If Brock Lesnar Is a No Go at UFC 119, December Looks Like Best Option

The question now for UFC Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar is not who he will face next for the belt, but when and where .

As it stands right now, Lesnar's bout with Cain Velasquez has no concrete venue.

We all can convince ourselves that this heavyweight title fight will go down at UFC 119, but I guess Dana White has other ideas .

Lesnar's not a once-a-year fighter, and he's only staying contact-free until August.

So if the champ can't step in the cage with Cain at UFC 119, there's only one logical time to anticipate the Lesnar-Velasquez war.

It doesn't have a UFC card in the works yet, but the month of December makes the best sense if it can't be a "go" at UFC 119.

"But why, Dale? Why would we have to wait until the end of the year for this fight to happen, and how does this make any shred of sense?"

Excellent question, Bleacherholics.

You see, there are certain things that the Zuffa-owned UFC does in order to add intrigue and excitement to their events, sometimes depending on the venue's location.

Some cards feature hometown or "home-country" boys, while others feature international sensations that are popular to fans overseas.

Sometimes title contention bouts occur when the UFC comes to England, but usually, you never see a UFC title fight on European soil.

The definite argument behind the logic of keeping the champions' defenses on North American soil could justifiably be that the champions just feel comfortable defending their titles in the States or in Canada.

If only the logic could be left at that.

Unquestionably, the fighters would, in general, have a preference to keep it in the States or on Canadian soil just because traveling wouldn't be an issue and because they are acquainted with the "rules-and-regs" of all the various state athletic commissions, but that's only one clipping of logic.

You'd have to look at what a title fight in the U.K. would do for the UFC in comparison to what a title fight in the States would do for the UFC.

Honestly, to have Lesnar face Velasquez in Engalnd or in Germany doesn't make as much sense as you'd think.

If it's unnecessary, don't do it .

It's pretty simple, and fairly self-explanatory: If you don't really need the title to be defended on European soil in order to attract the paying customers, why do it and why dwell on what could have been?

If you've got guys like Terry Etim, James Wilks, Michael Bisping, or any other proud UK fighter on the card, there's really no need to put them up against a Georges St-Pierre or an Anderson Silva or even a Frankie Edgar.

It's not necessary to out-of-the-blue make them a contender to their division's belt just because the arena is 10-20 minutes from where they reside.

This is in essence why I take exception to the title implications behind the Dan Hardy-Mike Swick encounter at UFC 105.

Both men are great, both men are warriors, and both men could earn a chance to contend for GSP had they beaten top contenders to the belt.

The problem was, they hadn't.

Had Swick Vs. Kampmann happened at UFC 103, then perhaps I would be saying something different, but to me it was done to feed another victim to St-Pierre.

In essence, the fact that this fight was in England may have also attributed to my overall dislike of the bout, because I don't think either Hardy or Swick might have been given a guaranteed shot at St-Pierre if it had been done in the states.

It was a great fight, but between that fight being for a shot at the welterweight title and not seeing GSP until one of 2010's later cards, I'd rather Dana White and Joe Silva make me wait until one of 2010's later UFC cards to see GSP defend his belt, and it'd have been worth it to wait even if it left me with the GSP-Koscheck II fight that we're all going to inevitably see.

At least I'd know that GSP was defending the belt against someone that was credible enough to make me recognize the problems he could present.

Such goes with any contendership fight or title fight in the UK.

It's just not that necessary to draw large crowds in an area by handing out title shots.

Same deal with Lesnar.

He's arguably the best heavyweight in MMA right now, but still a fight in the UK just wouldn't do much except give fans a reason to scratch their heads.

Lesnar defending the title against Velasquez seems like a waste of a card slot and more importantly, a title shot.

It's a heavyweight blockbuster, but the UFC 120 and 121 cards in England and Germany, respectively, have yet to fully confirm their final cards so this could potentially be a heavyweight headliner to an otherwise mediocre-at-best night of fights if it was on for UFC 119, 120, or 121.

Besides, Lesnar's fights, like the fights of all other UFC champions are worth paying for on pay-per-view.

A majority of UK-based UFC events are shown on Spike TV.

So, if there's no reason to justify putting a champion like Lesnar on a UK card, it shouldn't happen.

Period.

"Where's My MONEY, Man?! WHERE'S MY MONEY!?!"

At the end of the night, the chief concern for all fighters is the Benjamins.

The Guap.

The Paper Trail.

The Dinero.

The Smackaroos.

The Big Dog's Bones

The C.R.E.A.M. (Dolla Dolla Bill, Y'all!)

Get the point yet?

While a fight is a fight, and a title shot is a title shot, a venue like the O2 or the M.E.N. Arena in Manchester just isn't as excitable of a venue as the Joe Louis Arena, the Palace of Auburn Hills, the AAC in Dallas, or... well, pretty much any venue in Las Vegas.

This could mean that the Lesnar-Velasquez war would probably not generate as much of a payroll for the fighters as it would in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the States.

Fights overseas can prove to be a bit of a bust, whereas the same fight in the states would generate a higher amount of income.

Let's face it, it doesn't matter if it's Dana or the NSAC writing the check, even a fighter needs something to eat.

Only in certain areas can that happen with a title fight.

It just doesn't work in Europe.

Here is where a counter-argument could be made:

"UFC 112 was overseas in Abu Dhabi, and the fight had Anderson Silva and BJ Penn both defending their belts!"

