It's a joke that groves vs degale is box office

[apophenic]

Why aren't football matches PPV?

I can see the day when the FA cup final, or champions league final might be on PPV - but I don't think it will ever be a period when the regular season will be PPV - because people will get the results and, unlike boxing, it isn't a one off with major consequences - its just part of a season.

They tried with Premierplus and it failed miserably. Aslong as there is match of the day, then there will be no room for PPV Premiership football. One off finals in which you will never see again, then maybe.

can't ever see the fa cup / champs league finals as ppv...

ppv 'season tickets' for your own teams perhaps....

[apophenic]

Would they have been able to do that last Sunday if they'd wanted, with the Utd v Chelsea match?

not sure but what neutral would ever pay to watch another team?

[King Tubby]

Wouldn't need neutrals to make money, would it?

[JamesH]

Why aren't football matches PPV?

I can see the day when the FA cup final, or champions league final might be on PPV - but I don't think it will ever be a period when the regular season will be PPV - because people will get the results and, unlike boxing, it isn't a one off with major consequences - its just part of a season.

They tried with Premierplus and it failed miserably. Aslong as there is match of the day, then there will be no room for PPV Premiership football. One off finals in which you will never see again, then maybe.

Premierplus worked a bit differently though, and it never applied to premium games like the one on Sunday. People can get the results in boxing but it doesnt stop them shelling out to watch it. I can see it starting with the top 4 or 5, and perhaps the the top 2 in Scotland. After that, who knows? Individually negotiated TV contracts, club by club? I don't think league football is not one of the sports protected in terms of terrestrial viewing so at some point, MOTD might have to show games two days later for example - helping to sell the live broadcast.

[stujones]

Football doesn't do the ratings to warrant PPV. Why TV execs shell out so much is for the advertising and revenue it does. Compare the rating for the FA cup final, champions league final or say Williams vs Harrison - and the boxing does better.

The appeal of the premiership for Tv execs is the package, the fact that only Sky and ESPN are the place where you can watch all 20 teams (not at the same time) for the full 90 minutes.

The highlights package that the BBC and ITV fight for when it comes to bids makes far too much money for the premiership - a PPV route would risk this. Plus there is Man Utd and Chelsea TV, which show every game on a delayed basis, what is their subscriber rate?

I got the Sky Sports for the Boxing, but I watch the football there most weeks also. However, I wouldn't get ESPN cause I think whats the point. Forking out 8 quid a week (or whatever it is) when I can get highlights that night and I think watching Football live is a very different experience to watching boxing live... as is watching them on repeat.

[Camcas]

Football doesn't do the ratings to warrant PPV. Why TV execs shell out so much is for the advertising and revenue it does. Compare the rating for the FA cup final, champions league final or say Williams vs Harrison - and the boxing does better.

The FA cup final did 5.6 million views, thats a lot more than boxing gets

[JamesH]

Football doesn't do the ratings to warrant PPV. Why TV execs shell out so much is for the advertising and revenue it does. Compare the rating for the FA cup final, champions league final or say Williams vs Harrison - and the boxing does better.

The appeal of the premiership for Tv execs is the package, the fact that only Sky and ESPN are the place where you can watch all 20 teams (not at the same time) for the full 90 minutes.

The highlights package that the BBC and ITV fight for when it comes to bids makes far too much money for the premiership - a PPV route would risk this. Plus there is Man Utd and Chelsea TV, which show every game on a delayed basis, what is their subscriber rate?

I got the Sky Sports for the Boxing, but I watch the football there most weeks also. However, I wouldn't get ESPN cause I think whats the point. Forking out 8 quid a week (or whatever it is) when I can get highlights that night and I think watching Football live is a very different experience to watching boxing live... as is watching them on repeat.

To get football you need a monthly subscription, whereas PPV boxing can be a one off purchase. That would have some impact on the relative sales.

I see the points you are making, while a fan of both sports I would prefer boxing to football. With that in mind, I would be more likely to watch boxing repeats than football repeats. However, the consensus would probably be different in a football forum as opposed to a boxing forum. It's hard to compare given the different status' of the sports but I think in any like for like situation in this country, football would beat boxing for figures 9 times out of 10. There are two or three headline crossover fighters, while there are far more headline football clubs.

[orbtastic]

Football doesn't do the ratings to warrant PPV. Why TV execs shell out so much is for the advertising and revenue it does. Compare the rating for the FA cup final, champions league final or say Williams vs Harrison - and the boxing does better.

