The Return of Rampage
December 4, 2009
Rampage Jackson has publicly admitted he will be returning to the Octagon in order to finish his contract with the UFC.
Bloodyelbow has the latest straight from Rampage’s blog:
Now, I wanted to let my fans know that I’m going to come back to the UFC & finish my contract. Not because the haters are talking shit about me being scared of Rashad or Titties or anybody else. I’m coming back for my fans & to shut Rashad’s mouth up & shut Dana’s mouth up. Then after that I’m going back to doing movies & I might do a boxing match once a year just to stay in shape. Hate on dis!
Payout Perspective:
It’s more or less what everyone expected, and certainly a piece of much needed good news for the UFC. Furthermore, if you look at the history of the UFC’s relationship with its fighters, it’s not a stretch to imagine that Dana White and Rampage could patch things to the point that Rampage decides he’d like to continue fighting beyond his current contract.
The news is pretty fresh, and we don’t really know a lot at this point, but it’s conceivable that Rampage vs. Evans could help to co-headline the GSP fight in March (which would essentially give the organization it’s first solid, top-end card in the span of 6 months.
Affliction Files Motion to Dismiss Fedor Litigation, Plus an Examination of Allegations in Suit
November 12, 2009
MMAPayout previously discussed the basic facts surrounding the Emelianenko v. Affliction litigation and has now learned that Affliction filed what is known in federal court as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the case on the ground that Emelianenko and M-1 (to simplify, “Fedor”) have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, basically arguing that even if the court looks at all the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Fedor still has not made a legitimate case.
Affliction’s motion to dismiss in essence argues that the lawsuit is frivolous.
Affliction’s Tom Atencio told MMAPayout.com:
“Affliction landed a serious blow to the Fedor and M-1 lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss in federal court in response to the Russians’ complaint only eight days after being served. . . . The counter by Affliction goes to show Affliction does not intend to rollover and be extorted by the Russian visitors and how frivolous and meritless Affliction considers the allegations of their complaint.”
Before examining the nature of Affliction’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, it’s worth providing a basic analysis of Fedor’s allegations.
Although the complaint itself is quite complex, it actually can be easily summarized in lay terms. Fedor had a three-fight contract with Affliction, and fought two of the three fights, and agreed to fight Josh Barnett to close the contract. Barnett failed a steroids test, Affliction had discussions with prospective replacements for Barnett (e.g., Vitor Belfort and Brett Rogers) but ultimately reached an agreement with UFC that would permit Affliction to once again sponsor UFC fighters so long as it agreed to exit the promotion game.
All contracts have what is called an implied covenant of good faith, and Fedor argues that Affliction, instead of satisfying its obligation of booking a third fight for Fedor by finding a suitable replacement for Barnett, chose the path of least resistance by returning to UFC and cancelling the third show altogether, leaving the contracts with Fedor unsatisfied.
The substantive issues in the lawsuit are interesting: in contract law there is what’s known as the excuse of impossibility, and here the argument would be that Barnett’s failing the steroids test rendered impossible the satisfaction of Affliction’s obligations on the Fedor contracts, with Fedor arguing that Barnett’s negative drug test was used as a mere pretext to allow Affliction to exit the promotion end of MMA and stiff Fedor.
But then we come to Affliction’s motion to dismiss, which throws a monkey wrench into the entire substantive analysis. You see, Fedor argues that Affliction breached its contracts by cancelling Affliction: Trilogy and reaching agreement with UFC in July 2009.
Affliction’s motion to dismiss, however, points to the language of the contracts, which calls for termination of the agreements on either (i) March 31, 2009; or (ii) the conclusion of the third fight, with the contracts specifically stating that they terminate upon the earlier of the two dates. Since there was no third fight, the earlier date was March 31, 2009, and Affliction argues in its motion to dismiss that it cannot be alleged to have breached a contract in July 2009 that had expired four months earlier.
Although this is an attractive argument, there are many complexities to the suit, including issues of equity (i.e., fairness) in which Fedor could conceivably recover foreseeable damages suffered by his reasonably relying upon promises made by Affliction, so I do not expect this motion to dismiss to entirely end the matter.
