Thread Tools

Display Modes

3DLee · 04-19-2012, 12:53 AM

My understanding of the op, and correct me if im wrong, is that BAMMA has got what we would call a network deal and UFC over there does not. therefore Bamma>UFC? is that what this post is about?

**mattandbenny** · 04-19-2012, 08:17 AM

Technically yes, although they got a one-time-only network deal with the worst network. Like i said earlier there are 5 networks, the one BAMMA are with usually get an average of about 1 mill viewers per night, whereas the others all vary between 12mill - 4 mill per night.

UFC are on ESPN which is subscription only and costs around £8 per month. I would guess they get between 50,000 and 100,000 viewers for the UFC cards, whereas the half hour BAMMA programme probably got around 300,000 - 500,000 viewers.

Numbers wise, BAMMA did better. But most people watching it probably werent MMA fans, whilst pretty much all the people watching UFC are fans. Also, the ESPN deal is a strong steady partnership, whilst the BAMMA deal was a 1 time only tester deal.

Hope this helps!

**slapstick** · 04-19-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattandbenny

Technically yes, although they got a one-time-only network deal with the worst network. Like i said earlier there are 5 networks, the one BAMMA are with usually get an average of about 1 mill viewers per night, whereas the others all vary between 12mill - 4 mill per night.

UFC are on ESPN which is subscription only and costs around £8 per month. I would guess they get between 50,000 and 100,000 viewers for the UFC cards, whereas the half hour BAMMA programme probably got around 300,000 - 500,000 viewers.

Numbers wise, BAMMA did better. But most people watching it probably werent MMA fans, whilst pretty much all the people watching UFC are fans. Also, the ESPN deal is a strong steady partnership, whilst the BAMMA deal was a 1 time only tester deal.

Hope this helps!

We don't know the BAMMA figures but the UFC avarages around 65k viewers live (Unsure about the re-play) at collage a lot of people (17-18) were talking about the fight. People think UFC is the sport and BAMMA is like the EPL. That is why IMO it is a better deal because it has exposure. I'd be supprised if they didn't offer a new deal beause it will be very cheap programming for them to bring in reasnable late night viewing figures. Also I think BAMMA tweeted something to the effect of 'Which BAMMA card should we put on FIVE next?' and re-tweeted peoples sugestions. Don't quote me on that though.

Edit: I do know BAMMA got better ratings on BRAVO then the UFC pretty much ever has.

**mattandbenny** · 04-19-2012, 12:17 PM

Yea that fight on Bravo that got the great ratings was cause of Alex Reid. Thew ESPN deal expires soon and i'll be suprised if Sky Sports don't snap up the UFC, i think it would fit in with them well.

**edlavis88** · 04-19-2012, 12:59 PM

I think the relevance of this is that MMA has got on channel 5... Let's be honest that's as good as they can get. No way BBC or itv get involved with MMA, do sky, 4 or 5 is the biggest stage BAMMA could get on.