Matt Sussman uses giant soapbox to whine

The only thing I know about Matt Sussman is that he is a contributing writer for the site Deadspin, which I read every day. Today he wrote this really crumb-bum article:

Was That A Great UFC or What? (No, Really, Tell Me)

When I first read this, I assumed that this article would be about a non-MMA enthusiast having watched UFC 100. But I was wrong. Dead(spin) wrong!

Not to break wind on the parade of the 18-35 male demographic, but it seemed from this comfy couch that everyone was watching UFC 100 because everyone else was.

Yeah, that, or maybe it was the Welterweight and Heavyweight title fights, which included possibly the best pound for pound fighter in the sport and the most physically dominant heavyweight ever respectively.

So, not being one to fall behind on today's hip happenin' trends, I turned it on. And let me tell ya, I don't know what the big deal was. All the view was obfuscated by the letters "SORRY, THIS CHANNEL IS NOT AVAILABLE." I was later informed that you have to pay money to see this event, because it is important.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I did not see that coming!

I then inquired why such a huge event in a sport trying to constantly prove itself to the mainstream isn't available for free. The dog had no idea.

Just a wild guess, but maybe it has something to with money.

I really want to formulate some kind of thoughts on the sport — and I'm sure others out there are curious too — but, c'mon, I don't have that channel. Especially as a guy who has to keep a site like this warm on the weekends, it's beneficial to be at least competent in boxing and MMA and the Premier League.

Argh, if only Deadspin or the Gawker network had some sort of revenue stream. Then they could pay for you to watch both.

But I'm not going to spend another $30 a month to get certain premium soccer channels or spend ... really? Just 55 bucks for the fights in HD?

God forbid, you'd go to a bar and watch it for the price of drinks/some cover charge.

Were the Super Bowl to be aired on pay-per-view, the live blog of it would be much less descriptive. All the sports websites would still be talking about it, and you'd feel left out, too.

Yes, NFL : UFC :: Apples : Apples

Except for the fact that the NFL is the most popular league in America, with every regular and post season game being broadcast on network television (save for MNF on ESPN). Additionally, the Superbowl (which happens once a year) rakes $90 billion per 30 second ad spot.

Compare that to the UFC (whose best fighters fight 1-3x per year) which has a couple shows on Spike TV, and has pay-per-views an average of once per month. Those ppv's draw powerhouse sponsors like Mickey's Malt Liquor, and for UFC 100: The USA Today Sports Section, the Cadillac of sponsors. But I'll be darned if I can figure out why Dana White would want people paying $55 per ppv.

So I understand how MMA is ever-proving to everyone that it's legitimate entertainment and how far they've come, but ... um, would ya mind showing the rest of us cheapskates?

Yes, they would mind because they like making money.

If not, then I'll be damned if I ever have the desire to write about the sport anymore.

This was the MMA article that Deadspin, the most prevlant non-msm sports blog in America, ran the day after UFC 100. Sheesh.