Moreover, the language Afflcition points to in its motion to dismiss has wriggle room that could be favorable to Fedor: the contract cancels on the earlier of the two dates “unless the term of the promotion agreement or any extension thereto is . . . extended further pursuant to this Agreement or pursuant to a separate writing . . . .” I would expect some — perhaps very creative — arguments from Fedor that indeed the contract term had extended either through explicit writing, oral agreement, or even something known in contract law as course of conduct of the parties.
Stay tuned for an examination of Fedor’s upcoming response to Affliction’s motion to dismiss Emelianenko v. Affliction.
Where Go Hendo?
October 23, 2009
So MMAJunkie reported that Dana White claimed negotiations with Dan Henderson had reached a standstill due to Henderson’s wanting to be the highest paid fighter in the UFC:
“We’re at a stalemate right now,” White said. “The money that [Henderson] is asking for would make him by far the highest-paid guy in the UFC.”
White initially told Yahoo! Sports less than a week ago that his negotiations with Henderson had failed and that “Hollywood” was close to signing with Strikeforce. Henderson then refuted those claims with several media outlets, insisting his contact with Strikeforce had simply been introductory in nature.
Loretta Hunt of Sherdog.com then reported that Henderson’s camp denied that Henderson was demanding that kind of money during negotiations:
Aaron Crecy, Henderson’s business partner and manager who has been privy to all offers circulated between the two parties, reiterated similar sentiments regarding White’s contract claims.
“Contracts are confidential, so that statement’s impossible to prove or disprove,” said Crecy. “However, we have done our due diligence. We certainly don’t believe that to be the case. Dan understands and we have a certain belief on where he stands in the hierarchy. Certainly there are champions and former UFC champions that deserve to be paid more than Dan.”
Payout Perspective:
MMAPayout has discussed why Dan Henderson’s negotiating tactics were unlikely to lead to a lucrative new contract with UFC, despite his being at least temporarily the hottest free agent in Mixed Martial Arts.
Now we’re receiving seemingly contradictory reports relating to the contract negotiations themselves: Dana White makes the claim that Henderson wants to be “by far” the highest paid fighter in UFC, and Henderson’s camp dismisses it as the absurdity it would seem to be.
I’m not certain that the claims are entirely inconsistent. What we’re hearing is that the sticking point in the negotiations is Henderson’s demand for a seven figure signing bonus, as Henderson seems to believe (reasonably) that this is his last chance to make big money in the business.
I believe it’s possible that Henderson is requesting the largest signing bonus in UFC, which, in combination with his base pay, could from one perspective make him the highest paid fighter in UFC. This point of view, however, discounts the millions of dollars made by fighters whose contracts are structured to provide them shares of ppv revenue (providing the ppv reaches a certain number of buys).
Even if Henderson were to be given a share of ppv revenue, he’s never proven to be a huge draw, and I’d say it’s impossible that, if granted, his demands would make him UFC’s highest paid fighter. I’m not even going to research this one, I’ll tell you who it is in 2009 (and probably going forward into the future): Brock Lesnar.
Unfortunately by stating early in negotiations that he had no desire to work for Strikeforce, Henderson gave away all leverage in his negotiations with UFC, and Dana White seems to believe Henderson will eventually come around and will agree to what the UFC is offering him, with maybe a small concession from the promotional juggernaut to let Dan save face.
And I’d bet more money than I’d be willing to place — with even odds – on Lyoto Machida at UFC 104 that Dana White is 100% correct.
How Not to Re-Negotiate a Deal, by Dan Henderson
October 19, 2009
First came the news that Dan Henderson is a free agent.
Then Dan Henderson let it be known he didn’t want to fight for anyone but the UFC.
That negotiating tactic left many scratching their heads, but now FightersOnlyMagazine.co.uk is reporting that Henderson associate Aaron Crecy wishes to make clear that Henderson is nowhere close to a deal with Strikeforce.
I’m not sure how this is supposed to get Henderson a better offer from UFC, which I still assume is his goal, although I guess if he really is Strikeforce bound, it makes for hardball negotiating.
