UFC 169/170 PPV Prices Are Also Subject To Five Dollar Surcharge

When the news broke that UFC 168 was subject to a five dollar surcharge, MMA fans worldwide shared a pretty unanimous decision: this sucks. And, in my opinion, quite rightly so. Such blatant (alleged) extortion from a company that dominates the market has left a bad taste in the MMA fandom’s collective mouth.

UFC President Dana White shrugged off initial questions surrounding the price rise, stating that it was only for one event and ‘Just bring a few more friends around’. Fans weren’t best pleased, but one event (possibly the biggest ever) of Weidman/Silva 2 at 168 and then it’s back to normal, right? Wrong.

DW had assured us that the prices for UFC 169 onwards would be back the regular price of $54.95 (still not a measly sum by any means), but it appears that the PPV prices on the UFC official website would beg to differ. Check them out:

You know me, I’m an eternal optimist, but I just can’t help feeling a bit like Jenna Jameson in the 1990’s. Basically, we are getting screwed here. It’s one thing to say that there is a five dollar surcharge on an already ridiculously priced event, but to continue with a higher price tag seems like a spit in the face of hard working fans.

I can’t help but think that the UFC is setting itself up for a bit of a fail here. Imagine if the biggest ever draw for the UFC is marred by this surcharge. Weidman/Silva 2 is a flop on the PPV’s and as a result, potentially loses a portion of it’s regular market. What then?

When you consider that long established sports like football and baseball appear without a PPV charge; you start to ask why are we even paying for these shows? MMA is nowhere near the mainstream sport that pro football is, yet you can watch an entire weekend of Superbowl for free. Anyway, rant over. Anyone else annoyed?


11 Comments

  1. Avatar of jmedno5891

    jmedno5891

    December 24, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    And slowly it begins.

  2. Avatar of N.C.

    N.C.

    December 24, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    With more events the price should be going DOWN.

    PPV buys are already dropping because nobody can afford that price 3 times a month.

  3. Avatar of Brian Cox

    Brian Cox

    December 24, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    The UFC is kidding itself that they can just jack the price and not have people begin to balk at the price.

    Again, personally I won't buy 168 or any fight that goes over the $50 mark, which is what I'm traditionally charged by my provider.

    If this is true and they intend to raise the price of 169 & 170, then I'll guarantee that they'll bump up the price of 171, as well.

    That would be four cards in a row and if that's the case, then it's a test run on a new price and if the numbers on the buys doesn't drop off significantly, then the UFC will leave the price at the new, higher, level.

    Personally, I think the fans need to draw a line in the sand on this and not buy events that are over the current "normal" price.

    PPVs' should be going down not up. This is crap and sadly enough, were not even being told that the extra revenue will end up in the hands of the fighters; it's just more money for people that already have too much of it.

    I hate to say this, but in the better interest of the sport and the fans, I hope 168 is a financial flop. It would be the best Christmas present UFC fans could possibly get.

    • Avatar of jmedno5891

      jmedno5891

      December 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm

      I'll also be showing my disinterest in this price hike by voting with my wallet, its not even a matter of the price increase at this point, more the fact that I don't like being lied to. They say its going to be for 1 event only and then about a week later suddenly another 2? The UFC is pretty much saying the fans are stupid and will take whatever they want to shove down our throats.

  4. Avatar of diamond-mma2

    diamond-mma2

    December 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    sooo PPV prices going up while we also get a new subscription base fights for $10 a month, to be honest the ******** fans is part of the reason MMA is what it is today, but now watching UFC will be another bill to pay that doest need to be (online streams) ******** fans re getting screwed, i didt think much of the subscription $120 a year but this too c'mon. I wont be getting UFC online thing anymore, wont feed the cow more cash. i understand it take more money to grow the business but Zuffa, we broke maannnnnn

  5. Avatar of diamond-mma2

    diamond-mma2

    December 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    -h-ardcore *

  6. Avatar of enjoylife321

    enjoylife321

    December 24, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    People forget that the UFC are making $110 million dollars a year just from fox network….This does not even include PPVs which can be as much as $50 million an event, event sales ( up to 5 million), merchandise, plus worldwide network sales from series like TUF, games sales, major sponsors such as Harley Davidson, Bud Light. Rory is right, the UFC are fukin us harder than Jemma jameson….Just imagine, I go to word cup Rugby Union )Australia vs Springboks and paid $33 for a ticket….I also can watch world cup free on TV if i didn't attend the event. Almost $60 to watch one card is bullshit !!! Vote with your wallets people…..!

  7. Avatar of watermelon fresh

    watermelon fresh

    December 24, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    Only way to make them to know we are not pleased is to stop buying the ppvs

  8. Avatar of HolyGrimace666

    HolyGrimace666

    December 24, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    This is why I stream fights for free. I haven't paid for a fight in almost 6 months. Maybe if more of us streamed and let the PPV numbers drop, Dana would reconsider this ridiculous decision.

  9. Avatar of apocalypse123

    apocalypse123

    December 25, 2013 at 3:59 am

    Hahahaha now I don't feel bad about watching it for free. No way in hellbound Jeff Houglin am I paying 59.95 for an event let alone the rest of the major UFC cards. Can't wait for Dana to flip on this one the money hungry hypocrite.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply