What fans can expect as UFC moves into its new TV era with Paramount+

UFC’s event on Friday night at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas is more than its 324th event – it is its first event to be broadcast under UFC’s new TV deal with Paramount. UFC’s events will be streamed on Paramount+ (which costs $9 per month for access to the entire platform, including UFC events) rather than through ESPN (which not only charged around $79.99 pay-per-view fee per main event, but also required UFC fans to pay a $12 monthly fee for ESPN+ to even have the opportunity to pay for the PPV). The Athletic’s MMA specialist Mark Puleo and Senior Sports Media Columnist Andrew Marchand connected to analyze the new dynamic for fans, networks and the league: Puleo: Could a move away from ESPN actually make the UFC a more respected powerhouse in the hierarchy of sports leagues? For years, the promotion was desperate to be viewed as a respectable organization with true athletes. That validation came with the company’s media-rights deal with ESPN in 2018, but with that partnership came staleness. The sport is certainly mainstream now, but Dana White and company want more than that. They want to shuffle up the Big Four major league entities and bump hockey from the Mt. Rushmore of professional sports. Doing so required the risk of ditching the PPV model for the broader ocean of streaming subscriptions, but I’m curious to hear your take on that, Andrew: In what ways could this backfire? Marchand: If these are the goals, then this is a major step in the right direction. While you can question the deal from Paramount’s perspective, it is hard find any issues from the UFC perspective. It received way more exposure, and it is better for its fans. That’s a win-win-win. The reward is that more casual fans will be exposed to UFC. The risk, given the nature of the sport, is that could really be a turn-off for some people. So I guess that could backfire, but that is the chance you have to take when you are trying to grow. Puleo: Along with the wallet-friendly price point, fans should also be on the lookout for new faces and voices talking about the sport, and those personalities will be delivering to new faces and voices tuning in to fights for the first time, which may change the way events feel and are produced. UFC lead play-by-play commentator Jon Anik told me he hopes things feel largely the same, but with enhanced graphics, new music and “some added bells and whistles.” And beyond the fight nights themselves, a change in event frequency could be in store. The mountain of UFC events in recent years hasn’t just induced fight fatigue to fans —but also has made for plenty of watered-down cards with names even the most hardcore followers don’t recognize. After an unusually long five-plus-week layoff between major events, the UFC will have two numbered events in seven days to close out January. The calendar already feels remarkably different in this era. Marchand: I’m sure it will look a little different, but, besides the addition of Kate Scott, it will likely be very much the same, as UFC will be in charge of the production. Jim Nantz is not going to be saying, “Hello friends, welcome to UFC.” But I think UFC and Paramount+, by virtue of a seven-year deal, have a lot of reasons to figure out the best way to schedule the fights for the most viewership. That doesn’t always work, but with just one media partner, it will make it easier. Puleo: How will this potentially position UFC at the end of this seven-year deal? Marchand: Ultimately, I think this deal will be very good for UFC. How good likely depends if it can develop new stars, etc. But making the sport more accessible, especially via broadcast when they air select UFC fights on CBS, and cheaper with no pay-per-view is a big win for visibility. UFC has to be very excited where it is positioned post-ESPN.