I just don’t see Dan Henderson ever going to Strikeforce, just as Tito Ortiz never had any intention of fighting for (remember them?) EliteXC.
Strikeforce Signs "King" Mo Lawal
October 14, 2009
Loretta Hunt of Sherdog.com is reporting that Strikeforce has signed light heavyweight prospect “King” Mo Lawal to a multi-fight deal with the anticipation that he could fight as early as December:
The deal allows the undefeated Lawal, a NCAA Div. 1 All-American wrestling champion for Oklahoma State in 2003 and decorated international competitor, to continue competing on the Japanese circuit. There, the 28-year-old heavyweight has made a name for himself with four straight victories in the Sengoku Raiden Championship (formerly Sengoku) over the last year. Three of those wins have come by stoppage from strikes, while Lawal’s only decision came after he tore his ACL in the first round of his match with Ryo Kawamura at Sengoku “Seventh Battle” last March.
Payout Perspective:
Lawal is a great prospect: he’s got the wrestling pedigree, fighting instincts, athleticism, and charisma to be a successful fighter sometime into the future.
However, the deal is most interesting in the context of the battle that Strikeforce and the UFC are currently waging for talent. Not only is Lawal a possible star in the making, but he’s already got a name in Japan. That bodes well for the Strikeforce-Dream partnership, and hurts the UFC as they look to capture some of the floundering Japanese market.
Why did Lawal choose Strikeforce? I suspect because of the non-exclusivity of the contract. The deal gives him the flexibility to make more money in Japan than he’d probably get from either of the big promotions in North America, while still fighting in North America, on occassion, in order to build his name there.
Urijah Faber to Remain with WEC
October 6, 2009
MMAjunkie.com reports that Urijah Faber has re-signed with WEC:
Former WEC featherweight champion Urijah Faber (22-3 MMA, 7-2 WEC) has ended all speculation regarding a potential move to a competing organization and has signed a new multi-year, multi-fight deal with the WEC.
WEC general manager Reed Harris announced the new deal while a guest on today’s edition of MMAjunkie.com Radio (www.mmajunkie.com/radio). Harris called in from San Antonio, where the WEC exec is currently promoting Saturday’s “WEC 43: Cerrone vs. Henderson” event.
“I had been talking to Urijah for months,” Harris said. “I told him six weeks ago, ‘We’ll get this thing done.’”
Harris said previous reports that Faber may be on his way out of the organization were greatly exaggerated. The WEC exec also said that while both he and Faber had some important demands in the negotiations, both parties were able to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.
Payout Perspective:
In light of some 0f Faber’s recent comments, this is very interesting news, indeed. Faber of late has been a vocal critic of WEC’s pay structure, and on his September appearance on HDNet’s Inside MMA, Faber went so far as to say that WEC had served its purpose and should be absorbed into the UFC, an argument MMAPayout had presented earlier that week.
Although it’s not clear whether genuinely lucrative fighting opportunities, at least in the United States, were available to the former featherweight kingpin outside of WEC, I believe it’s notable that Faber appears not to have even given serious thought to any options outside of WEC.
WEC general manager Reed Harris has on more than one occasion over the last few months spoken of bona fide plans for one or two WEC pay-per-views in 2010.
If the latest contract between Faber and WEC is, as Harris says, of mutual benefit, it seems reasonable to conclude that Urijah Faber is in fact destined for ppv television, either headlining a WEC event or perhaps as second-from-the-top on a UFC ppv, and I’d expect to see this sooner rather than later.
Put simply, in order for Faber’s latest contract to make economic sense from WEC’s perspective, Faber’s exposure cannot be limited to Versus television: the answer must be ppv.
MMA Salary Reform Necessary
September 16, 2009
Yesterday, Michael Rome of Bloodyelbow.com made the case for salary reform in the UFC in order to better accommodate both the fighters and the sport as a whole:
It’s time for the UFC to restructure the Pay Per View percentage contracts for main event fighters. They began as a good faith way to reward fighters when the company does well, but these deals are unresponsive to the UFC’s needs, and they are unresponsive to the needs of the sport.
