Would you pay £20-£30 to view a card?

[Hagler2002]

The yanks have been doing it for years and the company's broadcasting seem to be making a profit but yet again it looks like a Britain fighting in a world title fight won't be televised live, surely there is a huge business opportunity for HBO & Showtime to move into the European market especially in the UK.

I know fine well I would take a subscription out or even pay for it fight by fight.......Discuss

[forcefraser]

30 notes is a bit steep for some of the shat we have had dumped on us recently by Sky PPV.

I would happily pay it if the undercard was a strong, with at least two to three 50/50 fights featuring good fighters.

Unfortunately, Khan v Fagn backed up by three Olyupians knocking over no hopers is not worth £10, never mind £30

[Poncey]

Unfortunately, Khan v Fagn backed up by three Olyupians knocking over no hopers is not worth £10, never mind £30

x2

[Wales]

Mayweather Marquez card on the otherhand was free, but nobody couldve complained about shelling out £15 as the card was brilliant.

[Poncey]

By brilliant I'm presuming you mean by boxing's modern standards, not in general.

Spectacle; yes. Fight; no.

[Wales]

I ment the card in general, pre fight.

John (#1 FW) V Juarez
Kastidis (top 5 most exciting fighters lb4lb) V Escobedo (Olympian)
Lock V Cruz (suppesedly ready for bigger things)

as the undercard was very good. And thats not to mention two of the top 3 lb4lb fighters on the planet facing off in the main event.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but pre-fight I wouldve been well happy paying £15 for that line up. Post fight I would too.

[black panther]

I ment the card in general, pre fight.

John (#1 FW) V Juarez
Kastidis (top 5 most exciting fighters lb4lb) V Escobedo (Olympian)
Lock V Cruz (suppesedly ready for bigger things)

as the undercard was very good. And thats not to mention two of the top 3 lb4lb fighters on the planet facing off in the main event.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but pre-fight I wouldve been well happy paying £15 for that line up. Post fight I would too.

Agreed I thought the undercard was a cracker.

[JamesH]

Yes there was far more value on that card than on the ppv's ive bought lately. Although it wasnt as strong a line up before Floyd postponed the initial date claiming injury, the undercard was strengthened to boost ticket sales which to that point werent going anywhere fast.

[whicker]

Money is tight at the moment, so spending £30 on an evenings boxing would be a notable cost to me, so more likely than not, I wouldn't spend that much.

To pay £30, it would have to be a really top quality fight- an unmissable one- with a good undercard.

I have friends that like boxing, but they don't like it enough to pay for it, so not much chance of splitting it either.

I'd be happy to pay about £10, but a moot point at the moment as I don't even have a basic sky subscription- and I think you need to subscription to be able to watch their pay per views.

[TerribleTerry]

I ment the card in general, pre fight.

John (#1 FW) V Juarez
Kastidis (top 5 most exciting fighters lb4lb) V Escobedo (Olympian)
Lock V Cruz (suppesedly ready for bigger things)

as the undercard was very good. And thats not to mention two of the top 3 lb4lb fighters on the planet facing off in the main event.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but pre-fight I wouldve been well happy paying £15 for that line up. Post fight I would too.

Whilst that particular card was strong and deep throughout I do wonder as to why the promoter was motivated to provide such seeming 'good value' on this occassion?

Was it anything to do with the direct competition they faced from the UFC card that same night? (a number of the prelims for which were televised on a free cable channel in order to further damage the boxing PPV buy rate).

Just a thought.

[stujones]

Possibly not a good thread to keep if TV companies are reading!

[TerribleTerry]

The UK does not have the same 'pay TV culture' that is so prevalent in the US (although this has changed somewhat in the last 15 yrs or so).

That said, I still don't think UK viewers are willing to shell out over and above their monthly TV subscription bills for anything but the biggest 'event' fights.

Providing a fight between unknown but evenly matched lower weight championship fighters from South America, for example, is never going to prove financially viable in the UK.

The market just even big enough to sustain regular PPV (esp not at the £20 - £30 price tag quoted by the OP)

[twenty six]

The final line of TT's post exactly where we are.
Of course we would pay it, the geeks - but you're looking at a maximum take of 100k sells ?
3 mill in the pot wouldn't pay for the quality headliner needed to justify £30 a hit.
Business is business and there needs to be a minimum of 25% profit margin or no point doing it.

[DavidPayne]

Wouldn't it be nice to pay Sky £5-10 per month for sport that isn't football.

So the football content was scrambled or on a Sky Sports Football channel.

Because you know MOST of your coin pays Ashley Cole's wages.

[dondada]

Wouldn't it be nice to pay Sky £5-10 per month for sport that isn't football.

So the football content was scrambled or on a Sky Sports Football channel.

Because you know MOST of your coin pays Ashley Cole's wages.

Great idea - for the consumer - which is why the sleeags won't do it.

[pm]

How does the rest of the Yanks package compare to ours? Full Sky package is what now, about £47? So that'd be about $75 a month.

Do the Yanks have to pay a bastard company such as the BBC £12 / $19 a month?

No way I could justify it, call it £25 a card (say 6 a year?) plus £47 a month for sky and £12 a month for beeb.

That'd be over £850 a year. Plus there's ESPN as well if you're interested pushing it close to a grand. Nice.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Not for Ricky Hatton-Maussa or Khan-Kotenlik I wouldn't. Lets be honest they'll put the price up but not give any better fights for the money