Is the UFC going to be a better value for fans once all the broadcast and streaming deals are finalized for 2019? Retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss in this week’s Trading Shots.

* * * *

Downes: Ben, I know you’d like to spend today explaining why we uneducated slobs who didn’t like this weekend’s main event are wrong, but I’ll let you save that for your jiu-jitsu newsletter. Instead, I want to talk about an interview you did this week with GLORY kickboxing CEO and former UFC Executive Vice President Marshall Zelaznik.

You discussed the UFC’s new deal with ESPN and the potential implications for fans and the business. Unsurprisingly, he’s quite pleased with the deal. He seems to think it was great for both the UFC and ESPN.

Did he assuage any of your fears that the MMA bubble might burst and you’ll find yourself sitting in a Missoula park with a sign reading “Will be pedantic for food”? Or do you think you only received some more PR talking points from a guy in a suit?

Fowlkes: I’ll be honest, headed into this interview I was worried it might be all guy-in-suit talking points. But talking to Zelaznik about the nature of the streaming business and what the future may hold was actually really interesting, in large part because of his knowledge of and passion for the subject matter. I was surprised to find it had implications that go way beyond sports.

I’ll tell you what does worry me, though. Zelaznik talked a lot about what makes the UFC a great “transactional product” for a company like ESPN. In other words, it’s a sports property that its fans will pay for, in part because, as Zelaznik put it, fight fans are “trained” to think of their sport in terms of pay-per-views and so forth.

That’s nice for the UFC and ESPN, but what about fans? Just as importantly, what about new fans?

So far, it sounds like the plan in 2019 is for 15 events on ESPN+, 15 on regular old TV, and 12 on pay-per-view. That means nearly two-thirds of UFC events will be behind a paywall in one sense or another. In 2017, that was true of fewer than half of all UFC events. The net result here is that the sport is getting harder to see without a credit card and at least a little bit of disposable income.

So how do you keep the same fanaticism among fans? Having a product people will pay for, either because it’s just that good or because they’re just that used to it, is nice for the people being paid. But if you squeeze that piggy bank too hard, and offer too little in return, isn’t there a risk that what fans will really get used to is ignoring the majority of UFC events? And then what?

Downes: What I found interesting was his discussion on how we’re increasingly segregating television (sports or otherwise) audiences.

“The beauty of the bundle, or what we’d call the cable bundle in the old days, is you could channel surf and discover other stuff that you might like. And in a world where it’s now so easy to segment interest, you end up preaching to the converted.”

In one sense, it makes sense for the UFC to go with ESPN instead of solely investing in UFC Fight Pass. While you may not think the person buying ESPN+ to watch soccer or rugby wants to check out Kamaru Usman vs. Demian Maia, there’s a chance that can happen. Especially if you have Stephen A. Smith or other ESPN personalities talking about it on the regular.

As much as hardcore fans want to be catered to, the real money is in the casuals. Based on some PPVs this year, the UFC already knows what the floor is. With this new venture, the company hopes to grow that number.

Plus, when you’re talking about “squeezing the piggy bank too hard” you’re talking about $60 for an entire year of ESPN+. We don’t all have to be making Ben Fowlkes money to afford that. Skip one PPV, and you can pay for the new streaming service. Cancel UFC Fight Pass and pick up ESPN+, and you end up with a net positive for the year. Get the login with your cousin Greg, and it’ll cost you nothing!

What worries me about this strategy, and Zelaznik touches on it briefly, is that it relies heavily on the UFC’s ability to build stars. With just over 40 events in a year, the old model of “stacked” cards isn’t feasible. Instead, you have to rely on hitting home runs with superstars. What of the last few years gives any indication that more stars are on the horizon?

nt"

I know Endeavor executives receive a lot of criticism for this, but it’s not all their fault. They need fighters with personality, dynamism and the ability to make themselves a star. In that regards, the cupboard is looking bare.

While I’m not one to put my faith in corporate executives, don’t you ever think we’re being a little too Chicken Little? For better or worse, the people involved in this deal value one thing above all, and it’s return on investment. What do they see that your sky-is-falling crowd doesn’t?

Fowlkes: You’re wrong about the PPV superstars thing. If anything, deals like this help insulate the UFC from the ups and downs of that business; $150 million a year picks up the slack for a lot of flat sales – and does so on a guaranteed basis for the next five years.

This is part of my concern, Danny. The UFC has an incentive to produce content here. But there’s a difference between just filling out dates on the event calendar and putting together really great shows for your fans. If you’re spreading your product out across three different platforms – TV, streaming, and PPV – you can’t help but dilute it somewhat. And we’ve seen with some of these UFC Fight Night events, there are only so many fighters who people really care about.

So what do the corporate suits see that the rest of us don’t? They see us. They see the walking dollar signs that have demonstrated a bottomless desire for MMA content. They see a “trained” audience that shows up with credit cards at the ready.

The thing that makes the UFC such an attractive product is the fanbase that comes with it, many of which have proven that they will even pay a monthly subscription for the lowest tier of programming. Companies like ESPN are buying the audience as much as the product itself.

If the product can be diluted so that it spreads a little further without losing its share of the audience, that’s a big win for the UFC. That’s ROI right there. I’m just not sure it’s a great deal for fans. And I wonder whether it’s sustainable.

For more on the UFC’s upcoming schedule, check out the UFC Rumors section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.