Jones clothing deal could be sign of future
April 19, 2012
Interesting news came out last week when it was announced that Jon Jones would be wearing UFC branded gear for his fight this Saturday night. The UFC tells the USA Today that there will be more fighters wearing UFC gear in the octagon.
Jones’s former sponsor, Form Athletics, went under, leaving Jones available to any sponsor. While there was speculation that Nike may be a sponsor (and still may in the future), Jones will sport UFC-branded gear which is already for sale on the UFC.com web site.
via FighterXFashion
Lorenzo Fertitta spoke to USA Today (via MMA Junkie):
To give you a little bit of background, I was going through the process of renegotiating with Jon and his management team on his fight contract. One of the things they brought up was that Jon was at a point where he didn’t necessarily want to sign contracts with some of these smaller, what I’ll call, T-shirt companies that you historically see in UFC, whether it be Tapout or MMA Elite or any of these other guys.
His aspirations (were) that he wanted to be signed by a Nike or an Adidas or an Under Armour, somebody like that. The reality is, those opportunities don’t present themselves to Jon right now, and that’s why I suggested, “Hey look, we’ve got this performance line of gear. Let us send it to you. You can test it. You can try it out. If you like it, then you can wear it in your next couple of fights.”
Fertitta added that the deal with Jones is non-exclusive so he’d be able to sign with another company if the opportunity presented itself.
Payout Perspective:
This is an interesting development for the UFC as no fighter this high profile has worn UFC profile gear. In recent memory, Gilbert Yvel (in his last UFC fight before being let go) and Tiequan Zhang wore UFC apparel in their fights. The article indicates Urijah Faber, Clay Guida and Phil Davis among others that have worn UFC gear but not necessarily during fights.
From another perspective, what becomes of the UFC sponsorship fee? It would seem that the UFC sponsored clothing deals would negate any gains from the fees. Is the UFC inching out sponsors to own the clothing business? Or, will a Nike or Under Armour partner with the UFC to become an official sponsor? Thus, we may see something like the NFL or NBA with an official clothing sponsor. Or, does this seem like a move to the WWE merchandise model–will we see no other fighter sponsors aside from the UFC? It could mean that all sponsorship opportunities would be filtered through the UFC.
As for the Jones deal, was it smart for him to take the deal with the UFC rather than with another apparel company/sponsor? It’s likely that Jones may have left money on the table to perhaps appease the UFC. While his aspirations are Nike or Adidas, it wasn’t in the cards this time around. But, he may have made more money with a “one-off” deal with other sponsors.
As an aside, the media gets another “uneducated” shout out as the UFC tries to clarify for us that despite only one of the two fighters is represented by the UFC in the main event, it does not show favoritism to the UFC sponsored fighter. This is in response to those claiming that the UFC is favoring Jones in the fight due to this new deal.
UFC demands retraction from MMA web site
April 17, 2012
The UFC issued a press release Tuesday announcing it had served a demand for retraction from MMA web site Cage Potato. In Nevada, the demand is a prelude to a defamation lawsuit.
The UFC’s issue concerns a post on the web site on April 14th. The post is in regards to Jon Jones wearing UFC branded gear in his upcoming fight April 21st. The offending issue appears to be the picture and caption used by the web site. The picture, taken from the White-Jones Bud Light commercial which ran last year, included a caption which stated White was betting on Jones this Saturday. The web site oftentimes takes a satirical tone with its stories and captions. Of course, the caption was a joke. However, the demand for retraction was no laughing matter.
Via UFC press release:
As detailed in the formal demand for a retraction prepared by UFC® attorney, Donald J. Campbell of the Las Vegas law firm, Campbell & Williams:
“The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White’s signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event.”
Mr. Campbell further explained that under Nevada law a demand for retraction is the first required step in the filing of a lawsuit seeking punitive damages against a party that has maliciously published defamatory statements about another.
Cage Potato complied with the demand and issued its retraction on the site. Cage Potato’s managing editor Ben Goldstein spoke to USA Today about the issue:
“This is just so silly that I want to print this retraction and get this behind us,” Goldstein said. “I have no (problem) saying on our website, ‘Look, it’s just a joke. We didn’t mean it to be intended this way.’ I’m just not interested in turning this into some sort of beef with UFC. It’s really not that important to me.”
