Has allegedly learnt a trick the others havent?

[dekker88]

warren always used to put on shows with larger more interesting bills a la saturday and the mag 7....the anomalies are the shows over the last 5 years or so where the bill was a little thin...

[Glyn Leach]

I think this is where Sky has to step up to bat.

People like the big shows Frank has been putting on but at present it's unfair on him because it's always his stable that is put at risk - not so much in Liverpool, granted, although Smigga was a casualty for Warren.

The other promoters simply haven't got the strength in depth in their stables to put on a Mag 7-like show, but Warren can't be expected to carry them by consistently putting his stable on the line - which, to a degree, he did with Mag 7.

Therefore, the other promoters - and Warren - WILL have to start working together if that's the way Sky want to go. But that's the issue - do Sky really want to go that way? If they do, then the promoters will have no option but to play ball or go and find another TV company.

Sky are currently in a position to say 'my way or the highway'. They can call the shots and effectively take charge of boxing, market it in the way that the UFC markets its version of MMA, top to bottom - which has been proven to work.

It would be a radical departure from the way boxing has been run but it has been inevitable that TV would take over one day, it is the major financier. The power of the promoters has been systematically reduced over the years, that's why it's very rare for a show to be run without TV backing. It's a logical step. I'm just wondering whether Sky will have the balls to take it.

[Scottrf]

Glyn, in your last issue Adam Smith said he was considering sitting the promoters down together; I assumed he meant exactly what you are referring to.

[dondada]

As I said on another thread, I don't really know what 'stacked' means but if it means 10 house fighters and almost all of them are massive odds on, then I don't want to see it. Not much risk there.

I'd rather see three 50/50ish bouts and a couple of prospects.

[funso banjo baby]

I didn't enjoy mag 7 but Liverpool was really good.

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn, in your last issue Adam Smith said he was considering sitting the promoters down together; I assumed he meant exactly what you are referring to.

Guess so Scott, though it would be a big ask. But it seems as like that's what Smith has in mind. Must say, I think it's the way to go. Whether or not Sky can pull it off remains to be seen, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to because they are the gateway to the money, the promoters can't get it without playing ball with Sky.

It would be a massive cultural change for Sky as much as it would be for boxing, because nothing like this has ever been attempted before. But that's no reason why not to attempt it and personally I think it would be very healthy to see British boxing working together, albeit reluctantly at first, I'm sure, under one banner. If Sky are in a position to provide that banner, so be it.

And agreed Ian. Mag 7 was 'stacked', I thought, but Liverpool was a house fighter outing, which isn't really going to do much for the longterm growth of the sport. Obviously putting half a dozen or so major fights on every weekend is impossible, but what you are describing - a couple of decent fights and a couple of prospects per show - is doable if all the promoters are brought together. That's what it would need though.

[Deserter]

Dana White has been doing his best to monopolize MMA for the last 15 years. He has smoothed the rough edges off the sport and turned it into a commercial success. He realised that by softening the sport up - headbutts, small joint manipulation etc have vanished - and buying up the marketable talent the take-up would sky-rocket and he was right. UFC has become the undisputed daddy of MMA and it won't be knocked off that pedestal any time soon. In the States the development from underground, niche activity to trendy, edgy sport to mainstream sport is almost complete. In the UK we are slap, bang in the middle of the 'trendy' phase. Every man jack sees it as de rigueur to be a 'cage fighter' these days. It's very much like the Bruce Lee bounce for martial arts in the 70s.

Boxing's trendy phase happened over a century ago. It is already a known quantity. Unlike MMA where the relative 'newness' of the product induces an element of surprise and allows newbie fans and participants to feel like they are associating themselves with some sort of dark arts, boxing is now old and conventional. A 'boxing match' in itself does not sell, a 'cage fight' does (for now). Boxing will survive and thrive by putting on quality matches between known entitys. To be fair to MMA, even in these pioneer days of the sport, they do that and that is what we should take from them. The marketing of talent is key and pitching the best against the best is all that matters - on TV.

For the small hall scene, MMA has learnt from boxing by putting on shows where Local Boy A, B, C, D... are matched against patsys from out of town who will be stood on their head at will.

All absolutely bang on the money. The only thing I'd add is to point out two other areas where the UFC has been uniquely successful in comparision to boxing and that's in merchandising and digital marketing. Both have played major roles in growing the sport through the development arc you've illustrated.

