jcohl says:

Justin – I don’t necessarily need MORE free-per views, I just think that with the current talent level and number of titles [5] being fought over, that its not unreasonable to expect a title fight with each or most PPVs. I also think that with the current level of popularity of MMA, a few more free offerings won’t bankrupt the promotion, nor would an increase in payouts. Maybe 25% is a bit high, but defintely the men building this sport deserve better compensation. If done WITHIN REASON, it is indeed possible for the fans to “have both” in terms of better compensated fighters and more free offerings. Many, many businesses find ways to offer more and charge less, and still do fine. In some cases they eventually wind up doing better, because their product and/or service is perceived as having higher value once the product pricepoint is made friendlier.

I do think it’s OK for the UFC to not have a title fight in every single PPV, providing there are enough contender fights to balance out the lack of a championship bout.
For my own tastes, when I look at the card, I think I would like to see a title fight to justify my ordering the PPV, or add another contender fight, such as Sanchez-Maynard. My personal feeling was that for me, the UFC wasn’t offering enough to garner my $45.
Also, if I really like a fighter, or a particular fight, I’m fine dropping coin on a PPV if there isn’t a title fight. In the specific case of 103, I didn’t find the card appealing enough to justify immediately ordering it, like I almost always do. I think the UFC is at a point where the consumer can take a close look, and make up their mind if they want to buy in or not, or even look for the deal to be sweetened with another great fight, like Sanchez-Maynard in all likelihood will be. For years I have pretty much blindly ordered whatever PPV the UFC put on in my attempt to support the sport, and average attending about 3 events every 2 years.
When it comes to MMA and the UFC, I put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Now that the sport has broken into the mainstream, and sources value the UFC in or near the 9 figure range, I feel I’ve earned the right to be a more picky and possibly demanding customer.

As for UFC 102 in Portland, I’m actually going to the event, and it doesn’t feature a title fight. This is primarily because I’m a longtime Couture fan, partly because Portland is a cool place to hang for a few days, and partly because I priceline’d a great deal on a hotel. As previously stated, I would sleep at the airport to see Couture fight, but thankfully I won’t have to this time around.

While I agree that my use of the term “panhandling” was inappropriate and unkind, I think it is always in the fans best interest, particularly in a lame economy, to keep the promotion on their toes in terms of product and cost. I also stand by my comment regarding Dana White’s ever-growing ego. I admire a lot of things the man does for the sport, but its in everyone’s best interest that he checks himself before he y’know…

Speaking of costs, they are by the way as you stated, $45 per, and not my incorrect $55 per.
Thanks for the correction.

dbiz says:

A 25%, across the board increase in fighter pay WILL hurt the UFC, and badly. There is no business anywhere i nthe world, that can increase salary expenses 25% without all but killing the company.

Sure more pay would be nice, but not at the expense of sending the sport back underground and out of sight. Furthermore, You would be hurting a majority of MMA fighters. The higher-end guys get a % of PPV sales and gate. In his prime, Liddell was getting 2 million per PPV. I laid it all out before, with numbers given by some headliners (don’t have the bookmark at work).

I’ve also been in favor of a 10k minimum, and very vocally so. But a 25% across the board raise for fighters ends the UFC.

jcohl says:

Justin, dbiz, chrisl, really good points, for sure.

This might be a bit off topic, but perhaps as an explanation as to why I see things a little differently is in order. About 6 months back, I like the rest of the country began taking a closer look at where my momey was going. After looking thru a lot of old AmEx statements and banks/ATM records over the last 6 years, it turns out that I’ve legitimately spent in excess of $10,000.00 on my MMA habit.
This “habit”, more like a passion really, occupies a lot of my spare time and spare cash. I consider it money well-spent supporting a sport I love and the promotion, for good or ill. The cold hard cash figure of 10 grand really made me start thinking about what exactly the UFC is offering for the money, and how they are spending the money I give them. I really like dbiz’s suggestion of a 10K minimum. If the UFCand other MMA promotions instituted such a policy, I would gladly accept increased PPV and event costs if I knew the money was definitely going to the men making the sport great, and not a handful of suit-wearing investors who’ve never stepped inside the cage and who don’t know the difference between an armbar and a candy bar.

Which is what I like about numbers. MY numbers tell me how much I’ve spent, and JUSTIN’S numbers tell me how much the UFC has given in return. You’re right that its my perrogative whther or not to “buy in” to a specific PPV. The truth is I let my love for the sport color my judgement, and basically buy whatever MMA offerings PPV has on tap, and pretty much every UFC PPV in the last 5 years except for the ones I attended.

I think going forward I should maybe try seeing things thru clearer eyes, and take your numbers into account when I comment on the financial side of the UFC…