The last year of Anderson Silva’s career provides a good example of why the Pay Per View percentage deals do not make sense for the UFC. After signing a deal with a Pay Per View bonus, Anderson Silva headlined UFC 90, and got a terrible payday because the buyrate was so poor. He then took an extended break, and agreed to fight Thales Leites only because he was told that either St. Pierre or Chuck Liddell would be on the card as well. The show broke the 600,000 buy mark, and Silva made a killing.
Silva’s next Pay Per View fight was against Forrest Griffin in a marquee match on a huge show with two main events. The pay was great, and now Silva is playing the game again. He refused to fight on the UK card, and while people think he is ducking Henderson and Marquardt, I think his real goal is to get on a stacked New Year’s card for the buyrate.
Payout Perspective:
I agree with Rome.
While by no means an indictment of UFC practices, a contract should very much be considered as the formation of a working relationship between two entities for the purpose of mutual benefit. I understand that the UFC takes pretty good care of its fighters, but there still exists a certain amount of disagreement between the fighters and UFC management. Thus, it makes sense that the contracts should change and adapt when the relationship itself changes.
The UFC is growing almost exponentially – certainly faster than anyone had even anticipated 2-3 years ago, let alone 8 years ago when Zuffa bought the organization – and so the contracts need to be changed in order to better reflect the realities of the business environment.
Rome correctly points out that top draws like Silva are susceptible to volatile pay days, because of the linkage to PPV buys within their contracts. BJ Penn is another fighter that has outright refused to fight on UK cards unless he receives compensation commensurate with what he’d receive from the PPV points of a North American event.
It’s not fair to the talent, nor is it working for the organization to have its best fighters avoiding certain markets all for the sake of money.
A potential solution which guarantees a greater sum of money, but pays slightly less for large PPV events – where the points would really benefit the fighter - might be an amicable solution for both parties. The guaranteed money vs. maximum payday is a common swap in sports business.
The single point of contention, here, likely comes from the HR realm where advocates of self-funding compensation programs are going to argue in favour of profit-certainty; more guaranteed money is a greater risk to the UFC. Fortunately, I’m not convinced this concept is necessarily applicable to MMA.
The idea behind self-funded compensation is that an employee funds his/her own pay through revenue-generating performance. Yet, there exist many variables and determinants of fighter compensation that are out of the fighter’s control. In other words, you cannot establish performance-based compensation upon something other than performance.
In the long run, any short-term losses that the organization incurs as the result of more guaranteed money are likely to be out-weighed by the benefits of having its best fighters engaging in bouts across the globe – not just in specific, highly lucrative markets.
Note:I also thought Rome made a good point about the generation of MMA stars. It’s something quite reminiscent to the “put over” in wrestling, whereby a new star needed to beat an old star to become relevant.
The old guard of MMA needs to give way to the new guard inside the cage or ring - that’s the only way fans are going to take notice. It’s very much a “king of the hill” mentality, and until a fighter has faced and defeated top-notch competition, he’s really irrelevant. The old stars are still very much important because they legitimize the new stars, and that’s how the cycle continues.
MMA Stardom: The By-Products
September 9, 2009
While it has yet to be officially announced, Rampage Jackson vs. Rashad Evans has been scrapped from the UFC 107 fight card slated for December 12th in Memphis, Tennessee. The highly anticipated grudge match between Jackson and Evans has been pushed back on the ostensible account of Jackson’s involvement with the new A-Team movie.
Yesterday, Rashad Evans confirmed with Sherdog radio that the bout was indeed postponed (summary provided by MMA Junkie):
“It’s definitely off for the 12th,” Evans said. “It’s just disappointing because as a fighter you get your mind wrapped around when you’re going to have to fight. Then you kind of just gear up toward it and put everything in place for that time. You take care of a lot of things you need to take care of so when you’re in camp you don’t have to worry about it. To find out its not going to be happening when you want it to happen is always a little bit of a letdown.”
While multiple outlets have reported on the potential for Jackson to take on the role of B.A. Baracus in a feature version of “The A-Team,” Evans said until recently he believed it wasn’t going to happen.