[Scottrf]

I believe that the problem is caused by the abundance of world titles. If they had to fight each other to gain ranking I have no doubt the fights could happen. But right now you can be maneuvered to a title, so the risk outweighs the reward to both boxer and promoter.

Have to disagree about a cage fight selling better than a boxing match, at least in the UK. No MMA fight has had a a tenth of the publicity of the mismatch that was Haye vs Harrison, and I am unaware of any MMA event selling out an arena the size of the MEN, let alone 50k like Hatton vs Lazcano or Calzaghe vs Kessler.

[Glyn Leach]

I always have thought the way forward is for promoters to work Glyn are the relationships between rival promoters so fierce so wouldnt do shows together? You must know if they see eye to eye?

Mark, if you ask me they seem totally preoccupied with their own interests and stitching their rivals up. How often do you see matches made between stars of major British stables, only for one of the fighters to pull out with injury at the last minute? Can't prove anything, of course, but ...

Something like what Macho is describing re Dana White and MMA is what I'm envisaging - with Sky in the Dana White role. Basically, White has created THE MMA platform, the UFC. Fighters from other promotions want to get into the UFC, fighters the UFC no longer wants are banished to the lesser promotions. White has created a highly competitive environment for MMA - if you want to get on the best stage, the UFC, you have to do things his way. In this sense - and I'm NOT talking about everything White does - I think he's got it spot on. You can't allow a bunch of disparate interests, such as boxing promoters, to determine the future of a sport if you aim to market that sport successfully as a product.

In Britain, Sky has the perfect opportunity to step up and market boxing as a product in the way the UFC has been in the States. I'm not talking about comparisons between the sports, they're totally different so there's no point. But from a purely commercial perspective, Sky has the opportunity to grab control of British boxing and create a strong, cohesive product from the sport for the first time. It would put noses out of joint, to be sure, but it would be great for the future of the sport longterm IMO.

[Glyn Leach]

i started a subject called "Should the Uk based promoters...." back in July 2009 and was given all sorts of grief but still think it is valid this was my openning post:

I think we all can see that boxing is in a lot trouble at the moment with the lack of TV coverage. This next month 2 British fighters are fighting in decent fights stateside and apart from no TV broadcasting it i expect very little or no press or radio coverage. I think these difficult times for the sport needs drastic measures. i personally would like to see all the Uk promoters put to one side the problems they have with each other and hold a meeting to try and come up with some sort of plan to save our sport. These guys have to learn to work together if the sport is going to move forward and stop the silly things like putting on domestic shows on the same night on different channels is just one example.

Seems a very sensible argument to me Mark but it would have been shot down in flames by some because a lot of 'boxing people' are so stuck in their ways, entrenched in the old rivalries and obsessed with trying to nick 50p more than the other man. And look where that attitude has got us? Probably if those people disagreed with you, you know you're on the right track mate because you have challenged the petty little status quo that they are too scared or unimaginative to want tampered with

[Scottrf]

Taking Groves and DeGale as an example, if we imagine that Warren/Booth wanted to do what was best for British boxing, and were totally altruistic, would the fight be made? Both surely think their charge can get to a title shot and I'm not sure it makes sense right now. If they had to make the fight to progress in the rankings towards one belt I'm sure it could be made.

[Poncey]

As I said on another thread, I don't really know what 'stacked' means but if it means 10 house fighters and almost all of them are massive odds on, then I don't want to see it. Not much risk there.

I'd rather see three 50/50ish bouts and a couple of prospects.

Agreed. In the good old days we had competitive cards and this Sats wasn't. Just ask a bookmaker.

It has nothing to do with another combat sport. It's because TV channels, and fans, have allowed Promoters to get away with mediocre cards with one or two fights that resemble 50/50.

[dondada]

As I said on another thread, I don't really know what 'stacked' means but if it means 10 house fighters and almost all of them are massive odds on, then I don't want to see it. Not much risk there.

I'd rather see three 50/50ish bouts and a couple of prospects.

Agreed. In the good old days we had competitive cards and this Sats wasn't. Just ask a bookmaker.

It has nothing to do with another combat sport. It's because TV channels, and fans, have allowed Promoters to get away with mediocre cards with one or two fights that resemble 50/50.

[whiskey]

As a self made billionaire myself,

They say in business you should never create a rival - but an alliance.