Via social media, it appears that Dana White is still not cool with the situation despite the retraction.
Payout Perspective:
It’s an interesting strategy by the UFC as to how it is dealing with this. We probably know it has to do everything with the joke being about gambling on the sport. The UFC is likely sensitive to the perception that the UFC is fixed – especially since its top draw for the past couple years, Brock Lesnar, was a former pro wrestler…and has returned to sports entertainment. While most MMA fans will likely think this is ridiculous, there is a huge population out there that are beginning to watch the sport because it is now on Fox.
Another point in the gambling angle is the fact that the Fertittas own casinos and they do not want any inference that they bet on the sport.
The UFC brand is another reason. It wants to protect the brand and ensure that there is no inference of gambling. While it could have made a request for the web site to take the offending piece down without much news, it decided to make the formal request and press release. Thus, it served notice on others on how it would handle people that defamed the UFC.
As for the legal strategy, the Fight Lawyer points out a lawsuit may open up Dana White’s reputation in discovery. This could potentially stir up issues for White and the UFC not related to the lawsuit, yet still discoverable .
WWE reports WM 28 buys: 1.3 million
April 16, 2012
The WWE is reporting that the preliminary PPV buy rate for Wrestlemania 28 is 1.3 million buys worldwide. It also is reporting that global gross sales exceeded $67 million including the live event.
If I am reading the WWE’s release correctly, the gross sales includes the live gate which was originally reported as $8.9 million. The buy rate broke the 2007 WM which was 1.25 million buys according to F4WOnline. That Wrestlemania featured Donald Trump in a cameo role.
Broken down, the 1.3 million buys means about 700K domestic and 600K international.
Payout Perspective:
Is 1.3 million buys a disappointment? While there was an ESPN reporter that tweeted that the buy rate was closer to 2 million buys, we now know that was more speculation than reporting. The fact that the Rock was involved in the main event in his hometown and there was a year long run-up to this event makes 1.3 million somewhat of a disappointment. We shall see what this means for the WWE’s stock for the rest of this year. Last year, the company rode the financial wave of WM 27 so this could be a good sign for the company in its next earnings call.
Oklahoma addresses state PPV tax
April 11, 2012
State Impact reports on the current status of MMA in Oklahoma. You may recall that Zuffa threatened litigation due to the state’s 4% tax on PPV purchasers within the state.
ESPN’s Josh Gross reported early last week that Oklahoma was back in business and accepting MMA promoter applications.
A little background on the subject via State Impact:
The Oklahoma State Athletic Commission doesn’t receive any state funding, and its entire budget depends of fees and licenses for combat sports events. The commission licenses professional fighters and promoters, enforces health and safety rules and oversees fighting exhibitions and competitions.
The State Impact article reports that in 2011 64% of its revenue is generated from the PPV fees. 23% of its revenue were from live fights within the state. Chart via the Oklahoma State Athletic Commission.
The Oklahoma Attorney General is reviewing the constitutionality of the law. As a result, Zuffa is holding off on filing a lawsuit until the AG makes its decision. Thus, this appears the reason why the commission continues to operate.
As of right now, SB 1533 – known as the “Oklahoma State Athletic Commission Act” – would provide the commission with $200,000 in hopes of quelling a potential lawsuit from the UFC. The money would make up for the amount it would receive from the PPV payouts. The bill passed the House of Representatives Appropriation and Budget Committee.
An interesting sidenote as most of the PPV generated in the state is from pro wrestling PPVs and not the UFC. Yet, there has not been public lobbying from the WWE (or TNA) about the tax.
Payout Perspective:
SB 1533 passed preliminary committee with no opposition so if passed, it appears that the resolution may suppress a Zuffa lawsuit. Yet, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the AG’s decision on the constitutionality of the PPV tax. We will see if Zuffa presses the AG for a decision regardless of SB 1533 as a means to quash any further state taxation on PPVs.