“I heard a little bit about it at the last UFC, 102, and (UFC president) Dana (White) said he was working to resolve the issue, and he was pretty confident that he was going to have some kind of resolution by the end of the week,” Evans said. “But then things must have took a turn for the worse and it wasn’t going to be resolved. The end result was him definitely pulling out.”
While White made his feelings on the subject obvious at a pre-UFC 102 press conference, Evans echoed the sentiments that fighters should stick to what they do best.
“I would stick with my obligations to do the fight (if I was in the same situation),” Evans said. “I know that he has an amazing opportunity to do this acting role, but then at the same time, at the end of the day he’s still going to be just a fighter. He’s not going to be an actor.”
Payout Perspective:
The business issue is really not that the fight was postponed. Rampage vs. Rashad will more than likely happen in early 2010, and should Rampage agree to that fight in a timely matter, it may even allow the UFC to begin promoting the event while TUF 10 is still running (i.e., the UFC may not even skip a beat).
The much larger, big picture issue here is that of the UFC’s new found problem: dealing with the consequences and by-products of its own success. Gone are the days where just making money, changing the sport’s public perception, and seeking legalization were the hot-button topics. Now the UFC must learn to deal with its own popularity and that of its fighters, lest it become a victim of its own success.
Last month MMAPayout.com discussed why fighting ability was the most critical ingredient necessary to build an MMA star. But what happens when that star is born? How does an organization like the UFC ensure it receives an adequate return on the time, money, and promotional effort that it has invested in a fighter?
It starts with assessing each individual: why do they fight and what do they want from their career?
In the case of Rampage Jackson, it’s never really been about the fighting – it’s been about the money. He may like to fight, but he’d probably be doing something else if he weren’t getting paid. That suggests that fighting isn’t the only thing on his priority list – other money making opportunities are on his radar – and therefore his commitment level to the organization isn’t going to be tremendously high.
Is there anything wrong with that? Not every fighter is going to be cut from the same cloth as Georges St. Pierre; not every fighter is going to fight just for the sake of competition. Some fighters fight for money, some fight for fame, some fight for women, and some fight for a combination of all of those things. It may be fly in the face of the traditional martial arts mantra, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
Rampage now has an opportunity to seek some non-MMA related income that doesn’t depend on him getting punched in the face. It’s not just the initial movie salary, either, but the future royalties that will come to him if the movie is any sort of success. The prospect of Rampage gaining more fans and improving his draw as an MMA fighter is also there. The only risk, of course, is that Rampage takes his focus off of fighting that it’s a detriment to his in-cage fighting ability – at that point he risks not just his place in the UFC, but also his main source of income.
Many are going to argue – just like Dana White and Rashad Evans have – that Rampage should stick to what he does best. I’m inclined to agree, because if money is ultimately what’s most important for Rampage, his best, long term shot probably lies with the UFC. Although, it’s easy to see that White and Evans have personal/business motivations that have biased their take on the subject.
White and the UFC are slowly realizing that a by-product of their growing popularity is the new non-MMA related opportunity for their fighters; whether it be commercials, cameos, or full out television and movie appearances. Their MMA fighters are increasingly becoming sought-after MMA personalities, and pulled in various different directions.
As a result, the UFC has to be even more selective in terms of whom it invests a ton of time, money, promotional effort into. That isn’t to say that the UFC should have never pushed Jackson in the first place – with his talent and personality they were absolutely right to. It says that the UFC, if given the choice needs to evaluate the commitment levels of its fighters. Specifically, it also means finding a way to secure the participation of their fighters in events that they’ve invested heavily.
MMAPayout.com colleague David Wolf suggested that the UFC might need to create some sort of guarantee – either by veto or contractual obligation – and I agree. The fans are going to be upset, and claim that the UFC already has too much power, but it’s simply good business to protect your investment. It’s also quite fair to add a little insurance into a contract like the Ultimate Fighter series, “if you agree to particpate, you’re agreeing to a fight at this time and date.”
However, as the UFC continues to grow, the problem of success might also become part of the solution. Event related revenues are up substantially and when revenues are up, fight-related income also rises for participants. The more money the UFC can pay its fighters, the less-inclined men like Rampage will be to take non-MMA related endeavors in order to make additional money.
