UFC on FOX 3: Diaz vs Miller Overnight Ratings: 2.25 Million Viewers
May 6, 2012
TV By The Numbers reports on the overnight ratings for UFC on FOX 3, as it wins the time slot for adults 18-49 with a 1.0 rating and a 4 share with an estimated 2.25 million total viewer average (the numbers may be adjusted upwards due to the nature of live programming).
The report states the following:
FOX won a slow Cinco de Mayo in adults 18-49 with its broadcast of a UFC fight, while CBS was number one in total viewers.
.
The latest UFC on FOX bout scored a 1.0 rating among adults 18-49.
.
On CBS, 48 Hours Mystery was the night’s top rated show among adults 18-49, earning a 1.3 adults 18-49 rating, up from last week’s 0.9.
Payout Perspective:
The numbers are down from the first two FOX events. In November of 2011, UFC on FOX debut drew a 3.1 rating with 5.7 million viewers with a peak of 8.8 million viewers. Earlier this year, UFC on FOX 2 drew a 2.6 rating with 4.66 million viewers with a peak at 6.08M. The West Coast tape delay and overrun may help with the final tally for the ratings a little bit, but I don’t see it topping 3 million viewers this time around, which has to be considered a bad number for the UFC and FOX.
The UFC focused on putting on exciting match-ups this time around, but what they made up for in exciting fights, it severely lacked in star power as was the case for the first two shows. UFC on FOX 4 appears to be following a similar blueprint, as Brian Stann vs Hector Lombard has already been booked for the main event, but will have a much better co-main event with Lyoto Machida taking on Ryan Bader.
Zuffa rings bell at NASDAQ
May 5, 2012
In promotion of the UFC’s third appearance on Fox, Zuffa fighters rang the NASDAQ bell earlier this week in New York’s Times Square. Jon Jones, Frankie Edgar and Strikeforce’s Ronda Rousey were on hand as well as UFC on Fox anchor Curt Menefee.
Photo via UFC press release
Payout Perspective:
This has been the only real mainstream promotion for today’s card (if I’m missing something, please let me know in the comments) on the network. And, it wasn’t even the New York Stock Exchange. Nevertheless, a good photo op and another subtle hint that New York should have MMA. It’s interesting that Rousey is getting a push from Zuffa as she recently was on TUF Live and testified against against AB 2100 in California.
Vice Media introduces UFC online channel this fall
May 4, 2012
Variety reports that digital company Vice Media plans a UFC channel to its offerings starting in September 2012. The UFC online channel will be dedicated to the culture of MMA.
Via Variety:
The network’s lineup includes “Body Shop,” exploring the science of fighting; adventure-travel show “The Coming of Man” documenting fighters as they experience traditional male rights of passage; “Little Big Guys” showing what it takes for a kids to become MMA bruisers; and “Cooking to Fight,” which pairs world-class chefs “with men attached to the most dangerous fists on the planet.”
According to its media kit, Vice Media’s mean age is 27 and male dominated which skews toward the UFC’s demo.
Payout Perspective:
The description of the shows already peaks my interest in tuning in this fall. We will see how the channel will produce content in addition to what the UFC does for FX and Fuel. With these shows, one would think someone could think of ideas for viewers to tune into TUF Live (that is somewhat of a joke). It will be interesting to see how many gravitate toward the UFC channel this fall.
UFC left off of ESPN salary list for lack of information
May 3, 2012
Earlier this week, ESPN released its list of highest paid athletes in sports. Notably, the list left off the sport of MMA and specifically the UFC due to the fact that it could not confirm salary data.
MMA Fighting wrote that Dana White is right and wrong with not releasing fighter salary data. It states that White is right to withhold salary info because it is private. Presumably, it protects the privacy of its fighters by not telling everyone how much they make per fight. However, there is a reason to release salaries:
Football, basketball and baseball are mainstream because they’re big business. And part of the reason we know they’re big business is because players salaries are made public.
It then argued a reason to make salaries public is to entice up and coming fighters.
And make no mistake, there are plenty of possible MMA stars who are on football fields. In many parts of the country, football and wrestling work together to create quality athletes. But then what happens? As the athlete progresses, he starts thinking about his future. And where is there a better chance for a future? Of course most, if given the opportunity, will move on to football. Why? Because long-term, there is a chance for a windfall payday. Even if it’s remote, there is a chance.
