Opinion: Change in the Air

Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media.

* * *
There’s a very strong likelihood that 2026 will be the beginning of a new era for the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Not that I’m predicting someone will claim the throne of a particular division and have a long reign, though that possibility exists. No, I’m talking about the way the public will be consuming the product, as the end of 2025 will mark the end of the UFC’s seven-year deal with ESPN.

I’m sure there are some who read that and wonder why they should care. It’s not like it’s difficult to subscribe to a particular platform and gain access to view whatever content one wishes, but this is a big deal. The broadcasting rights landscape has changed immensely from the time the UFC signed its first major deal with Fox in 2011. Thus, it should be expected that the next deal it signs is going to be revolutionary in how we take in the premier organization of our favorite sport.

As streaming began its rise in the late 2000s, live sports became the crown jewel of television properties. That was likely the biggest reason Fox opted to pony up in 2011 at a time when other networks had the opportunity to do so. It was a boon for Fox, as the UFC product anchored the upstart Fox Sports channel upon its inception in 2013. As streaming grew in popularity, television networks did everything in their power to hold onto those properties, and they have been less successful as time goes by.

Amazon has dipped into the NFL and the NBA. Apple+ has its fingers in MLB and MLS. Netflix is involved with the UFC’s sister organization, World Wrestling Entertainment. While not a true sport given its scripted nature, the WWE’s rise in popularity has made it a valued commodity talked about in conjunction with the other sports. However, the main thing about the broadcasting rights of each of those organizations is that none of them are exclusive; they all share the rights with traditional networks. Until the end of this year, the UFC is the only major sport under an exclusive deal—unless you count bowling.

Given the current trends and the UFC’s asking price—CEO Dana White has said he wants at least a billion dollars a year, up from the current price of $300 million—you can expect that the promotion is going to end up on multiple platforms; and one of those platforms is likely to be streaming. Given that a lot of the current UFC events are on ESPN+, that shouldn’t be a huge change for UFC fans. What would be is the elimination of the pay-per-view model.

The PPV model works best when there’s infrequency and established star power. Asking fans to dish out upwards of $80 a pop for PPVs at least once a month is a big ask, especially at a time when there’s economic instability. Without a name like Conor McGregor or Ronda Rousey available to drive casuals to dip into their pockets, the potential for UFC growth is limited. That would be different if the UFC managed to figure out how to make stars, but that hasn’t been happening. What the UFC needs is greater access to the public for its best talents, and that means moving them out from behind the PPV model. After all, the organization that popularized the PPV model—the WWE—left it behind over a decade ago. It’s fair to reason that it’s a relic of the past.

Further reason to abandon PPV is the abundance of piracy. While I have no doubt the UFC does whatever it can to go after illegal streaming, it has become so prevalent that I’m sure the company believes it’s leaving money on the table.

The question involves the identity of the frontrunners in this new deal. As the current rights holder, ESPN appears to be a strong candidate to retain at least partial rights. Even if it’s no longer the powerhouse it was roughly a decade ago, ESPN is still rightfully the worldwide leader in sports. Exclusivity appears unlikely, though. The recent financial failings of parent company Disney would indicate that ESPN doesn’t have as much financial flexibility as it did when it agreed to the original UFC deal in 2018.

Sticking with the traditional TV rights, Warner Bros. Discovery might want to get back into the sports world and may have the money available that isn’t being spent on the NBA, making it the most likely dark horse in the sweepstakes. In terms of streaming, Netflix is the clear frontrunner despite what co-CEO Ted Sarandos says. Sarandos recently suggested Netflix is more interested in large “one-off” shows akin to PPV, as opposed to consistent smaller events. However, TKO Group Holdings, the UFC’s parent company, has a good relationship with Netflix, negotiating just recently for the rights to WWE Monday Night Raw. It’s hard to believe there wouldn’t be any favoritism towards the streaming leader with which TKO already has a working relationship. If it turns out Sarandos is telling the truth, I’d be shocked if Amazon doesn’t look to step into the shoes Netflix would be leaving empty. Amazon was in talks with the UFC in 2018, and I have no doubt it wants a larger footprint in the sports world.

If I were to venture a guess at what happens, ESPN retains the UFC Fight Night rights while either Netflix or Amazon gets the rights to the larger events. If PPV doesn’t completely disappear, I would at the very least expect the prices to come down, as White has made it explicitly clear that he wants more upfront money. Maybe someone like Fox or NBC swoops in out of nowhere, but the odds are against that happening. Then again, if there was ever a sport that shines its light on the underdog, it would be MMA. I see no reason why that would change at the negotiating table.

What I do feel confident about is that the UFC is going to be presented in a different manner come the turn of the calendar. Whether PPV is fully or only partially eliminated, it’s going to have a smaller role in the future of the sport. The question is going to be whether or not terrestrial television continues to play a part.