Payout Perspective: UFC-FOX TV Deal Q1/2012 Performance Review
April 5, 2012
Last year, UFC and FOX announced a huge 7 year TV deal worth as much as $90-$100 million per year, which would move UFC programming from Spike TV to FOX, FX, FSN’s, and Fuel TV. Now that Q1 of 2012 has passed, we look back and analyze what type of impact UFC programming had on the FOX properties and how the new platforms have impacted the UFC.
NETWORK: FOX (112M households) Q1 Ratings:
UFC on FOX:
- UFC on FOX 1: Velasquez vs Dos Santos: 5.7M, 3.1 household rating (1 Hour Block, 1 Fight)
- UFC on FOX 2: Evans vs Davis: 4.7M, 2.6 household rating (2.5 Hour Block, 3 Fights)
Q1 Average: 5.2M … Trend: Down
****************************************************************************************
NETWORK: FX (99M households) Q1 RATINGS:
TUF LIVE:
- TUF Live Episode 1 – 1.3M
- TUF Live Episode 2 – 1.1M
- TUF Live Episode 3 – 1.2M
- TUF Live Episode 4 – 1.054M
Q1 Average: 1.16M Viewers, Trend: Down
TUF Season Average Rating (last 5 seasons) on Spike TV:
- TUF 14 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.5M viewers
- TUF 13 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.3M viewers
- TUF 12 Season on Spike TV (2010) Averaged 1.74M viewers
- TUF 11 Season on Spike TV (2010) Averaged 1.65M viewers
- TUF 10 Season on Spike TV (2009) Averaged 3M viewers
TUF Season Average (last 5 seasons) on Spike TV: 1.84M Viewers
Spike TV Comparable Trend: Down
UFC on FX:
- UFC on FX 1: 1.3M
- UFC on FX 2: 1.4M
Q1 Average: 1.35M Viewers, Trend: Up, Flat
UFN Average Rating (last 5 events) on Spike TV:
- UFN 25 on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.8M viewers
- UFN 24 on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 2.2M viewers
- UFN 23 on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.85M viewers
- UFN 22 on Spike TV (2010) Averaged 1.2M viewers
- UFN 21 on Spike TV (2010) Averaged 1.6M viewers
UFN Average (last 5 events) on Spike TV: 1.73M Viewers
Spike TV Comparable Trend: Down
UFC Primetime:
- “UFC Primetime: Diaz vs. Condit” (Episode 1): 657,000 viewers
- “UFC Primetime: Diaz vs. Condit” (Episode 2): 520,000 viewers
- “UFC Primetime: Diaz vs. Condit” (Episode 3): 442,000 viewers
Q1 Average: 540,000 Viewers, Trend: Down
UFC Primetime Debut Episode Ratings (last 5 events) on Spike TV:
- UFC Primetime: GSP vs Shields on Spike TV (2011): 610K viewers
- UFC Primetime: Lesnar vs Velasquez on Spike TV (2010): 974K viewers
- UFC Primetime: Rampage vs Evans on Spike TV (2011): 1.2M viewers
- UFC Primetime: GSP vs Hardy on Spike TV (2010): 1M viewers
- UFC Primetime: GSP vs Penn II on Spike TV (2009): 880K viewers
UFC Primetime Debut Episodes (last 5) Average on Spike TV: 933K Viewers
Spike TV Comparable Trend: Down, Flat
UFC on FX Prelims:
- UFC 142 Prelims: 880K
- UFC 143 Prelims: 1.4M
- UFC 144 Prelims: 1.5M
Q1 Average: 1.26M, Trend: Up
UFC Prelims Average Rating (last 5 events) on Spike TV:
- UFC 141 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.8M viewers
- UFC 139 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.2M viewers
- UFC 137 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.1M viewers
- UFC 136 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1M viewers
- UFC 135 Season on Spike TV (2011) Averaged 1.6M viewers
Previous 5 UFC Prelims Average on Spike TV: 1.34M Viewers
Spike TV Comparable Trend: Flat
FX & SpikeTV: 2012 (Q1) Primetime Vs. 2011 (Q1) Primetime :
FX
- Men 18-49= -20%
- Men 18-34= -21%
Trend: Down
Spike
- Men 18-49 = +4%
- Men 18-34= +7%
Trend: Up
****************************************************************************************
NETWORK: FUEL TV (36M Households) Q1 RATINGS:
UFC on FUEL:
- UFC on Fuel TV 1: 217,000
UFC on Fuel Prelims:
- UFC on FX1 Fuel Prelims: 148,000
- UFC on FOX 2 Prelims: 144,000
- UFC on FX 2 Fuel Prelims: 113,000
Q1 Average: 135,000, Trend: Down
UFC Tonight:
- UFC Tonight Episode 1: 39,000
- UFC Tonight Episode 2: 20,000
- UFC Tonight Episode 3: 61,000
- …
Q1 Average: 63,000, Trend: Up
Overall Q1 Ratings Analysis (Fuel TV PR):
- Fuel TV is television’s fastest-growing cable network this year, according to figures released by Nielsen Media Research. In both the Total Day and Prime Time, the network recorded the largest percentage increases of total viewers among all rated, ad-supported cable networks in the first quarter of 2012.
