Staff Columnists
COOLING: Seth Rollins vs. Dana White - On pay-per-view, UFC Fight Pass, and the WWE Network
Aug 4, 2015 - 6:00:48 PM COOLING: Seth Rollins vs. Dana White - On pay-per-view, UFC Fight Pass, and the WWE Network

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Will Cooling, MMATorch Columnist

In the latest chapter of the never-ending story that is Dana White's misadventures on Twitter, the UFC President was drawn into a flame-war by pro-wrestling superstar Seth Rollins over the weekend. The WWE World Heavyweight [no really] Champion asked why he couldn't watch Ronda Rousey fight for just $9.99, a sly reference to how today all of WWE's biggest matches are on their version of UFC Fight Pass: the WWE Network.

As befits his increasingly bad-tempered public persona, Dana White responded by attacking pro-wrestling as 'fake shit' that didn't belong on pay-per-view. That was ill-advised, not just because of how pro-wrestlers such as Ken Shamrock and Brock Lesnar brought new fans into UFC, but because it doesn't properly reflect the respect that White has always publicly shown towards pro-wrestlers. Given that many more pro-wrestlers have suffered fatal, let alone career-threatening, injuries than fighters have, this respect is well-deserved, regardless of whether it's genuine.

However, lost amidst the back-biting between White and various pro-wrestling personalities was the question of whether Rollins was right to suggest that Rousey should be fighting on UFC Fight Pass. The answer to that question shows White in a far better light than his actions on Twitter ever will.

It's obviously too early to know how well UFC 190 did, although indications suggest it did pretty well, but we know that her last show was purchased by around 600,000 North American households. If we assume that the show was purchased for $55 and that the UFC got to keep half of the revenue, then the encrypted broadcast earned them a cool $16,500,000! To put that in perspective, to simply gross that much, WWE would need 1.94 million North Americans to subscribe to the WWE Network. For the record, they're currently around a million off that pace.

So the argument about whether Ronda Rousey should fight on pay-per-view is as clear-cut as her victory at UFC 190. But what about the argument that championship fights with a lower-profile should be put on the subscription service?

Well, the numbers show that even the smallest numbered event belongs on pay-per-view. In the most recent financial quarterly earnings report, the WWE reported that they averaged 940,000 domestic subscribers to their WWE Network service per month. This means that each month they bring in $7,990,000. At such a gross, we can reasonably assume that any UFC pay-per-view that does more than 291,000 pay-per-view buys will be more profitable than if a similarly purchased show had been put on the WWE Network.

Before you all rush to say that many UFC pay-per-views do less than that, it's worth pointing out that we're talking gross revenue. Taking a show off pay-per-view and putting it on Fight Pass has several knock-on consequences. Immediately you lose any marketing support the pay-per-view companies would have provided, which would force the UFC to increase their own advertising budget. More importantly, if you're already running a successful online subscription service, then moving a pay-per-view over to it must add incremental pays for it to be worthwhile. If only the hardest of hardcore fans buy shows headlined by Demeterious Johnson, is it not reasonable to assume that they already subscribe to Fight Pass?

Therefore it's hard to see what the UFC gains from moving pay-per-views onto Fight Pass. In many ways the UFC learned the lessons of what, despite the hype, is still perhaps the biggest mistake in Vince McMahon's long promotional resume. They kept costs down by avoiding expensive irrelevances such as live-streams and regular in-studio programming, preferring to instead focus on archive footage and live fights. The service also didn't cannibalise existing revenue streams, partly because UFC maintained their existing pay-per-view schedule, and partly because they never had as successful a home video business as WWE. Instead they asked fans to pay for programming they had previously received for free (a major event's opening prelim fights) or new content (increased number of overseas shows and minor-league MMA). By doing this they secured the best of both worlds, protecting existing revenue stream and encouraging hardcore fans to pay more each and every month.

So while Seth Rollins may claim he's the future of WWE, it's the UFC that have successfully realised the financial potential of online subscription services.


Will Cooling is a regular contributor to Fighting Spirit Magazine, the UK's biggest and best pro-wrestling monthly, available worldwide through its Apple and Android App. Read this month's issue for his take on Fabricio Werdum's sensational victory over Cain Velasquez.. FSM is available in all good British newsagents and internationally. He also blogs on politics and sports at It Could Be Said. You can get in touch with him via email at w.cooling@gmail.com or follow him on twitter @willcooling.