. Now there is a ton of wmma and really small guys.

A UFC or Pride event used to be special. I used to regularly watch with a group of a dozen or so guys - from about UFC 20 something until around UFC 150 or so. The attendance really started doing quickly. Today, I'm the only one left who watches MMA with any regularity.
 
Not to give any credit to Dana -but I think both sides are a bit spoiled.

FIght fans have gotten spoiled with getting tons of frequent, great, free fights and don't see why they need to pay for certain events.

Dana loves the marketing bump (and $$$) from ESPN but still wants his cake and eat it with the PPV coin.

Both sides can't have it all.
 
They are not doing bad for a sport written off by most people just a decade ago. They steadily beat boxing in america (i cant really speak for the numbers worldwide)

But that can certainly change when no casual fans even recognize a single fighter on the card. Which is happening more often now. Obviously we would recognize them, but to the majority its different.
 
Ya, too much free content available to justify raising prices absurdly on monthly PPVs
 
I definitely think the pandemic will cause many people to be more cautious with how they spend their money. I know spending is up in a lot of categories, especially in retail sales but now sure how that relates to MMA PPV matches at $70/pop plus a subscription cost too.

Increasing PPV price even more and the barrier of requiring a subscription to ESPN+ will definitely limit the amount of people purchasing these PPVs.

I am definitely curious to see how it affects them long term. I’m sure they will spin anything into a positive. So not sure we will know until much later down the line.
 
I pay for espn+ and fight pass. Enjoy all the content on both and feel the pricing is reasonable. Would pay for all full ppv’s if they priced them reasonably.
 
They're shooting themselves in the foot by charging for cards not worth paying for, then putting on free events that show how good the sport is. Any card can be a banger, but no card has the promise of excitement. Unless I'm heavily invested in an event, there's no incentive for me to shell out $70 for it, when I can get a similar product for free. Looking at recent PPVs, fights like Dern/Agapova, all three non title bouts on 255, Malkoun/Hawes, Viera/Eubanks and so many more are fights that would not stick out on a FN card. They are worth $0, but are included in the $70 ppv.

If the UFC would host one less event a month, the PPV would be less egregious, while still gaining the advantage of the free cards' publicity. There will always be fans who don't pay, but the more you make a PPV worth the money, the more likely I and many others are to pay.
 
I don’t pirate and even I don’t think this model is sustainable. How long it takes before it changes? I don’t know.
 
I pay for what I can afford, Fight Pass... The rest I simply cannot. If the online streaming is some how miraculously removed, i'll withdraw my subscription to Fight Pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,266,931
Messages
57,439,045
Members
175,713
Latest member
MulletMax99

Share this page

Back
Top