The FA cup final did 5.6 million views, thats a lot more than boxing gets

FA cup was on free TV, no? It always has been and it'll never go to somewhere like SKY.

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

Do SKY sports even have 6 million subscribers?

[stujones]

My point was actually that I think most would prefer to watch football repeats than boxing repeats. If you tune into five live and the commentator says "oh what a goal, goal of the decade you've got to see this goal" - people will tune in to match of the day. Indeed, even the BBC did this the other week "watch Match of the day when you will see a wonder strike from Rooney". The BBC know that most sport fans will know the result before tuning into Match of the day, so don't really care about telling people.

For boxing it is different, I don't think people will tune in if told "tune in and watch Joe bloggs produce one of the greatest KO's of all time". The result is more criticial (unless its this world series of boxing) and thats why it annoys us on a boxing forum, who enjoy the art of the sport, when Sky even hint at telling us the result.

[stujones]

Football doesn't do the ratings to warrant PPV. Why TV execs shell out so much is for the advertising and revenue it does. Compare the rating for the FA cup final, champions league final or say Williams vs Harrison - and the boxing does better.

The FA cup final did 5.6 million views, thats a lot more than boxing gets

FA cup was on free TV, no? It always has been and it'll never go to somewhere like SKY.

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

Do SKY sports even have 6 million subscribers?

Danny Williams vs Audley Harrison crossed 10 million viewers! And those figures are nothing compared to the glory days of the sport. McGuigan united a country!

[whicker]

Seriously, if you don't want to pay, go to a pub or casino that has it, or whatever, but for fucks sake, don't brag about getting an illegal stream. Those are just for parasites.

When it comes to sharing media online, I liken it to prostitution. Out of a truck load of Moldovan girls unwittingly brought West to work in the sex industry, some will quickly resign themselves to their new role and learn to make the best of it and ultimately find a way to cash-in; some will be resistant initially but after a few beatings will go with the flow; and some will simply refuse to be broken and end up weighted down at the bottom of a lake. Streams are here to stay and the quality is only going to improve. Broadcasters will have to learn to accept it and look to develop ways to generate some revenue from it. Far better to get fucked for a few quid than fucked for nothing and a black eye.

However, the point is that promoters are not helpless prostitutes. If they are not making money from it, then they are going to pull out.

Like it or not, PPV is, at least, putting some money into the sport, whereas free streams are not.

If it gets to the stage where the sport isn't getting the views on TV/PPV because people are watching on streams, then the whole thing will collapse.

[NazNaci1]

I dont agree with PPV being viewed as some kind of saviour of boxing. Its not.

PPV is about making money. It has nothing to do with creating longevity for the sport. If anything, it is killing it.

Limiting the sport to fewer and fewer numbers is not what Boxing needs.

I used to watch Boxing, growing up, on ITV, now I watch it on streams as I do not believe the sport should be limited to a select few, the sole reason being greed.

Their attitude is, you love the sport? Well we are going to rip you a new one, making you pay through the nose, if you want to watch it.

Well guess what, I'll watch it live and on streams. No different to watching it on ITV or BBC. This is what people should do. Not pay these pudenda MORE money on top of subs etc...to watch the sport you enjoy.

[JimJim2009]

I dont agree with PPV being viewed as some kind of saviour of boxing. Its not.

PPV is about making money. It has nothing to do with creating longevity for the sport. If anything, it is killing it.

Limiting the sport to fewer and fewer numbers is not what Boxing needs.

I used to watch Boxing, growing up, on ITV, now I watch it on streams as I do not believe the sport should be limited to a select few, the sole reason being greed.

Their attitude is, you love the sport? Well we are going to rip you a new one, making you pay through the nose, if you want to watch it.

Well guess what, I'll watch it live and on streams. No different to watching it on ITV or BBC. This is what people should do. Not pay these pudenda MORE money on top of subs etc...to watch the sport you enjoy.

I agree a hundred percent with this. Its getting stupid if some fans actually fall for the ridiculous proposition that a fight can only be made if its on PPV. Jesus Christ almight ! The sport has lived long enough without it, PPV is about getting more money from the fans, pure and simple. Apologies to anyone offended because I don't just bend over and take it time after time !!! Our top promoter made boxers, and himself, rich from the big shows in the 1990's and early 2000's - and Sky regularly showed "big time boxing" events without the need for PPV, often with multiple titles fights on. Are we supposed to believe they were all doing it for free ?! Bolloxs.

[crusader]

I dont agree with PPV being viewed as some kind of saviour of boxing. Its not.

PPV is about making money. It has nothing to do with creating longevity for the sport. If anything, it is killing it.

