- Joined
- Jan 29, 2016
- Messages
- 3,829
- Reaction score
- 2
Nope. You're just trying to score points now. You're just spouting facts now to give the illusion you're correct but those facts have nothing to do with my first arguments on the ESPN+ deal with UFC.Nope you are off
While I don't remember the exact post, I do know how I felt about the deal & the info known
When the first announcement of ESPN+ was made they were paying UFC for Fight Pass content & paying way more than it was worth & charging 50% of FP.
UFC has 40+ shows a year, they were never putting their best content on OTT & they were still going to get big exposure from whomever they signed with for TV rights.
Also if you think ESPN wouldn't be promoting UFC after spending $150m per year, you are 100% wrong.
But AGAIN, I never said the DAZN deal was bad ... not remotely close
It was a deal Bellator needed & should be taking.
I basically reasoned the UFC needed exposure/advertising more than it needed the ESPN+ deal. You disagreed sharply.
Now you are saying Bellator will lose exposure by signing a streaming deal. Basically the same thing I said regarding the ESPN+ deal.
I would need a source for ESPN cable showing cards as well. You claimed they would but this is the first I heard of that. I was told ESPN+ would be 15 cards for paid streaming.
And please don't act like ESPN commentators talking about the UFC is on par with free fight cards on cable TV. Not remotely the same thing. You can talk about ESPN promoting UFC until you're blue in the face but the actual fights are behind a payment threshold so many won't care about talking heads. Do you care about commentary on cards you can't watch unless you pay? If the UFC signs back with FOX or another cable company you think ESPN or ESPN+ will promote those cards?
ESPN is only promoting ESPN UFC and maybe UFC PPV's. What do they both have in common? You need to pay to watch both.
That's the farthest thing from good exposure/advertising.