Three big questions about the UFC's bombshell $7.7 billion deal with CBS and Paramount
It's the end of one era and the beginning of another for the world's biggest mixed martial arts fight promotion. Beginning in 2026, all UFC events will air on Paramount+ in the U.S., from the small-time UFC Fight Night shows to the numbered events that currently cost upward of $80 each on ESPN+ pay-per-view. In addition, according to a press release, 'select marquee events' will also air on CBS. In exchange, the UFC goes from making approximately $550 million per year from ESPN to an average of $1.1 billion per year under this new deal.
What does this all mean for the UFC, its fans and its fighters? Here are three big questions coming out of Monday's big announcement.
1. Who benefits most (and least) from axing UFC pay-per-view events?
There was a time (and it wasn't even that long ago) when pay-per-view sales were the lifeblood of the UFC. Investor documents revealed in 2015 that residential and commercial pay-per-view sales combined for 51% of UFC content revenue — and content itself was three-fourths of total UFC revenue.
The UFC wasn't the only party to benefit from that. Fighters dreamed of one day becoming UFC champions, not only because it came with the shiny gold belt that told the world they were the very best, but also because it typically came with a cut of pay-per-view revenue. It was, for most fighters, the only way to go from making good money to life-changing money as a UFC fighter.
But then, that was back when UFC pay-per-view events typically did well over 500,000 buys. Conor McGregor headlined several UFC events that eclipsed 1 million buys. Ronda Rousey also helped the UFC to 2.6 million pay-per-view buys over the course of three events in 2015, according to the UFC's own internal documents.
Those days are long gone. All indications are that UFC pay-per-view revenue is way down from those golden years. It's down even when compared with some of the not-so good years that followed. Where the blame lies for that is an open question. Is it the lack of big stars in today's UFC? Did ESPN kill the market with its rapid, repeated price hikes? Is the audience now simply too savvy to pay for a product that can be found for free on streaming websites if you just know where to look?
Most likely all these factors played a role. But as the UFC found more success in securing guaranteed money from broadcast partners, it began to seem like only a matter of time until it would ditch the feast-or-famine world of pay-per-view. But what about those UFC champs who dreamed of dollar signs? Pay-per-view points were their only ladder to a higher income bracket. Many current champs have contracts guaranteeing them a cut of pay-per-view revenues right now. What will those contracts be worth once there are no UFC pay-per-views?
For fans, however, this is likely to be a much better deal. No more weighing the high price of premium UFC content against the expected entertainment value of each individual fight card. Now one price gets you in the door for all UFC content, making the numbered events something fans might as well watch rather than something that has to meet a certain threshold to be worth the cost. The cost of being a UFC fan just went down, which could potentially lower the barrier to entry.
As for the UFC? Well, ditching a declining revenue model for guaranteed money — and much more of it than many previous estimates suggested — is pretty much a no-brainer. Especially when the company doesn't have to split any of it with the fighters.
2. How might this change the look and feel of UFC events?
Right now, under the current deal with ESPN, there are essentially three separate and easily identifiable tiers of UFC programming.
At the top are the numbered pay-per-view events, where the stars are out and the titles go up for grabs. In the middle there are the UFC Fight Night events that take place out on the road in front of big live crowds, typically in cities that pay the UFC a site fee just to bring the show to town. Then all the way at the bottom there are the UFC Fight Night events at the UFC Apex facility in Las Vegas. You can always tell these because they have the feel of an exhibition taking place in a mostly empty warehouse, and they mostly feature fighters who fans don't know very well (or at all).
But if all UFC events will soon be available for the single price of a monthly streaming service, what happens to those separate tiers? If UFC executives no longer need to worry about stacking numbered events with enough good fights to justify the pay-per-view price, might the quality of those cards decline? And would that lead to an increase in quality for the other events, or just a general flattening all around? Additionally, what reason does the UFC now have to build any individual fighter into a star? With no pay-per-views to sell, the brand itself is the only star necessary, while fighters just got more interchangeable.
The big minds behind TKO, parent company to both the UFC and WWE, have bragged in the past about taking the 'lumpiness' out of the business, by which they meant finding ways to get paid whether the events are popular or not. But that also takes out some of the company's incentive to keep putting out a strong product, because CBS and Paramount will be paying whether people watch or not. What that does to the quality of various UFC offerings remains to be seen.
3. What does it mean for the growth and exposure of both the UFC and MMA as a sport to go from ESPN to Paramount+?
Included in today's statement from UFC CEO Dana White is a line insisting the 'exposure provided by Paramount and CBS networks under this new structure is a huge win for our athletes and anyone who watches and loves this sport.'
Here's where the seasoned observer must ask: Is it though? ESPN is, as we all know, 'the worldwide leader' when it comes to sports on TV. The deal with ESPN helped further legitimize the UFC, because it came with increased UFC coverage on shows like 'SportsCenter,' plus greater visibility in the daily mainstream sports conversation as a whole.
Paramount+ has nowhere near that kind of footprint with American sports fans. As a network, CBS is still a very big deal, but the UFC has had plenty of network TV exposure before, thanks to its previous deal with Fox and its semi-regular events on ABC as part of the ESPN partnership.
What ESPN gave the UFC was a place at the table among the major American sports. You could sit at a sports bar and look up at ESPN on TV and you might see UFC coverage mixed in with baseball and football highlights. Not a lot of Buffalo Wild Wings locations are streaming Paramount+ at all hours of the day when last I checked.
