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

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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.

DrPhilG wrote: »

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?

Them taking a season of TUF was in my view to test their market in relation to the UFC.

Sky are cutting back their boxing coverage and have let a good few promoters go from their stable of promoters. They only have the Matchroom stable (Froch, Brook's, Frampton's and Barker's promoter) and they have Amir Khan.

Also, I think the fact the UK have no real serious threat to a title is another reason.

SevereMMA wrote: »

Im not sure ESPN does come free with UPC anyway

Aye, it is yeah, if you're subscribed to Sky Sports (so if you have Sky, you have ESPN). I just saw an ad saying it the other week, though, so it could be a new thing. But the fact is that Sky can't claim to have a bigger reach than ESPN anymore, they're pretty much on a level playing field in terms of numbers.

The consensus of most figureheads in the business is that Internet integration in TV is the future, not that the Internet will replace it. For anything to appeal to a mass market, it needs to be easy and accessible to use. TV's offer this, Internet streaming (even in its simplest form, like Netflix) requires effort from the user. So the net has to find a way to fit into television, not the other way around.

I'm happy to leave it, by the way, but before we do: when was the last time UFC had a PPV in France?

Dean09 wrote: »

And if it showed all UFC and Strikeforce events it'd be brilliant. I wonder have Zuffa put any thought into this yet?

I'd love that, though I really doubt it'd go ahead. The NFL Network had serious trouble getting off the ground in the States, and if NFL isn't a guaranteed success there, then other sports wouldn't stand a chance.

Now if Sky were to roll out the red carpet for UFC, as they did with Formula 1, that would be something I'd love. But it's miles away from having the guaranteed fanbase, that F1 has, to do so.

SevereMMA wrote: »

Oh i see, sorry

I don't know figures but i would guess that alot of people who used to buy PPVs in the US are now watching streams, this would account for the ever sliding PPV numbers (bar UFC 148 which is rumoured to have done slightly over 1 million)

Yes but are we talking legal or illegal streams here?

Ok but you need Sky to get the Sports pack, do you know what the combined cost is?

Not sure, I think it's approx €70 or so?

Does the HD box also cost? i think it does

With Sky yes but i don't have HD subscription.

So it would cost €34 a month for ESPN minimum (let's say u dont want Sky Sports etc because you only like MMA) and this allows you to watch all 2-3 (sometimes less) UFC PPVs a month (setting aside the fact that they don't show prelims and cut between blank (or green/blue) screens, sorry messages)

If the UFC were to open their own UFC online channel for €17 (half of getting ESPN) a month, with their own HD streams on UFC.tv, would you be willing to pay that?

Well i'm not so sure. At the moment i'm happy with the set up because that €17 you propose is an EXTRA €17 i'd be paying on top of my Sports subscription.

If UFC did that then all you would need is a HDMI cable (if u want it to display on ur TV) and a computer or mobile phone (like Galaxy SIII)

True. i watch all the prelims etc with a HDMI cable connected to my TV. But i wouldn't fancy paying €17 to watch the PPVs when I get them as part as a big sports package at the moment. Right now for that €34 I get pretty much every major sporting event worth watching all year round.

SevereMMA wrote: »

So you're paying over €70 (roughly) a month to watch UFC in standard definition (which is ridiculous) with constant f-ups from ESPN? (presuming you just watch MMA and not cricket, f1, football etc on Sky Sports etc)

No. I don't pay anything to watch UFC. I subscribe to the Sky Sports Package and pay accordingly. In the past I used to pay €15 per month for ESPN solely for UFC. Now it's a bonus channel.

Is there a cheaper legal way to watch UFC events live in Ireland than ordering Sky or UPC and the whole sports package?

I honestly don't know but i'm pretty sure if UFC start selling it themselves it takes away much of the attractiveness from any TV partner willing to pay for the coverage.

Let's say there are 3 UFC events a month, and then 4-6 UFC Tonights, 4 UFC Ultimate Insiders, 3 countdowns, 1 primetime set of 3 episodes and more UFC/MMA content a month, all and more for only €17,

so even if you don't watch any of the hype content etc, you would be only pay less than €5.70 per UFC event and it would of course, with it being the 21st century, be in HD

True. But I get in SD right now for free

Is it even possible to watch UFC Tonight etc legally in the UK & Ireland at this time?

it's on their You Tube page.

In the meantime, while we wait for the internet to take over TV, i would love to see in on Sky Sports (better HD quality in Sky Go (Sky Player)) due to the reasons like Sky Sports News hyping the events for non-hardcore fans like us, growing the sport, ESPN barely even mention that the UFC is on that weekend in the week leading up

I agree. I was disappointed to hear the ESPN deal was extended.