UFC needs PPV to get back on track

[psyops]

Ppv is where the ufc has the potential to make the most money but they have been putting on for the most part sub par ppv events.

There are plenty of ways for the ufc to make money. Ppvs, fight pass, gate, advertising, sponsors, tv deals etc but besides the fox deal for 4 shows a year on the big network, ppv is by far the most lucrative opportunity.

For example most events do approx 1-2 million gate, the highest gate ever was 12.1 mil for gsp vs shields at ufc 129. A difference of 10 million profit.

Ppv has a much higher potential for profit.
Example

100k buys at 54.99 = 5 499 000
250k = 13 747 500
500k = 27 495 000
750k = 41 242 500
1M = 54 990 000

As you can see the difference between selling 100k and a million is almost 50m gross income.

Luckily for the ufc they signed the fox deal in 2012 when they had a higher ppv average. So they get 90m for 4 shows meaning each show is worth about 22.5m, which if you do the math would be worth the same as about 400k ppv buys per show. Their average ppv buys for 2011/2012 is 430k so this is about right.

In 2013 they did average ppv buys of 421k but this year a steep decline, the average for 2014 is only 256k.

They need to stop being stingy on the ppv main cards. Sometimes one good fight can elevate a card from ok to great.

This next ppv is a perfect example. Great main event and overall lacklustre card. Why go stingy on the main card.
If they would have stacked the card imo they could have really pushed this as a must see card instead of just a must see main event. This is the biggest fight in a long time and you don't stack the card?

They need to do a lot better next year with the ppvs and matchmaking, and it would probably be in their best interest to get a new matchmaker who understands what the people want. You can only blame injuries for so long.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

Its not just the ufc. The ppv model is just dying in general. Look at boxing, and also WWE wasn't doing great, so they moved to their $9.99 (which didn't work out to well), but its not really the quality of cards, as it is that little star power +general lack of interest in the ppv model for fans= less ppvs.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Ppv is where the ufc has the potential to make the most money .

Which explains why other successful sports leagues, like the NFL and NBA, derive the majority of their revenues from PPV.

Not reading your garbage post when the opening line is an assertion with zero basis in reality. The UFC has the potential for the most money by being on network TV with major advertisers -- just like every other major sports league.

 

[Degen Gambler]

They are transitioning the business away from the PPV model by getting tv deals in a bunch of countries. During the transition they are milking whatever they can from the American fans who have to pay $60 for PPV cards while the rest of the world gets the fights for cheap.

 

[psyops]

It's dying because they aren't putting on events people care about imo. I'm a huge fan obviously and I've become less and less interested in ufc events not because I'm losing interest in the sport but because every ppv looks watered down.

They have enough star power to earn big still in the ppvs. Maybe not 1 million buys but they could be doing 300k plus most ppv.

Right now only one of the past 5 ppv did over 300k. They are building terrible ppv events.

 

[Degen Gambler]

It's dying because they aren't putting on events people care about imo. I'm a huge fan obviously and I've become less and less interested in ufc events not because I'm losing interest in the sport but because every ppv looks watered down.

They have enough star power to earn big still in the ppvs. Maybe not 1 million buys but they could be doing 300k plus most ppv.

Right now only one of the past 5 ppv did over 300k. They are building terrible ppv events.

They know this and they don't care. Stacking PPV cards conflicts with their global strategy and having 45 events.

 

[Thuckey]

A lot of people I know would buy them all, now they don't even follow the sport at all. I live in Canada, and ever since the FOX deal this has happened. Everybody watched UFC on SPIKE TV or the free cards/prelims on sports channels which were GONE for the past few years.

Glad that UFC has struck a new deal in Canadian television, though. You'll see number rise again.. UFC in Canada WAS huge.

 

[Dutch Rudder]

The cable provider takes 50% of the PPV coin, but still a decent profit from larger PPV buys. Payroll is usually under $1.5m per event, the UFC isn't doing bad, they just aren't doing as well as they have been previously and seem pretty desperate to get back to that "rolling in the dough". Absolutely agree with the watered down main cards not being worth paying for, and UFC trying to force feed "stars" to us isn't really making things better.

