Affliction admits it "would be dumb" to go head to head with UFC

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Affliction admits it "would be dumb" to go head to head with UFC
MMAcca
10/3/08 11:02:03PM
The recent announcement by the UFC of a Jan. 17 event in Dublin, Ireland, could be construed as the latest salvo in a battle to crush upstart promoters Affliction.

The UFC began its counter-programming assault on Affliction from the very start, airing "UFC Fight Night: Silva vs. Irvin" live on Spike TV the same night as Affliction's debut pay-per-view, "Banned."

Affliction had originally suggested it would hold its rescheduled second event, "Day of Reckoning," in Anaheim, Calif., on that same date. But Affliction Vice President Tom Atencio recently suggested to MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) that Jan. 17 may now be off the table.

"[The UFC's announcement] didn't force us (to change dates), but it definitely -- it would be dumb for us to go head to head with them," Atencio said. "Personally I think it's dumb for both of us. Whether it's half or a quarter of the people, they're going to go for one side or the next. The chances of people getting both are going to be slim and none."













LINK
Ben_Hutch
10/3/08 11:08:34PM
I love the UFC's aggressiveness, they 'aint messing about and clearly want Affliction to crumble..........You gotta give it to Dana and co, they got balls.
TimW001
10/3/08 11:21:31PM
Nothing wrong with what the UFC is doing.
Naturaldisaster
10/4/08 12:50:50AM
UFC 93 is a great way to take PPV buys away from affliction. Props to UFC for puttin together Franklin/hendo and Shogun/coleman
EliasG
10/4/08 10:43:15AM
actually it is called predatory capitalism and monopoly behavior. While this may work for a while many companies have gotten in trouble with anti trust laws, have been sued and lost millions in court. Will that happen with the UFC? Who knows. But then again, no one thought it would happen to AT&T and Microsoft. In Microsoft's case the company wasn't broken into pieces but did have a great deal more 'oversight' in their settlement.

It will be interesting to see what comes of some of these things.

Generally I think it is distasteful for people to engage in highly predatory practices. It is ethically questionable for the "big rich guy" to go after the "little poor guy" because it is inherently UNamerican.

Time will tell. If they get big enough they'll have to deal with the same regulatsions as football, basketball, etc.... and that will only be good for the fighters.
Ben_Hutch
10/4/08 11:36:35AM

Posted by EliasG

It is ethically questionable for the "big rich guy" to go after the "little poor guy" because it is inherently UNamerican.



Why the f*** do you have to bring patriotism into it?!?!?!?!
tooly236
10/4/08 11:52:08AM

Posted by EliasG

actually it is called predatory capitalism and monopoly behavior. While this may work for a while many companies have gotten in trouble with anti trust laws, have been sued and lost millions in court. Will that happen with the UFC? Who knows. But then again, no one thought it would happen to AT&T and Microsoft. In Microsoft's case the company wasn't broken into pieces but did have a great deal more 'oversight' in their settlement.

It will be interesting to see what comes of some of these things.

Generally I think it is distasteful for people to engage in highly predatory practices. It is ethically questionable for the "big rich guy" to go after the "little poor guy" because it is inherently UNamerican.

Time will tell. If they get big enough they'll have to deal with the same regulatsions as football, basketball, etc.... and that will only be good for the fighters.


Easy buddy, this is America. Move to china if you don't like aggressive buisness pratices. This is what makes companies have to be the best they can be.
ziegler3334
10/5/08 10:33:12AM

Posted by EliasG

actually it is called predatory capitalism and monopoly behavior. While this may work for a while many companies have gotten in trouble with anti trust laws, have been sued and lost millions in court. Will that happen with the UFC? Who knows. But then again, no one thought it would happen to AT&T and Microsoft. In Microsoft's case the company wasn't broken into pieces but did have a great deal more 'oversight' in their settlement.

It will be interesting to see what comes of some of these things.

Generally I think it is distasteful for people to engage in highly predatory practices. It is ethically questionable for the "big rich guy" to go after the "little poor guy" because it is inherently UNamerican.

Time will tell. If they get big enough they'll have to deal with the same regulatsions as football, basketball, etc.... and that will only be good for the fighters.



Im not sure that applies here. Not trying to hate on you, because i see your point. But, c'mon. "big rich guy picking on the little poor guy"???? Affliction made the choice to attempt to penetrate a market that another corporation had a strangle hold on. Should UFC welcome competition? no. Should Coke welcome competition from pepsi or rc or any other cola company? no. They're goal should be to get the largest market share they can. Competing is not unethical. If the UFC wants to put an event on every time Affliction has one, there is nothing Affliction can do. That is all a part of competition. Back to my previous example, if Pepsi puts products on sale, Coke will most likely match their prices, so that they dont lose customers. They are protecting what is already theirs (their customer base). How is UFCs scheduling any different. They know that they are number one and want to stay there. So i believe their actions are just as much about keeping their fans as they are about Affliction succeeding. Its more beneficial for them to have fans that only think of UFC when they hear MMA. I encourage people to watch as many events from whatever organization they can. If, however, theres a UFC event and another event, I will watch and i recommend watching the UFC. They are number one for a reason.
Related Topics