What's next for the UFC's UK TV deal?

[simonhead]

On the topic of football being number one in the UK, that's absolutely right.

It's quite possibly one of the reasons why BT's UFC coverage hasn't had the same push that it had when they first started (BT recently purchased exclusive Champions League rights for approx. 1 billion Euros).

But it's also a really important consideration when deciding where to put the rights. Given that we know football is king here in the UK, we need to put the UFC in a position where it gets the maximum exposure, while not being buried and completely marginalised by football coverage.

The key to the growth of MMA, via the UFC, in this country is its ability to tap into other sporting audiences and attract new fans and, as we know, there's no bigger sporting audience this side of the pond than the football audience.

Sky have more bandwidth to achieve that, with more channels, and have more scope to cross-promote the UFC to football fans, both during live games and also via their rolling news channel Sky Sports News HQ.

That's why, in my view at least, Sky has the bigger long-term upside for the UFC in terms of growing the sport.

 

[Zeph]

I've had a few messages with this sentiment - some significantly less polite than yours - so let me address your point with some truth.

Yes, Rupert Murdoch certainly owns part of Sky and NewsCorp, but they're run as separate entities, as I discovered when I got the gig at The Sun.

True story, when I was offered my current job I thought I might be able to wangle a Sky subscription as part of my salary package because I, like many people, assumed the two companies were intertwined. I was wrong!

I actually don't have a Sky subscription (I currently have the Big Bang package with an XL TV upgrade on Virgin Media, whose service is outstanding, by the way) and will, like the fans who don't currently have Sky, have to up my TV spend to get the Sky Sports channels added to my package if the UFC opts to go with them later this year (borrowing my dad's second Sky Go login for my tablet won't really cut it).

Also, some people seem to assume that because I work for a national newspaper I get told what opinions to have in my writing, or that my opinions must reflect someone else's agenda. That's never actually happened to me at any point in my 15+ year journalism career and I'd have a big problem with it if it ever did. I'm free to write about the UFC in whatever way I deem appropriate. And that's how it should be.

I understand people can be deeply cynical of the media, but all I can tell you from my own personal standpoint is when I write something containing opinion, it'll always be made very clear whose opinion it is. That is, if it's from a source, it'll be quoted as such, and if it's my own opinion, then it'll be labelled up as such.

What you've read in these pieces is based on my knowledge and experience of the TV rights landscape in the UK and my knowledge of the handling of the UFC rights at BT Sport (I managed their digital UFC and MotoGP output for 2 years).

By all means disagree with the opinions in my writing. Think I'm a fool if you must (I'm sure many do!). But please do understand that what you're disagreeing with are my opinions, nobody else's

I liked the piece, but I am skeptical of how much growth can be expected in the UK when the sport mostly occurs outside of our timezone, due to my experiences with people I've introduced to the sport. Martial artists were really the only people interested, and even then the majority of them lost interest when I wasn't around to invite them to watch.

It is my belief, and experience, that the majority of people just aren't interested in combat sports, as a whole, and will only show interest when it is the largest stars within the genre, such as Mcgregor or Rousey for MMA, or big names in boxing like Froch or Hayes. Combat sports are a niche market themselves, one that is dominated by boxing in the UK, and without major events, with major stars, happening within our timezone MMA is always going to play second fiddle by a long margin.

It would take serious investment in coverage of the sport - that won't see the kinds of instant returns that cable providers need in this era of cord cutting - to change that, and events within our timezone to surpass boxing, but I don't see that happening. It has taken Anderson Silva's fall from grace for him to return the UK, yet he headlined an event in the Dubai because of oil money investment, it would take a British Mcgregor to turn the UFC's attention to the UK, but even then they will ride that wave and turn away once it is over. Ireland is the new darling right now, but once Mcgregor's star fades and the Irish passion fades with it, then Ireland will get the post-GSP Canada treatment, and it will be onto the next big thing for the UFC.

 

[RedDragonUK]

I've had a few messages with this sentiment - some significantly less polite than yours - so let me address your point with some truth.

Yes, Rupert Murdoch certainly owns part of Sky and NewsCorp, but they're run as separate entities, as I discovered when I got the gig at The Sun.

True story, when I was offered my current job I thought I might be able to wangle a Sky subscription as part of my salary package because I, like many people, assumed the two companies were intertwined. I was wrong!

I actually don't have a Sky subscription (I currently have the Big Bang package with an XL TV upgrade on Virgin Media, whose service is outstanding, by the way) and will, like the fans who don't currently have Sky, have to up my TV spend to get the Sky Sports channels added to my package if the UFC opts to go with them later this year (borrowing my dad's second Sky Go login for my tablet won't really cut it).