Limiting the sport to fewer and fewer numbers is not what Boxing needs.

I used to watch Boxing, growing up, on ITV, now I watch it on streams as I do not believe the sport should be limited to a select few, the sole reason being greed.

Their attitude is, you love the sport? Well we are going to rip you a new one, making you pay through the nose, if you want to watch it.

Well guess what, I'll watch it live and on streams. No different to watching it on ITV or BBC. This is what people should do. Not pay these pudenda MORE money on top of subs etc...to watch the sport you enjoy.

I like your thinking.

[whicker]

If it gets to the stage where the sport isn't getting the views on TV/PPV because people are watching on streams, then the whole thing will collapse.

If the sport were to ever collapse it would be 100% the fault of those promoting the sport.

Disagree.

At least SOME of the blame must be placed at the door of those "fans" who offer nothing to support the sport financially.

Boxing isn't a public service, it's not funded by taxes or rates. If fans don't pay anything and expect it all to be free on streams, then where does the money come from to put on shows and pay boxers?

[whicker]

Well guess what, I'll watch it live and on streams. No different to watching it on ITV or BBC.

Its VERY different.

BBC is funded by the Licence. Fail to pay it, and they can fine you etc.

ITV is funded by adverts. The money advertisers pay (some of it) goes to the people who show the programmes/events.

Streams are just stealing. A lot of streams do have adverts now, but not a penny of those goes to the people putting on the event.

At the end of the day, I do agree, PPV is shitty. But still, that doesn't justify watching illegal streams.

[NazNaci1]

Today, Promoters, SKY and PPV is destroying Boxing in the UK, not ppl like me who refuse to buy PPV and watch it for free via Streams.

Do these people actually care about Boxings future? Where it will be in 10-15 years? Of course not. It's all about making money, subscription fee's, then paying PPV fee's.....

Out of principle, because I totally disagree with their greedy attitude, I will simply not buy it. I will watch it elsewhere for free, as I do with the Football.

All this should be available for the masses, but its not and its not my fault.

Boxing is dying in this country and its not because of ppl like me. You can debate it anyway you want to, but thats the bottom line.

[chrisfinch]

Today, Promoters, SKY and PPV is destroying Boxing in the UK, not ppl like me who refuse to buy PPV and watch it for free via Streams.

Sky aren't destroying boxing in the UK, they are keeping it afloat. If they didn't show boxing, nobody else would, and in the unlikely event somebody did, they wouldn't pay anywhere near what Sky are.

Like it or loathe it, boxing in britain would be well and truly up the shitter without Sky.

[NazNaci1]

Someone will always show boxing, whether its another broadcaster or terrestial TV.

SKY pay well but how can they afford that? They make YOU pay subscriptions and then pay again for PPV.

So they pay well, make themselves a nice profit, all at our expense, yeah thanks alot.

If these fighters fought on terrestial TV, for example, they would probably make a bit less purse wise, but can you imagine if these UK fighters were houesehold names, as terrestial TV would make them, they could earn alot more via other avenues.

Swings and roundabouts but I dont believe, for one second SKY is 'doing Boxing a favour'.

Boxing will always be here, it needs exposure but these greedy prats sacrifice that for no other reason than maximising their profits.

[JimJim2009]

Today, Promoters, SKY and PPV is destroying Boxing in the UK, not ppl like me who refuse to buy PPV and watch it for free via Streams.

Sky aren't destroying boxing in the UK, they are keeping it afloat. If they didn't show boxing, nobody else would, and in the unlikely event somebody did, they wouldn't pay anywhere near what Sky are.

Like it or loathe it, boxing in britain would be well and truly up the shitter without Sky.

Fans shouldn't have to subsidise the pissing contest between rival promotional camps who bid silly money for non-PPV worthy bouts, so they can win the purse bid and be the "big cheese" in UK boxing.

What exactly is big or clever about bidding several hundred grand for a British title fight, when you're reliant on then passing the costs onto the boxing public, via PPV sales, to break even ? If you have got that kind of money, fine, flex your financial muscles and show off, but if you haven't, please don't screw over the fans further by charging PPV just because you wanted to win the purse bids, to show how big and powerful you are in the sport.

Sky deserve credit for showing boxing, no doubt about it but jesus they would drop it like a stone if they didn't get good viewing figures, they are not doing our sport a favour, they are making money from it. Unlike ITV or BBC, they have several full time sports channels, they're meant to show all kinds of sport to attract a wide base of subscribers.

