Bellator financial info

[Baba Ghanoush]

But Sherdog told me Coker is an amazing promoter!? Clearly he needs to put on more geriatric main events with bums off the street co-maining.

 

[adifighter86]

If they want to do something big to change the perspective that the organization is a distant second: sign Lesnar.

Brock will instantly get them PPV buys and they can have him against Fedor.

I can't help but agree with you, Bellator needs some major exposure so bad and Brock is the guy to do it.

Bellator is not the Strikeforce 2.0 I was expecting.

 

[Trojanlegal]

I'm not sure why you are posting this as fact.

As discussed in that thread, Viacom owns both the channel and Bellator and ad money goes 100% to them. Bellator is part of the attraction of the channel itself and also has value to viacom because of this.

Also, WME had to endure losses before becoming profitable.

It is relevant to an understanding of the economics of the MMA industry generally and Bellator MMA specifically versus the UFC's financial performance. Several posters claim all the time that the UFC is dying and WME has no clue about the business. Information about what Bellator and Viacom are doing is equally helpful to an objective analysis of the industry.

The difference between the Fertittas (WME has never lost money on the UFC) losing money initially and Viacom is that the Fertittas were investing long-term and were truly interested in growing MMA while Viacom sees Bellator as cheap TV programming for their domestic network (Paramount) and their international TV partners.

 

[TheGZA]

about $20m in revenue

 

[skylolow]

But that would their legit streaming service and not nefarious sites?

In any event, I'd think TV viewership is going down everywhere as people watch online through subscription services or off the beaten path site streams or downloads.

I remember reading Marketing Magazine in the early 2000's (2002?), they knew this going to affect television in a big way and it was coming down the pipe. I don't understand why with all that time they never figured out how to track all viewership.

You have to remember this is a live sport and to find replays legally is almost impossible in Bellator's instance. So if your a cord cutter good luck with Bellator unless your spending on one of the small streaming packages that include Bellator and I'm not sure how popular that is with the cord cutters.

If you watch TV through out the week streaming everything is kind of pain in the ass and when you start adding up the different services are you really saving that much if your getting one of the great deals the cable companies offer?? I think most cord cutters fall into that space of I don't watch TV hardly at all and I just want the ability to watch a few shows a week if I'm bored or binge watch a TV series at some point that looks interesting. I don't think many of those people are really MMA fans for the most part or any sport for that matter.

They do have ways to track streaming. So I guarantee you they know. I just don't think many broadcasters talk about it because the numbers aren't that big. If Bellator was getting 250K of people streaming the event they sure the hell would let us know if someone was asking Coker about ratings.


P.S.: Spike/Param. not being in 10 million homes compared to when Bjorn ran things I think is a very small overall number in Bellator's ratings decrease. Maybe 50K an event max. If your a fan I'm sure some changed companies. I also think MMA as whole is very DVR heavy sport. Which is why Bellator seems to avg. a .3 every event on DVR. I'm sure the UFC is right up there too if not higher. I'll admit I DVR both UFC and Bellator. I usually start watching about a hour or more in and I watch the whole event in a fraction of time. All the in between stuff in MMA gets boring after awhile and I find many events on TV hard to watch live.

 

[FrodoFraggins]

It is relevant to an understanding of the economics of the MMA industry generally and Bellator MMA specifically versus the UFC's financial performance. Several posters claim all the time that the UFC is dying and WME has no clue about the business. Information about what Bellator and Viacom are doing is equally helpful to an objective analysis of the industry.

The difference between the Fertittas (WME has never lost money on the UFC) losing money initially and Viacom is that the Fertittas were investing long-term and were truly interested in growing MMA while Viacom sees Bellator as cheap TV programming for their domestic network (Paramount) and their international TV partners.

Bjorn refused to sign ranked fighters that were free agents. That is not how you grow a promotion. He forced champs to wait for tournaments to end and hope that the winner was healthy afterwards.

Coker is signing free agents and yes he's signing named fighters past their prime. They are still more of an attraction than most UFC fight night headliners.

Viacom has shown no inclination to be in a cash in mode or a rush. They aren't Affliction level incompetent

 

[Trojanlegal]

Bjorn refused to sign ranked fighters that were free agents. That is not how you grow a promotion. He forced champs to wait for tournaments to end and hope that the winner was healthy afterwards.

Coker is signing free agents and yes he's signing named fighters past their prime. They are still more of an attraction than most UFC fight night headliners.

Viacom has shown no inclination to be in a cash in mode or a rush. They aren't Affliction level incompetent

Regarding Coker's free agent moves, Bellator's ratings say otherwise. None of the cards headlined by recent UFC free agents have generated TV ratings that beat the UFC.

Viacom is not in a rush because Bellator's costs have not increased enough to where it becomes more expensive than underwriting three hours of first-run drama or comedy shows or other original programming. When that time comes, then you will see Viacom reign it in.

