UFC 325 viewership numbers mysteriously missing

[Tito Tapped]

The live total seemed to be pretty relevant when they announced the UFC 324 viewership.

I appreciate the effort. But you should be a bit more subtle about it, Hunter.

It's not relevant. It was just a marketing press release that made them sound good.

 

[Dave Poodle]

Don't think UFC have ever regularly released numbers. It was usually u media. We've heard barely any numbers in recent years. They just put out one press release that hyped up the Paramount debut

 

[Alpha_T83]

Don't think UFC have ever regularly released numbers. It was usually u media. We've heard barely any numbers in recent years. They just put out one press release that hyped up the Paramount debut

Well we didn't hear the numbers under ESPN+, but that might be different under Paramount+.

I don't think we will get regular numbers, but I do think if there are ever eye popping numbers, the rumors will leak out. But I also believe Dana is actively attempting to prevent CBS/Paramount+ from leaking the numbers, because if the UFC ever starts drawing 10+ million viewers, the fighters are gonna demand more money.

 

[Ronald Ringpiece]

Well we didn't hear the numbers under ESPN+, but that might be different under Paramount+.

I don't think we will get regular numbers, but I do think if there are ever eye popping numbers, the rumors will leak out. But I also believe Dana is actively attempting to prevent CBS/Paramount+ from leaking the numbers, because if the UFC ever starts drawing 10+ million viewers, the fighters are gonna demand more money.

Surely the time to demand more money was when the TV deal was announced? Whether they get 10+ million or 20+ million viewers it's not going to make a massive amount of difference in what the company makes.

Even then, the fighters can demand more money if they want but it won't make a great deal of difference. It's not like they have a tonne of other places to go fight and earn more money.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Surely the time to demand more money was when the TV deal was announced? Whether they get 10+ million or 20+ million viewers it's not going to make a massive amount of difference in what the company makes.

Even then, the fighters can demand more money if they want but it won't make a great deal of difference. It's not like they have a tonne of other places to go fight and earn more money.

What will happen is tension will be created between Paramount+ and the UFC. Paramount+ will start drawing 10-20 million views for big shows and making tons of money from ad revenue, and the fighters will demand more pay. The UFC will refuse. So any popular champion that can afford to sit out will do so, until the UFC meets their demands. This will result in far more "slop" cards that draw fewer views. At that point Paramount+ will demand the UFC come to terms with their star fighters and put on the best cards they can.

Their contract almost certainly requires the UFC to make good faith efforts to put on the best product they can. Paramount+ didn't give them $1.1B per year so they can just put on slop cards. There is likely some arbitration clause if the UFC fails to meet their obligations.

I think the UFC is going to be forced in arbitration to hand out a much larger % of their $1.1 billion + gate annual revenue to their fighters, in order to put on the best product they can to fulfill their Paramount+ contract. Now, it is a bit more complicated than that. What will actually happen is that arbitration will award damages to Paramount+ for lost revenue due to the UFC refusing to come to terms with their popular champions, and that in turn will motivate the UFC to pay their fighters.

The UFC really signed a bad deal for the scenario that the UFC becomes incredibly popular on the "free" streaming model.

 

[skylolow]

I think Dana got to CBS/Paramount+ and said "stop releasing the viewership numbers you goofs! The fighters will want more money if they know how many people watched!"

Well if the fighters won't get together after every media deal in the world has at least doubled over the last 5 to 7 years and the most biggest one tripled to over 1B a year.............I don't think viewership numbers is going to change anything.

 

[RockyLockridge]

4 gorillian

 

[skylolow]

Good luck getting streaming numbers ever to be released on any kind of consistent basis. I think even sponsors/advertisers are under a NDA's even as I don't ever see any leaks out there for anything. It is pretty rare to get streaming numbers on anything.

 

[Kung Fu Kowboy]

5 Billion Views - Dana

 

[Ronald Ringpiece]

What will happen is tension will be created between Paramount+ and the UFC. Paramount+ will start drawing 10-20 million views for big shows and making tons of money from ad revenue, and the fighters will demand more pay. The UFC will refuse. So any popular champion that can afford to sit out will do so, until the UFC meets their demands. This will result in far more "slop" cards that draw fewer views. At that point Paramount+ will demand the UFC come to terms with their star fighters and put on the best cards they can.

Their contract almost certainly requires the UFC to make good faith efforts to put on the best product they can. Paramount+ didn't give them $1.1B per year so they can just put on slop cards. There is likely some arbitration clause if the UFC fails to meet their obligations.

I think the UFC is going to be forced in arbitration to hand out a much larger % of their $1.1 billion + gate annual revenue to their fighters, in order to put on the best product they can to fulfill their Paramount+ contract. Now, it is a bit more complicated than that. What will actually happen is that arbitration will award damages to Paramount+ for lost revenue due to the UFC refusing to come to terms with their popular champions, and that in turn will motivate the UFC to pay their fighters.

The UFC really signed a bad deal for the scenario that the UFC becomes incredibly popular on the "free" streaming model.

If a fighter refuses constantly refuses to fight they'll just strip them of the belt and move on. It's that simple.

 

[dubhlinn]

dana use to come out the gate in the post press and say gate numbers AND stream numbers. he stopped doing the stream numbers over a year or so ago after some terrible card that i cant remember off the top of my head. with bot farms padding it and actual consumers losing interest, it's not something that should be looked at as substantial evidence of success or failure. having all events be available for a cheap subscription will logically equal higher viewership. to focus on the stream views as substantial, so early on, would be a pointless distraction. it'll take some fine tuning on their end to even have an accurate number they can take seriously amongst themselves before they decide to speak on it. i personally think the numbers are good. they just don't wanna overstate how good and look like fools if bots end up being proven to be involved. and along with that, to then being accused of who's behind the potential bots. better to focus on gate attendance during the paramount transition and drive toward larger venues. stay out of the never ending debate of "true" online viewership for now.

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

The days of record breaking numbers outside of profits are long gone.

They're getting 1.1B a year now, without even having to try and sell a single ppv or venum fight kit.

That's on top of what they rake in every year via under-paying the athletes, charging crazy prices to go to a live event, letting divisions stagnate when the champions can't wait to vacate their title for bigger opportunities etc.

Convenience comes with compromise. Now it's just as banal and trivial as any other sport, really

They got what they always wanted, a sport where stars and matchups are inconsequential.

As long as those 3 letters are the main attraction, the rest is expendable.

 

[CdaMMA]

How's powerslap doing btw?