 

[psyops]

They know this and they don't care. Stacking PPV cards conflicts with their global strategy and having 45 events.

Of course they care. They had a terrible year and their credit rating was downgraded. Their global strategy is failing right now. They need to get back to what made them successful, stacked ppvs.

Tv deals are great but if you don't have the talent to support it...

You could also argue the fox deal is responsible for the ufc downfall for ppv. Since a lot of ufc on fox cards are usually close to ppv cards in terms of quality it can make people hesitant to continue buying ppv, when they get ufc on fox a similar product for free.

Before that you couldn't watch cards that good for free. They kind of shot theirselves in the foot by offering 2 similar events but charging for one.

 

[JWtheKarateKid]

ppv is a joke if they held 12 huuuuge ppv cards a year they might be able to get some people interested again, until then only hardcore fans are going to waste their money on these watered down cards. but that's more than enough for the UFC to keep on going.

 

[Degen Gambler]

Of course they care. They had a terrible year and their credit rating was downgraded. Their global strategy is failing right now. They need to get back to what made them successful, stacked ppvs.

Tv deals are great but if you don't have the talent to support it...

You could also argue the fox deal is responsible for the ufc downfall for ppv. Since a lot of ufc on fox cards are usually close to ppv cards in terms of quality it can make people hesitant to continue buying ppv, when they get ufc on fox a similar product for free.

Before that you couldn't watch cards that good for free. They kind of shot theirselves in the foot by offering 2 similar events but charging for one.

They don't care enough to change their strategy.

 

[screaminleeman]

Which explains why other successful sports leagues, like the NFL and NBA, derive the majority of their revenues from PPV.

Not reading your garbage post when the opening line is an assertion with zero basis in reality. The UFC has the potential for the most money by being on network TV with major advertisers -- just like every other major sports league.

Very bad comparison.

While you are "basically" correct, the UFC utterly fails in other areas to make the NFL/ NBA models effective for the UFC.

Honest, here are the MAJOR pitfalls of that model for the current UFC.

The Nevada crew is so powerful that the league(s) {NFL & NBA} 100% have catered to the gambling community. The league has established rules OVER it's team owners and managements limiting their rights on their fielding a team in a regular season or post season game.

All teams in both the NBA and NFL (and even more prevalent in MLB) have minor league (Professional sport affiliate franchises) to select player to "promote" to their main rosters as needed.

The bookies essentially run the show. Pat Riley (as legendary Lakers manager) was nearly removed from the sport and beaten like a dog until his tail was between his legs for a decade. All he decided to do was "bench" his stars that had already clinched the homefield advantage in the NBA west. He only wanted his starters to "remain" healthy for the playoffs.

The league broke it off so far in Riley's backside for that that he was for all intent and purpose fired and removed from the teams on court presence as a "coach". He got raped harder than any "coach" unquote "field manager" on player personnel.

Fans pay the $$$. Bookies set the odds. Teams WILL work with Reno or perish!

If my Raven's decide at the last minute to "promote" the entire practice squad and demote the starters for Saturday Nights NFL playoff game, the lawsuites will fly.

One guarantee fella! General Manager "Ozzie Newsome", Head Coach "John Harbaugh" would be instantly fired, and Steve Bishcotti would be forced to do a Donald Sterling to his Raven franchise.

UFC ideal division fight year schedule:
- 2 Championship title fights per division per year.
- 3 top 15 ranked contenders fights per ranked fighter per year.

That is an absolute minimum of 47 fights per division per year just to support only top 15 fighters per division/ weight class in the UFC.

Now the math. Best case scenario with UFC prime level card every week of the year:

52 weeks in the year x 11 fights (average per card) = 572 total maximum possible UFC fights in a single year.

We currently have 10 "divisions" in the UFC. 47 fights per division per year times 10 UFC divisions = 470 fights per year.


You have now accounted for 82% of the available UFC fight slots for a single year ONLY HAVING TOP 15 ranked fighters in ANY division.