Also, some people seem to assume that because I work for a national newspaper I get told what opinions to have in my writing, or that my opinions must reflect someone else's agenda. That's never actually happened to me at any point in my 15+ year journalism career and I'd have a big problem with it if it ever did. I'm free to write about the UFC in whatever way I deem appropriate. And that's how it should be.

I understand people can be deeply cynical of the media, but all I can tell you from my own personal standpoint is when I write something containing opinion, it'll always be made very clear whose opinion it is. That is, if it's from a source, it'll be quoted as such, and if it's my own opinion, then it'll be labelled up as such.

What you've read in these pieces is based on my knowledge and experience of the TV rights landscape in the UK and my knowledge of the handling of the UFC rights at BT Sport (I managed their digital UFC and MotoGP output for 2 years).

By all means disagree with the opinions in my writing. Think I'm a fool if you must (I'm sure many do!). But please do understand that what you're disagreeing with are my opinions, nobody else's

I appreciate the time you took to reply and believe what you have said. I disagree about Sky sports being the better way forward as they had it before (twice) and squandered it and always think about the almighty dollar which is fair enough but MMA still needs help and that won't cut it. In less than a year we would see a PPV system set Up or a new channel which would most likey die within a year.

 

[Ghost Bro]

Don't know, can't find any "participants" but they most likely aren't partaking to watch UFC fights......

"It's puff-puff-pass not pass the fuck out!"

 

[Zeph]

"It's puff-puff-pass not pass the fuck out!"

Only mugs smoke coke.

 

[Ghost Bro]

Only mugs smoke coke.

Cool gangsta pandas smoke weed and watch fights, allegedly.

 

[teamquestnorth]

I'm not a Brit so feel free to disregard my opinion as it wouldn't affect me either way but personally if the majority of events were held at that ungodly hour I would want to pay as little as possible for it.

Last week I stayed up until almost 4am watching Rizin and it was extremely rough and I was watching it free. I couldn't imagine paying anything for a card at that hour unless it was a UFC 200 level card.

 

[Bluesville]

Good on you mate.

But the Suns credibility is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard hey mate?

Yes Sir.

Examples not needed...Go forth and enjoy though bud.. Your a fine journalist.

Pretty much mirrors my thoughts.

Shame I can't click on his articles but seems like a nice guy and I wish him all the best.

 

[Bluesville]

Does PPV work for anything in the UK? I was under the impression it is rarely successful in that market.

Until Sky came along, big boxing title fights were on terrestrial TV. Then most world title fights went to Sky.

Boxing PPVs work - or worked I've not lived in the UK for a long time, not since UFC was on Bravo. Lol

 

[Woko]

Simon Head used the phrase 'slightly increased price' on one of his posts/replies. This depends on a person's budget and their interest in other sports. I personally enjoy Martial Arts only (MMA, Boxing, etc). Most big boxing events are broadcast via Sky Sports on PPV which would cost up to £20. Despite the stagnation of the boxing world coinciding with the rise of MMA, Sky Sports haven't once wavered on their stance of squeezing out every penny they can from an avid fight fan. Therefore, they would quite naturally broadcast large UFC events via PPV. Anyone who believes otherwise is clearly surrounded by cuckoos. Fight Night broadcasts would be on one of their subscriber channels which would require an additional payment of around £30+ per month on their TV package.

So, if Sky Sports won the UFC broadcast rights bidding war then people like me would completely miss out again. I am on a tight budget and subscribe to Virgin. As a fight fan, for me to indulge in viewing UFC broadcasts via Sky Sports I would have to pay in the region of £50-£70 extra each month. That is not including boxing which would occasionally add up to a further £20 per month. I don't like football, rugby, tennis, tiddlywinks and all the other trash they hard sell you, so £50-£90 per month extra would be irritating for me as I'd be required to justify the cost to the lady wife. I wouldn't have enough ear to chew and it just wouldn't happen.

All of us fight fans are long overdue some respect from these outrageously greedy TV companies. If Sky Sports acquire the rights, they rightfully should create a dedicated stand-alone Fight channel to incorporate MMA and Boxing. Even if they wanted to charge £50-£60 per month for this channel, at least people like me could justify the cost to myself, my budget and to she who must be obeyed. But the reality is, that will never happen because it would be fair. Sky Sports are obviously going to badly want UFC due to its exponential growth and the financial revenues it would generate for them. BT Sport have not yet made any noise which tells me they'd rather focus on other interests.

So, I look forward to reading a future post from Simon Head referencing UFC PPV's.