M-1 Global event trounces UFC on Fox event

Zombies made fun of Fedor's desire to grow MMA in Russia, they lambasted him for not selling his soul to Zuffa for a quick buck, the laughed when he lost and shouted from the rooftops of lost opportunities. I cant wait for Fedor to have the last laugh, his legend will live on as the GOAT and hopefully as a fighter/owner of a successful global MMA promotion.

M-1 Global on Russia 2 TV: Fedor vs. Monson
Rating Average: 7.5 Million viewers
Attendance: 22,000 (0 unsold)
Ticket Price: N/A (average) $5000 (average ringside)

UFC on Fox: Cain Velasquez vs. Junior Dos Santos
Rating Average: 5.7 Million viewers
Attendance: 11,607 (1,700 unsold)
Ticket Price: $108.70 (average)

WINNER BY FLAWLESS KO VICTORY = M-1 GLOBAL

USA Today: News just in. A world exists outside of America.

It's basically a gift from heaven that M-1 did so well.

bellend wrote:USA Today: News just in. A world exists outside of America.

Seems like some fans will never understand this.

M-1 needs to keep putting on events like this. In the long run average fans all over the world will start paying attention.

"Oh so the sport is called mma, not UFC, and there are other promotions."

monaroCountry wrote:
M-1 Global on Russia 2 TV: Fedor vs. Monson
Rating Average: 7.5 Million viewers
Attendance: 22,000 (0 unsold)
Ticket Price: N/A (average) $5000 (average ringside)

WINNER BY FLAWLESS KO VICTORY = M-1 GLOBAL

That's 7.5M viewers in Russia alone with a population of 140M people. Those numbers would double relative to the U.S. population. Now to be more fair as a direct comparison and looked at all the countries from the former-USSR. Even though those ratings numbers haven't yet been released by M-1 theoretically the could look something like this...



M-1 Global on USSR TV Screens : Fedor vs. Monson
Rating Average: 15 Million viewers
Attendance: 22,000 (0 unsold)
Ticket Price: N/A (average) $5000 (average ringside)


vs


UFC on Fox: Cain Velasquez vs. Junior Dos Santos
Rating Average: 5.7 Million viewers
Attendance: 11,607 (1,700 unsold)
Ticket Price: $108.70 (average)


Then still add all the other countries where M-1 has TV distribution. I'm sure it will rival the UFC.

Plus in the poorer less-westernized eastern European and Central to east Asian market there is not as much cable TV crap competing for viewers. This also means that there is even bigger potential in non-western markets when state or national TV carry fights for free. Much better business model IMO. The big networks and their advertisers pay for the show. Just like with the major league boys. This what boxing in the heyday of Ali did worldwide with billions eventually watching an Ali fight on free TV globally.

Do you mind if I ask why you factored in international viewership in the case of M-1's show, but not in the case of the UFC's? The numbers getting thrown round range from the ridiculous (60 million in Brazil or something) to more believable figure (around 6 million in Brazil)

Zuffa is bush league shit don't ever insult my standards by posting Zuffa related news.

But this is a thread comparing M-1's event directly to a zuffa event. There's zuffa related news in the OP.

Jingles wrote:Do you mind if I ask why you factored in international viewership in the case of M-1's show, but not in the case of the UFC's? The numbers getting thrown round range from the ridiculous (60 million in Brazil or something) to more believable figure (around 6 million in Brazil)

Re-read my OP carefully.

You make no mention of international figures whatsoever. Not to mention that the peak viewership number for a 1 fight card where the fight lasts a minute is rather more important than it is for a 4 fight card with a main event that goes the distance. And also features the country's biggest star in the sport.

I do know that the Brazilian market is massive. UFC 134 drew something ludicrous (it was free to air in Brazil) and if you're going to start speculating about international viewership for m-1, it would be silly not to do the same for UFC on Fox.

Jingles wrote:Do you mind if I ask why you factored in international viewership in the case of M-1's show, but not in the case of the UFC's? The numbers getting thrown round range from the ridiculous (60 million in Brazil or something) to more believable figure (around 6 million in Brazil)

The 7.5 and the 5.7 figures are the viewership in their respective home markets. It has nothing to do with international viewers. M-1 doesnt even have international viewer numbers yet or even cross regional numbers. I simply compared home market to home market, in which case M-1 trounced Zuffa.

What's good about M-1 is that even local news channels on TV reported on the EVENT that Fedor was in. That is how LEGIT mma and Fedor have become in Russia. You would NEVER see the UFC on the headlines on CNN or CBS news unless it had to do with reporting something negative like " human cock fighting in a cage" or something in those lines to discredit the sport.

The UFC's peak was 8.8 million. Which was during the fight (the thing that people were actually going to watch) So now who trounced who?

