Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Mixed Martial Arts (MMA/UFC) => Topic started by: big L dawg on January 23, 2010, 12:09:22 PM
-
Strikeforce: Doomed? Part II 1/18/10
by KC Masterpiece
Strikeforce: Doomed?
Part II
01/18/2010
by Kevin Collen
As Strikeforce asserts itself as an MMA promotion to be reckoned with, comparisons of varying degrees of appropriateness between the UFC and the San Jose based company inevitably arise. Some are worth making, such as fighter payroll and compensation in light of withdrawl. Similarly, because they put out "the same" product--professional MMA fights--they are compared as one apple might be compared to another apple.
In Part II, I look at the three main components wherein the UFC and Strikeforce differ sharply and why a comparison between the two groups is more closely aligned with comparing apples to oranges:
1. Stable of developing fighters in the WEC and Strikeforce: Challengers, respectively
2. The exclusivity of fighter contracts and their consequences
3. The means of event broadcasting
When the UFC purchased World Extreme Cagefighting in December of 2006, the WEC had already been a fairly successful and widely recognized fight promotion. With the likes of Gil Melendez, Hermes Franca, James Irvin, Frank Shamrock, Scott Smith, Chris Leben, Karo Parisyan (the list could continue) as belt holders in the WEC previous to Zuffa's stepping in, it's significance can not be disputed. Strikeforce's Challengers division, however, was born out of the ProElite collapse, and took over for ShoXC, an branch of EliteXC equivalent to Zuffa's WEC with a focus on up-and-comers, that aired on SHOWTIME.
Most of us have been discussing the fights that took place last Sunday night at WEC 46. A title fight took place and two contenders (and former champions) each had bouts on the card. This is the usual post-WEC reaction: we as MMA fans discuss it as we might a UFC card, maybe with a few less thread views (though not necessarily). But what happened following the Challengers card in late November? There was a slight buzz about "Vera/Couture II" as it were, but beyond that, the rest of a card made merely a blip on the MMA radar.
Although the UFC and WEC have, by and large, always had a deep, recognizable talent pool, ShoMMA and perhaps even Strikeforce have not. This division is exacterbated by the way each promotion's "farm league" is identified: The UFC (well, really ZUFFA) owns the WEC, yet promotes them as if they are a completely different organization on the same level as the UFC, while Strikeforce not only keeps the name--Strikeforce: Challengers--but they make no attempt at maintaining the illusion that their farm league is a wholly distinct entity with which, we may believe, it competes. We know that we are watching not only fights brought to us at least in part by Strikeforce, but furthermore we know that they are "up-and-comers."
Thus, as it turns out, there's quite a lot in a name as there's little that separates many of the fighters who fight on WEC undercards (and at times, main cards) and Strikeforce: Challengers in terms of skill.
Another issue that is constitutive of the American MMA landscape has to do with fighter contracts. There are many elements that go into a contract, the details of which are often times unavailable to us as fans. One element that is not inaccesible to us is exclusivity.
We all remember August-2009, now almost six months ago, when one of the main sticking points that prevented M-1 from giving the go ahead for Fedor to fight in the UFC was the latter promotion's refusal to allow Fedor to compete in Sambo. We may gripe that this shouldn't be an issue; we want to see the best MMA fights between the best MMA fighters possible. But Fedor competing in Sambo (and like Overeem or Manhoef in K-1; Lashley in professional wrestling) is something that a fighter does with his time previous to contract negotiations.
It would be one thing if Fedor came to the UFC's table saying, "I want all you offered and I've been thinking about getting into Sambo; I demand to be allowed to compete," etc. No, Fedor and other "cross-over" athletes, rather are asking to continue to compete; asking to begin a new career path would, understandably, upset the dynamics of any negotiation.
Contrast Zuffa's policy with that employed by Strikeforce which recently enabled Gegard Mousasi moved up two weight classes to fight Gary Goodridge at the Dynamite!! NYE show. Mousasi performed well and (as some commentators label it) "respectfully dispatched" Gary Goodridge, further showing his range as a mixed martial artist.
