Dana White says the UFC is “likely” to split its media rights across multiple partners for its next distribution deal — a major shift from the current exclusive relationship with ESPN. Speaking to Sports Business Journal, the UFC President and CEO said talks are going well and a resolution is expected between now and September.
The UFC’s current agreement with ESPN — a 5-year, $1.5B deal signed in 2019 and extended later that year to include pay-per-view rights — is in its final year. According to Bloomberg, the UFC is targeting $1 billion annually in its next deal. That price point, combined with rising interest in live sports from tech platforms, makes a multi-partner deal more than just plausible — it’s strategic.
White didn’t confirm any deals or partners but acknowledged the trend: “I don’t know yet, but yes, it’s likely,” when asked if the UFC would work with multiple distributors.
Potential suitors include Netflix, Amazon, Warner Bros. Discovery (TNT Sports), and a possible renewal with ESPN, though sources close to the negotiations suggest ESPN has the edge for at least part of the rights. That said, ESPN+ has faced criticism for its pay-per-view technical experience, a persistent pain point for UFC fans.
Why a Multi-Partner Deal Makes Sense
Live sports rights have become more decentralized, with leagues like the NBA and NASCAR adopting multi-partner approaches to maximize reach and revenue. The UFC seems poised to follow that path — and the UFC’s parent company, TKO Holdings, already has a precedent: its WWE rights are split between Netflix (Raw) and NBCUniversal (SmackDown).
TKO President Mark Shapiro confirmed earlier this year that the company is evaluating both financial and strategic considerations. “Can you divide it up into multiple packages and have your cake and eat it, too?” he said at J.P. Morgan’s media conference in May.
The Take
1. UFC Going Multi-Partner Isn’t Just “Likely.” It’s Inevitable.
UFC wants $1B per year. That number is a stretch for any one distributor — even ESPN. Splitting the rights into separate packages (linear, streaming, PPV) allows UFC to:
- Maximize revenue
- Hedge risk
- Stay flexible for future monetization models
It also gives TKO more leverage now and the next time they’re back at the table.
2. ESPN’s Leverage Has Shifted
For scale, brand, and promotional muscle, ESPN is still valuable to UFC, but it no longer holds the cards it once did. There’s real competition this time.
And let’s not ignore the friction: ESPN+ PPV has had technical issues for years, and that friction matters when you charge $80 per event. If UFC wants to modernize or entirely move off PPV, ESPN might not be the best fit anymore.
3. Netflix Has a WWE Head Start
Netflix already has WWE. If that rollout goes well, UFC could be the next logical move. The pitch is strong:
- Global reach
- Clean streaming UX
- WWE + UFC = dominant combat sports hub
And for UFC, it’s an opportunity to grow internationally without the complexity of regional rights deals.
Netflix might not land the full slate, but they don’t need to — they just need enough to matter.
4. Fans Will Feel the Fragmentation
Splitting rights might be good business, but it’s a headache for fans. If Fight Nights are on ESPN, PPVs on Amazon, and replays on Netflix, fans are managing 3+ subscriptions just to follow the sport.
That’s fine in the short-term. But long-term, fragmentation creates friction. And UFC’s direct-to-consumer control over its audience — one of its strengths — gets diluted when it no longer owns the whole stack.
5. PPV Might Be On the Way Out
Buried in Shapiro’s comments: Do you still need pay-per-view? The economics worked when ESPN could upsell it, but if UFC has leverage and scale via streamers, why not go bundled?
Amazon and Netflix can eat the margin loss if it drives retention. In that model, PPV becomes less of a necessity and more of a relic.
UFC is one of the few brands that could make that pivot, and streaming may finally give them the runway to do it.
The Streaming Wars is intentionally ad-free
We don’t run display ads. Not because we can’t, but because we don’t believe in them.
They interrupt the reading experience. They cheapen the work. And they burn advertisers’ money on impressions nobody actually wants.
So we chose a different model.
We say the things people in this industry are already thinking but don’t say out loud. We connect the dots beyond the headline and focus on explaining why things matter to the people working in this business.
If you believe industry coverage can exist without clutter and interruption, you can support it here → SUPPORT TSW.
Support is optional. But it directly funds research and continued coverage — and helps prove this model can work.
Support TSW →