- Fuel TV continued its unprecedented ratings increases in March, following the growth trend that began in January when Ultimate Fighting Championship® programming began to dominate key day-parts. February was the network’s most-watched month ever, featuring its first live UFC fight, which delivered the channel its most-watched program, most-watched Prime Time and most-watched week.
- Fuel TV aired 233 hours of UFC programming in February and added another 213 hours in March. FUEL TV telecast 646 hours of UFC programming in the first three months of 2012.
- Q1 2012 was FUEL TV’s most-watched in network history, finishing up +100% in Total Viewers and up +125% in M18-49 vs. Q1 2011
- Q1 Prime Time viewership increased +200% in Total Viewers and +260% among M18-49 vs. the same quarter last year
- Q1 Late Night increased +222% on Total Viewers and +275% among M18-49 compared to Q1 in 2011.
Payout Perspective:
Making a conclusion as to whether the UFC and FOX TV deal is a success or failure based on only the Q1 ratings would obviously be premature, but it also doesn’t mean we can’t start to look at the performance of UFC content on the FOX platforms.
The obvious observations here after Q1 has to be how much UFC has helped out Fuel TV, not only in terms of ratings, but also increasing their reach from 30M to 36M since the TV announcement was made back in 2011. However, Fuel TV at the end of the day only reaches 1/3 of the households that Spike TV reached while still being one of the lowest rated networks in cable TV, so unless Fuel’s reach picks up – doesn’t look like that will be the case until the end of the year at the earliest – the UFC will consistently be placing the majority of their content on a channel that only reaches a fraction of what Spike TV gets.
FOX is doing a great job at exposing the UFC product to the masses, but the last event was actually a big drop-off from the first event as every fight went to a decision and almost tripled the length of UFC on FOX 1. Not to mention that four shows a year is just not enough frequency for the casuals. Getting mainstream sponsors for the FOX events has also not been as easy as was expected when the deal was made last year. The ratings drop of the second show caused for the UFC to create “fun and exciting” match-ups for UFC on FOX 3 rather than book big names in hope that casuals will tune in and stick around for “fan-friendly” and exciting booked fights.
FX and the newly revamped “TUF Live” were a big part of the TV deal with TUF being the key platform the UFC uses to create future stars and PPV draws. So far, the show has been a disappointment (in terms of ratings) with all-time rating lows for the series. Dana White and the UFC brass predicted that they could very well reach 3 million viewers for TUF on FX if they were getting around 1.5 million on Spike TV without any promotion. Well, that prediction hasn’t panned out yet, even with heavy promotion leading up the the debut on FX. More shocking is that after UFC moved to FX, FX network’s M18-34 and M18-49 demos have decreased compared to Q1 2011 while Spike’s have gone up. FX dedicating Friday nights as “UFC Nights”, a day which is notorious for bad ratings and when the M18-34 demographic is not at home in front of their TV sets, has also not panned out for the UFC yet. Moving the content to mid-week could be a solution, but FX is happy enough with the Friday night ratings since it’s an improvement from what they get with non-UFC content, so it looks like the UFC will have to ride this out for the time being.
