What is “good for the fans”?
Posted by Alan Conceicao on March 5th, 2009
UFC 96 is nearly upon us, and the appeal of the event seems nowhere near universal among bloggers or casual fans. The event was, to an extent, thrown together at the last minute; Rampage Jackson was reportedly offered good money to fight on short notice for the PPV. The undercard is somewhat ragtag, featuring a number of former TUF stars in varying states of career disarray or success and a heavyweight fight between a former contender/current gate keeper and a hot but entirely untested prospect.
Being entirely honest, the quality of the card isn’t exactly an outlier; UFC 95 featured no major names at the top of the card. UFC 97 is headlined by what is expected to be a mismatch (Leites/Silva) with a feature bout of two potentially washed up light heavyweights (Shogun/Liddell) and then some very less than inspired matchmaking (Does anyone really want to pay to see an IFL washout? Or Antoni Hardonk?). UFC 99 is completely devoid of major star power, trading that on the idea that people in Europe (and on PPV stateside) will spend good money to watch journeymen from developing nations.
And yet while most everyone can agree to the idea that we as fans would be better off with many of these cards on Spike TV, or really, any TV outlet, the question must be asked; Would we be better off?
An interesting case study in this occurred over at HBO this week, as the first fight for former unified lightweight champion Nate Campbell was vetoed by the network. He and his handlers were hoping that former undisputed welterweight world champion Zab Judah would be his first test at 140, with Judah moving back down to what was his original weight class and where he won his first world title belt. However, HBO took the surprising step of rejecting Judah and installing the Lou DiBella (a former HBO matchmaker) promoted fighter Paulie Malignaggi. While Malignaggi has a better record of success recently on paper, it is argued by many that he should have lost all of his last 3 bouts. Stylistically, he has no punching power, fragile hands, and has stunk out many a ring. While Judah is guilty of not necessarily being the most entertaining man on the planet in his younger days, his age has forced him to engage toe to toe increasingly, and unlike Malignaggi, he has actual knock out ability.
UFC 96, meanwhile, had to be different. Zuffa’s need to run a headliner justifying to the consumer a investment not merely of 3 hours of their time but of $45 (or more) dollars of their money requires that something comparable to a meaningful fight be at the top of the card. From a business perspective, Jardine/Jackson seems to make no sense. Jackson is the draw and superior fighter on paper, but Jardine is a dangerous spoiler who possesses many weapons that can severely hamper their big star’s ability to make the UFC money down the road. And yet, Jackson had to be matched up with someone near the upper echelon of the division to make this PPV potentially successful; merely throwing him in with Matt Hammil or someone of that nature wasn’t going to cut it.
It is the UFC’s quest to establish a monthy PPV product that has built this double edged sword. We as fans recieve quality, competitive matchups that in other economic models seem completely unlikely to occur. However, the equally sharp back edge is that of PPV itself, which is perhaps the driving cause behind the ever receeding interest in boxing. Asking fans to pay up and do so for larger amounts of money more often (which is indeed the case comparing the UFC of 2009 to the UFC of 2004) can and will spark dissatisfaction, particularly as cards become weaker.
So then, what is objectively good for the fans? The harsh answer is the same one given towards the music, movie, TV production, and game industries today: Internet Piracy. Virtually every MMA site on the net references the ability of fans to witness MMA events through channels such as Justin.tv, TVants, or other more covert means in some guarded fashion. The change affected by streaming video on the web holds incredible potential for all media in the not too distant future both legit and illicit, and the promise of such worldwide information transfer means that today’s computers will have abilities putting to shame even the most vaunted of 1990s era cable descramblers.
While we as fans can complain about the fact that we pay for such events, the truth is that many of those hardcore fans complaining will still have seen UFC 96 by sometime Monday, either by going to the local wing place or by downloading it in 100 meg chunks from Rapidshare. The complaints then about the card seem empty when stacked against that truth. Are pay per view events like UFC 96 good for the fans? Sure, but only if you aren’t paying for them.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Was Lou DiBella the guy who was Tarver’s manager in Rocky Balboa?
March 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Not to pick nits, but I actually think 97 looks like a strong card. Sure Leites is outmatched, and it lacks a bit of star power, but Liddell/Shogun should be interesting and Cane/Cantwell is a great match between up and comers. Add in the debut of Prof. X and the return of Loiseau on the underacrd and I think there’s a lot of interesting stuff going on here.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I don’t count the prelim fights because, frankly, there is no guarantee they’ll be on the PPV. I am guaranteed Stann/Soszynski, which holds literally no appeal to me whatsoever. And while I like watching Professor X, I hate to say it, but homeboy ain’t that great, and Denis Kang sure as hell isn’t anymore either. Its like watching a ESPN2 card with a couple washed up middleweights in a tussle that’s 5 years late in the making, except that in order to view it, you have to roll the dice, pay $45, and hope some people get stopped in the first.