The Champion's Clause: An MMA Comparative
September 7, 2009
A few weeks ago MMAPayout.com examined how Anderson Silva might avoid the “champion’s clause” in his UFC contract in order to seek the oft-rumoured boxing match with Roy Jones Jr. While Silva’s manager, Ed Soares, has since cleared the air with regards to Silva’s intentions, the situation nonetheless has provided an opportunity to shed more light on the champion’s clause – it may surprise you to know that the UFC isn’t the only organization with such a contractual obligation.
UFC version:
“if, at the expiration of the Term, Fighter is then UFC champion, the Term shall be automatically extended for a period commencing on the Termination Date and ending on the earlier of (i) one (1) year from the Termination Date; or (ii) the date on which Fighter has participated in three (3) bouts promoted by ZUFFA following the Termination Date (”Extension Term”). Any references to the Term herein shall be deemed to include a reference to the Extension Term, where applicable.”
Strikeforce version:
The initial term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date of this Agreement is signed by Fighter (Effective Commencement Date”) and shall expire two years from the date that Fight er signs this Agreement or two years from the first bout in which Fight er fights hereunder whichever is the later date, unless terminated or unless extended or suspended in which case this Agreement shall expire no later than seven years from the Effective commencement date hereof. Fighter grants EXPLOSION the option and the right but not the obligation to extend the term of this Agreement (“extended term”) upon the same terms and conditions except as hereinafter set forth for an additional one year if Fight er at any time during the term hereof holds or held a Strikeforce Championship Title.
Bellator version:
“If, at any time during the term, FIGHTER is declared the champion of his weight class, a Tournament winner, or a Tournament runner-up, the Term shall be automatically extended for a period commencing on the Termination Date and ending on the earlier of (i) eighteen (18) months from the Termination Date, or (ii) the date in which FIGHTER has participated in three (3) bouts promoted by PROMOTER following the Termination Date (“Extension Term”). Any reference to the Term herein shall be deemed to include a reference to the extension term where applicable.”
Payout Perspective:
The UFC’s clause is the most controversial because it lacks the clarity to be definitive. The consensus seems to be that most courts would interpret the clause to stipulate a one-term only extension of the contract. However, a very strained interpretation of the clause – one where “Term” could also refer to Extension Term – might allow the UFC to automatically renew the contract in perpetuity, so long as the fighter holds the belt at the end of each term.
The wording is so difficult that the matter would likely end up in court should the UFC choose to contest the issue; something that would effectively serve the purpose of the champion’s clause in keeping a fighter away from rival organizations. The wording also raises many interesting questions such as whether the UFC could appoint someone as champion in order to trigger the clause, or whether a champion could in fact resign or relinquish the belt to avoid the clause.
If, indeed, the UFC’s clause is interpreted to be a one-time extension of the contract, it would appear to be far less restrictive than both the Strikeforce and Bellator clauses. Whereas the UFC clause might only be triggered if a fighter holds a championship at the time of his contract’s “Termination Date,” both the Strikeforce and Bellator clauses are triggered if and when a fighter wins a championship at any time.
Are these restrictions a bad thing? It depends on your perspective.
MMAPayout.com’s Robert Joyner has tackled the subject previously when looking Inside the Bellator Contract, and he highlighted a very important point: champion’s clauses are a necessity from an organizational standpoint, because they’re “self-fulfilling” talent retention mechanisms (particularly in the case of Bellator whereby not just champions, but even contenders are re-upped for an additional term).
It’s simply in an organization’s best interest not only to avoid having a fighter leave with a belt or gain substantial negotiating leverage, but also to help retain top-level talent for competitive reasons.
However, from the perspective of the fighter, these types of clauses hinder their ability to cash-in on their in-cage or in-ring success. The fighter isn’t able to immediately hit the open market, or use the leverage of such a potential scenario, to establish contract terms and sell his services for fair market value.
Not surprisingly the rest of MMA’s stakeholders will take sides according to their own positions within the community. Sponsors will side with the UFC, because more stars mean a better product which attracts more attention to their advertised brand. Fans will side with the fighters as the public seemingly always does when it comes down to employer vs. labour. The government is left somewhere in the middle, hoping that nothing becomes too restrictive or too lax that control is lost and regulatory equilibrium thrown out of balance.