A big part of the appeal of this deal for CBS and Paramount+ is the UFC brings a core audience with it. But Paramount+ does not offer the UFC a vast existing audience of sports fans to convert into fight fans. That's not part of the exchange here. As Don Draper would say, that's what the money is for.
And make no mistake, the UFC and its parent company are getting plenty of money in this deal, essentially doubling the broadcast rights fee they currently get from ESPN. But the money from these deals has historically not trickled down to UFC fighters. If the hope is they will be paid extra in 'exposure,' it seems doubtful that Paramount+ is the venue to make that happen.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
elf Beauty (ELF) Jumps 9.7% as Analyst Grows More Bullish Despite Product Price Increase
We recently published . e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. (NYSE:ELF) is one of the best-performing stocks on Monday. e.l.f Beauty saw its share prices jump by 9.73 percent on Monday to finish at $111.67 apiece as investors took heart from an investment firm's bullish rating and price target upgrade for its stock. In a market note, Morgan Stanley upgraded e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. (NYSE:ELF) to 'overweight' from 'equal weight' previously, alongside a higher price target of $134 versus $114 prior. The new price suggested a 20-percent upside potential from its latest closing price. Last August 1, e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. (NYSE:ELF) slapped a 14-percent price hike on its products, saying that it would assess how consumers would respond. 'It will take a couple of weeks for that to fully roll out within retail. And so that is something that we're watching for,' e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. (NYSE:ELF) CFO Mandy Fields has said. However, Morgan Stanley posted a more optimistic outlook, saying that consumers typically do not tend to be especially sensitive to price increases 'given the relative importance of beauty products to consumers.' Copyright: citalliance / 123RF Stock Photo Additionally, it underscored that e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.'s (NYSE:ELF) products are relatively cheaper compared with those from its counterparts, and there is less opportunity for consumers to find more affordable substitutes. While we acknowledge the potential of ELF as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You'd Invested $10,000 in Navitas Semiconductor Stock 2 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today
Key Points Its partnership with Nvidia is proof of the long-term potential for silicon carbide and gallium nitride chips. Investors are looking to 2027 and the launch of new data centers to spur Navitas' growth. 10 stocks we like better than Navitas Semiconductor › If you're wondering how much you'd have if you'd invested $10,000 in Navitas Semiconductor (NASDAQ: NVTS) stock two years ago -- and I'm sure you are since you're reading this -- the answer is about $7,500 as I write this on Aug. 10. While that might surprise investors in Navitas Semiconductor who've only been watching it in 2025, as it's up 85% so far this year, it does highlight some points about investing in growth stocks. Why Navitas Semiconductor's stock has gone up so much in 2025 The simple reason for this year's jump comes down to the mid-May announcement of a partnership with Nvidia to develop data center power architecture for the next generation of data centers, due to launch in 2027. The new more efficient, reliable, and lower-maintenance cost 800 V data centers need silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN) chips (Navitas' specialty) in the power conversion process in the new data centers. Considerations for growth investors The fact that the stock is down over the last couple of years indicates that patience is key when investing in growth stocks, and it pays to avoid getting caught up in euphoria. For example, in the summer of 2023, Navitas offered 11.5 million shares at a price of $8, which the market eagerly took up. Unfortunately, some of its key end markets, like electric vehicles and consumer electronics (notably mobile phones), slowed markedly, and the stock declined. However, it makes sense to buy into weakness if you have data-backed belief in the long-term growth prospects of a company. This has happened as investors have jumped back into Navitas on the Nvidia news. Do the experts think Navitas Semiconductor is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did Navitas Semiconductor make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,060% vs. just 182% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 877.59%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 11, 2025 Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. If You'd Invested $10,000 in Navitas Semiconductor Stock 2 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed's policy rate should stay on hold for now, Schmid says
(Reuters) -The U.S. central bank should not take tariffs' muted effect on inflation so far as an opportunity to cut interest rates, but rather as a sign that monetary policy is "appropriately calibrated," Kansas City Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Schmid said on Tuesday, in remarks that contrast with the increasingly dovish tone of some of his colleagues. "With the economy still showing momentum, growing business optimism, and inflation still stuck above our objective, retaining a modestly restrictive monetary policy stance remains appropriate for the time being," Schmid said in remarks prepared for delivery to an economic development conference in Oklahoma. "While increased tariffs seem to be having a limited effect on inflation, I view this as a rationale for keeping policy on hold rather than an opportunity to ease the stance of policy." Schmid said his "patient approach" to changing the policy rate, currently in the 4.25%-4.50% range, shouldn't be seen as a "wait and see" approach because he does not think that it will be clear in the next few months whether tariffs are pushing up on prices temporarily or persistently. Rather, he said, he feels the current policy rate is not very far above the neutral rate, where activity is neither stimulated nor restrained, and the labor market is still looking solid despite a sharp drop in job growth in recent months. And while the cooling labor market is keeping a lid on the pass-through of tariffs into inflation, boosting demand aggressively could raise the risk of an outsized increase in price pressures, Schmid said. "In my view, and in discussion with my contacts, growth remains solid, inflation remains too high, and therefore policy should remain modestly restrictive," he said. "That said, as I stated earlier, inflation is determined by the balance of supply and demand, and if I see indications that demand growth isweakening significantly, I will adjust my views accordingly." 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