Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

**spoilers** UFC TV Deal in UK **spoilers**

Options
  • 14-05-2012 3:22pm
    #1
    JoeyJJ
    Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭


    So with the ESPN deal winding down to August what do people want for the next deal.

    Move to Skysports - Probably most expensive and spoilers would be harder to miss with SSN.

    Dedicated channel with a small enough monthly outlay available on Sat only probably.

    Existing Channel on Sky/UPC/Virgin that is on most monthly subs like FX.

    Freeview Channel on Sat


    I can't see either of the bottom two being options, as the wouldn't deliver a lot of UFC unless the Channel stumps up big cash and does tape delay as 3am advertisement isn't in every big corporation marketing strategy.

    Skysports would cost non subscribers approx 40 euro a month, its a big outlay to a lot of people.

    Dedicated channel, this would be a my preferred option if the price was right. However UPC and Virgin UK to add it to the cable network as well as it going onto Satellite subscriptions, it would probably pick up most content like the FX post fight and Monday night shows.

    Skysports would be a pain as a UPC customer you cannot get the HD channels and the subs are not cheap for the SD. ESPN is great for HD however they seem to have missed out on a lot of new content UFC do for FOX in the States which would be nice to have on tv.

    Where to next for UFC on UK TV 30 votes

    ESPN
    0%
    Skysports
    40%
    gimmickweemcdRainMakerfordy1208xtal191Pride Fightercallaway92smilerfChavwaysseiphilIndie.Varied 12 votes
    Dedicated Channel
    26%
    Ragdoll742Niall0preddypauldooCharlie HaughyCageWagerthe_doctor199ColGreen 8 votes
    Existing Channel such as FX.
    20%
    aFlabbyPandaJoeyJJJohn FergusonLeeg17onlyasuggestionSevereMMA 6 votes
    Freeview
    13%
    Drag00n79littlemanJonah42ben.schlomo 4 votes


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Jimmy Bottlehead
    Registered Users Posts: 10,118 ✭✭✭✭Jimmy Bottlehead


    TBH once UFC stops on UPC I'm going to give thought to dropping the UPC TV package. It's about the only thing I actually watch.


  • Options
    #3
    RainMaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭RainMaker


    Skysports
    Hopefully there's enough of a fan base there for ESPN to just renew or renegotiate a similar deal. I am sure they have a similar deal to the previous one with Setanta anyway.

    Worse case scenario is that it goes to Sky and the PPV events become actual PPV screenings


  • Options
    #4
    the_doctor199
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭the_doctor199


    Dedicated Channel
    I think it'll end up on Sky Sports, with an exisiting station coming in at 2nd. Relations between them and ESPN don't seem to be too good so I don't see UFC staying there. Would be happy enough for it to go to Sky Sports, unless it's SS3.


  • Options
    #5
    RainMaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭RainMaker


    Skysports
    I don't mind if it moved to Sky Sports as long as they don't make the big shows actual PPV events like they do with boxing and even WWE!

    I can't imagine there's too much demand for WWE PPV events, and yet that's what Sky does! Hopefully UFC will realise we don't like PPV over here in Euroland, plus with all these recessions and stuff over here we just can't afford it!

    I can understand how they can do it in the states, etc as venues like Sports bars, etc can purchase it, or even a groups of friends chip in to view it, but as most event start at like 3 a.m. GMT/IST, it's not as attractive an option over here.


  • Options
    #6
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    I don't mind any of these, as long at the deal is all inclusive.

    When the deal was fresh, we used to get everything, PPVs, Pre-Lims, TUF Finales, UFNs etc.

    Now it's like ESPN don't really care. They didn't even show the Fox show live last week!

    I wouldn't mind it going to Sky. They'd have lots of coverage and they'd really promote it.

    The knock on effects would also include a proposed move to PPV. The only shows likely to be PPV would be UK shows shown at a reasonable hour. And if Sky & UFC planned to move into showing UK (and perhaps Ireland?) shows on PPV, that would force them to put on top quality cards over this side of the water.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    callaway92
    Registered Users Posts: 14,357 ✭✭✭✭callaway92


    Skysports
    RainMaker wrote: »
    I don't mind if it moved to Sky Sports as long as they don't make the big shows actual PPV events like they do with boxing and even WWE!