Yes, I cherry picked something, so does the conclusion that Zuffa was trounced, since you're selecting the average for a two hour (was it two hours? I haven't seen it yet) multi fight card, which obviously has a much better potential for a high average than a one fight card, the first half hour of which was promotional material.

That said, even compared to one fight cards, The UFC did really well. In 2003, Lennox Lewis vs Klitschiko did something had something like 7 million viewers. So there you go.

Jingles wrote:The UFC's peak was 8.8 million. Which was during the fight (the thing that people were actually going to watch) So now who trounced who?

Yes, I cherry picked something, so does the conclusion that Zuffa was trounced, since you're selecting the average for a two hour (was it two hours? I haven't seen it yet) multi fight card, which obviously has a much better potential for a high average than a one fight card, the first half hour of which was promotional material.

That said, even compared to one fight cards, The UFC did really well. In 2003, Lennox Lewis vs Klitschiko did something had something like 7 million viewers. So there you go.

Broadcasters have segments or timeslots, they basically sell timeslots. The UFC peak could be 8.8 million but their average was a measly 5.7 million whereas M-1's average was 7.5 million. M-1 could have peaked much much higher than UFC on Fox but most of these viewership data go off by on averages, again because of broadcasters selling time slots.

Actually a multi fight 2 hour event with several lower bouts and one or two main event has a far lower potential of gaining a high average than ONE MAIN EVENT card. Its a bit like the best batter in a baseball team would have a far higher average than the whole team itself. A game of chance on the other hand would be the other way around.

RussianTopTeam wrote:What's good about M-1 is that even local news channels on TV reported on the EVENT that Fedor was in. That is how LEGIT mma and Fedor have become in Russia. You would NEVER see the UFC on the headlines on CNN or CBS news unless it had to do with reporting something negative like " human cock fighting in a cage" or something in those lines to discredit the sport.

Exactly.

I think its because its seen more of a sport in that region, that goes back to how the fight is held, how the fighters respect each other, and how the promoters act more civilized.

monaroCountry wrote:

Jingles wrote:The UFC's peak was 8.8 million. Which was during the fight (the thing that people were actually going to watch) So now who trounced who?

Yes, I cherry picked something, so does the conclusion that Zuffa was trounced, since you're selecting the average for a two hour (was it two hours? I haven't seen it yet) multi fight card, which obviously has a much better potential for a high average than a one fight card, the first half hour of which was promotional material.

That said, even compared to one fight cards, The UFC did really well. In 2003, Lennox Lewis vs Klitschiko did something had something like 7 million viewers. So there you go.

Broadcasters have segments or timeslots, they basically sell timeslots. The UFC peak could be 8.8 million but their average was a measly 5.7 million whereas M-1's average was 7.5 million. M-1 could have peaked much much higher than UFC on Fox but most of these viewership data go off by on averages, again because of broadcasters selling time slots.

Actually a multi fight 2 hour event with several lower bouts and one or two main event has a far lower potential of gaining a high average than ONE MAIN EVENT card. Its a bit like the best batter in a baseball team would have a far higher average than the whole team itself. A game of chance on the other hand would be the other way around.

Your last paragraph is demonstrably wrong. The broadcast is one hour long. of that, the fight is one minute. another 10 is the introduction and walk ins. Another five for the recap/post fight interviews etc. That leaves a full 45 contentless minutes, or reduces the content to filler. Do you really think that that's going to get the same numbers as the actual fight? Or is even comparable in terms of audience appeal? It's going to drag the average down having only a quarter of your run time be sports content. Hence why the average may not be the best indicator in this particular case.

And whose fault was it that they scheduled just one fight, an expected quick brawl, for a one hour show? The M-1 card was also the most popular TV sports broadcast in Russia that week: http://mixfight.ru/news/2011/11/27/M1_%20Global/

UFC's fault that they got greedy but the fact is that on average the M-1 fight averaged higher. You simply shouldnt just look at the average for one and the peak for the other.

Actually, most reports indicate that it was Fox's call, and that they're going to listen to the UFC in the future. I'm not defending the decision, especially when it should have been obvious that Bendo Guida was going to be awesome. However, I was just qualifying why I thought the peak was more important than the average for the UFC event.

I would love to compare the average of the m-1 event, but I don't know it. If anyone has it, I would posit that it would be much closer to the average than it was for the UFC's, for the reasons stated above.

Jingles wrote:Actually, most reports indicate that it was Fox's call, and that they're going to listen to the UFC in the future. I'm not defending the decision, especially when it should have been obvious that Bendo Guida was going to be awesome. However, I was just qualifying why I thought the peak was more important than the average for the UFC event.

I would love to compare the average of the m-1 event, but I don't know it. If anyone has it, I would posit that it would be much closer to the average than it was for the UFC's, for the reasons stated above.

So now its Fox call is it? In the ways of Zuffa and cutting out fighter managers like GG, I think its high time that Fox cut out its middle man and paid the fighters directly.

