The UFC’s days on FOX and FOX Sports are numbered, and the remaining lineup isn’t exactly stacked. So what changes will come with a move to ESPN in 2019? Retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss in this week’s Trading Shots.
* * * *
Fowlkes: Saturday night was a rare one for me, Danny. There was a UFC event in Argentina, yet I didn’t stay home to watch it. Instead I recorded it on DVR and went out to dinner with my wife, then watched all the action on Sunday morning when I could skip through the commercials and the filler and get right to the good stuff.
Every time I get to watch a UFC event this way, I’m reminded how much better it is than sitting through it live. It’s just so efficient. And the live product, especially on FS1, is just so … the opposite of that.
But then I remembered something and felt a sudden stab of hope. The UFC is moving to ESPN in 2019. That’s just a little over a month away! Do I dare nurture a hint of optimism that things might be about to change? Could the worldwide leader in sports possibly make UFC events less of a drag to sit through? And if not, what can we actually realistically hope for when the change happens? Because it doesn’t seem like the UFC is trying too hard to go out with a bang on FS1.
Downes: Sometimes you impress me, Ben. I’m amazed that someone as cynical as you can be so naive. Have you seen the schedule of events for the first quarter or 2019? There are 11 events in the first three months of the year.
Not only that, you should look at how you’ll have to watch the first event on Jan. 19. The early prelims will be on ESPN+. Then, you’ll head over to “regular” ESPN to watch the regular prelims, only to switch back over to ESPN+ for the main card. Convenience does not appear to be the modus operandi.
I do think there will be some upsides to the ESPN move other than you arranging a couple more date nights. First and foremost is exposure. Sure Shannon Sharpe and Skip Bayless might mention the UFC every now and then, but that’s usually only because Conor McGregor is trending.
One would assume a UFC/ESPN partnership means more UFC coverage on “SportsCenter” and the other talking head shows. In theory, that means more fans which means (presumably) television networks will cater to MMA fans more.
You know what group doesn’t seem to benefit from this? Fighters. Some might argue that increased exposure will help fighters, but I don’t buy that. The Reebok deal makes it very difficult to partner with outside sponsors. Derrick Lewis got some of that Popeye’s money, but I don’t see a lot of other fast food corporations entering the fray.
What are your expectations for the upcoming ESPN era? Do you really think it’ll be anything more than business as usual? We all know that the UFC is the big winner in the deal, but will anyone else come out on top?
Fowlkes: OK, fair point, I looked at the schedule and it did just kill some of my optimism. Imagining how many times I’ll have to type UFC on ESPN+ Fight Night (insert number here) somehow fails to lift my spirits any. But still, ESPN’s got to do something to put its own stamp on this, doesn’t it?
Maybe the UFC figures, hey, if ain’t broke why fix it? It did, after all, just secure a lucrative new broadcast deal with a sports media giant, all at the same time that it reportedly increased its share of pay-per-view money. UFC execs must feel like they’re doing some things right to keep all that money flowing in, so why lift a single finger to make the viewing experience any less arduous?
Still, does a sporting event really need to last six hours every single time? Is there not some way to highlight your best fights rather than hiding them behind hours of filler that stretch on into the early morning hours on the East Coast? This is the question I hope the bright minds at ESPN might come up with an answer for.
You’re right about exposure, though. To some extent it’s already happening. ESPN has started treating MMA, or at least the UFC, as a major sport that really matters. Do you think that will result in new fans? Or do you have to already be a total wildman for this stuff to even consider switching back and forth on the various ESPN platforms just to catch the third tier of the UFC’s programming?
Downes: I think the move to ESPN will create new fans. How many? I’m not entirely sure, but I don’t think it will usher in a new golden era of ratings. I also think the UFC programming that makes it on actual ESPN television channels will be background noise at bars as opposed to “must-see” events. All of that should produce a net positive for the sport and the promotion, but most of those benefits will go to shareholders.
We’ve discussed this before, but the days of needing to watch every UFC event are long gone. Many fans regret this development because they say it shows how watered-down the current product has become. It’s certainly true that a quantity over quality approach has taken hold.
Is that really so bad, though? Would you prefer it if you had to block off your Saturday night and make sure you were in front of the TV? Now you can fast forward through the boring stuff and use your spare time to study rec hockey league tape.
Fans and media members are desperate for a return to the days of old. Whether it’s a change of ownership or an ESPN deal, there’s a naive hope that somehow the product will become more fan/consumer friendly. When has that been true of any industry? Amazon just inked a pretty sweet deal with Virginia and New York City. Are they going to reduce your Prime membership?
Some things will be different when the UFC moves over to ESPN. Most of it will be positive, but none of it will be earth-shattering. That may not be what you want to hear, but at least now you can check out the new brewpub that opened nearby.
Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.