    I can't imagine there's too much demand for WWE PPV events, and yet that's what Sky does! Hopefully UFC will realise we don't like PPV over here in Euroland, plus with all these recessions and stuff over here we just can't afford it!

    I can understand how they can do it in the states, etc as venues like Sports bars, etc can purchase it, or even a groups of friends chip in to view it, but as most event start at like 3 a.m. GMT/IST, it's not as attractive an option over here.

    I hope it stays on ESPN

    Also, HOLY SHÍT at you being a member for 9 years and only having 5 posts haha!


  • Options
    #8
    Varied
    Closed Accounts Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Varied


    Skysports
    MrStuffins wrote: »

    Now it's like ESPN don't really care. They didn't even show the Fox show live last week!
    .

    I actually didn't mind this as they cut the bulk of the ad breaks out of it.

    The ad breaks for the Fox live shows are a joke.

    I hope it goes to FX or ESPN.


  • Options
    #9
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    RainMaker wrote: »
    I don't mind if it moved to Sky Sports as long as they don't make the big shows actual PPV events like they do with boxing and even WWE!

    Not a hope.

    UFC isn't ready for PPV over here yet. Zuffa don't want that either, not just yet.

    The UK shows, maybe. But not the 3am starts. Not a hope. The only reason Sky have WWE on PPV is because it's part of their deal. WWE want Sky selling the shows on PPV. I really doubt they get too many buys, and WWE is HUGE!

    As for boxing, Sky have abandoned their Boxing PPV strategy. They weren't getting the buys and there was zero interest. A deal involving Sky showing UFC content and no pressure from either company to put the events on PPV would wuit both parties IMO!


  • Options
    #10
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,430 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    I'd say sky is the most likely. ESPN coverage has gone really bad lately, like choosing to show MLS instead a few weeks back.
    I'd actually like a dedicated channel provided it was at a reasonable price. It'd be a great channel if it showed all UFC events, tuf, primetimes, and other content. Strikeforce events would be nice too. Probably won't happen though.


  • Options
    #11
    SevereMMA
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭SevereMMA


    Existing Channel such as FX.
    Maybe not a dedicated UFC channel, but a dedicated MMA channel, would be great on SKY, there are all sorts of terrible channels on SKY that must be making money if they are still going

    I'd say it's a lot more likely that Sky Sports will get the rights next, Dana and Lorenzo have both hinted at it over the past few months, on top of the fact that the same people own FOX and SKY


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Niall0
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Niall0


    Dedicated Channel
    I guess its likely that it will end up on sky but i hope it gets good exposure if it does. It might help mma breakthrough in the uk if sky get behind it and promote it properly. Not sure if they can do that though as they have too much other sports to cover and i cant see them handling it any better than ESPN.

    Dont want to fork out for a sky sports subscription either as id have no interest in anything on it besides UFC.


  • Options
    #13
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,430 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Niall0 wrote: »
    Dont want to fork out for a sky sports subscription either as id have no interest in anything on it besides UFC.

    That's the same as myself. I have UPC and it's handy because I have ESPN hd and it's relatively cheap. But If I have to get the Sky Sports package that's an extra €30 odd a month! And I'd only use it for mma and a bit of boxing.


  • Options
    #14
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Niall0 wrote: »
    I guess its likely that it will end up on sky but i hope it gets good exposure if it does. It might help mma breakthrough in the uk if sky get behind it and promote it properly. Not sure if they can do that though as they have too much other sports to cover and i cant see them handling it any better than ESPN.

    Nah, Sky could and probably would do it! i mean, they have four 24 hour sports channels and have magazine shows for most of their sports. They could easily carry the likes of the UFC produced magazine shows and because of the time slots of UFC, the other sports wouldnt really infringe on that stuff.

    Dean09 wrote: »
    That's the same as myself. I have UPC and it's handy because I have ESPN hd and it's relatively cheap. But If I have to get the Sky Sports package that's an extra €30 odd a month! And I'd only use it for mma and a bit of boxing.

    And most of the boxing will be on Box Nation from now on. Sky seem to have thrown in the towel as far as international boxing is concerned. it says a lot when they have to show the likes of Mayweather v De la Hoya for free due to lack of interest and the only way they can get people to buy PPVs is by selling freak shows involving David Haye.