There is LESS THAN ZERO excuse that any MMA fighter ranked outside of the top 15 should be allowed to " seriously DREAM" of competing on a UFC preliminary card. Only MMA fighters ranked 10 - 15 should achieve this "what should be a remarkable achievement".

Main cards should NEVER have fighters out of the top 10 competing on them.

The fact that the UFC needs 500+ fighters on it's roster to conduct 572 fights should make it clear for even non math majors.

Lern to LOVE the frequency of 1 fight per year currently etched in stone by the brain trusts of the UFC.

 

[moreorless87]

Its not just the ufc. The ppv model is just dying in general. Look at boxing, and also WWE wasn't doing great, so they moved to their $9.99 (which didn't work out to well), but its not really the quality of cards, as it is that little star power +general lack of interest in the ppv model for fans= less ppvs.

Nah I think star power is the main issue and the WWE are actually in a similar kind of position to the UFC. For years they depended on there star power coming from a diverse pro wrestling environment with lots of competision, as a monopoly they simply haven't been able to produce as much talent.

 

[straight6]

PPV is a dying model. If ufc continue to rely on that then it would be trouble. Fox was a good move. I believe internationally they are doing fine with more tv broadcast deals. They need to expand televised rights over to more markets. VERY few countries outside in the u.s has ppv and even less are willing to pay for it.

 

[psyops]

If they were doing just as good or better their credit rating wouldn't have fell. That's a sign business is bad right now.

 

[EndlessCritic]

wall of text and a complete inability to perform basic arithmetic

Assuming 52 events per year with 11 fights gets us 572 fights.

There are currently 10 divisions. That means there are 150 fighters in the top 10.

Let's assume top 15 fighters only fight against each other, and we want fighters to fight 3 times per year. Well, that's 150 fighters x 3 = 450 fights, right? Wrong. You have to divide that number by half, because each fight has two fighters in it.

That means that each top 15 fighter can fight 3 times in a year against each other and it only takes up 225 fights. That leaves us with another 347 fights for non top 15 fighters.

Learn how to do math please.

 

[straight6]

Assuming 52 events per year with 11 fights gets us 572 fights.

There are currently 10 divisions. That means there are 150 fighters in the top 10.

Let's assume top 15 fighters only fight against each other, and we want fighters to fight 3 times per year. Well, that's 150 fighters x 3 = 450 fights, right? Wrong. You have to divide that number by half, because each fight has two fighters in it.

That means that each top 15 fighter can fight 3 times in a year against each other and it only takes up 225 fights. That leaves us with another 347 fights for non top 15 fighters.

Learn how to do math please.

just curious.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

1. I can get a zillion movies for ten bucks a month, and you want me to shell out sixty bucks for five fights?

2. I hate PPV and hope it is replaced by a monthly subscription service or a bigger tv deal.

 

[tjumper78]

im just not sure why so many people care about the ppv numbers.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Assuming 52 events per year with 11 fights gets us 572 fights.

There are currently 10 divisions. That means there are 150 fighters in the top 10.

Let's assume top 15 fighters only fight against each other, and we want fighters to fight 3 times per year. Well, that's 150 fighters x 3 = 450 fights, right? Wrong. You have to divide that number by half, because each fight has two fighters in it.

That means that each top 15 fighter can fight 3 times in a year against each other and it only takes up 225 fights. That leaves us with another 347 fights for non top 15 fighters.

Learn how to do math please.

There are only a hundred fighters in the top ten, which makes your point even more salient. 10 divisions = 100 top ten fighters = 150 fights a year if each top ten fighter fights only other top ten fighters and fights three times a year.

This would be between around a quarter of all fights in a 52 event year if each event has 11 fights. That means the top three fights on every card, even with 52 cards a year, would be top ten match ups.

The catch is getting top fighters to fights three times a year on average. The preference amongst fighters seems to be fighting twice a year, which changes the dynamic dramatically. 100 top ten fights a year with 52 events means only the main and co main events on any card will feature top ten fighters, which is roughly what we have now and is nearly universally derided as watered down.