Tag: PPV buys

Wild Rumor of the Day: UFC 174 Did Less Than 100,000 Pay-Per-View Buys


(*crickets* / Photo via Getty)

Yesterday, MMAFighting’s Dave Meltzer reported that UFC 173: Barao vs. Dillashaw pulled an estimated 200,000-215,000 pay-per-view buys. While that number is certainly on the low end of UFC buyrates, it’s not a disaster by any means. Keep in mind that UFC 169 — a card that featured a Renan Barao vs. Urijah Faber rematch, Jose Aldo defending his featherweight belt against Ricardo Lamas, and a high-profile heavyweight bout between Alistair Overeem and Frank Mir — only earned an estimated 230,000 buys back in February. On paper, UFC 173 was arguably a weaker offering, but the buyrate wasn’t that far off. Basically, it could have been a lot worse.

The bad news is, last weekend’s UFC 174: Johnson vs. Bagautinov event might have done a historically awful, Bellator-caliber buyrate. First, here’s Meltzer discussing the early estimates in his newsletter yesterday:

“It’s too early to get accurate numbers, but every indication we’ve gotten was very bad, and that it showed a steep decline from UFC 173, which was among the lower numbers of the last eight years. UFC PPV shows usually range from 200,000 to 500,000 Google searches after the event, and are usually in the top few searched for items in the country. A bad show may only do 100,000. Bellator’s show last month hit 100,000. A big show can top 500,000, with the shows that hover around 1 million buys usually doing anywhere from 1 million to 5 million searches. This show did less than 20,000, unheard of for a PPV…


(*crickets* / Photo via Getty)

Yesterday, MMAFighting’s Dave Meltzer reported that UFC 173: Barao vs. Dillashaw pulled an estimated 200,000-215,000 pay-per-view buys. While that number is certainly on the low end of UFC buyrates, it’s not a disaster by any means. Keep in mind that UFC 169 — a card that featured a Renan Barao vs. Urijah Faber rematch, Jose Aldo defending his featherweight belt against Ricardo Lamas, and a high-profile heavyweight bout between Alistair Overeem and Frank Mir — only earned an estimated 230,000 buys back in February. On paper, UFC 173 was arguably a weaker offering, but the buyrate wasn’t that far off. Basically, it could have been a lot worse.

The bad news is, last weekend’s UFC 174: Johnson vs. Bagautinov event might have done a historically awful, Bellator-caliber buyrate. First, here’s Meltzer discussing the early estimates in his newsletter yesterday:

“It’s too early to get accurate numbers, but every indication we’ve gotten was very bad, and that it showed a steep decline from UFC 173, which was among the lower numbers of the last eight years. UFC PPV shows usually range from 200,000 to 500,000 Google searches after the event, and are usually in the top few searched for items in the country. A bad show may only do 100,000. Bellator’s show last month hit 100,000. A big show can top 500,000, with the shows that hover around 1 million buys usually doing anywhere from 1 million to 5 million searches. This show did less than 20,000, unheard of for a PPV.

Unlike UFC 173, which looked weak on paper and everyone knew wasn’t going to draw much, it still had Dan Henderson and Daniel Cormier in the No. 2 spot. They brought some star power in what was really the main event. It also had a lot to talk about after, due to T.J. Dillashaw’s upset win over Renan Barao.

This show didn’t have much interest going in. But most of the time, those type of shows deliver good action. This had none of that. It wasn’t terrible, but there was no fight you needed to see. As a likely sign of how the show went, Dana White didn’t even attend the post-fight press conference.”

In response to Meltzer’s story, our twitter friend @Niko138 added some inside information that suggests the UFC 174 buyrate was beyond dismal. Treat this as a rumor for now, but holy crap:

I’ve heard from a couple of people who would know, that early estimates of 174 buys have it just a bit under 100k. The sole reason I am posting about this (I normally try not to be one of those ratings/buys posters who everyone hates) is because if the show truly did this bad, it will be a good thing for us fans who complain about watered down cards. The UFC’s core audience was really being tested with this card, to see how much they could get away with buys wise, for a card with absolutely no drawing power to the casual viewer.

If this is the case, it sends a strong message to the UFC that the watered down cards are no longer going over with fans. For me, considering the cards are $60 and there is 14 a year…this is great news.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the number that comes out in the press is just above that, like 125…If you see the number come out around that area, then trust me, it did under 100k. This has to piss Dana off to no end considering the Bellator show did do a legit 100k

This is really interesting stuff to me, because like I said.. if true, the UFC is going to realize they can’t keep putting on shows like this as a numbered PPV, and expect its fans to continuously just blindly shell out the cash.