    Although, it's a good thing that the domestic boxing scene in the UK is really good at the moment.


  • Options
    #15
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    The UK shows, maybe. But not the 3am starts. Not a hope. The only reason Sky have WWE on PPV is because it's part of their deal. WWE want Sky selling the shows on PPV. I really doubt they get too many buys, and WWE is HUGE!

    Quick correction here, I covered the switch to PPV for the old Fox pro-wrestling website:

    IIRC Sky negotiate the rights with WWE then can decide what to do with them, themselves. WWE get paid either way because they're going to be in demand...so it really makes no big difference to them. Sky obviously choose to go (mostly) PPV as they feel they could generate more income, even without spectacular buyrates, through paid customers rather than late night advertising on free TV.

    It works differently to the US, where companies pay PPV providers then keep the income generated from buys (for example, I could have a PPV tomorrow if I had the cash to blow). Since Sky have a monopoly on PPV over here, they buy stuff in and charge. They're very protective of their image and what they put on PPV, because otherwise people will stop buying. It's why Chisora and the like claim David Haye ruined PPV for boxers in the country. Sky were severely put off after his shambles of a performance last year.

    The only thing Zuffa would be concerned about is whether moving to PPV would alienate fans before they've built a core base to still have interest, so the product doesn't die in this market, as you alluded to. I'd imagine that if they were offered good slots for the likes of TUF, the Countdown/Prime Time and Fox/FX shows, then they wouldn't mind Sky showing big shows on PPV. It'd be more Sky's concern over whether they think they'd get value for money in doing so. That's why we still get free PPVs over here, Sky don't see the value yet, and why it's probably only a matter of time before that changes.


  • Options
    #16
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    leggo wrote: »
    Quick correction here, I covered the switch to PPV for the old Fox pro-wrestling website:

    IIRC Sky negotiate the rights with WWE then can decide what to do with them, themselves. WWE get paid either way because they're going to be in demand...so it really makes no big difference to them. Sky obviously choose to go (mostly) PPV as they feel they could generate more income, even without spectacular buyrates, through paid customers rather than late night advertising on free TV.

    I used to work for Sky. AFAIK the deal is worked out that they negotiate the rights and WWE lay out a certian number of PPVs they must do a year.

    But maybe i'm wrong, we won't fall out over it :P
    It works differently to the US, where companies pay PPV providers then keep the income generated from buys (for example, I could have a PPV tomorrow if I had the cash to blow). Since Sky have a monopoly on PPV over here, they buy stuff in and charge. They're very protective of their image and what they put on PPV, because otherwise people will stop buying. It's why Chisora and the like claim David Haye ruined PPV for boxers in the country. Sky were severely put off after his shambles of a performance last year.

    True. The whole Haye thing was a shambles and the only way Sky could even consider Boxing PPV would be if there was a big British star fighting big fights. The best they have is Khan but there aren't too many willing to pay to watch him fight, he doesn't have the same following the likes of Hatton had.
    The only thing Zuffa would be concerned about is whether moving to PPV would alienate fans before they've built a core base to still have interest, so the product doesn't die in this market, as you alluded to. I'd imagine that if they were offered good slots for the likes of TUF, the Countdown/Prime Time and Fox/FX shows, then they wouldn't mind Sky showing big shows on PPV. It'd be more Sky's concern over whether they think they'd get value for money in doing so. That's why we still get free PPVs over here, Sky don't see the value yet, and why it's probably only a matter of time before that changes.

    True, but I don't see Zuffa (or Sky for that matter) seeing the UFC fanbase being ANYWHERE near big enough to launch UFC on PPV. They're still trying to build the fanbase and after all the work they're putting in i'd be surprised if they went for it earlier than was necessary.


  • Options
    #17
    JoeyJJ
    Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭JoeyJJ


    Existing Channel such as FX.
    A lot of love for Sky here, don't fancy getting a sub, I guess LOF or FSS will probably carry these events online so another out. However I have been getting used to ESPN HD feed and UPC don't have sky in HD.


  • Options
    #18
    Johnny Johnson
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Johnny Johnson


    RainMaker wrote: »
    I can't imagine there's too much demand for WWE PPV events, and yet that's what Sky does!