But what if Mousasi had gotten injured? Sure fighters are injured on a regular basis; even in the course of training. But, especially in this case (and in the case of Manhoef's case when he moved up from MW to HW to fight Hunt), the opponent the fighter who is moving up and between promoitions gives up a sizable weight and strength advantage. There are weight classes for a reason.
Although I am highly critical of many aspects of how a fighter is handled within Zuffa's ranks, and although there certainly are benefits to the mobility afforded fighters who sign contracts enabling them to fight between promotions (to mention just two: increased attention paid to the fighter by diverse niches thus more attention paid to the fighters promotions, and high-level cross training) the risk involved can be great, especially when weight class mobility is part of the equation.
To be clear; Zuffa has made many decisions that are ultimately in the best intreset of the company under the guise of an altruistic end. While they certainly have their reasons to disallow the sort of fighter mobility described here, many of which are designed to ensure profit falls in their own pockets, I don't think it's unreasonable to emphasize the "protect" aspect of protecting their investment by disallowing their fighters from competing against someone possibly 50 to 100+ pounds more than them.
The last issue I want to look at can, not unlike the others, could make up an article of its own. It has to do with the means by which both UFC and Strikeforce events are brought to us.
The UFC is aired on PPV (the "official" UFC events) and on Spike TV, a channel that is part of many pay cable packages. Strikeforce is aired on Showtime (a premium channel one must pay for beyond any standard cable package) and CBS, a major (and free) network. Why does this matter to us as fans? The two different means by which we come about MMA colors who is more liable to watch it and thus the trajectory of the sport.
In Strikeforce's case, most of the primary demographic of MMA is excluded from watching the events on Showtime, provided we assume MMA's core demo is 18-25 with little disposable income, as Showtime is a premium pay channel. Conversely, most anyone with a functioning television set has access to their events on CBS (and Strikeforce is playing their cards intelligently by airing Fedor on CBS).
In the UFC's case, we have access to more and more events (TUF, WEC, UFN, old UFC re-airs) on Versus or Spike, two "basic" cable channels for which modest payment is required--certainly less than is required for a subscription to Showtime. However, their bread-and-butter are the PPV's, which run between 45 to $55 depending on the quality of the broadcast; and that doesn't count charges for multi-viewer establishments like bars, where the cost of broadcasting is based on seating capacity. To my knowledge, such a charge is not applicable to a channel like Showtime or HBO.
In an effort to combat the surging Strikeforce, the UFC is now airing events much more freqently. In 2009 they aired 20 events, most of which were on PPV. And the first six months of 2010 see 12 events planned compared to the 10 planned for the same period in 2009. If we assume 75% of events are PPV (a more than fair number), that's $337.50 for UFC from January 1 to July 1, 2010. Compared to the cost of Showtime (which ranges from $15 to 39.95 per month on top of your cable, depending on where you're located).
So cost of all UFC PPV's: roughly $330 for six months
Cost of SF events on Showtime: between 90 and $240 for six months
So although both promotions make it difficult for their core demo to access their product, we can see that although your charges for Strikeforce's premium events are ongoing, the UFC's cost more.
What does all this have to do with our role as fans and the "trajectory of the sport?" Quite a bit. We as consumers of MMA set the "terms of engagement" as it were with MMA promotions. Without us, they have no one to consume their product. Sure there are live gates and other means of compensation, but viewers like you and I watching at home keep promotions alive. In order to keep some semblance of power in this relationship, knowing as much information as you can about what's happening outside the cage enables you to act appropriately and thus impact the way the sport develops to whatever extent you see fit.
So, is Strikeforce doomed? Unlike Affliction, the last promotion that was alleged to legitimately compete with the UFC, Strikeforce is bringing MMA to the fans by completely different means than the UFC. In other words, they're not trying to beat the UFC at their own game and thus, from the word go, are in a better position to stave off the same "dooms day" scenario's others have fallen victim to. We enjoy the fruit of both promotions labor, but we're talking about apples and oranges.
Ultiamtely the success of a promotion is up to you. Is Strikeforce doomed? Not if you don't want it to be.