That’s a step in the right direction.. they know they are losing PPV buys, and hopefully they step their game up to fix it, by putting on more big fights per card. We can hope anyway.

So, a couple things. MMAPayout’s PPV Blue Book only dates back to UFC 57 in February 2006, and doesn’t show any UFC pay-per-view doing less than 140k buys. But according to Wikipedia (I know, I know), the last UFC PPV that did under 100k buys was UFC 53: Heavy Hitters, which took in just 90,000 buys in June 2005. In other words, you have to go back nine years to find a UFC PPV that performed as terribly as UFC 174 allegedly did.

My other thought is this: “Putting on more big fights per card” is not necessarily the answer. After years of seeing these UFC buyrates ebb and flow, my totally non-scientific conclusion is that 1) casual UFC fans only care about who’s fighting in the main event, and 2) nobody cares about little flyweights. Seriously. Non-Rousey bantamweight and featherweight title fights have always underperformed on pay-per-view, and it should come as no surprise that the first time the UFC tried to put a flyweight title fight in a pay-per-view main event, it would pull record-low numbers.

So, if the 100k buyrate is accurate — or even close to accurate — it’ll get the UFC’s attention. But don’t expect the promotion to start putting together more stacked PPVs in response; remember they have like 50 events/year to fill out, and they simply don’t have the manpower for it. Instead, the UFC’s major takeaway will probably be this: If we have to put a flyweight title fight on a pay-per-view card, there had better be a bigger fight on top of it.

Update: Bellator 120 Pulled Over 100,000 Pay-Per-View Buys [WHAAAAAT?]


(Looks like Bjorn is dick-ridin’ all the way to the bank. / Photo via TheExaminer)

Earlier this week, initial estimates pegged Bellator 120: Rampage vs. King Mo as earning 65,000 pay-per-view buys — a number that exceeded the basement-level expectations of most observers. But it turns out that Bellator 120 wasn’t just a moral victory. As first reported by Sherdog (and later confirmed by MMAFighting), Bellator’s inaugural pay-per-view card did over 100,000 buys, making it an unqualified success

Sherdog’s report was based on an anonymous source “speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release buy-rate data.” The source explained that the buyrate information will be readily available in Viacom’s SEC filings later this year.

In a statement released to MMAFighting, Bellator CEO Bjorn Rebney played it cool: “I won’t be discussing specific PPV buy rates, but what I can say is that with one of our main events falling out just seven days before our first PPV, a six figure plus buy rate is a good starting point. But, it’s just that, a starting point. My focus is to continue working with our partners at Spike to create the type of big event experience that we created on the 17th.”


(Looks like Bjorn is dick-ridin’ all the way to the bank. / Photo via TheExaminer)

Earlier this week, initial estimates pegged Bellator 120: Rampage vs. King Mo as earning 65,000 pay-per-view buys — a number that exceeded the basement-level expectations of most observers. But it turns out that Bellator 120 wasn’t just a moral victory. As first reported by Sherdog (and later confirmed by MMAFighting), Bellator’s inaugural pay-per-view card did over 100,000 buys, making it an unqualified success

Sherdog’s report was based on an anonymous source “speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release buy-rate data.” The source explained that the buyrate information will be readily available in Viacom’s SEC filings later this year.

In a statement released to MMAFighting, Bellator CEO Bjorn Rebney played it cool: “I won’t be discussing specific PPV buy rates, but what I can say is that with one of our main events falling out just seven days before our first PPV, a six figure plus buy rate is a good starting point. But, it’s just that, a starting point. My focus is to continue working with our partners at Spike to create the type of big event experience that we created on the 17th.”

The only other non-Zuffa MMA PPV to hit a six-figure buyrate was Affliction: Banned in July 2008, and that card featured Fedor Emelianenko, three former UFC heavyweight champs (Tim Sylvia, Andrei Arlovski, Josh Barnett) and a host of other recognizable MMA veterans. Bellator hit 100k even after losing its main event. That’s kind of astounding. Rampage and Tito can still put asses in seats, I guess.

So what’s the ceiling for Bellator’s pay-per-view potential? With a stronger card, can they approach the 140k-150k range that the UFC has pulled for its least popular PPV shows? And if so, then what? Will 2014 be the year when Bellator can legitimately call itself a competitor to the UFC?

The Pay-Per-View Buyrate Estimates for UFC 169 and UFC 170 Are Not Awesome


(Ronda Rousey might actually be the biggest star the UFC has. Unfortunately, that’s not saying much. / Photo via Getty)

According to Dave Meltzer’s latest pay-per-view buyrate column on MMAFighting.com, the first two UFC PPV events of 2014 didn’t exactly blow the doors down.

Let’s start with UFC 169: Barao vs. Faber 2 on February 1st, which featured two championship fights (including a featherweight title bout between Jose Aldo and Ricardo Lamas in the co-main event), and a solid heavyweight feature between Alistair Overeem and Frank Mir. That show took in just 230,000 buys, by Meltzer’s estimates — the lowest total for a UFC PPV since last summer, when UFC 161 and UFC 163 completely crapped the bed. It’s worth noting that the first time Urijah Faber and Renan Barao headlined a pay-per-view (UFC 149), it pulled in a nearly identical number. Maybe the California Kid isn’t quite the superstar we’ve made him out to be.

Holding an event on a weekend when so much attention was focused on the Super Bowl gives the UFC a convenient excuse as to why UFC 169 may have underperformed. But it still doesn’t bode well for the promotion’s ability to sell pay-per-views for events headlined by male fighters under 155 pounds. UFC 169 featured Renan Barao, Urijah Faber, Jose Aldo — the only absent sub-155 star was Dominick Cruz — and they still barely cleared the UFC Mendoza Line of 200k buys.

The good news (or bad news, depending on how you look at it) is that Ronda Rousey is a bigger draw completely on her own than Barao, Faber, and, Aldo put together…


(Ronda Rousey might actually be the biggest star the UFC has. Unfortunately, that’s not saying much. / Photo via Getty)

According to Dave Meltzer’s latest pay-per-view buyrate column on MMAFighting.com, the first two UFC PPV events of 2014 didn’t exactly blow the doors down.

Let’s start with UFC 169: Barao vs. Faber 2 on February 1st, which featured two championship fights (including a featherweight title bout between Jose Aldo and Ricardo Lamas in the co-main event), and a solid heavyweight feature between Alistair Overeem and Frank Mir. That show took in just 230,000 buys, by Meltzer’s estimates — the lowest total for a UFC PPV since last summer, when UFC 161 and UFC 163 completely crapped the bed. It’s worth noting that the first time Urijah Faber and Renan Barao headlined a pay-per-view (UFC 149), it pulled in a nearly identical number. Maybe the California Kid isn’t quite the superstar we’ve made him out to be.

Holding an event on a weekend when so much attention was focused on the Super Bowl gives the UFC a convenient excuse as to why UFC 169 may have underperformed. But it still doesn’t bode well for the promotion’s ability to sell pay-per-views for events headlined by male fighters under 155 pounds. UFC 169 featured Renan Barao, Urijah Faber, Jose Aldo — the only absent sub-155 star was Dominick Cruz — and they still barely cleared the UFC Mendoza Line of 200k buys.

The good news (or bad news, depending on how you look at it) is that Ronda Rousey is a bigger draw completely on her own than Barao, Faber, and, Aldo put together. Meltzer reports that UFC 170: Rousey vs. McMann on February 22nd collected an estimated 340,000 pay-per-view buys, with a much weaker supporting card than UFC 169 had. (Two words: Durkin Cummins.) When you consider that Rousey also helped UFC 168 become the first million-selling pay-per-view since 2010, it’s undeniable that the women’s bantamweight champ has become an essential part of the UFC’s business.

Of course, 340k buys doesn’t sound like a huge number — and it isn’t, if you compare it to, say, 2009, when every single UFC pay-per-view did 350k buys or better. Or, if you compare it to Rousey’s first UFC headliner against Liz Carmouche in February 2013, which pulled 450k buys, driven by the novelty value of the UFC’s first women’s title fight. But UFC 170′s PPV performance is more impressive when you compare it to recent UFC title fights featuring guys who are allegedly stars in allegedly marquee divisions. UFC 164: Henderson vs. Pettis did 270k buys. UFC 165: Jones vs. Gustafsson did between 300k-325k buys, and UFC 166: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos 3 drew “in the same range or very sightly up.” Ronda Rousey edged them all out, and she did so against a opponent (Sara McMann) who was a virtual unknown to casual fans, who Rousey had no personal rivalry with, in a fight that was thrown together on less than two months’ notice. That’s kind of amazing, actually.

