UFC 106: Payout Perspective
November 22, 2009
Welcome to another edition of Payout Perspective. This week we’ll be taking a look at the business side of UFC 106 which was held on Saturday, November 21st at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. The event featured the Octagon return of Tito Ortiz as he took on Forrest Griffin in the light heavyweight main event.
UFC 106 by the Numbers:
Attendance and Gate Figures
The announced attendance for the fight was 10,529, which drew a live gate of approximately $3 million (an updated figure should be available from the NSAC in the coming days).
Disclosed Fighter Payouts
- Forrest Griffin, $250,000 (including $150,000 win bonus) def. Tito Ortiz, $250,000
- Josh Koscheck, $106,000 (including $53,000 win bonus) def. Anthony Johnson, $17,000
- Amir Sadollah, $30,000 (including $15,000 win bonus) def. Phil Baroni, $25,000
- Antonio Rogerio Nogueira, $100,000 (including $30,000 win bonus) def. Luis Arthur Cane, $19,000
- Paulo Thiago — $16,000 (including $8,000 win bonus) def. Jacob Volkmann, $6,000
- George Sotiropoulos, $20,000 (including $10,000 win bonus) def. Jason Dent, $8,000
- Caol Uno — $20,000 (no win bonus, majority draw) def. Fabricio Camoes, $10,000
- Brian Foster, $12,000 (including $6,000 win bonus) def. Brock Larson, $26,000
- Kendall Grove, $44,000 (including $22,000 win bonus) def. Jake Rosholt, $15,000
- Ben Saunders, $20,000 (including $10,000 win bonus) def. Marcus Davis, $27,000
Disclosed Fighter Bonuses
- Fight of the Night: Josh Koscheck vs. Anthony Johnson ($70,000 each)
- Knockout of the Night: Antonio Rogerio Nogueira ($70,000)
- Submission of the Night: Josh Koscheck ($70,000)
MMAPayout.com PPV Buyrate Prediction
A weighted average statistical regression analysis of two different variables - viewership in Countdown to UFC and live gate revenue across 30-40 events – was used to derive a linear equation that allows us to input UFC 106’s respective Countdown (445,000) and live gate ($3 million) values in order to determine an expected buyrate figure for the event:
- Countdown Prediction: 340,000
- Live Gate: 555,000
- Weighted average: 447,000 buys
There are some rather large discrepancies in the pre-fight indicators – more so than normal – and I feel that’s largely because of the rapid fight changes that have plagued the card. UFC 106 was supposed to be another 1 million+ card for the organization given Lesnar-Carwin and Ortiz Griffin, which is why the gate fared so well (early buyers anticipated watching Lesnar defend his title). However, the Countdown to UFC figures showed a very low level of interest in the fight (445,000 is the second lowest Countdown total of the year for the UFC).
It’s really tough to get a gauge as to exactly how popular both Forrest and Tito are right now. Tito is coming off an 18 month layoff, but is one of the more charismatic sellers in the fight game. Griffin is coming off an embarrassing loss, but he’s got a remarkable amount of support within each event itself.
At this point 340k seems a little low, but anything in the 400k range wouldn’t surprise.
Business Story Lines:
- Griffin rebounds with split over Ortiz: It was a genuinely entertaining fight between two veterans looking to rebound and get their careers back on track. The series is even-up at 1-1, and the close, split decision nature of the fights almost demands a rematch between the two at some point. The crowd reaction to both fighters was interesting. Perhaps three or four years ago Ortiz would have had the support of the crowd, but Griffin seemed to be the more popular choice among fans in the arena and at the bar (save maybe in Huntington Beach).
- Koscheck and Johnson in strangest fight of the year: Johnson looked to have Koscheck on the run before delivering a knee to Koscheck’s head while he was on the ground. Koscheck fell over in agony, despite the replays suggesting that there wasn’t as much contact with Johnson’s knee as it might have seemed. Johnson was later the recipient of a few solid eye-pokes (most will recall his first fight against Kevin Burns where he was poked and dropped to the mat, at which point the ref called the fight).
It’s a little surprising that this fight was given FON honours – there were probably more entertaining bouts on the card – but it seems like there could be some political elements to the decision as it helps to smooth things over with the Koscheck and AKA camp (and reward the guy for stepping up on short notice so often).
While not a dive, the Koscheck knee did seem to be an embellishment. It’s not serious – Koscheck isn’t known for that type of behaviour – but from the perspective of a sponsor, it does bring to light the issue of accountability. These fighters are, in many cases, being paid a lot of money by sponsors, and they must be mindful to represent them in a responsible manner. It’s largely an issue MMA has been able to avoid, but as the sponsorship dollars continue to increase over the next few years, it’ll definitely be a point of contention for sponsors considering the reputation MMA has in some mainstream circles.
- Ortiz, Griffin for TUF?: The rumours have been swirling for the past few weeks about who might be asked to coach the next season of The Ultimate Fighter, and at the press conference Ortiz openly expressed a willingness to coach against Forrest on the show. It’s something the UFC will probably strongly consider, because the TUF show would help to hype a rubber match, Ortiz and Griffin would add two great personalities to the show, and it would be one of the rare instances where the series doesn’t tie up a UFC division for 8 months.
- Prospect Watch:Amir Sadollah, Brian Foster, and Paulo Thiago picked up victories and each looked pretty impressive. Thiago is probably the furthest along (having already beaten Josh Koscheck), but Foster managed to stop Brock Larson despite being fouled twice. However, Sadollah probably has the best to be the most popular fighter of the three – he’ll need a few more fights at the middle level of the division before he contends, however.
Anthony Johnson and Jake Rosholt performed reasonably well in each of their bouts but failed to pick up victories. Johnson and Rosholt both have a lot of potential, but are fairly one-dimensional fighters at this point. Johnson, in particular, is dynamic enough to be a significant draw if he can hone his skills (and develop some take-down defense).
- Various fighters wearing various UFC jocks:Paulo Thiago, amongst others, were wearing what appeared to be UFC branded jocks under their shorts. It leads me to wonder whether this might be the start of a further merchandising expansion into the equipment side of the business – something that would coincide well with the opening of several UFC Gyms in 2010.
The idea that the UFC could not only start its own line of gyms, but supply its clients with workout equipment, has the potential to be a serious revenue stream for the company. Moreover, the side benefits are enormous: the gym is a teaching tool and 24-7 advocate for the sport, and the equipment can further cement the UFC as the MMA brand.
- UFC 106 puts on a solid night of fight:the expectations of most were fairly low for this event, largely on account of Lesnar-Carwin being dropped from the card. As a result, the fights simply spoke for themselves. There were a mix of decisions, submissions, and stoppages that created a solid night of entertainment.
It was nice, for a change, to watch an event just for MMA, and not because it was the make or break of something.
NSAC Puts John McCarthy Return on Hold
September 22, 2009
Sherdog reports that the Nevada State Athletic Commission has placed John McCarthy’s referee application in the pending file, delaying indefinitely his return to officiating in Las Vegas, the Mecca of fighting:
In a mailed letter from Keith Kizer, executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, McCarthy, who submitted his application Sept. 10, was informed that the state “[does] not anticipate adding any additional referees at this time. We will place your application in the pending file in case the situation changes.”
Payout Perspective:
As others are noting, it’s difficult to believe that politics are not at play here. John McCarthy has made comments perceived as critical of commission head Keith Kizer, and there have been reports that McCarthy’s application was in jeopardy due to how outspoken he’s been.
Regardless of the reason for NSAC’s refusing to grant McCarthy an immediate return, it’s absurd that the commission has decided there’s no place for the best referee in the sport to practice his vocation in its state.
As McCarthy has noted, a license is not a right but a privilege, but it’s one that he’s more than earned. The job confers a sacred duty on officials — split second decisions that can determine the difference between life and death — and with the pattern (and it’s nothing if not a pattern) of incompetent officiating in the sport, with early and, worse, late stoppages more common than they should be, any state commission should literally beg John McCarthy to work its state.
The NSAC decision is at best an embarrassment; if an MMA death occurs in Vegas, and it looks to be the result of poor officiating, the decision itself might appear to be a tragedy.
NSAC Pass Instant Replay, "BJ Penn Rule"
August 20, 2009
According to MMAweekly.com the Nevada State Athletic Commission has passed two new rules in regards to MMA:
1.) Nevada will now allow officials the use of instant replays to determine if a foul contributed to an injury which resulted in the end of a fight.
The final wording as passed: “A referee at the conclusion of a contest or exhibition stopped immediately due to an injury to an unarmed combatant pursuant to NAC 467.718 and after making a decision, may view a replay if available in order to determine whether the injury in question was caused a legal blow or a foul.”
The rule addresses several controversial stoppages in recent history where a fighter lost a contest because the referee couldn’t see an injury that forced a bout’s stoppage.
2.) Dubbed the “BJ Penn rule”, it will now be considered a foul to have any sort of foreign substance (such as vaseline) on a fighters body.
Dubbed by a commission official as the “B.J. Penn Rule,” the use of foreign substances will now be added to a list of “fouls” in the Nevada Administrative Code that address tactics illegal to fighters, such as eye gouging, small joint manipulation, or biting.
Controversy surrounding the use of Vaseline at UFC 94 threatened to overshadow welterweight champion St. Pierre’s dominating fourth round win over lightweight champion Penn.
Payout Perspective:
It’s completely understandable that a number of sports fans would cringe when hearing the words “instant replay;” the mechanism is highly subjective, interrupts the action, and often slows things down dramatically.
Fortunately for MMA, the instant replay rule implemented in Nevada is likely to be seldom used and only on occasions of dire and obvious need – as was pointed out and illustrated by the Burns-Johnson eye poke.
The sport already has enough problems with officiating and judging. Instant replay, used correctly, is a welcome addition to help curb some of the legitimacy problems MMA might face as a result of bad stoppages or unfair decisions. It’s about getting it right – that’s what fans care about and that’s what’s good for business.
On a separate note – one related to the new “BJ Penn” rule – some might be surprised to find out that, while frowned upon, foreign substances such as vaseline on a fighter’s body weren’t specifically illegal. Rather, this is one of those examples that demonstrate how many of boxing’s rules and regulations were carried over to MMA. It was simply an oversight that was long overdue to be addressed – St-Pierre vs. Penn II provided the proper motivation to revisit the rulebook.
As MMA continues to grow, the rules and regulations will continue to grow and adapt along with it. The sport isn’t even close to where it needs to be from a rules and regulations standpoint, simply because it’s young and still developing.
The Issues of Referee and Judge Certification
July 1, 2009
‘Showdown’ Joe Ferraro has an excellent piece up at Rogers Sportsnet that details his experience with ‘Big’ John McCarthy’s referee certification seminar, C.O.M.M.A.N.D. (Certification of Officials for Mixed Martial Arts National Development).
The course is broken down into three areas and participants require a passing grade of 90 percent (at minimum in all three) to be certified. As it stands today, the course has a 75 percent failure rate, as participants simply do not make the grade to officiate or judge in MMA.
Would-be referees must know and identify over 25 takedowns, 35 submissions, 25 positions and seven sweeps, reversals and transitions. They also must know the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts inside and out.
After the identification of the aforementioned moves and keen knowledge of the unified rules, participants are also trained and tested on in ring / cage mechanics. This is comprised of what is required by an official before, during and after a bout. It’s not just about positioning (which is HUGE when refereeing) but dozens of other variables that are key to the safety of the athletes who put it all on the line.
All of this knowledge is paramount for one to be proficient in officiating and without it I do not understand how commissions around the world allow men and women to step into the cage/ring and ref without proving they have this type of knowledge.
If the four major sports leagues — the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL — mandate that officials are properly trained before being allowed to step onto the playing surface, why doesn’t MMA do the same? If this sport is expected to be taken seriously then this type of certification must be the bare minimum an athletic commission requires from an applicant prior to receiving their license to ref or judge.
Payout Opinion:
It would seem as though we’re finally starting to see the issues of officiating, judging, and bout scoring come to the front of the MMA hot topic list.