 

[AGEZ909]

Regarding Coker's free agent moves, Bellator's ratings say otherwise. None of the cards headlined by recent UFC free agents have generated TV ratings that beat the UFC.

Viacom is not in a rush because Bellator's costs have not increased enough to where it becomes more expensive than underwriting three hours of first-run drama or comedy shows or other original programming. When that time comes, then you will see Viacom reign it in.

Your logic seems sound, but there are things I’d like to point out.

Regarding Bellator’s rating, there is no doubt that their ratings aren’t what they used to be. Some might point to the fact that paramount is in less homes than might be in the past. I’d also point to the fact that today’s mma landscape is truly very saturated, one could say over saturated.

People have stopped mentioning this as much, but the ufc holding events damn near every week has undoubtedly played a huge role in deminished ratings for not only themselves, but Bellator as well. It could very well be that this is a overt move to drown all other orgs out by the ufc.

In the past, there wasn’t enough mma to satisfy you; that isn’t the case today. The problem with smaller orgs is that most fans eat their fill with the ufc.

Consuming more and more of the same product will bring you less and less satisfaction, all the while costing you the same(similar) amounts. From an economic standpoint, this is called the law of diminishing marginal utility.

Why am I saying this? Well I’m just trying to raise the question of how vested Viacom is to mma. Certain things tell me that they are more vested than not atm. What is the point of traveling internationally and trying to establish new markets if you aren’t vested very much? It makes little sense to push for a greater global footprint if Viacom doesn’t care at all for Bellator. It would probably be more cost effective, short term at least, to hold all the shows at home and distribute them worldwide through their various networks.

It also doesn’t make sense to upgrade and launch an app that allows for things like watching live events through it( after authenticating of course), if there was no commitment to mma.


I can’t disagree with the argument that Bellator might be cheap programming for Viacom, but the difference between shows like lip sync and Bellator is that lip sync more than likely can’t reach the same level of people(globally) as Bellator can. Add in the fact that lip sync and manswers can only hold strong ratings for a season or two, then you start seeing the value that a sports entity offers.

In theory, sustainability, greater worldwide wide appeal,and multiple revenue streams are likely some of the reasons Viacom owns Bellator.


Not saying that Viacom will ever grow Bellator to be a financial powerhouse like the ufc, but there are some differences between Bellator and shows like “deadliest warrior”


Time will tell what Viacom does with Bellator.

 

[Trojanlegal]

Your logic seems sound, but there are things I’d like to point out.

Regarding Bellator’s rating, there is no doubt that their ratings aren’t what they used to be. Some might point to the fact that paramount is in less homes than might be in the past. I’d also point to the fact that today’s mma landscape is truly very saturated, one could say over saturated.

People have stopped mentioning this as much, but the ufc holding events damn near every week has undoubtedly played a huge role in deminished ratings for not only themselves, but Bellator as well. It could very well be that this is a overt move to drown all other orgs out by the ufc.

In the past, there wasn’t enough mma to satisfy you; that isn’t the case today. The problem with smaller orgs is that most fans eat their fill with the ufc.

Consuming more and more of the same product will bring you less and less satisfaction, all the while costing you the same(similar) amounts. From an economic standpoint, this is called the law of diminishing marginal utility.

Why am I saying this? Well I’m just trying to raise the question of how vested Viacom is to mma. Certain things tell me that they are more vested than not atm. What is the point of traveling internationally and trying to establish new markets if you aren’t vested very much? It makes little sense to push for a greater global footprint if Viacom doesn’t care at all for Bellator. It would probably be more cost effective, short term at least, to hold all the shows at home and distribute them worldwide through their various networks.

It also doesn’t make sense to upgrade and launch an app that allows for things like watching live events through it( after authenticating of course), if there was no commitment to mma.


I can’t disagree with the argument that Bellator might be cheap programming for Viacom, but the difference between shows like lip sync and Bellator is that lip sync more than likely can’t reach the same level of people(globally) as Bellator can. Add in the fact that lip sync and manswers can only hold strong ratings for a season or two, then you start seeing the value that a sports entity offers.

In theory, sustainability, greater worldwide wide appeal,and multiple revenue streams are likely some of the reasons Viacom owns Bellator.


Not saying that Viacom will ever grow Bellator to be a financial powerhouse like the ufc, but there are some differences between Bellator and shows like “deadliest warrior”


Time will tell what Viacom does with Bellator.

You make fair points and I agree with most of your analysis. The only two aspect Is can't agree with is:

(1) Not to place the blame on the UFC oversaturating the market. Yes, the UFC, due to its TV commitments, generates a lot of fight cards and have oversaturated the market. But Viacom knew that going into operating Bellator so they and Coker should have had a plan in place to address the reality of the modern MMA market. That's called smart business planning. I have not seen Bellator implementing a strategic plan to address the UFC oversaturation problem--and putting on more tape delay shows is not going to help the situation.