So, is Ronda Rousey the biggest star the UFC has ever had, as UFC president Dana White likes to say after huffing gas? Well, she could have a solid argument for being the biggest UFC star that the UFC has right now. Although it should be mentioned that UFC 170′s live gate of $1,558,870 fell well below expectations.

Lets be real: 2014 is going to be a rough one for the UFC, pay-per-view wise. Anthony Pettis and Cain Velasquez won’t return until the end of this year, and Johny Hendricks will most likely be out until the fall. Ronda Rousey literally has nobody to fight right now, and the male featherweight/bantamweight/flyweight divisions simply don’t draw. UFC 173 has a cool poster, but probably not blockbuster potential. Anderson Silva won’t return this year, and Georges St-Pierre’s return depends on the UFC overhauling its drug-testing policies, which ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

And so, 340k buys represents a new high-water mark, which only a small handful of UFC PPVs will be able to clear this year. Most likely, the buyrate trend will continue to drop as the UFC shifts its attention to small-scale international shows, while the burned-out North American fanbase is content to watch the UFC’s free FOX/FS1/FS2 events and skip the ones that cost $55 simply because there’s a belt on the line in the main event.

The next UFC pay-per-view is UFC 172: Jones vs. Teixeira on April 26th — a light-heavyweight title fight that will probably pull around 300k buys. That’s just the way it is, now.

–BG

The Benson Henderson Problem


(Photo via Getty)

Benson “Smooth” Henderson is a talented fighter with a knack for winning the fights he loses. But on the oft-overlooked business side of MMA, Henderson is a dud.

As champion, he consistently failed to move the needle in terms of PPV buys and ratings. His rematch against Frankie Edgar at UFC 150 drew a paltry 190,000 buys—one of the worst buyrates in recent UFC history.

The UFC shipped Henderson off to FOX for his next two outings, presumably to build his name via fighting on a massive television network. Henderson headlined UFC on FOX 5 and UFC on FOX 7. They both earned modest numbers, with the former receiving an average of 3.41 million viewers (1.6 rating in the adult 18-49 demo) and the latter 3.3 million viewers (1.6 rating in the adult 18-49 demo).


(Photo via Getty)

By Matt Saccaro

Benson “Smooth” Henderson is a talented fighter with a knack for winning the fights he loses. But on the oft-overlooked business side of MMA, Henderson is a dud.

As champion, he consistently failed to move the needle in terms of PPV buys and ratings. His rematch against Frankie Edgar at UFC 150 drew a paltry 190,000 buys—one of the worst buyrates in recent UFC history.

The UFC shipped Henderson off to FOX for his next two outings, presumably to build his name via fighting on a massive television network. Henderson headlined UFC on FOX 5 and UFC on FOX 7. They both earned modest numbers, with the former receiving an average of 3.41 million viewers (1.6 rating in the adult 18-49 demo) and the latter 3.3 million viewers (1.6 rating in the adult 18-49 demo).

The exposure on FOX didn’t correlate into an increase in star power. Henderson remained a below-average PPV draw, with his fight against Anthony Pettis at UFC 164 garnering only 270,000 buys. After losing this fight, Henderson was sent to FOX yet again where he headlined UFC on FOX 10 opposite Josh Thomson. This was Henderson’s lowest-performing FOX card. Only 2.55 million viewers on average (1.1 rating in adult 18-49 demo) tuned in to this event. The live gate for this show was abysmal too. It was the lowest ever for a UFC card in Chicago and the second lowest for a FOX card. On the money side of the fight game, Henderson is anything but “smooth.”

What do you do with a fighter like him? He wins fights, but the decisions are so controversial they’re off-putting. His victories are rarely decisive and the bulk of fans refuse to pay to see him. The rest only watch him for free, but judging by the slump in viewership even those fans are losing interest.

Henderson is a promoter’s worst nightmare. He’s a decision-prone fighter who prizes points above punishment. He fights for the almighty decision, not for submissions or knockouts. Dana White himself noted this recently. He’s an anchor on the division—a perennially victorious athlete who nobody wants to see yet is too high profile to just be buried on prelims like Jon Fitch was back in the day. What if Henderson wins his next fight? Do you give him yet another rematch against Pettis? Or do you keep pairing him off with contenders until he loses? It’s a conundrum.