There is something to be said about the simplicity of being a UFC fan and being able to find all the content you needed on one network. Now, with multiple platforms designated with different UFC content, fans are having a difficult time migrating from Spike TV (who will continue to air UFC content through 2012) to multiple FOX platforms. FOX only shows UFC events 4 times a year, FX only on Fridays and sometimes on Saturday, while Fuel TV has designated days where they show no UFC content at all despite airing over 200+ hours of UFC programming a month . The complexity for the typical MMA TV viewer has definitely increased since the deal, but regardless of the vast TV programming now available, MMA fans can always count on tuning in on Saturday nights – usually once a month – to catch a big PPV event. That is a consistent and simple message the UFC has promoted for years and one that still works. It gets hundreds-of-thousands of UFC fans pumped up for a UFC weekend. Sometimes, simplicity can be bliss.
Wrestlemania 28 gate: $8.9 million
April 2, 2012
Wrestlemania 28 set records yesterday with a record gate of $8.9 million. It also set records for the largest crowd at Sun Life Stadium in Miami, Florida with 78,363 attendees and the highest grossing live event in WWE history.
WWE stock is up slightly at $8.83 near the close of Monday’s trading.
Via WWE press release:
The previous Sun Life Stadium attendance record was 77,912 for the BCS National Championship in 2005. Its highest grossing entertainment event was U2 on June 29, 2011, grossing more than $7.5 million. WrestleMania XXVIII surpassed the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania in Houston, which grossed $7.2 million. This marks the third consecutive year WrestleMania broke the gross entertainment event record of the host venue.
Payout Perspective:
While it is a press release from the WWE, if the attendance and gate are in the ballpark of the figures, the WWE’s annual event did not disappoint. The PPV buy rate should be good as well considering The Rock and the added promotion for the event. For a company that has suffered some setbacks (e.g. WWE Network) lately, its a needed boost. With the addition of Lesnar (and the subtraction of the Rock), the WWE will hope to continue the momentum from Sunday.
Additional numbers and news from the WWE:
- The Rock/Cena Countdown show, “Once in a Lifetime,” which first aired last Monday right before Raw on the USA Network scored 2.13 million viewers for a 1.47 rating according to Dave Metzler. The rating was low for the time slot but was twice as much as most UFC Countdown shows. This can be discounted slightly considering the uniqueness of the Rock/Cena show.
- The Atlantic had an interesting article pre-Wrestlemania asking the question of whether there would be blood in the HHH-Undertaker match. It’s an interesting read on the business versus entertainment decisions behind blood in the match. In the end, there was no blading (although HHH did bleed unintentionally).
- And the big news for UFC fans is that Brock Lesnar has signed with the WWE. Although he didn’t make his appearance last night, you may want to tune in tonight to see if Lesnar shows. His contract is rumored to be for one year with limited appearances but big money.
Despite missing target date, WWE still plans network
March 31, 2012
Despite a delay in its plans to get a network off the ground, the WWE is still working on developing an over the air network. Originally, the WWE had planned the network to launch in conjunction with Wrestlemania this Sunday.
The WWE’s CMO, Michelle Wilson, indicated to the News Times (a local paper in Connecticut) that the WWE is in late stage negotiations with a distributor. Its goal is to reach 50 million viewers with its network. Wilson stated that the WWE would charge a subscription fee from each distributor. Wilson’s comments addressed concerns in a New York Post article which identified the delay for the network noting the difficulties faced by the WWE.
The WWE recently posted a disappointing 4th Quarter with substantial losses from its film division – another WWE venture which has been the brunt of the financial freefall by the company. It also spent $4 million on building the network in Q4.
But the fact remains that the network must turn a profit sooner than later. Analyst Michael Kupinski emphasized the need for this to the News Times:
“It appears that the company will bear much of the cost. They have soft fundamentals, and the cable channel could lose money for a period of years,” he said, adding that having a financial partner would help. Kupinski had previously said developing the new cable network could cost $10 million to $15 million.
The network would need to convince distributors that it would attract viewers and advertisers for it to catch on. It may be hard to attract a financial partner with the current economic climate and the fact that the WWE, like the UFC, enjoys control over its product.