Just ask yourself: what good are the rules and regulations that MMA has put into place – those designed to protect the health and integrity of the sport and its fighters – if the individuals enforcing them are incompetent or unqualified?
Yes, the sport is growing – and that’s great for a lot of reasons – but the flip side of that growth is the increasing complexity of the issues surrounding governance, regulation, officiating, and judging.
MMA cannot afford to rest on its laurels; it must adapt to the many new challenges that it faces, including the issues of consistent officiating and judging.
And, believe me, as MMA ventures more and more into the mainstream, the quality of officiating and judging WILL become an issue. Look no further than the MMA competitions of the last week: the awful officiating displays at Strikeforce; the late stoppage in the Rizzo-Yvel fight; or the controversy of Tibau-Guillard, Guida-Sanchez, and Blackburn-Garcia.
While I’m not yet prepared to advocate that ‘Big’ John’s COMMAND is the answer – not that his course probably isn’t the best out there right now - I will say that a universal testing and certification program for both officials and judges is something of a no-brainer. It would afford the sport, its fighters, and its fans the consistency that they’ve all been longing for. It would also help to further cement the legitimacy of the sport in the eyes of its critics.
St. Pierre Trainers File Response with NSAC
February 26, 2009
This afternoon George St. Pierre’s camp filed a response with the NSAC regarding BJ Penn’s allegations stemming from his fight with St. Pierre at UFC 94. The complete response including detailed statements from Greg Jackson, Phil Nurse, Steven L. Friend, and John Danaher can be found here.
In a joint statement Jackson and Nurse issued the following summary:
We take our involvement in the sport of mixed martial arts serious. We hold the sport in high esteem and are honored to be two of the chosen few who are able to participate in this noble profession. We would not, nor would Georges or any of his handlers, advisors or his manager, do anything to jeopardize either Georges’ reputation or the integrity of the sport. Therefore, we believe strongly, that we have done nothing to violate Nevada State Athletic Commission rules or to otherwise impugn the outcome of UFC 94, the integrity of the UFC or the sport and that the Letter constitutes nothing more than Mr. Penn’s desperate attempt to protect his reputation and commercial value after being totally dominated by a superior athlete.
The filing also contains a proposed rule change to “avoid any possible appearance of impropriety” as it relates to greasing. The most significant feature of the proposal is the suggested use of alcohol or another solvent in a pre-fight wipe down.
Complete details of the proposed rule changes as well as the camps detailed explanation of the incident can be found here.
Punitive Decision Making in MMA: How To Handle The Grease
February 5, 2009
This is a subject I’ve wanted to write about for sometime now and as it happens, UFC 94 provided the proper timing and context for me to do so. The following is an article I wrote for maximumfighting.com earlier this week:
The fight between Georges St-Pierre and BJ Penn this past weekend was many things to many people. It was seen as the biggest fight in MMA history; it represented the ultimate showdown between two of the best, ever, still in their primes; and in doing so, it represented another one of MMA’s triumphs over boxing.
Then came the Vaseline and with it some very unfortunate controversy.
With the assumption that the aftermath of rounds one and two were likely the same, let’s take a look at what happened:
- Corner man and muay thai coach, Phil Nurse, applied Vaseline to St-Pierre’s eyebrows, nose, and chin.
- Then, Nurse passed down St-Pierre’s chest with his hands.
- Nurse re-applied a little more Vaseline onto St-Pierre’s face before rubbing his temples, passing over his shoulders, and then rubbing the middle of his back and chest with two-finger point pressure.
As a result, the Penn camp is contemplating whether or not to file an official complaint to the NSAC alleging that St-Pierre’s corner team illegally applied “grease” between early rounds of the fight.
While I’m inclined to believe that any application of Vaseline to the body was purely unintentional, this is none-the-less an unfortunate situation.
The incident casts a shadow over an otherwise brilliant fight, a brilliant performance, and a brilliant night for MMA as a whole. It takes one of the classiest and most well-respected individuals in the sport, Georges St-Pierre, and drags his name through the mud. It also links MMA with some of the under-handed tactics of its sporting cousin – where, to the uninitiated, grease is quite analogous to plaster of Paris.
That’s why the handling of this entire situation is so crucial, regardless of whether an official complaint is filed.
It also begs the question; under what criteria should a decision meet in order to be judged fair and just? Mine are as follows:
- 1. An NSAC decision must take into consideration the severity of the act, the history of the offender, and the overall context of the situation.
- 2. An NSAC decision must establish ample deterrent that will help to ensure that further illegal behaviour, unintentional as it may be, does not re-occur.
- 3. An NSAC decision must fully represent the NSAC’s role as the preeminent watchdog of the sport and fiduciary of public interest in order to produce the fairest outcome for all parties involved.
It would be easy to call the bout a no contest, suspend St-Pierre for six months, and fine him but is that really in the best interest of anyone? Certainly, it would deter even unintentional illegal acts, but there are ways to achieve deterrence without brute force or heavy-handedness.
In my opinion, the best way to handle the situation is to keep things simple: start by revoking the corner license of Phil Nurse (who applied the Vaseline) and then fine St-Pierre $60, 000, which amounts to approximately 15% of his reported base pay.
My reasoning is simple. The fact that this incident happened and is now public knowledge is enough to increase awareness moving forward – it’s enough to send the message that everyone must be more careful.
Similarly, revoking the corner license and fining the fighter serve as additional deterrents to commit illegalities and ample incentives for corner people to pay more attention to exactly what they’re doing.
Lastly, it’s the least disruptive to the sport and takes into consideration the severity of the incident in addition to the upstanding track record of St-Pierre and his corner.
Is NSAC Steroid Testing Toothless?
January 30, 2009
Ivan Trembow of MMAWeekly and Ivan’s Blog did some excellent investigative research into the recent steroid testing (or lack thereof) by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. NSAC has been hailed for their implementation of out of competition testing, a move seen as key in actually deterring fighters from using performance enhancing drugs. In order for these tests to be effective, though, they have to actually be administered to the fighters, something that hasn’t been done according to Trembow’s report:
The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not test any fighters on the UFC 94 card as part of its out-of-competition drug testing program.
In addition, there were no fighters subjected to the out-of-competition drug testing program who competed on the WEC event on December 3; or on the UFC events on December 13 or December 27. All four events took place in Nevada and fall under the NSAC’s jurisdiction.
When asked on January 15 if any fighters on the January 31 card had been tested as part of the NSAC’s out-of-competition drug testing program, NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer replied, “Not yet.”
When asked earlier this week, on January 28, if any fighters on the January 31 card had been tested as part of the NSAC’s out-of-competition drug testing program, Kizer replied, “No.”
NSAC’s taking a 2+ month steroid testing holiday comes off making their steroid testing policy look weak, ineffectual, and toothless. Using the crutch of “Well, the fighter had to operate under the assumption that he could possibly be tested,” will probably be trotted out but I think would be a weak argument. You catch fighters using steroids by testing them for steroids, something that NSAC has been remiss in doing. Having an out of competition testing policy and then basically mothballing it for months at a time calls into question NSAC’s whole commitment to providing an environment that is from of performance enhancing drugs.
Trembow Details Zuffa Doublespeak on TUF Antics
January 17, 2009
Ivan Trembow of MMAWeekly and Ivan’s Blog details the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s discomfort with the activities that took place on the 8th season of The Ultimate Fighter. Trembow highlights the seeming doublespeak that has taken place in regards to the criticism, with the media getting one line and regulators getting another:
“Lorenzo Fertitta stated that the UFC does not condone the behavior of those contestants and wants the State and the sport to be reflected in a good light. Lorenzo Fertitta stated that in the future there will be a closer look at any behavior that might be offensive prior to broadcast, and that Zuffa does not encourage such behavior and had no prior knowledge of it occurring.”
“According to an article by Yahoo Sports’ Kevin Iole that was published on January 13 (several weeks after this meeting took place in December between Zuffa and the Nevada State Athletic Commission), “UFC president Dana White said he’s not going to require the fighters to change anything about the way they behave. That means alcohol stays in the house and the fighters are free to do what they please when they please.”