It uses the Jones brothers as an example. Two of the Jones brothers are now in the NFL while Jon is probably the most famous as the UFC champ. This example is flawed considering there is no evidence that Jon Jones was good at football (or any other sport) and chose MMA instead.
Payout Perspective:
MMA Fighting’s argument that the sport of MMA could lose out on potential athletes because of the lack of salary information is improbable. Most likely athletes will choose their profession based on the best possible chance of making it in the professional ranks of the sport. There are examples of athletes choosing a sport and then reversing course. (NFL First Rounder Brandon Wheedon played baseball a couple years before going back to play college football and getting drafted.) But that example is beyond the scope of the theory that someone will actually choose a sport based on how much you could make. There are instances of former football players taking up MMA after their pigskin career is done. But, that is after their first career is over.
Moreover, it’s not plausible to think that someone would choose a career in MMA over a career in NFL because money in MMA is not as good as that in professional football. Even without knowing the salary structure in MMA, one need only look to the salaries that NFL rookies will make to assume that if you had a choice to play professionally or fight in MMA, one would choose the NFL.
Transparency of the UFC’s salaries lends credibility to the sport based in part on the fact that the other sports are willing to reveal the way it pays its athletes. For the UFC to say “it’s none of your business” makes it seem that it is hiding something rather than protecting the privacy of its fighters. The ESPN OTL report builds on the premise that it is hiding something. Like it or not, that is how it is perceived.
Nevada states position on Diaz suspension
May 1, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that the Attorney General of Nevada stated its position to Nick Diaz’s claim that his suspension by the Nevada State Athletic Commission violated state administrative laws and Diaz’s due process.
In a letter which preceded Diaz’s lawsuit, the NSAC framed the suspension as “temporary” not a “summary” suspension as claimed by Diaz’s attorneys.
The Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto argues that Diaz’s lawsuit is misguided as the legal team “misunderstood” the suspension. In a letter to Diaz’s attorney, the AG explained the NSAC’s actions.
Via MMA Fighting:
“No Notice of Summary Suspension was ever served on your client,” Masto wrote. “In this matter, Mr. Diaz was properly served with a ‘Notice of Hearing on Temporary Suspension’ and he failed to appear at the hearing. The Commission temporarily suspended Mr. Diaz’s license at the hearing. Neither Mr. Diaz nor you objected in any manner to the temporary suspension.”
Under a “Summary” Suspension, the Nevada rules state that a hearing on the merits must occur within 45 days after the suspension. However, Nevada contends that the suspension was “Temporary” which does not come under the 45 day rule. A hearing on the temporary suspension was not attended by Diaz or his attorney. The Nevada AG also argues that Diaz’s failure to produce his medical marijuana card caused the delay in part. Nevada claims it will proceed with a hearing on the suspension although no date has been set. Meanwhile, the injunction hearing against the Diaz suspension will occur on May 14th.
Payout Perspective:
This post should clarify (h/t to Jonathan Tweedale) a previous tweet in which I stated that Nevada was responding to the lawsuit when in fact it was the lawsuit was the response to the letter sent by Nevada. One thing is correct from the tweet, in law, you have to read carefully. The timeline of events is important here considering Nevada’s letter to Diaz’s attorney regarding the status of suspension and the failure for Diaz to object to the suspension. Still, the Court will determine the status of the injunction on May 14th. This may clarify the status of the suspension and hopefully the commission will set a hearing date for it to hear the merits of the case.
White threatens no UFC in CA if AB 2100 passes
April 29, 2012
UFC head Dana White has threatened to cease holding events in the state of California if a controversial piece of legislation passes in the state. Assembly Bill 2100 was introduced last Wednesday and is supported by the Culinary Workers Union while opposed by the UFC among others.
Via San Jose Mercury:
(Assembly member Luis) Alejo wants to eliminate what he sees as abusive contracts, freeing up fighters to make Assembly Bill 2100 would prevent promoters from claiming unreasonable future merchandising rights, prevent unreasonable restrictions on fighters’ seeking outside sponsors and prohibit other onerous contract provisions.