Benson Henderson is a competitor, not a fighter. That’s fine so long as you draw money and entertain the masses, but Henderson has never done either in the UFC. His style isn’t conducive to converting casual FOX viewers into hardcore MMA fans—fans who purchase PPVs and subscribe to the UFC Fight Pass. Yet there he was in all his banality, presented in the main event of a FOX card for all to see…and for all to loathe, malign, and ultimately forget about.

Report: ‘Weidman vs. Silva 2? Becomes 7th UFC Pay-Per-View to Break One Million Buys


(“Alright fellas, now let’s go eat!” — Matt Serra, pretty much any time of day. / Photo via MMAFighting.com)

It’s been over three years since the UFC produced a pay-per-view that earned more than one million buys, but it appears that UFC 168: Weidman vs. Silva 2 has ended the drought. According to Dave Meltzer, UFC 168 broke the seven-figure threshold, selling up to 1.1 million PPVs.

If Meltzer’s projections are accurate, UFC 168 would become the seventh UFC PPV to earn a million-plus buyrate. The promotion first hit the mark with UFC 66: Liddell v. Ortiz II, which did an estimated 1,050,000 buys in December 2006. Two years later, the UFC scored back-to-back million-sellers with UFC 91: Lesnar v. Couture (1,010,000) and UFC 92: The Ultimate 2008 (1,000,000).

In July 2009, the UFC put on its most successful show to date when UFC 100 — which featured Brock Lesnar and Georges St-Pierre on the same card — took in an astounding 1.6 million buys, and in 2010, the promotion hit seven figures twice with UFC 114: Evans vs. Jackson in May (1,000,000) and UFC 116: Lesnar vs. Carwin in July (1,060,000).

A small handful of UFC shows have crept into 900k+ territory since July 2010 — all headlined by superstars like Lesnar, St-Pierre, and Anderson Silva — but no others managed to score an even million until UFC 168, which could go down as the second-most-successful UFC PPV of all time. I guess MMA fans didn’t mind paying that extra five bucks after all.

Previously: ‘UFC 168: Weidman vs. Silva 2? Earned the Second-Biggest MMA Live Gate in Nevada History


(“Alright fellas, now let’s go eat!” — Matt Serra, pretty much any time of day. / Photo via MMAFighting.com)

It’s been over three years since the UFC produced a pay-per-view that earned more than one million buys, but it appears that UFC 168: Weidman vs. Silva 2 has ended the drought. According to Dave Meltzer, UFC 168 broke the seven-figure threshold, selling up to 1.1 million PPVs.

If Meltzer’s projections are accurate, UFC 168 would become the seventh UFC PPV to earn a million-plus buyrate. The promotion first hit the mark with UFC 66: Liddell v. Ortiz II, which did an estimated 1,050,000 buys in December 2006. Two years later, the UFC scored back-to-back million-sellers with UFC 91: Lesnar v. Couture (1,010,000) and UFC 92: The Ultimate 2008 (1,000,000).

In July 2009, the UFC put on its most successful show to date when UFC 100 — which featured Brock Lesnar and Georges St-Pierre on the same card — took in an astounding 1.6 million buys, and in 2010, the promotion hit seven figures twice with UFC 114: Evans vs. Jackson in May (1,000,000) and UFC 116: Lesnar vs. Carwin in July (1,060,000).

A small handful of UFC shows have crept into 900k+ territory since July 2010 — all headlined by superstars like Lesnar, St-Pierre, and Anderson Silva — but no others managed to score an even million until UFC 168, which could go down as the second-most-successful UFC PPV of all time. I guess MMA fans didn’t mind paying that extra five bucks after all.

Previously: ‘UFC 168: Weidman vs. Silva 2? Earned the Second-Biggest MMA Live Gate in Nevada History

Are Events Like UFC Fight Night 32 Why the UFC’s Popularity is Suffering?


(It’s almost 2014. Dan Henderson and Vitor Belfort are still main-eventing UFC cards. / photo via Getty)

By Matt Saccaro

Cards like UFC Fight Night 32 are contributing to the death of MMA’s popularity in the US.

In case you haven’t noticed, the UFC’s numbers have been atrocious lately. UFC 165, a card headlined by the light heavyweight champion of the world and future of the company Jon Jones, drew a paltry 325,000 buys. Cain Velasquez vs. Junior Dos Santos III—the finale to the greatest trilogy in UFC heavyweight history—drew a slightly higher number at UFC 166.

