O shut up. It was Dana that said he was going to keep PRIDE afloat and then reneged on that when he realised it wasnt a viable option. As if DSE could just keep PRIDE/UFC of Japanese television. As for whoever is co promoting with SF that is irrelevant. There are TWO promotions. That mon fere equals a CO-PROMOTION. Additionally they are sharing fighters from DREAM and free agents. When the UFC co-promotes call me... Like i said typical straw argument from UFC schill. Rather than see the OBVIOUS points you want to draw out an argument over anecdotes. atsch
That is 100% non-sense. There is absolutly no sport on the planet that has 100% monopoly on the named sport. Not Ice hockey, not european football, not rugby, not even ****in cricket. The only case where you could be right are sport the only interest some part of the globe, like american football, basketball and baseball...and even baseball there is a huge latino/japanese fan base so...
No you're wrong. FIFA and its members run football. ICC and its members run cricket. The International Rugby Board runs rugby union....etc etc. Yes each country has its own league and there are regional competitions above them but there is an unified structure. You know who is the champion at each level and there's no scope for players to opt out the system. There is no rival to the FIFA World Cup or the UEFA Champions League.
If they weren't going to keep it up and running then why would they spend $70million on it? They clearly had those plans and were frustrated. And I don't see what evidence you have for dismissing the possibility DSE were denying the new Pride television slots given that DSE employees would create Dream soon after the final implosion of Pride. You said that the Strikeforce World Grand Prix couldn't exist without co-promotion. There is one fighter involved who isn't under a standard strikeforce contract. Strikeforce could easily have organised a tournament without co-promoting. And I would love to know what I'm saying that is schilling for the UFC. All I'm saying is that Strikeforce should grow a pair and be more aggressive in marketing its fighters as the best.
All this over a 5 second crowd shot. It's like you guys are debating the Zapruder film or summin Back and to the left :huh
Here we go back to a semantic argument...damn we can't have a day without them. FIFA is and is not a monopoly. Yes nothing is bigger then the FIFA in the european foootball world. But like it's cleary explaned in the wiki page of the FIFA, it's a governing body, not an organisation. UFC isn't, it's an organisation, it's governing body are the the ahtletic commision of the different state they organised there event in. Really really bad exemple I'm sorry. Really not the same thing. But if you are proposing a global governing body for MMA that could be a ****in great idea, but not a monopole, sorry ! Oh wait...isn't that what the WAMMA tried to do...?
Its you who's doing the semantics. I repeat my original point again: I was clearly talking about having a unified structure without different organisations trying to promote against each other. You can't compare structures exactly because teams sports will always be organised differently to individual sports, and MMA is a relatively small sport with fewer participants playing fewer matches than most major individual sports. Take European club football - yes there are numerous different leagues but they are all limited to specific locations. There is in effect a cartel between the national leagues who agree not to cross set geographical boundaries and cooperate to put on a pan-european competition. When there was an attempt to set up a rival competition - the European Super League - the leagues led by UEFA closely cooperated to reach a deal with leading clubs to avoid such a breakaway. Now the point is that there have been times when in established team sports breakaway leagues have been formed - World Series Cricket and the NFL-AFL dispute spring to mind. And to begin with such breakaway leagues do some good because they challenge an out of date established order and bring fresh ideas to the sport. But eventually the sport reunifies because everyone realises that having two leagues trying to do the same thing is bad for the sport - it dilutes the product, confuses the fans and forces the promoters to focus more on getting the biggest slice of the existing fanbase than trying expand the overall fanbase. This is the point I was making about MMA - unless the UFC is doing a bad job I think its better for the UFC to be a strong, powerful market leader growing the sport as a whole rather than have several promotions fighting over the existing fanbase.
See I'm putting off work. I'm usually at my most belligerent when battling writer's block on something else. Enjoy the film
I agree with almost everything you just said, except the last part. Yes it can't be good for a sport to split the fan base as you say. But in this case why would it split the fan base ? I'm a fan of MMA, not of the UFC, not of SF. If somebody only follow 1 org then that person is a ****in ****** and is not a fan of the sport. Yes you are right that having alot of org dillute the sport. But the UFC are probably doing something wrong if not all the fighter want to sign with them ? IMO it's alot more simple and makes alot more sense to have some kind of WAMMA(almost like the FIFA model) keep track of everything, big league for the tested fighter and minor league for the new people and journeyman passed there prime. Because even though they pay the FIFA to be able to compete aginst each other, what is the world cup if not co-promotion between CONCACAF, CAF CONMEBOL, AFC, OFC and UEFA under the guidline of the FIFA ?