Dana White told the OC Register:
“Do you know what’s going on in Sacramento, right now?” White said. “They are trying to pass this bill to raise our taxes and do a bunch of crazy (expletive) to us. They voted 4-2 for the bill. There were a couple of people not present to vote on it. If that thing passes we won’t do anymore fights in California. All kinds of crazy (expletive) they’re trying to throw in this bill for MMA. You know who’s doing it? The Culinary Union from Las Vegas. These guys have been (expletive) with us in New York, too. That’s why we’re not in New York. These guys got a bunch of lobbyists together to try to pass this bill against MMA. They are putting pressure on my partners, the Fertitta brothers, because they own the fourth-largest gaming company in the country and they are non-union.”
More info on AB 2100 can be found in our previous post.
H/t: Bloody Elbow
Payout Perspective:
Would it hurt the UFC economically if it did not run events in either New York or California? It’s an intriguing question considering the UFC derives most of its income from PPV revenues and many of its live events are expanding to new areas or in Las Vegas. The UFC is expanding internationally and could find new venues in the US to hold events. Still, not holding events in the two biggest states in America does seem odd. The self-imposed ban on the state of California would affect Strikeforce more than it would the UFC. Although the UFC held its biggest event in Anaheim (UFC on Fox 1), Strikeforce has held events in San Jose or San Diego more often than the UFC has held events in the states. Of course, we do note that UFC on Fuel TV 4 will be in San Jose and UFC on Fox 4 will be in LA. So, maybe the strategy is to stress the economic impact Zuffa creates in the state with the 2 upcoming events and threaten that this will all end if AB 2100 passes.
Blue Chip Sponsor Anheuser-Busch Warns UFC About Fighters’ Sexist, Homophobic Comments
April 27, 2012
AdvertisingAge reports that Anheuser-Busch, a major blue chip sponsor for the UFC, has “reprimanded the mixed-martial arts organization for remarks made by some fighters”. Multiple advocacy groups have recently criticized UFC employees and fighters for using comments described as “sexist and homophobic.”
A-B recently released a press release which stated the following:
“We’ve communicated to the UFC our displeasure with certain remarks made by some of its fighters, and they have promised to address this. If the incidents continue, we will act”
In a statement to AdAge regarding the A-B situation, UFC issued the following response:
With over 425 athletes on our roster, there have unfortunately been instances where a couple athletes have made insensitive or inappropriate comments. We don’t condone this behavior, and in no way is it reflective of the company or its values
…. unlike most other sports leagues, we encourage our athletes to engage online. It is part of our company culture, and whenever you are at the forefront of a trend or initiative, it comes with its own pitfalls. We will continue to embrace social media while looking for better ways to stay in front of the issues. This includes a mandate for our athletes to attend sensitivity training and a seminar on proper use of social media.
AdAge also cited three recent incidents that were documented in a letter by the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. One involves UFC fighter Quinton “Rampage” Jackson urging Japanese fans to say homophobic statements, another of UFC fighter Rashad Evans hyping his fight against Penn State alumni Phil Davis inappropriately stating “I’m going to put those hands on you worse than that dude did them other kids at Penn State”. The last is not a fighter, but UFC announcer Joe Rogan, who used sexist and misogynist language against Yahoo Sports blogger Maggie Hendricks after she pointed out Rampage Jackson’s inappropriate behavior towards female reporters. Plenty of other instances regarding UFC president Dana White performing similar acts have also been reported within the last few years, but were not cited in the write-up.
The letter that caused a lot of the recent commotion for A-B and the UFC was a letter from the group Alcohol Justice, who titled it “An Open Letter to Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) Shareholders – RE: Opposition to sponsorship of the Ultimae Fighting Championship (UFC).
The letter states the following:
Dear Shareholder:
As fellow shareholders and as public health advocates, Alcohol Justice (formerly Marin Institute) asks you to vigorously oppose ABI’s sponsorship of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the world’s largest promoter of violent cage-fighting events.
We believe ABI’s sponsorship of UFC must come to an end as there is a very tangible risk to the bottom line of dividends and stock price value as well as long term bad press as the relationship of this patently brutal blood sport to predatory marketing of Bud Light to underage youth are played out on the global stage of public opinion. It’s already being called “Blood Light.” This cannot be good for business, sales, or long-term profitability.
Alcohol Justice, the alcohol industry watchdog, has served as a leading research and advocacy institution for over 24 years. We monitor and expose the alcohol industry’s targeting of youth and minority populations, as well as the industry’s adverse effect on public health and the environment globally.