Trembow also notes the somewhat incestuous relationships that arise when NSAC and Zuffa come to the table that suggest that there may be more bark than bite in NSAC’s interest in the TUF antics:
Present at the meeting were Lorenzo Fertitta, Frank Fertitta, Dana White, Marc Ratner, Kirk Hendrick, Michael Mersch, Lawrence Epstein, Andrea Richter, and Craig Piligian, at least four of whom were previously part of the NSAC in some capacity (Lorenzo Fertitta, Ratner, Hendrick, and Mersch).
Also present at the meeting were NSAC Commissioners Bill Brady, Skip Avansino, John Bailey, T.J. Day, and Pat Lundvall, as well as Executive Director Keith Kizer, Recording Secretary Sandy Johnson, and David Newton, who was attending on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office.
Fight Biz Quote: Dana White
October 14, 2008
White proceeded to say Petruzelli’s comments, which were later amended to say he was only referring to a knockout bonus he earned, deserve a criminal investigation, and a formal inquiry in all states where Elite XC has staged fights. White said if Florida requires a formal complaint to amplify its current probe, he will “look into” making one himself.
“If this happened in Nevada, or if it happened with me, the FBI would be investigating it. If this thing does not get investigated properly, it’s the biggest slap in the face to sports.”
Dana White, speaking to the LA Times. All of a sudden the EliteXC card in Reno gets a bit interesting. With White willing to enter the process based on his comments above and EliteXC doing their next card from Nevada, NSAC head Keith Kizer may be getting a call and making a few of his own.
Overworked?: The Potential Impact of Comprehensive Steroid Testing
February 11, 2008
There are a series of important questions to be answered in a “clean” (ignoring the fact that testing cannot completely stop steroids, much less HGH) MMA industry, however, none is more important than those that relate to recovery time. Without steroids, how many times per year can the industry’s top stars fight?
As a rough case study, consider the number of fights for headliners of major (i.e. numbered) UFC events in 2006 and 2007. Those 23 fighters (excluding Ken Shamrock and Royce Gracie) fought an average of 2.5 times per year during that period.
Even ignoring mitigating circumstances (contract status, booking choice, etc.), if any significant percentage of those fighters are on steroids and physically need them in order to maintain their current work load, then 1-2 fights per year may be a more realistic projection for the average top fighter than the current 2-3.
That reduced work rate would have significant consequences for the industry. People pay to see stars. The fewer times any given star is able to fight, the more stars the industry must develop to fill the top of the card.
That only leaves one question left to answer: how many fighters are using steroids in the “off season?” Dave Meltzer provided some context in the February 4th editor of The Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Meltzer wrote:
From talking with a few athletes since this announcement was made, the feeling is it is far more significant than most think. Nobody knows the percentage of MMA fighters who use steroids, but the number isn’t low. According to one person who distributes with a major camp and named names, the best way I can put those results is, there were guys, based on looks, guys who you wouldn’t think are using steroids who do during the off-season, guys you would be sure of who are; and guys who ar name stars who you would think are or at least might, but wouldn’t be sure, who both are and aren’t. The idea everyone is using them so it’s a balanced field that many supporters of steroids in MMA claim is clearly not the case. But top guys, and mid-level guys are using, because they know the specific dates they are being tested, which is the day before or day of their fight. Whether the percentage of top guys is 25% or 60% (and based on name fighters at the specific camp in question I’d guess 50% of the name fighters in the camp isn’t far off) who may use at some point during the year or much of the time except before a known test day, few if any are on leading up to the fight. But it is still both a physical and mental issue in the sport, and for those who use, a pretty significant psychological aspect of their training and mentality.
For now speculation is the best we can do about how widespread steroid use is and what the effect of comprehensive testing will be on the industry. Especially since one significant part of the equation is yet to be determined, namely, how aggressively will the NSAC enforce it’s new program? The selection guidelines presented in the memo are vague to say the least and give the commission total discretion for all intents and purposes.