    Sky does under the insistence of the WWE.

    If the UFC does go on Sky then there will be no PPV unless the UFC put it into the contract.


  • Options
    #19
    CageWager
    Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭CageWager


    Dedicated Channel
    I hope it goes to sky and we can watch every fight live on tv. ESPN have done themselves no favors with fans by refusing to show FOX events and UFC output has become very fragmented and there is regular confusion as to where an event can be watched.

    If it goes to SKY they should do maybe 2 PPV per year in the UK, to be broadcast at 9pm GMT. with the PPV revenue they may be able to attract some bigger names to fight over here. Id be willing to pay €40/50 twice a year to see a title fight in london or whatever.. The rest of the events that will be on at 3am should remain free.


  • Options
    #20
    callaway92
    Registered Users Posts: 14,357 ✭✭✭✭callaway92


    Skysports
    CageWager wrote: »
    I hope it goes to sky and we can watch every fight live on tv. ESPN have done themselves no favors with fans by refusing to show FOX events and UFC output has become very fragmented and there is regular confusion as to where an event can be watched.

    If it goes to SKY they should do maybe 2 PPV per year in the UK, to be broadcast at 9pm GMT. with the PPV revenue they may be able to attract some bigger names to fight over here. Id be willing to pay €40/50 twice a year to see a title fight in london or whatever.. The rest of the events that will be on at 3am should remain free.

    Was that an ESPN thing? They just refused to show the events because they're on FOX in the US?


  • Options
    #21
    enfant terrible
    Registered Users Posts: 4,551 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    callaway92 wrote: »
    Was that an ESPN thing? They just refused to show the events because they're on FOX in the US?

    I believe ESPN didn't have the rights to show them here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    What I understood the confusion to be was that the rights were completely new when the Fox show was created, ie not included in any packages, and by that stage UFC had fallen out with ESPN in the US. Most recently with the Diaz event, ESPN had already agreed to air an MLS match by the time the UFC announced the show. So they showed it at the first available times lot after and UFC made it free to stream on their website.


  • Options
    #23
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    leggo wrote: »
    What I understood the confusion to be was that the rights were completely new when the Fox show was created, ie not included in any packages, and by that stage UFC had fallen out with ESPN in the US. Most recently with the Diaz event, ESPN had already agreed to air an MLS match by the time the UFC announced the show. So they showed it at the first available times lot after and UFC made it free to stream on their website.

    This

    They fell out ages ago because the prelim shows (the Spike ones at the time) weren't part of the ESPN rights package. ESPN didn't want to pay extra and they fell out. Apparently they'd mended the relationship but I can't see a renewed deal considering recent developments


  • Options
    #24
    RainMaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭RainMaker


    Skysports
    ^^^

    Looks like ESPN for another year so!

    " The Ultimate Fighting Championship, home of the greatest mixed martial artists on the planet, has signed a new broadcasting deal with ESPN, giving the channel the rights to all main live UFC events until August 2013.

    Confirming its status as the home of the UFC, ESPN's extension of the existing contract guarantees that all major UFC events will be shown in the UK and Ireland for the next 12 months..."

    http://www.espn.co.uk/ufc/sport/story/162944.html


  • Options
    #25
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    Glad to hear, ESPN is by far the best place for UFC over here at the moment. Knows how to present sport (my big fear with the possibility of it going to FX, else we end up with another situation like when it was on Bravo) and won't have too much competition for air-time/pressure to deliver (as it would with Sky).


  • Options
    #26
    SevereMMA
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭SevereMMA


    Existing Channel such as FX.
    This is terrible news in my opinion

    I'd prefer if it wasn't on TV at all in UK & Ireland rather than on ESPN, they show on tape delay, they take ad breaks at really stupid times, and dont cut back to the show on time, they dont show prelims and they show the same 4-5 ads over and over again for hours

    It would be better to not be on TV so that the UFC would make it available in ireland online, without ads and stupid tape delays for a football match that nobody wants to see

    If it was on Sky, that would be great for the sport, it would grow MMA massively in UK & Ireland because they would constantly be hyping the fights on Sky Sports News instead of cricket and other boring sports they constantly cover on SSN.