There is compelling evidence that exposure to alcohol advertising and marketing increases the likelihood of underage drinking. Since 2001, at least seven peer-reviewed, federally funded, long-term studies have found that young people with greater exposure to alcohol marketing — including on television, in magazines, on the radio, on billboards or other outdoor signage, or via in-store beer displays, beer concessions, or ownership of beer promotional items or branded merchandise — are more likely to start drinking than their peers.
As the primary sponsor of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) is delivering harmful content to millions of underage youth. At center stage is the ever-present Bud Light logo, imbued throughout all of UFC’s violent events, including live fights, Pay-Per-View, and television broadcasts that reach 354 million homes worldwide. These homes are filled with children!
In addition, millions of UFC fans of all ages have access to live streaming of fights via Facebook, and limitless YouTube videos of bloody fights, promotions, and “pornohol” such as Bud Light Lime ads featuring UFC “Octagon Girl” Arianny Celeste topless, underwear-clad and rolling around in a bed of limes.
UFC President Dana White has been quoted as saying “our targeted audience is anywhere from age 17 to 35.” He and a number of UFC athletes have recently come under fire for sexist, homophobic, violent and derogatory remarks, including jokes about rape and sexual assault. As A-B InBev shareholders we should be outraged by this behavior.
Given that alcohol is the number one drug of choice among America’s youth, and the U.S. Surgeon General estimates that approximately 5,000 people under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking each year, board members, shareholders, and consumers will become more aware of the ethical ramifications that continued sponsorship of UFC will have on ABI. Do we really want Bud Light ads to be condemned for irresponsibly delivering harmful content to millions of youth, exposing them to people beating one another to a bloody pulp?
We believe this will lead to mounting litigations, inevitable regulatory and legislative actions, and growing concerns about the safety of youth exposed to harmful content by viewing UFC promotions. All of this can only hurt ABI’s reputation as a corporate citizen and its robust revenue.
As shareholders we have an obligation to help protect stock value by holding the corporation to higher standards of responsibility, especially those related to underage consumption and harm. We can insist that management address these ethical issues with more integrity by pulling its support of this graphic, violent, bloody sport. While the world may still want to enjoy a Bud Light, it does not need “Blood Light.”
Respectfully,
Bruce Lee Livingston, MPP Executive Director/CEO
***
That very same day, Business Insider Advertising also wrote a write-up titled “Budweiser Threatened To Pull Its Ad Dollars From The UFC After Seeing This Guy’s Nazi Tattoos”. They went to state that the statement released by A-B regarding the inappropriate language and behavior is “almost unheard of in sports sponsorship, where advertiser displeasure is usually delivered to media partners behind closed doors”. The website also stated “While the sport can’t be expected to be a bastion of Edwardian manners, it is not until you see a collection of the kinds of things said by UFC pros that you realize just how unprofessional the organization is. What follows is a slideshow of incidents in which offensive language and behavior is used in the UFC”.
This is not the first time A-B has reprimanded the UFC. If you recall back at UFC 100 – the biggest show in UFC history to date – Brock Lesnar stood on the Bud Light logo, pointed at it, and said he was looking forward to going home with his wife and “drinking a Coors Light because Bud Light won’t pay me anything”. That problem was dealt with behind closed doors as both the UFC and Lesnar were reprimanded by A-B and during the post-fight press conference, Lesnar issued an apology for his post-fight behavior and continued to answer questions as a Bud Light bottle was strategically placed in front of him.
Courtesy of Bleacher Report
***
Regarding who is responsible for triggering most of this recent bad press for the UFC, look no further than the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, who has had ongoing labor dispute with Station Casinos and UFC owners Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta – who are both firmly against labor unions. So far, the Culinary Union has been credited for keeping the UFC out of the state of New York for several years by backing anti-MMA legislators in the state, triggering a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation, writing letters to UFC advertisers and TV partners (FOX) informing them of the inappropriate language and behavior of the organization and its fighters, the creation of http://www.unfitforchildren.org/ (a website illustrating many of these examples), and just recently, drafting up a version of MMA Bill of Rights and presenting it in front of the Nevada State Athletic Commission and recently in front of the California State Athletic Commission.
In terms of the labor union’s efforts against the UFC owners, this week has been a rewarding one. The letters to UFC sponsors and multiple anti abuse and violence groups has increased the awareness of lack of etiquette it has haunted the UFC in the past, when they just weren’t quite mainstream enough for anyone to care. Landing the recent FOX deal and essentially putting all their main competitors out of business in recent years has caught the attention of mainstream groups in the last year. Earlier this week, the proposed Bill of Rights hearing in Sacramento (AB2100) passed committee on a 5-3 vote. This bill would essential give fighters rights – many derived up from the Ali Act in boxing – which the UFC greatly apposes. UFC representatives essentially told the committee that if the bill passed, it would essentially drive the UFC away from California, which would have a great economic impact on not only the fighters, but also on the state. It would also cause a heavy burden and expense on the CSAC, which they are not equipped to handle.
List of parties who are in favor and against AB2100 amendments:
Support: American Rights at Work, Arete Agency. California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union. California Conference of Machinists. California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. California Police Activities League. California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Engineers & Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20. Fighters Online, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Jockey’s Guild, Mixed Martial Arts Fighters Association, Patient Networks, Professional & Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, United Food & Commercial, Workers Western States Council, UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO, Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132, two private citizens (Eddie Goldman & Juanito Ibarra)
Opposition: Goossen Tutor Promotions, Honda Center, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, HP Pavilion at San Jose, Ultimate Fighting Championship
…
Notice the opposition here.
- UFC is a given.
- Notice HP Pavilion in San Jose. Last year, the UFC’s purchased Strikeforce, which at the time was it’s main competitor, from the Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment based out of San Jose, who also owns the San Jose Sharks and manages the HP Pavilion. The problem with owning Strikeforce was that it kept UFC out of San Jose, a hotbed for MMA at the time, due to the nature of being competitors. Part of the deal to sell Strikeforce to Zuffa was for the UFC to put on several shows at the HP Pavilion per year. Since the purchase, Zuffa has visited San Jose for UFC 139 late last year and is currently scheduled for the Strikeforce HW GP finale on May 19th. Another date for a smaller UFC show was discussed for July and another big UFC numbered event is in talks before the end of the year. A bill which would would drive the UFC away and it’s now close ties to the promotion would obviously be bad business for the San Jose based venue.
- The Honda Center is the other California venue listed as opposition. Interestingly enough, that’s the UFC’s preferred venue when visiting Southern California, where they can heavily push and market towards the Hispanic demographic as they did for Cain Velasquez against Brock Lesnar and most recently on their FOX debut against Junior Dos Santos. UFC’s plan was to host another big event at the Honda Center by the end of the year.
- The other is Goossen Tutor Promotions, which is partly ran by Dan Goossen, a boxing promoter and the manager of ex-boxing champ James Toney, who previously fought for the the UFC back in 2010 against Randy Couture back in 2010. Goossen negotiated Toney’s contract to fight in the UFC at the time. Goossen also wanted to do James Toney vs Tito Ortiz even further back in 2003-2004 and a previous Toney vs Couture bout about five years ago.
***
Looking at the Culinary Union’s efforts the past few years, it’s apparent that their efforts have focused on keeping the UFC out of New York, trying to do the same in California (one of their biggest current markets within the US), and impacting the relationship between their major blue chip sponsors is quite the strategic plan. All would impact the UFC’s bottom line. I’m not sure the labor union can continue to be successful and continue to lobby against the UFC for years to come, but they are doing something most other groups have failed to do in a very long time, and that’s pose a challenge. If they weren’t taken seriously before, I can assure you no one from Zuffa is laughing at their efforts now. At the very least, it causes a few annoying and pesky headaches here and there for the Fertitta brothers in hopes that one day both sides can come to an agreement. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that a compromise will be reached anytime soon.
Diaz sues Nevada State Athletic Commission
April 26, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that Nick Diaz has filed a lawsuit against the Nevada State Athletic Commission. In addition, Diaz’s attorney filed a preliminary injunction which would stay Diaz’s suspension related to his failed drug test from UFC 143.
Via MMA Fighting:
The suit is asking the court to immediately stay the summary suspension handed out to Diaz by the NSAC as well as to enjoin the NSAC from going ahead in any further disciplinary proceedings. Diaz’s complaint also asks the court to declare his due process rights have been violated by the NSAC’s failure to promptly convene a hearing to determine the merits of the disciplinary complaint against him.
