That guy is touched in the head. If the UFC has been good for Fox, how is that not good for the UFC?
read it again:
A lot of it, though, is a consequence of how badly UFC got played by Fox.
Still, the simplest and most logical explanation for the decline is this: The UFC has been running lousy shows.
But even as it gave the UFC some steady income, Fox extracted commitments that have all but crippled its new partner. Those commitments came in the form of massive amounts of content, something Fox is ravenous for in light of its aggressive expansion efforts. In 2010, the UFC ran a total of 24 cards, including those on PPV. By the end of this year, the UFC will have put on 31 shows, more than half of them staged for Fox, FX, or Fuel, a number that should rise yet again when the Fox Sports 1 channel launches some time in 2013. None of this even takes into account episodes of The Ultimate Fighter, or the way Fuel is all but branded as the UFC Network, with an endless array of programs like UFC Insider and UFC Tonight in addition to reruns of old fights, soft-focus specials promoting upcoming cards, and such.
From Shanks’ perspective, there’s no problem here. “The bulk of UFC is on Fuel,” he says, “and I think that’s been a smashing success. It’s the fastest growing network in all of television.” Leveraging the UFC to increase carriage rates for that network, and to increase FX’s reach into desirable demographics, are clear wins for Fox. It’s just not clear that they’ve been wins for the UFC.
you can
disagree with his point, but don't say he doesn't have one. and, it's one that has been floated around here many times.
still, i agree with you; $100m/yr can buy Dana a lot of leeway.