The UFC has had woes on free television too. TUF is regularly breaking the wrong kinds of records. And the ratings on FOX Sports 1 have been inconsistent at best. They started strong with a tremendous 1.7 million (back to 2011 Spike TV levels) for UFC Fight Night 26, dropped 54% to 824,000 viewers for UFN 27, fell a further 35% to 539,000 for UFN 28, rose to 638,000 for 29, and stayed at that level for the next fight night card on FOX Sports 1, UFC Fight Night 31 (a.k.a. UFC Fight for the Troops 3).


(It’s almost 2014. Dan Henderson and Vitor Belfort are still main-eventing UFC cards. / photo via Getty)

By Matt Saccaro

Cards like UFC Fight Night 32 are contributing to the death of MMA’s popularity in the US.

In case you haven’t noticed, the UFC’s numbers have been atrocious lately. UFC 165, a card headlined by the light heavyweight champion of the world and future of the company Jon Jones, drew a paltry 325,000 buys. Cain Velasquez vs. Junior Dos Santos III—the finale to the greatest trilogy in UFC heavyweight history—drew a slightly higher number at UFC 166.

The UFC has had woes on free television too. TUF is regularly breaking the wrong kinds of records. And the ratings on FOX Sports 1 have been inconsistent at best. They started strong with a tremendous 1.7 million (back to 2011 Spike TV levels) for UFC Fight Night 26, dropped 54% to 824,000 viewers for UFN 27, fell a further 35% to 539,000 for UFN 28, rose to 638,000 for 29, and stayed at that level for the next fight night card on FOX Sports 1, UFC Fight Night 31 (a.k.a. UFC Fight for the Troops 3).

Not counting UFC Fight Night 32 (the ratings aren’t out at the time of writing), the average viewership for UFC Fight Night cards on FS1 is 884,400. The average viewership for the last five “Fight Night” events the UFC held on Spike TV is over twice that number at a little over two million (1.8 million for UFN 25, 2.2 million for UFN 24, 2.5 million for UFN 23, 1.6 million for UFN 22, and 2 million for UFN 21).

UFC Fight Night 30, the lone Fight Night that’s been featured on FOX Sports 2, only drew 122,000 viewers and was outdrawn by World Series of Fighting 6, which scored 161,000 viewers.

Something—nay, many things, are amiss. Even the king of hyperbole Dana White admitted that the UFC is not mainstream. And with cards like UFC Fight Night 32, it never will be.

What about that event stood out? What about that event made people say, “I need to keep watching the UFC”?

The card was stacked with middling Brazilian fighters and prospects only the hardcore fans and journalists knew or cared about. Fans will say that the card was great because there were finishes, but that’s a short-sighted and extremely myopic view. Yes, four of the six bouts on the main card were finishes, but what’s a finish worth when nobody is watching?

The casual fan, the group on which the UFC’s growth and popularity in the United States is dependent, doesn’t care about finishes. The casual fan cares about names, about stars. The guy who wears tapout and does bicep curls in the squat rack talks about Kimbo Slice and Brock Lesnar, not about the intricacies of a setup for an armbar or a triangle.

Ask yourself this: What did UFC Fight Night 32 do to regain the swaths of casual fans who have tuned out of MMA since 2013?

Obviously, the UFC can’t put all the good stuff on free television because they make money on their PPVs. Still, that brings up another question. What “good stuff” do they have left to put on free TV that’ll draw what they were drawing on Spike?

Their stars are fading. Instead of creating new ones, they’re vomiting a stream of generic, EA sports create-a-fighters onto television screens across America. They’re expecting the casual fan to watch because it’s the UFC and the UFC is a good brand and they’re fights and fights are exciting. Everyone loves fights, right? It’s in our blood to love fighting. Or so the tired MMA-triumphalist rhetoric goes.

But it’s become apparent that that logic isn’t true. People aren’t tuning in for the novelty of “this UFC thing” anymore. They’ve moved on either because they’re waiting for Chuck Liddell’s or Kimbo Slice’s or Brock Lesnar’s next fight, or because the sport is too hard to follow, or because they never see it on TV because they don’t watch FS1, or because they see cards like UFC Fight Night 32 and just don’t care anymore.

This issue becomes even more complicated when you consider the question of overseas expansion. UFC Fight Night 32 was, obviously, a Brazil-centric card. The UFC is also eyeing expansion in many other countries. But is the UFC pursuing this goal because the US market is drying up, or is the US market drying up because of the UFC’s obsession with international growth?

The answer, for now, is elusive. When we see how the UFC closes out the year, we’ll know the bubble has burst if we see the UFC’s popularity in the US continue to wither.