Diaz vs. NSAC
Diaz’s attorney stated that according to statute, Diaz’s disciplinary hearing must have been heard within 45 days of the temporary suspension or it would consider the complaint dismissed. However, Diaz failed to appear at a temporary suspension hearing according to the NSAC.
Payout Perspective:
This will be interesting to see how the court rules on April 14th – the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. Diaz is not challenging the merits of the NSAC’s complaint, but the process. This could have major implications for the NSAC and athletic commissions on a broader scale as it relates to how it governs.
Diaz indicates that he is ready to fight immediately if the suspension is lifted. This could be helpful for the UFC for its late summer/fall schedule as a rematch with Carlos Condit would fill a PPV main event in prelude to a GSP showdown in Montreal.
UPDATED 4/29/12:
Diaz’s primary complaint is that the NSAC has not acted within the statutory regulations provided by the state of Nevada which relates to his other complaint of lack of due process. Essentially, Diaz states that the temporary suspension required the NSAC to have a full hearing on the merits of his drug test and subsequent suspension. That has not happened. The NSAC had served Diaz with an Amended Complaint which adds the fact that Diaz lied on his pre-fight questionnaire. The NSAC may argue that the amendment to its original Complaint equated to additional time required prior to a full hearing on the merits.
Another interesting observation is the explanation from Diaz’s camp that it did not challenge the initial “Summary Suspension” due to the reliance that it would receive a full hearing “in the near future.” Diaz’s legal counsel does a good job in laying out dates of its continued request to the NSAC as to when Diaz may receive a hearing.
It’s an interesting legal strategy and its plausible that the injunction may be granted.
UFC 145 Salaries: Jones, Evans and Rothwell top payroll
April 25, 2012
MMA Junkie reports the salaries for UFC 145 as released by the Georgia Athletic and Entertainment Commission. Jon Jones and Rashad Evans were at the top of the $1.2 million payroll.
Via MMA Junkie:
Champ Jon Jones: $400,000 (no win bonus)
def. Rashad Evans: $300,000
Rory MacDonald: $36,000 (includes $18,000 win bonus)
def. Che Mills: $8,000
Ben Rothwell: $104,000 (includes $52,000 win bonus)
def. Brendan Schaub: $14,000
Michael McDonald: $16,000 (includes $8,000 win bonus)
def. Miguel Torres: $32,000
Eddie Yagin: $12,000 (includes $6,000 win bonus)
def. Mark Hominick: $17,000
Mark Bocek: $46,000 (includes $23,000 win bonus)
def. John Alessio: $10,000
Travis Browne: $24,000 (includes $12,000 win bonus)
def. Chad Griggs: $27,000
Matt Brown: $36,000 (includes $18,000 win bonus)
def. Stephen Thompson: $8,000
Anthony Njokuani: $24,000 (includes $12,000 win bonus)
def. John Makdessi: $12,000
Mac Danzig: $54,000 (includes $27,000 win bonus)
def. Efrain Escudero: $10,000
Chris Clements: $12,000 (includes $6,000 win bonus)
def. Keith Wisniewski: $10,000
Marcus Brimage: $16,000 (includes $8,000 win bonus)
def. Maximo Blanco: $13,000
Payout Perspective:
It’s interesting that Ben Rothwell was third highest on the payroll. Also Efrain Escudero’s return to the UFC meant a pay cut from his TUF winner contract. “Wonderboy” was the only fighter making less than $10,000. A rather low payroll despite the fact that $700,000 of the payroll was dedicated to the main event.
UFC 145 Prelims: 1.6 million viewers
April 24, 2012
MMA Weekly reports that the prelims for UFC 145 on FX scored an average of 1.6 million viewers. The ratings are a network high for the UFC Prelims on FX.
The ratings reflect the fact that the UFC on FX is increasing its ratings average each time its on the network. Despite the downturn in viewers to TUF Live on FX Fridays, it seems that fans are finding the UFC Prelims on FX just fine. UFC 145 Prelims tied for third all-time in terms of ratings for televised prelims on Spike TV and FX.
Payout Perspective:
Positive news for the UFC and FX. For the UFC, the high viewership helps with the probability that those fans were likely buying the PPV. For FX, it shows that the UFC viewership on the network is steadily increasing each time its on the network.