Actually its not obvious that BG would have been a top fight, they arent the top draw for a reason.

UFC peak 8.8 mill, average 5.7 mill. Id hazard a guess and say that since M1's average was 7.5 mill that it also peaked at closer if not more than the UFC event. So really a double FAIL by Zuffa.

Jingles wrote:

monaroCountry wrote:

Jingles wrote:The UFC's peak was 8.8 million. Which was during the fight (the thing that people were actually going to watch) So now who trounced who?

Yes, I cherry picked something, so does the conclusion that Zuffa was trounced, since you're selecting the average for a two hour (was it two hours? I haven't seen it yet) multi fight card, which obviously has a much better potential for a high average than a one fight card, the first half hour of which was promotional material.

That said, even compared to one fight cards, The UFC did really well. In 2003, Lennox Lewis vs Klitschiko did something had something like 7 million viewers. So there you go.

Broadcasters have segments or timeslots, they basically sell timeslots. The UFC peak could be 8.8 million but their average was a measly 5.7 million whereas M-1's average was 7.5 million. M-1 could have peaked much much higher than UFC on Fox but most of these viewership data go off by on averages, again because of broadcasters selling time slots.

Actually a multi fight 2 hour event with several lower bouts and one or two main event has a far lower potential of gaining a high average than ONE MAIN EVENT card. Its a bit like the best batter in a baseball team would have a far higher average than the whole team itself. A game of chance on the other hand would be the other way around.

Your last paragraph is demonstrably wrong. The broadcast is one hour long. of that, the fight is one minute. another 10 is the introduction and walk ins. Another five for the recap/post fight interviews etc. That leaves a full 45 contentless minutes, or reduces the content to filler. Do you really think that that's going to get the same numbers as the actual fight? Or is even comparable in terms of audience appeal? It's going to drag the average down having only a quarter of your run time be sports content. Hence why the average may not be the best indicator in this particular case.

You could say the same for M-1 about "filler content". People are interested in Fedor and might have tuned in only when Fedor's fight was starting as they had no interest in the earlier fights.

I'm a bit skeptical of it ever mattering.

The Klitschko brothers are big as fuck in Germany, but since they're not as popular in the U.S. as some of the prior champs (US born or otherwise) they don't enjoy the same global star status. Less media attention, and less endorsement deals etc. Of course the Klitschko brothers are stars, and are rich all the things that come with being famous. Still they're over shadowed by fighters who were easier to sell, and big where the sell is good. Ultimately you need to sell in America because America is a giant consumer nation. Zuffa sells to consumer states like a beast. M-1 isn't nearly as popular in most consumer states and so world-wide must have been beaten.

Look I get the whole anti-zuffa deal, but if they weren't damn successful we wouldn't be making the comparison. China can at any point bring in more ratings for an even less known and holistically unimportant event as far the rest of us are concerned.

Zuffa's debut on Fox was a disaster, while M-1's show on Nov. 20 was a triumph. Zuffa promised a 60 minute show and delivered one 64-second fight. After that the viewers fled, and the advertisers must have been furious. This is obvious to anyone outside of the Zuffa cult.

monaroCountry wrote:

Jingles wrote:Actually, most reports indicate that it was Fox's call, and that they're going to listen to the UFC in the future. I'm not defending the decision, especially when it should have been obvious that Bendo Guida was going to be awesome. However, I was just qualifying why I thought the peak was more important than the average for the UFC event.

I would love to compare the average of the m-1 event, but I don't know it. If anyone has it, I would posit that it would be much closer to the average than it was for the UFC's, for the reasons stated above.

So now its Fox call is it? In the ways of Zuffa and cutting out fighter managers like GG, I think its high time that Fox cut out its middle man and paid the fighters directly.

Actually its not obvious that BG would have been a top fight, they arent the top draw for a reason.

UFC peak 8.8 mill, average 5.7 mill. Id hazard a guess and say that since M1's average was 7.5 mill that it also peaked at closer if not more than the UFC event. So really a double FAIL by Zuffa.

This isn't a discussion about fighter pay, it's about which fight is televised. Which was Fox's call.

Guida's pretty popular, Bendo isn't yet, he may end up being. That's not what I was saying, I said it was an awesome fight. Which it was. It also went the distance, and was likely to, seeing as Guida's almost impossible to knock out and Bendo's almost impossible to submit.

If you have the peak for the m-1 show, I'd like to know it. I was giving my reasoning as to why I think it will probably be closer to the average than the Fox show's

Zuffa's debut on Fox was a disaster, while M-1's show on Nov. 20 was a triumph. Zuffa promised a 60 minute show and delivered one 64-second fight. After that the viewers fled, and the advertisers must have been furious. This is obvious to anyone outside of the Zuffa cult.

It was the most watched pro-fight in the States this decade, and that's a fight that lasted a minute. Would you mind pointing out where it's obviously a disaster?