pay-per-view

(Whaddaya say, Baby Face, feel like taking a pay cut and burning some bridges?)

According to FiveOuncesofPain, Affliction is looking at holding their third event on July 11, 2009.  If you’re thinking that this date sounds familiar for some reason, congratulations, you are an astute observer!  Yeah, July 11 is when UFC 100 is.  And it’s kind of a big deal to the UFC.  So why would Affliction guarantee that their event gets counter-programmed by scheduling it on the same night as one of the biggest UFC cards ever?  Possibly because they know they’re done and want to hurt the UFC however they can on the way out.

That’s what Sam Caplan thinks, anyway.  According to his report Affliction is offering “restructured” contracts to their fighters (read: asking them to fight cheap) in the hopes of lowering overhead costs and getting the event on network TV or basic cable.  They know that no pay-per-view distributor wants to go head to head with the UFC, but if they can offer their show up for free they figure it might hurt the UFC’s PPV buys just a little, and what the hell, Affliction isn’t looking to promote any events after this one anyway.

(The first taste is free, but the second dose is going to cost you.)

Taking full advantage of his position at Versus.com, Ariel Helwani just posted an interview with WEC Vice President Peter Dropick where they discuss the future of the organization and rumors of a move to pay-per-view.  Dropick was all too eager to confirm those rumors, telling Helwani that the first WEC pay-per-view will be headlined by the much-anticipated rematch between Urijah Faber and WEC featherweight champ Mike Brown, and it could happen as soon as this June.

If you’re worried about how you’re going to afford all the MMA this summer, you’ll be glad to hear that Dropick also promised the price of a WEC pay-per-view would be less than a UFC event, though he didn't specify by how much.  As for what else might appear on that card, he wouldn’t rule out an appearance by Miguel Torres, saying he wants the pay-per-view to be “stacked.”

Obviously, the WEC is considering Sacramento, where they’ve done extremely well in the past, as a potential venue for this event, but Dropick said there were “three or four different cities” they were considering as well.  He also commented on the status of the lighter weight classes in the WEC, and the potential for Gina Carano to head up a women’s division at some point in the near future.  The whole interview is worth a read, so give it a look.

(When Bob got stood up by the captain of the football team on prom night, it was simply more than he could bear.)

With crazy freak show fights mixed in among legitimately interesting real fights at K-1 Dynamite on New Year’s Eve, we were more than a little disappointed when we heard that the event might not hit airwaves in the U.S.  This is the type of thing that usually airs on HDNet, but because Dynamite is technically not covered under HDNet’s contract with FEG it may not get shown on American TV’s at all.

Never fear, though, as MMA Payout has passed along a press release from Event Magic TV suggesting that the fight may be available via streaming online video for $29.95 on pay-per-view.  

Yippee.  Nothing quite like paying money to watch fights on the computer, especially when those same fights are likely to be available for free on the internet a day or so later.  

Look, I’m not going to judge you.  I won’t call you a loser for staying home on New Year’s Eve and paying money to sit in front of your computer and watch Bob Sapp fight a guy in a mask while the rest of the world is out partying and kissing strange girls.  I’m not going to do that, because if that’s your plan I assume you already know what a loser you are, and me pointing it out would just be mean and unnecessary.  All I’ll say is that streaming video is a crapshoot to begin with, and Bob Sapp will still be there tomorrow.  So let’s leave it at that.  I know you’ll do the right thing.   

("Screw it, nobody's watching anyway.")

I know, I know, you're all antsy to learn how many pay-per-view buys UFC 91 took in, and whether Dana White's estimate of 1.2 million was either strongly optimistic or batshit delusional. You'll have to be patient, because numbers from UFC 90 are just coming out now — and they aren't too encouraging. Says the Wrestling Observer Newsletter:

The trending patterns as a prediction of the buy rate continued to be right on as the 10/25 show in Chicago headlined by Anderson Silva vs. Patrick Cote did 300,000 buys.

Silva has never been a big main-event draw, PPV-wise. His headlining appearances at UFC 82, 77, and 67 all translated to buys in the 330,000-350,000 range. But in the run-up to last month's Chicago show, the UFC had been trying extra hard to push him over as a fan-favorite, frequently repeating the talking point that UFC 90 was your chance to see the world's greatest pound-for-pound fighter in action. The Spike TV special Countdown to UFC 90 brought in a record number of viewers, which was seen as a great sign for the event's performance on pay-per-view, though MMA Payout points out that the strong viewership could have been due to having a high-rated TNA wrestling show as a lead in.

(Let's try this again, "Ace", this time with a little enthusiasm.)

Despite the fact that UFC 93 and 95 are taking place in Dublin and London respectively, they will not air for free on Spike TV, reports MMA Rated. Does that mean you're going to have to pay more of your rapidly dwindling cash to see an event that goes live in the middle of the afternoon? Either that or wait until the videos hit the internet, and for some reason it's considered "troubling behavior" for me to drink in front of my computer at ten o'clock on a Sunday morning, even though it's perfectly acceptable to do it in front of the TV on a Saturday. I blame this Puritanical society.

The explanation for why this is happening centers around Spike TV's production budget. Broadcasting these overseas events is costly, and since both UFC 93 and 95 take place within the first two months of 2009, that would mean blowing a big portion of their budget in the first quarter. This, my friends, is a side effect of the UFC going global.

So now we're looking at three pay-per-views in the first sixty days of the new year from the UFC, plus another one on January 24 from Affliction. I don't know what your disposable income looks like these days, but it sure seems like someone's got to lose in this scenario. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could only afford two of these events without being forced to make extra money by letting your creepy neighbor install that webcam he keeps talking about. What's it gonna be: Fedor-Arlovski (Affliction), Franklin-Henderson (UFC 93, with a side order of Coleman-Rua), Penn-St. Pierre (UFC 94), or Liddell-Silva (UFC 95, hopefully)? As a bonus question, how important will the undercards of said events be in your decision-making?