(2) Viacom's decision to run more Bellator shows in global markets is done for several reasons, including: (a) its cheaper to run most shows overseas; and (b) Viacom uses the shows to fulfill its commitments to its network of global partners. I wish they ran more US shows--especially Bellator 200-but I get the business need to do so.

 

[FrodoFraggins]

Regarding Coker's free agent moves, Bellator's ratings say otherwise. None of the cards headlined by recent UFC free agents have generated TV ratings that beat the UFC.

Viacom is not in a rush because Bellator's costs have not increased enough to where it becomes more expensive than underwriting three hours of first-run drama or comedy shows or other original programming. When that time comes, then you will see Viacom reign it in.

Who is going to expect them to beat the UFC any time soon? that's not their short term goal.

Their goal is to grow long term and help build fighters lower on the cards with the more sellable fighters they signed. If the named fighters don't accomplish that then they'll have to up their game in terms of getting prospects.

 

[AGEZ909]

You make fair points and I agree with most of your analysis. The only two aspect Is can't agree with is:

(1) Not to place the blame on the UFC oversaturating the market. Yes, the UFC, due to its TV commitments, generates a lot of fight cards and have oversaturated the market. But Viacom knew that going into operating Bellator so they and Coker should have had a plan in place to address the reality of the modern MMA market. That's called smart business planning. I have not seen Bellator implementing a strategic plan to address the UFC oversaturation problem--and putting on more tape delay shows is not going to help the situation.

(2) Viacom's decision to run more Bellator shows in global markets is done for several reasons, including: (a) its cheaper to run most shows overseas; and (b) Viacom uses the shows to fulfill its commitments to its network of global partners. I wish they ran more US shows--especially Bellator 200-but I get the business need to do so.

with regard to your first point, interesting that you point that out. I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd wonder if Viacom did actually anticipate this and chose to respond in the manner that we are seeing. a lot of the times it's more about just staying afloat and weathering the storm than it is to actually try to compete with an entity like the ufc. It could make sense to just weather the storm if you conclude that the cost of production would need to go way up even more (advertising and overall marketing) to keep ratings at a steady rate during a rough patch. of course I'm just thinking out loud and without any of bellator's financial info, we really don't know whats going on. viacom is losing money with bellator atm though.


second point, I didnt know that, so i cant say much about it. I would like to read up on it though. do you have a source for that?

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

If they want to do something big to change the perspective that the organization is a distant second: sign Lesnar.

Brock will instantly get them PPV buys and they can have him against Fedor.

MMA revenue is so much more than PPV buys

 

[Trojanlegal]

with regard to your first point, interesting that you point that out. I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd wonder if Viacom did actually anticipate this and chose to respond in the manner that we are seeing. a lot of the times it's more about just staying afloat and weathering the storm than it is to actually try to compete with an entity like the ufc. It could make sense to just weather the storm if you conclude that the cost of production would need to go way up even more (advertising and overall marketing) to keep ratings at a steady rate during a rough patch. of course I'm just thinking out loud and without any of bellator's financial info, we really don't know whats going on. viacom is losing money with bellator atm though.


second point, I didnt know that, so i cant say much about it. I would like to read up on it though. do you have a source for that?

The second point is from my reading of various articles and interviews with Coker over the last year regarding the reason Bellator has so many international cards.

 

[ThunderL1ps]

MMA revenue is so much more than PPV buys

Please continue.

 

[InfinityLens]

(WME has never lost money on the UFC)

They spent $4 billion, I don't think they have made that back.

You have to remember this is a live sport and to find replays legally is almost impossible in Bellator's instance.

The fights are on their website the next day.

 

[AGEZ909]

They spent $4 billion, I don't think they have made that back.



The fights are on their website the next day.

What kind of argument is that?

 

[InfinityLens]

What kind of argument is that?

He said they never lost money, they clearly have. I think they will make it back, but as of now that would be a loss.

 

[AGEZ909]

He said they never lost money, they clearly have. I think they will make it back, but as of now that would be a loss.

I’d wager that they make it back as well. My problem with how you worded your post is that it seems to imply that wme has been given the proper time to see return on their investment. They obviously have not.


Still though, we both seem to agree with the general premise.


Arguing about semantics is a non-issue

 

[Trojanlegal]

They spent $4 billion, I don't think they have made that back.



The fights are on their website the next day.

He said they never lost money, they clearly have. I think they will make it back, but as of now that would be a loss.

The $4 billion was the purchase price--it is not considered a "loss" for WME. If WME sold the UFC at a loss then you would be correct.

I was referring to the fact that the UFC has not suffered a loss in earnings since the purchase. The UFC has generated the most profit in its history since the WME purchase.

 

[tithas]

He said they never lost money, they clearly have. I think they will make it back, but as of now that would be a loss.

That's not how any of this works..........