Payout Perspective:
Looking at the financial losses the WWE’s film division has had would give pause to distributors and investors about the potential success of the WWE network. It appears that the launching of the network at Wrestlemania was ambitious at best. Despite great ratings from its television shows, producing 24/7 content will need to attract more viewers than its core wrestling audience. While the WWE owns a vast library (which would be great for nostalgic wrestling fans), original content and WWE films might not get the job done. The WWE is cultivating its content on its YouTube channel but we will see if this translate to over the air success. Time (and its balance sheet) will tell whether the network will get off the ground and when.
King Mo ousted by Zuffa
March 28, 2012
Tuesday was a bad day for “King” Mo Lawal as he was suspended by the Nevada State Athletic Commission 9 months and fined $39,000 for using Performance Enhancing Drugs. To compound the suspension, Lawal took to twitter to vent which lead to Zuffa cutting Lawal.
As you may recall, Lawal tested positive for PEDs after his last fight in Strikeforce in January. The hearing before the Nevada State Athletic took place on Tuesday and it didn’t go well. Lawal was fined a total of $39,000 and suspended 9 months by the NSAC. Also, his KO of Lorenz Larkin was ruled a No Contest.
MMA Fighting reports that Strikeforce’s Scott Coker stated that the release was based upon the “subsequent reaction” by Lawal. This is in reference to Lawal’s twitter rant after the hearing. The tweets railed against a female member of the NSAC questioning Lawal as she asked if he could read and if he spoke English. Lawal took offense and some of his tweets reflected his disdain. As a result, Zuffa notified Lawal’s management that the fighter had been let go.
With Lawal’s termination came the uproar as to the lack of symmetry in doling out punishments by Zuffa. But there is a code of conduct in fighters’ contracts.
MMA Junkie provides the section in a Zuffa fighter’s contract regarding code of conduct:
Section 9.1 of the Zuffa (or Forza, LLC for Strikeforce fighters) contract states:
“Fighter shall conduct himself in accordance with commonly accepted standards of decency, social conventions and morals, and Fighter will not commit any act or become involved in any situation or occurrence or make any statement which will reflect negatively upon or bring disrepute, contempt, scandal, ridicule, or disdain to Fighter, the Identity of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates, FORZA or any of its officers, managers, members, employees, or agents.
“Fighter’s conduct shall not be such as to shock, insult or offend the public or any organized group therein, or reflect unfavorably upon any current or proposed sponsor or such sponsor’s advertising agency, or any network or station over which a Bout is to be broadcast.”
Payout Perspective:
The termination issue here is based on Lawal’s tweets, something that has gotten UFC fighters in trouble in the past. Recent memory will point us to Miguel Torres and his brief expulsion due to an off color tweet. Also, Torres was taken back into the good graces of Zuffa less than a month after he was terminated. But Forrest Griffin had a controversial tweet about rape and was not punished. Rashad Griffin made a topical, yet off-color remark about Phil Davis’ alma mater, Penn State in promoting their fight and was not punished either.
As for the reason for the tweets, it’s certainly understandable for Lawal to be upset for the line of questioning about whether he could read and/or speak English. As an attorney that’s actually been in situations like this, feelings are hurt and it’s unfortunate that this happens in the profession. After listening to the audio, it seems like Pat Lundvall was asking a line of questioning which would segue into further questioning. Definitely, she could have asked different questions to get to the same point. But, it appears that she may have been upset with the fact that Lawal did not actually fill out the questionnaire which she questioned Lawal about preceding the read and speak questions. Honestly, I’m not even sure if she realized that the questions were condescending. But that’s only speculation.
The termination gives cause to pause about whether there should be a need to inform Zuffa fighters about its twitter policy (maybe implement one if one does not exist). Zuffa could amend its code of conduct to specifically include social media use to spell it out to its fighters too. For a tool it wishes, and in fact awards, its fighters for using, there needs to be some ground rules. While it doesn’t want to restrict tweeting, fighters need to be smart about what they are tweeting. Lawal has been through a difficult time and the tweets reflect his frustration. But, he should have self-imposed a cooling period. Stay off of twitter for a day so your tweets don’t get you into trouble. It’s one of the reasons why the media is not let into locker rooms immediately after a football/basketball game. Players need to calm down lest they say something they regret.
In the end, Lawal may still have a chance to comeback to Zuffa. If he shows contrition for his tweets and accepts the suspension, Lawal still may land back in Strikeforce or even the UFC. One need only look to Miguel Torres. You could even point to Nate Marquardt as a fighter exiled by the company only to return.