True, it did, but there's a difference.

The difference between Europe and the Arab Emirate of Abu Dhabi is that no entertainment group or sports-related organization out of Europe had come to terms with the Zuffa brass on a deal that allowed them to purchase a percentage stake of the company.

The Abu Dhabi government-owned Flash Entertainment did just that.

Hence, UFC 112 broke MMA ground and became the company's first event from the Middle East.

You won't hear a story like that stemming from any part of England or Germany.

Until you do, there seems to be little that the UFC and Zuffa can gain financially from taking the Lesnar-Velasquez fight and putting it as the main event of either UFC 120 or UFC 121.

Not unless someone want to control 10% of the company, and even then, the interested group better have a damn good business before they consider purchasing a controlling stake of the world's best MMA organization.

Creating Coolness Within The Company At A Cost

At the end of the day, whether it's fight night or a regular work day, White, Joe Silva, the Fertitas, and the rest of the UFC brass can't just end the day on a smile and a handshake.

They need that paper as much as the fighters need their checks for the fights.

Of course, Dana and the rest of the brass own a portion of the company, so he gets a portion of the profits, and the fighters get their cash from the sanctioning athletic commission of the card's location.

In retrospect, there's more than money involved when it comes to marquee fights.

It's also about buy rates.

Pay per view buy rates, that is.

Marquee fights like Lesnar Vs. Velasquez should be guaranteed to be a big PPV draw as well as a live arena attendance draw regardless of the location, right?

Well... not really.

You see, it goes back to the "venues and locations" issue.

Believe it or don't, but the site of the title fight can make a difference in how much the fighter gets paid after the event is over.

Naturally, the site can also impact a fan's decision to watch or "miss" a fight.

Title fights generally garner a larger pay-per-view audience if the fight is in the States than they do if the fight is in somewhere away from North America

Here is where you, my readers, could stake another counter-argument based on my previously-stated opinions:

"Wasn't UFC 75's bout between Quinton Jackson and Dan Henderson a title fight... and wasn't that whole card in London?"

Yep, Rampage and Hendo's clash at UFC 75 at the O2 Arena, shown live on Spike TV, was a title fight — and a good a title fight at that; it was a title unification bout.

The keyword here, though, is "shown live on Spike TV ".

Yeah, it did make some noise , but most people don't have to pay for Spike TV.

So while the ratings were as good as any event in the company's history, you can only use the above argument to say that a title fight happened in England.

If the UFC brass had a feeling that it'd do as big of numbers on Spike TV as they were able to do with such a great headliner, then why wouldn't they just put the whole event on pay-per-view?

I mean, wasn't it an event that someone wouldn't have minded paying for?

Financially, the event did great — I believe about 2.7 million was the total gate garnered, but the fight could have done big things if they'd saved the Rampage-Henderson card for pay-per-view.

With how it ended up doing, it shouldn't have been on a Spike TV card.

I, for one, would've paid for it.

"I saw that one coming...No, dude, seriously — I saw it coming."

The problem with UFC events overseas is that they happen in a different time zone that do events in the States.

Basically, what that means is that people who planned on streaming the event anyways had an idea of what happened about 3-4 hours before it was shown in the states.

This too affects the number of people who watch the events when they happen, as people who have already seen the event once won't want to see them again — at least until some of them wind up on UFC Unleashed.

Could you imagine if Brock and Cain really did fight in England or in Germany or anywhere in Europe?

You kidding me? You'd know who won between the two before you ever saw the fight.

Where the fun is in knowing the results of a UFC event before you even see it, I'll never know.

If for no other reason, the fight should stick with a time in December for this exact reason.

One of the biggest heavyweight collisions in MMA history, and yet we all could know who wins the fight before it even airs on television.

I'm usually not that patient, but I can make an exception for MMA.

A "lightning shot" of what this has to do with "Lesnar Vs. Velasquez "

The last time Cain was in Europe, he was giving a criticized three-round performance against Cheick Kongo in UFC 99's co-headliner.

The last time Brock was in Europe might have been sometime in either 2003 or 2004 when he was still under WWE contract.

Now, Brock's the champ and Cain's the challenger.

What makes sense about this fight going down in December rather than in one of the UFC's three post-summer cards is pretty simple.

First off, Cain earned his shot at the belt by beating a former UFC champion in Minotauro Noguiera, who never held the unified belt but was interim champion until UFC 92.

This brings up no dispute as to whether Cain is credible as a contender.

Secondly, Dana ruling out UFC 119 for a venue and time makes sense for two reasons:

1. Lesnar would have more than a month's worth of time to rest and shape himself up for Cain Velasquez, whereas a greenlight on UFC 119 gives Lesnar a bit less than a month to concoct a way to derail the "Cain Train".
2. Though UFC 119 is slated to be the Zuffa-owned titan's first event in the Hoosier State, Dana has to be thinking that there's a venue better suited for a fight of this magnitude.

There's no UFC event targeted for anyplace in December yet, but to have this go down in Europe, despite the energy that a European crowd has for any sporting event, could mean using these two Goliaths as a means of compensation for a potentially lackluster-to-okay-at-best fight card.

The only question left for Mr. White to answer is, if neither Europe nor Indiana is that stage which fits Brock Lesnar's next title defense against Cain Velasquez, then tell me and be honest...

... What is that stage?