…thus it would appear these MMA organization’s aren’t the only ones looking out for their best interests.
UFC/WEC: Absorption Problems?
September 3, 2009
Whenever the possibility of a UFC/WEC merger is broached, one of the major arguments militating against a union has been the purported inability of UFC to absorb another two weight classes’ worth of talent (along with, presumably, some lightweight fighters). The point is that UFC already has difficulty giving all its contracted talent the typical three or four fights a year, an argument which has had until now a certain cogency to it. In MMA, however, the times are constantly a-changin’, and with Dana White’s stating that UFC plans as many as three shows a month in 2010, the question might not be whether a UFC/WEC merger is viable, but rather whether it’s a business necessity.
First, although the absorption problem is a legitimate issue under the current schedule, it’s an issue whose primary negative effect is on the lower-level fighters, and not the promotion. In other words, from a fan perspective, it’s difficult to argue that we don’t get to see fighters fight with enough frequency. Indeed, the pattern seems to be that UFC delivers a couple of months worth of star-laden events, which are then followed by more lackluster cards, as the top talent takes a rest. I’ve made the argument that that’s exactly what’s happening in September and October, and I’ll state again that the UFC 104 undercard — aside from its main event — would be worthy of prelim status on a good ppv night. This is a problem that will only be exacerbated by any increase in number of UFC events in 2010.
Moreover, it appears that UFC 102′s numbers will provide further evidence that pay-per-views without title fights (or lacking at least a major grudge match between fighters fans view as superstars) are seen as skippable events. After pulling in approximately 2,500,000 total buys for UFC 100 and 101, Dave Meltzer’s latest Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports that 102′s first projections place it at a disappointing 435,000 buys. As Meltzer notes, this bodes ill for UFC 103, which is headlined by a non-title Vitor Belfort/Rich Franklin fight, and which also goes head-to-head with the Mayweather/Marquez ppv.
Beyond 103, though, which after all is just one night, one lesson is self-evident: as many pay-per-views as possible, ideally all of them, should be headlined by a title fight. The corollary is just as obvious: absorb the WEC’s 145- and 135-lbs. divisions into the UFC, providing two more titles to be defended on pay-per-views. With those divisions under the UFC umbrella, unless UFC goes overboard in stacking cards with multiple title fights, it should have little difficulty in providing at least one title fight per ppv.
UFC has 211 fighters under contract, or at least that’s how many fighters are listed on its website. By my calculations, assuming there are 36 shows in a calendar year, UFC ideally (i.e., each fighter fights three or four times a year) would have somewhere between 200 and 265 contracted fighters. If we assume that the lower level guys fight three times a year, whereas the higher level talent leans towards four fights per year, it seems that UFC could easily absorb 40-50 WEC fighters. When you take into account various business factors, again, absorption becomes almost a necessity.
Almost a necessity. WEC’s biggest obstacle might be its poor brand recognition; as Kelsey has noted, it’s the reason “we’ve yet to see a WEC PPV.” Although it seems that most expect Versus to end up back on DirecTV after a reconciliation, there are currently 6,000,000 fewer people with access to Versus than there were last week, which is simply not beneficial to WEC brand marketing.
One solution — and perhaps an even better one than a straight merger – would be to re-brand WEC as UFC, which would immediately increase recognition of its fighters. This provides Zuffa with the ability to maintain separate brands, and yet it could quite easily place the bigger 135- and 145-lbs. fights on UFC pay-per-views. The biggest obstacle to re-branding WEC as UFC is Zuffa’s contract with Spike television, which gives Spike exclusive access to UFC on basic cable. It seems to me, though, with so much money on the line, that there has to be a solution permitting WEC to re-brand as UFC that would be acceptable to both Zuffa and Spike.
Whether UFC attempts a straight merger or something along the lines of a re-branding, as Mixed Martial Arts prepares to enter its third decade with an ever increasing number of shows each month, the UFC/WEC status quo cannot be maintained. Something’s gonna give in 2010.