Despite ratings White still hopeful with TUF Live
March 26, 2012
MMA Junkie reports that despite good reviews, The Ultimate Fighter Live ratings are not reflective of the praise. Still, Dana White believes that the show is positioned well on FX.
The debut of TUF Live on FX scored an average of 1.28 million viewers yet saw a decline in the ratings over the course of the show. The second episode last week were down with a 1.1 million viewer average. We may discount last week’s ratings decrease since it went up against the NCAA Tournament.
Via MMA Junkie:
“There’s so many things that are involved in those numbers,” White said. “I didn’t expect to jump on FX and do 3.5 million viewers right out of the gate. But here’s the thing: The format is awesome. It’s perfect. We’ve got a great season, and we’re going to build this thing.
“Believe me, the way that FX deals with their programming and how they handle it, they’re so analytical. These guys are like [expletive] rocket scientists how they break this stuff down and look at it. Trust me, everything is positive over there.”
One thing that has peaked White’s interest is that Vegas sportsbooks are taking action on the TUF Live fights. White also addressed the fact that the ratings are due in part to the NCAA tourney.
“March Madness” will wrap soon, casual viewers will eventually figure out the show is now on FX, and hardcore fans may very well become again interested in the show thanks to the new format.
Payout Perspective:
We may discount last week and this week due to the tournament but we shall see if viewers will gravitate to FX. We will see if the ratings will increase over the season as White predicts (or hopes). The UFC has tinkered with the show to keep the show different and the jury is still out on whether the live fights will attract more viewers. Of course, there was White’s initial expectations about the viewership doubling on FX. Perhaps we were not to take this literally or expect the ratings to double in the first season on FX but there are definite expectations on how TUF Live will perform.
Justin.tv scores win against Zuffa
March 23, 2012
Eric Goldman and Techdirt first reported Justin.tv’s victory in prevailing in its Motion to Dismiss certain claims from Zuffa’s Complaint filed in Nevada. While the case remains, the court ruling March 8th did damage to Zuffa’s case.
The lawsuit stems from Justin.tv allowing visitors to its website to view, illegally, UFC 121 which featured Cain Velasquez defeat Brock Lesnar for the UFC Heavyweight title.
Justin.tv brought a Motion to Dismiss (filed in Sept 2011) to dismiss portions of Zuffa’s Complaint. The Court ruled March 8th in dismissing the following causes of action:
- Trademark: Zuffa unsuccessfully claimed that Justin.tv infringed on its copyright as its logos were shown without consent during the illegal streaming of UFC 121 on Justin.tv. While the court did not agree with Justin.tv’s argument, it sided with Justin.tv in finding no infringement. The court held that Zuffa’s claims would allow Zuffa to hold copyright claims after it were to expire.
- The “Stealing Cable” Statute: Section 230 of the Communications Act is nicknamed “stealing cable” as most claims under the statute arise out of this.
According to the court’s order, the law has been frequently used to limit suit against websites for alleged defamatory comments or reviews created by their users. The statute has been applied in other instances but the court does not get into the actual claim. In dismissing Zuffa’s claim under section 230, the court acknowledges in a footnote the policy reason for dismissal. The Court hypothesizes a scenario in which the floodgates of litigation would open up due in cloud computing.
Via court order:
Footnote 6
Zuffa argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of its users’ UFC video streams creates liability under the Communications Act. Logically, if the Court were to allow claims such as these, it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of “cloud computing” service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, WindowsPhone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such asApple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under theCommunications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act. Yet, Zuffa arguesfor exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effectof the statute in this manner
In addition to the court’s ruling, Zuffa stipulated to dismiss its cause of action for Deceptive Trade Practices under Nevada law. No discussion was needed.
Zuffa v Justin Motion to Dismiss Order
Payout Perspective:
The court ruling is a blow to Zuffa’s legal strategy. While Zuffa still has causes of action against Justin.tv, its novel approach to combating online piracy was diffused by the court. Zuffa could still prevail against Justin.tv but the court’s ruling damages future intellectual property claims it may have against illegal streaming sites.
