Monday brought one of the most significant combat-sports stories of the year, as it was announced that the UFC had signed a broadcast deal with Paramount – a deal due to begin in 2026.
Set to last seven years, with an average annual value of $1.1bn, the contract marks the impending end of the UFC’s partnership with ESPN, a relationship that began in 2019. More importantly, however, the deal also means the end of the UFC’s pay-per-view (PPV) model.
That model has been in place since the earliest days of the UFC in the 1990s, and as the mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion expanded its output – adding weekly Fight Night cards – its monthly numbered events (e.g. this weekend’s UFC 319) remained on PPV, while the weekly cards were available as part of a subscription model.
Under the UFC’s Paramount partnership, there will similarly be 13 numbered events in 2026 and 30 Fight Nights, yet they will not be divided into PPV and non-PPV; they will all be available to Paramount subscribers. Certain events will also air live on the cable network CBS, too.
These factors bring with them many questions, and below, The Independent dives into those questions.
Why has this move come about?
The New York Post’s Erich Richter reported in March that pay-per-view buys were “way, way down” for the UFC, which tallies with a noticeable drop-off in enthusiasm from many UFC fans in recent months. That report also followed UFC 313, where technical difficulties on ESPN+ apparently led to a decrease in buys for the event and a flash of anger among the UFC brass.
In general, it is understood that the pay-per-view model is dying in a streaming-centric world, and the UFC’s new deal means guaranteed money (and lots of it) without having to worry about whether a particular event is selling.
With that in mind, it was thought by some that the UFC could end up on Netflix, given the streaming platform is the main global broadcaster of WWE – the professional wrestling behemoth that is essentially the UFC’s sister company under ownership group TKO. Ironically, WWE just signed a broadcast deal for ESPN to show certain events going forward, but more on that later.
In any case, it is worth noting that streaming platform DAZN was a subscription-only model when it launched, with an emphasis on no PPVs, only to add PPVs over time. So, while the UFC’s Paramount deal seems to mark the end of the promotion’s PPV model, no one knows what the future holds.
How much money will fans save?
The base cost of an ESPN+ subscription is $11.99 per month, while the UFC’s numbered events cost US viewers $80 each. Meanwhile, a Paramount subscription costs viewers $7.99 per month. So, if a UFC fan in the US wants to watch every PPV and Fight Night right now, it will cost them $1103.88 per year; from next year, they can access the same number of events for $95.88.
Of course, some fans use illegal streams in order to avoid paying for a PPV, an issue that UFC president Dana White once sought to tackle, though he will not need to worry about that from 2026.
What does the move mean for UK fans?
UK viewers are unaffected by this week’s announcement, as things stand. The Paramount deal relates to US broadcast rights, with no effect on TNT Sports’s deal with the UFC in the UK. Fans on this side of the pond can also use discovery+ to access TNT Sports and watch the UFC.
TNT viewers can watch all UFC Fight Nights and numbered events as part of their subscription, although one or two numbered cards each year tend to be PPV for UK fans.
Which events will CBS air on cable TV?
A press release on Monday (11 August) said certain UFC events will air on CBS, a cable network in the US, from 2026. However, it is unclear which events will air on CBS. It could be the occasional numbered event, it could be the occasional Fight Night, or it could be somewhere in between. That remains to be seen.
How will numbered events be different from other cards?
This is an interesting one. How will the UFC make sure its numbered events are grander than its regular Fight Nights? Surely title fights will only appear on numbered events, as is currently the case (with very rare exceptions), but there is little reason for the UFC to bolster the quality of numbered cards when they’re not behind a paywall.
So, will there be quality control, so to speak? That also remains to be seen, but one would imagine the UFC will try to differentiate numbered cards from Fight Nights.
What does the move mean for fighters?
This is another interesting one. At the moment, UFC fighters are generally paid on show-and-win contracts (e.g. $15,000 to fight, another $15,000 if they win), at least until they start climbing the ranks and managing to negotiate a bit more. Their pay above also increases over time, of course, but another factor in fighter pay is PPV points; if points are in their contract, athletes can earn more money if they are on the main card of a PPV and that event achieves a certain number of buys.
But with no more PPV, there will be no more PPV points, right? It would seem so, but maybe the UFC will adjust its model and compensate fighters when an event (more likely in the case of a numbered card) reaches a certain number of viewers. This is speculation, to be clear, and while more information may emerge in the coming weeks and months, the UFC has always been tight-lipped on – and criticised for – its fighter pay.
Also, White’s statement on Monday emphasised that a key upside of the new deal, for fighters, is increased exposure. There was no mention of finances.
What does the move mean for ESPN?
Interestingly, ESPN just signed a deal with WWE, which – as mentioned above – is essentially the UFC’s sister company under the TKO ownership group. So, ESPN still seems to have a decent relationship with TKO, even though the UFC partnership is ending.
Furthermore, ESPN will continue to show MMA by airing Professional Fighters League (PFL) events. ESPN renewed its deal with the PFL in late 2023, on a multi-year basis, but it is unclear when that contract ends.
