Early 2010 UFC Schedule Intense and International

Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer comments on the intensity and apparently international aspirations for the UFC’s early-2010 schedule:

Moving the Lesnar fight gives UFC breathing room, as before this weekend, there seemed to be no back-up if Anderson Silva couldn’t fight on that show, as they didn’t figure on coming back with a light heavyweight title match that soon. The show in Las Vegas was figured to be headlined by Georges St. Pierre against an opponent to be determined, possibly the winner of the 11/14 match with Mike Swick vs. Paul Daley. Either of those opponents against St. Pierre on their own could be a tough draw, because as popular as St. Pierre is, nobody would give either much of a chance against him. But St. Pierre in a title defense on a show combined with either a Machida or Silva defense would pull in strong numbers. There is also the 2/21 show in Sydney, Australia that needs a main event (Yoshihiro Akiyama vs. Wanderlei Silva may be a good main event for Japan, but not for the UFC PPV audience, and is not planned as the main event).

 

During the past week, Dana White said things were looking good regarding a show in April in Mexico City. While things probably won’t work out timing wise, there was talk this past week that if everything worked out perfectly, the main event they’d want for that first show would be Lesnar vs. Cain Velasquez. If Lesnar beats Carwin and comes out unscathed, that could be doable, but it would leave Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, who up until this weekend was presumed to be the next heavyweight title challenger, waiting for the winner and needing a fight.

Payout Perspective:

The winter schedule really highlights the increasing difficulty the UFC is experiencing in booking main events. It’s become a delicate balancing act between booking solid headliners for international events in order to help expand the brand, but also saving solid headliners for the higher revenue domestic shows.

Title events draw significantly more than non-title events – the average by our estimates is nearly 70% higher – and it appears as though the UFC needs to make a decision:

A.) Limit themselves to one title fight per event in the hopes of saving a title fight for each show.

or,

B.) Accept that some, if not many, events are going to go without title events, and as a result their PPV numbers will be quite volatile.

Ultimately, their decision will, or should be, rooted in the prospective payoff in either situation. Does doubling up on title fights in one event really add that much more to a PPV than a single title fight? By the same token, does a non-title fight draw close to what a title fight should?

Additionally, there are certain factors that will likely influence those payoffs:

• The propensity for injury – or extracurricular activity – to postpone fights within the UFC. If the organization uses two titles in one event, that means they’ve got three titles left for the next 2-3 months (4-5 events usually). An injury to another one of their title holders could really nix their plans (and it has, Lesnar and GSP are two examples).
• Top-end UFC contracts that do not incentivize fighting on any event. Fighters with PPV cuts have openly refused certain fights, because their share of the PPV would be less in an international market.
• Can the UFC PR and marketing teams cultivate a consistent strategy to generate significant interest in non-title fights such that holding them no longer becomes an issue for the organization?