Where joining together where permittable and sharing resources to a common market see's everyone succeed.

Sharing of production costs, venue hire, advertising and ticket production and available TV dates - plus one promoter's fighter may bring as many fans as another, will guarantee and overall bigger interest from the public.

Imagine Froch, Degale, Chisora, Fury, Barker, Macklin, Brook, O'Donnell, Mitchell, Murray all on one bill and fighting ranked opposition. You could charge handsomely for the tickets and it would easily go onto PPV.

You could likely split that lot over two immensley successful shows in their own right that would pull in 20,000+ imo.

Draw 40,000 if they all actually fought each other.

[Glyn Leach]

Sky has the opportunity to grab control of British boxing

"In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. The verb "monopolise" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition."

On the face of it you would think Sky having total control of a sport would leave the actors (promoters, managers and - most importantly - fighters and trainers) dancing to their tune and getting financially screwed in the process. However, you only have to look at what has happened to football, in England, from 20 February 1992 onwards to see that, thus far, Sky's Premiership of football has seen the salaries of all contributing actors rise exponentially. It is important to note at this juncture, though, that competition with the leagues of other countries is the reason this has happened i.e. to get the best global talent, the Premier League has to pay the most money.

Sky having control of British boxing and no more would be a bad thing for the actors.

Sky initiating some sort of seperate entity, the Ultimate Boxing Championship for example, that exclusively contracted the best fighters from around the world to fight on its shows against its fighters would make for some awesome contests and some awesome pay cheques because economic competition would still exist.

I'm not sure that issues such as the Prem's need to attract the world's best players need apply to boxing - not straight away, at least, Macho. But it would be a logical step in the eventual development, were things to go down that road. That day would be a long way off though.

What Sky is in a position to do at the moment is stabilise the ship, so to speak, create a healthier environment from which boxing can grow, become more popular with the British TV public.

Where Sky has a distinct advantage with boxing over football is that it will not have to answer to any Premierships, Eufas or Fifas. Boxing is, to a large extent, unregulated and so provides a broadcaster with a bit of a blank canvas. Particularly when that broadcaster has no rivals, as is the case with Sky currently.

To go back to the White/UFC analogy, the UFC and MMA in the USA was pretty much on its arse at the time White and Zuffa took control of it. They had that blank canvas. On the back of the UFC's success, other U.S. promotions have grown and got major TV deals, such as Strikeforce's with Showtime.

If Sky were to make a success of marketing boxing in the UK, other networks would fall into line again. But Sky would still be the main stage, as is the UFC in the USA, despite the emergence of rivals. The monopoly eventually breaks, but the old monopolist would stay at the top because what got it there in the first place was being better than the rest.

What Sky needs to do is create a strong, quality driven boxing product and stick to plan over a period of years, no matter the obstacles it will most definitely face. Promoters already want Sky contracts because it's the only game in town. Sky has the money so it has the power. Having the insight and balls to use both constructively will be the key, but the opportunity is there as things stand.

TV wise, British boxing is pretty much at Ground Zero at the moment and Sky has the rare opportunity to rebuild from the bottom up. I hope they don't waste that opportunity.

[Glyn Leach]

A further point: UFC didn't just become trendy, it was made trendy. It took vision, investment and a rebuilding process. That's what I'm saying Sky is in a position to do for boxing.

Remember, UFC was a failing organisation at the time White and Zuffa bought it and turned it around. The sport was the same, though MMA has evolved under Zuffa, but it wasn't then and isn't now intrinsically better than boxing. It was a struggling sport that faced many of the same problems boxing faces today. But rather than give up the ghost, the UFC took up the challenge and won. Nobody in boxing has ever done this, everyone has been too afraid to shake up the status quo.

It isn't about UFC being a better sport than boxing, it's about the marketing of products. UFC has a plan, boxing never has. I'm saying now is the perfect time for someone, and Sky is in that position, to instigate and implement a plan.

[Deserter]

Draw 40,000 if they all actually fought each other.

I think you're over-estimating public awareness of most of these fighters. I would have thought that the likes of Warren are perfectly aware of the laws of diminishing returns.

[Deserter]

Draw 40,000 if they all actually fought each other.

I think you're over-estimating public awarenss of most of these fighters.

i agree, but with the right marketing and press a good fight can come an event. I used the Mitchell-Katsidis fight as example of this early in the thread where you have an event from a football stadium that with right press gets the casual fan talking

Absolutely - but my point is that it was the main fight that turned it into an event - whether Warren had included six well matched fights on the undercard or six of varying standard wouldn't have altered that fact, hence why from a business perspective he'll be inclined to keep control of his costs, rather than give hardcore fans what they want.

[Deserter]

Absolutely - but my point is that it was the main fight that turned it into an event - whether Warren had included six well matched fights on the undercard or six of varying standard wouldn't have altered that fact, hence why from a business perspective he'll be inclined to keep control of his costs, rather than give hardcore fans what they want.

I guess this can be the beauty of the Mag7 type format when all the fighters want to out the others to steel the show. Of course when a fighter shines he will be pushed by the promoter to headline an event type bill with the undercard filled with young prospects and marketed as so like Warren did with his Olympic stars on say the Mitchell show.

It's obviously expensive sometimes to put on a big fight say for a world title like it will be in Cleverly's case as you have to pay through the nose for home advantage. For this reason the money wouldnt be there for a strong undercard with Mag7 type fights but does allow a platforn to showcase new talent who could feature on future Mag7 type events.

Big events need clever marketing that draws attention to the undercard prospets to raise their profiles. I'm sure there is some clever play of words using Cleverly and students that could be used for example

Yep, agree with a lot of that... bar the Cleverly and students line

[Glyn Leach]

Absolutely - but my point is that it was the main fight that turned it into an event - whether Warren had included six well matched fights on the undercard or six of varying standard wouldn't have altered that fact, hence why from a business perspective he'll be inclined to keep control of his costs, rather than give hardcore fans what they want.

Which is why you take that financial burden off just one promoter, it isn't fair. The responsibility should be spread. That's what could happen if Sky instigated a different approach to boxing promotion.

All that needs to happen is for people to think outside their little boxes. And if they won't do it willingly, force them.

[Deserter]

Absolutely - but my point is that it was the main fight that turned it into an event - whether Warren had included six well matched fights on the undercard or six of varying standard wouldn't have altered that fact, hence why from a business perspective he'll be inclined to keep control of his costs, rather than give hardcore fans what they want.

Which is why you take that financial burden off just one promoter, it isn't fair. The responsibility should be spread. That's what could happen if Sky instigated a different approach to boxing promotion.

All that needs to happen is for people to think outside their little boxes. And if they won't do it willingly, force them.

Yep, couldn't agree more Glyn. With no disrespect to Adam Smith, I can't see that happening though - in reality he'll have had 10 years of liaising with Warren from a position of relative deference so to expect him to be able to play 'hardball' now given that context is a tough ask, even if he's inclinedto do so.
It would also need the support of Sky Sports' senior management and if Sky's P&L is looking healthy at the moment in regards to boxing they might simply take the stance that it's not a priority for them and the level of time and effort it would take to alter the status quo wouldn't be justified by the returns.

[Deserter]

Which is why you take that financial burden off just one promoter, it isn't fair. The responsibility should be spread. That's what could happen if Sky instigated a different approach to boxing promotion.

All that needs to happen is for people to think outside their little boxes. And if they won't do it willingly, force them.

Yep, couldn't agree more Glyn. With no disrespect to Adam Smith, I can't see that happening though - in reality he'll have had 10 years of liaising with Warren from a position of relative deference so to expect him to be able to play 'hardball' now given that context is a tough ask, even if he's inclinedto do so.
It would also need the support of Sky Sports' senior management and if Sky's P&L is looking healthy at the moment in regards to boxing they might simply take the stance that it's not a priority for them and the level of time and effort it would take to alter the status quo wouldn't be justified by the returns.

but doesnt the Head of SkySports meet Warren for Breakfast once a month? i 'm sure he said something along those lines in his interview with BM

But that surely proves my point - if they are relatively happy with the status quo, they're not going to be inclined to press for a radical shake-up.

[Glyn Leach]

All very true. It might just be too much agg for Sky, they could very well decide on the path of least resistance. Be a shame if they did though, the climate seems perfect for a shake up at the moment.

Were I to bet, I think Sky will probably try to make a bit of an effort but back off when the resistance becomes too great, go for an easy life instead. No pain but no gain.

[Counter-puncher]

nice thread and discussion, Mark

[Srebmun]

nice thread and discussion, Mark

^^ this.