  • Options
    #27
    unknown13
    Registered Users Posts: 6,659 ✭✭✭unknown13


    SevereMMA wrote: »
    If it was on Sky, that would be great for the sport, it would grow MMA massively in UK & Ireland because they would constantly be hyping the fights on Sky Sports News instead of cricket and other boring sports they constantly cover on SSN.

    I don't think SKY want the UFC and there is a whole heap of reasons why they wouldn't want to show it.


  • Options
    #28
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,221 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    unknown13 wrote: »
    I don't think SKY want the UFC and there is a whole heap of reasons why they wouldn't want to show it.

    I don't necessarily disagree, but what are the heap of reasons?

    If they don't want the UFC then why did they take a season of TUF?


  • Options
    #29
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    Sorry, SevereMMA, pretty much disagree with every word you wrote. :P
    It would be better to not be on TV so that the UFC would make it available in ireland online, without ads and stupid tape delays for a football match that nobody wants to see

    That'd be much, much worse imo. Then it's either watch on the laptop or connect via HDMI to the big screen and not use your laptop for the night. Whereas now you can just watch on the big screen for free if you're subscribed to a TV package. It'd suit a tiny percentage, who watch most TV on their laptop, better. But that doesn't mean it's in any way a better solution. Likewise it'd suit me great if they sent me out tickets and flights etc to every UFC event, doesn't mean it's a good business decision.
    If it was on Sky, that would be great for the sport, it would grow MMA massively in UK & Ireland because they would constantly be hyping the fights on Sky Sports News instead of cricket and other boring sports they constantly cover on SSN.

    Nope, it'd mean you're dealing with the exact same limitations as on ESPN, only Sky would care more about boxing and WWE because they have bigger audiences (for now). Have you ever watched WWE on Sky? If you have then you'll see that this:
    they show on tape delay, they take ad breaks at really stupid times, and dont cut back to the show on time, they dont show prelims and they show the same 4-5 ads over and over again for hours

    Could easily be a critique of how Sky air WWE. On Sky you've got the Scouse lad talking about Tim Howard's goal, or Aguero's, and car insurance ads. They cut back to a logo of Raw for about 10-15 seconds almost 2-3 times a night. And so on. It's par for the course for TV companies who are airing another station's feed and not producing the stuff themselves, which UFC will never let anyone else do (look at how much Fox tried to control and how quickly a lot of that was corrected, for example), so it'll be the same anywhere.

    Only with Sky...they'd eventually want you to pay for it, so you'd start seeing the odd big card being PPV. Then most of them being PPV. Then, if they can get away with it, all UFC numbered cards being PPV.

    But yeah, you'd get boring UFC bits on SSN that wouldn't tell us anything we didn't know already. I dunno if that's worth the trade-off of having to pay extra for a subscription and then having to buy events on PPV though...

    Better the devil you know, I say. It's easy to say it'd be better doing it this way, but if it actually happened people would realise that the grass isn't as green as they thought. #NeverForgetBravo


  • Options
    #30
    SevereMMA
    Registered Users Posts: 435 ✭✭SevereMMA


    Existing Channel such as FX.
    leggo wrote: »

    That'd be much, much worse imo. Then it's either watch on the laptop or connect via HDMI to the big screen and not use your laptop for the night. Whereas now you can just watch on the big screen for free if you're subscribed to a TV package. It'd suit a tiny percentage, who watch most TV on their laptop, better. But that doesn't mean it's in any way a better solution. Likewise it'd suit me great if they sent me out tickets and flights etc to every UFC event, doesn't mean it's a good busecision.

    I use extended display so i can use my laptop and stream whatever i want thru HDMI onto my TV, better experience without the same ads over and over, and cutting out interesting segments for ads

    Nope, it'd mean you're dealing with the exact same limitations as on ESPN, only Sky would care more about boxing and WWE because they have bigger audiences (for now). Have you ever watched WWE on Sky? If you have then you'll see that this:

    Havent watch WWE live on sky, used to watch when i was young and it was on tapedelay

    More people have SKY than ESPN i would guess, and more people check to see whats on Sky Sports, more people will watch because of Sky Sports News hyping it, maybe it wouldnt teach hardcore fans anything but hardcore fans will watch anyway

    Could easily be a critique of how Sky air WWE. On Sky you've got the Scouse lad talking about Tim Howard's goal, or Aguero's, and car insurance ads. They cut back to a logo of Raw for about 10-15 seconds almost 2-3 times a night. And so on. It's par for the course for TV companies who are airing another station's feed and not producing the stuff themselves, which UFC will never let anyone else do (look at how much Fox tried to control and how quickly a lot of that was corrected, for example), so it'll be the same anywhere.

    I understand what your saying, but Sky dont make the huge f*ckups like last night for a very recent example, where they completely lost signal on the UFC on FOX during the event, and then went from green/blue screen (cant remember) to "we're sorry blah blah" which didnt even surprise me at the time, because its typical of ESPN
    Only with Sky...they'd eventually want you to pay for it, so you'd start seeing the odd big card being PPV. Then most of them being PPV. Then, if they can get away with it, all UFC numbered cards being PPV.

    I don't think so, it's on too late, Sky can barely even sell boxing pay per views

    But yeah, you'd get boring UFC bits on SSN that wouldn't tell us anything we didn't know already. I dunno if that's worth the trade-off of having to pay extra for a subscription and then having to buy events on PPV though...
    Better the devil you know, I say. It's easy to say it'd be better doing it this way, but if it actually happened people would realise that the grass isn't as green as they thought. #NeverForgetBravo

    I remember Bravo, no HD, couldnt check the internet for days as to avoid results, it was a joke

    the UFC.tv stream doesnt cut to blank screen and sorry notices every 2nd week, and u get control of way more angles, including corner cams/mics, overhead view etc etc, much better than constant ads and sorry screens in my opinion


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    SevereMMA wrote: »
    I use extended display so i can use my laptop and stream whatever i want thru HDMI onto my TV, better experience without the same ads over and over, and cutting out interesting segments for ads

    See, I'd be one of the main tech geeks in my group of friends, and I'd have no idea how to do that. So that's a solution that suits (I'd say) about 0.5% of the market of UFC fans in the UK and here. And it'd also be spectacularly stupid of UFC to do that as it'd also mean they'd lose out on massive TV revenue. So it's just a non-goer.
    More people have SKY than ESPN i would guess, and more people check to see whats on Sky Sports, more people will watch because of Sky Sports News hyping it, maybe it wouldnt teach hardcore fans anything but hardcore fans will watch anyway

    Not really since ESPN started being free with a Sky Sports subscription on most major TV packages. And people also directly associate UFC with ESPN now, since it was one of the channel's big calling cards when it was launched. The SSN features would be a nice little add-on, but it's not really enough to sway an entire TV deal on. It's a tiny, tiny asterix in the grand scheme.
    I understand what your saying, but Sky dont make the huge f*ckups like last night for a very recent example, where they completely lost signal on the UFC on FOX during the event, and then went from green/blue screen (cant remember) to "we're sorry blah blah" which didnt even surprise me at the time, because its typical of ESPN

    Ah they do now. WWE fans will be all-too-familiar with the screen going black at the start/during a show and then coming back mid-segment. That does happen. Again, both are dealing with the same restrictions in both types of programming in that they have to deal with an outside satellite feed (you can't compare football to that as Sky produce those broadcasts themselves). So, in a fair comparison, Sky are guilty of the same things ESPN are.
    I don't think so, it's on too late, Sky can barely even sell boxing pay per views

    Boxing is a sport in decline, and yet if Pacquaio or Mayweather fight they'll shift a ton of PPVs (and will do so again if another big British contender comes along). They shift wrestling PPVs at comparable timeslots, and have even increased the amount of PPVs in recent years. Why would they have a Sky Box Office sports channel if they didn't want to sell PPVs? I think it's perfectly likely that they would, eventually, want to shift UFC to PPV. If they can get a fight card that people will pay to see, they'll want to maximise profit from it, and PPV is a bigger earner (when it sells).
    I remember Bravo, no HD, couldnt check the internet for days as to avoid results, it was a joke

    the UFC.tv stream doesnt cut to blank screen and sorry notices every 2nd week, and u get control of way more angles, including corner cams/mics, overhead view etc etc, much better than constant ads and sorry screens in my opinion

    And 99.5% of people don't have the time or interest to care about that stuff, they just want to watch on the big screen, hassle-free. So, as stated, it'd be a terrible move.


Advertisement