I will watch on a stream because I think the promoters are playing monopoly money games, hoping that PPV will rescue them from losses on the show. Screw them. A fight as grand as Pacquiao vs Mayweather is PPV, no doubt about it, but a British title fight is not. British boxing history is littered with many, many great British title fights, they managed to take place without the existence of PPV.

[chrisfinch]

Someone will always show boxing, whether its another broadcaster or terrestial TV.

SKY pay well but how can they afford that? They make YOU pay subscriptions and then pay again for PPV.

So they pay well, make themselves a nice profit, all at our expense, yeah thanks alot.

If these fighters fought on terrestial TV, for example, they would probably make a bit less purse wise, but can you imagine if these UK fighters were houesehold names, as terrestial TV would make them, they could earn alot more via other avenues.

Swings and roundabouts but I dont believe, for one second SKY is 'doing Boxing a favour'.

Boxing will always be here, it needs exposure but these greedy prats sacrifice that for no other reason than maximising their profits.

Terrestrial TV won't pay for boxing any time soon. And any other channel-say Eurosport or Premier won't pay the amounts promoters are used to, so they will throw a paddy, the decent domestic boxers will move to the states or the continent where they can make more money, and you are left with the odd small hall show on telly, and the rest of it hidden from view. It's a bit of a melodramatic way of looking at it, but far from beyond the realms of possibility.

[NazNaci1]

Terrestrial TV won't pay for boxing any time soon. And any other channel-say Eurosport or Premier won't pay the amounts promoters are used to, so they will throw a paddy, the decent domestic boxers will move to the states or the continent where they can make more money, and you are left with the odd small hall show on telly, and the rest of it hidden from view. It's a bit of a melodramatic way of looking at it, but far from beyond the realms of possibility.

Yes I know terrestial TV wont pay for the sport at the moment, and if promoters are not happy with what they are offered and get upset, then good riddance, let the fighters move abroad, we can still watch the fights via streams, the fighters make money and get their fights.

The only losers are the likes of Fw@nk W et al and SKY. Big fvcking deal. Just how long have they been scamming and bleeding us??

There will still be small hall stuff but a fighter with potential will go, for example to the USA. Fine.

Boxing still lives on, terrestial TV will pick it up again at some point in the future, and we don't get shafted all the time with sub and ppv fee's. Where is the problem?

When terrestial TV picks up the sport again, the fighters will all be back here fighting, getting good money and popularity will rise (more revenue?)

I think its this is what Boxing needs in this country, in all honesty, to get it back where it needs to be.

[JimJim2009]

Someone will always show boxing, whether its another broadcaster or terrestial TV.

SKY pay well but how can they afford that? They make YOU pay subscriptions and then pay again for PPV.

So they pay well, make themselves a nice profit, all at our expense, yeah thanks alot.

If these fighters fought on terrestial TV, for example, they would probably make a bit less purse wise, but can you imagine if these UK fighters were houesehold names, as terrestial TV would make them, they could earn alot more via other avenues.

Swings and roundabouts but I dont believe, for one second SKY is 'doing Boxing a favour'.

Boxing will always be here, it needs exposure but these greedy prats sacrifice that for no other reason than maximising their profits.

Terrestrial TV won't pay for boxing any time soon. And any other channel-say Eurosport or Premier won't pay the amounts promoters are used to, so they will throw a paddy, the decent domestic boxers will move to the states or the continent where they can make more money, and you are left with the odd small hall show on telly, and the rest of it hidden from view. It's a bit of a melodramatic way of looking at it, but far from beyond the realms of possibility.

Let them move to America and fight there then; boxing fans with more sense than money will still watch them for free on a stream

Sorry to sound flippant but there comes a point when you start to think the piss is being taken. A McDonalds cheeseburger is okay for a quid, but if they charged a tenner you'd walk away. Boxing fans cough up enough to watch good shows on Sky sports, and we even pay extra for special events like the top pound for pound fighters facing each other, but the promoters are attempting to lower the threshold, and its not for the good of the sport, it is to make more profit. But they can't say that, so it is dressed up as as something like "this fight can only be made if its PPV" And as long as you're stupid enough not to compare a British title fight in 2011 with the multimillion dollar superfights of old, you might fall for it.

Degale vs Groves on PPV is the thin edge of the wedge - if they can make money on PPV from this, it will open the door to more shows like it, ie, the fans will have to pay more in future to see quality match ups.

Believe it or not, there have been quality match ups since the sport began.

[chrisfinch]

Someone will always show boxing, whether its another broadcaster or terrestial TV.

SKY pay well but how can they afford that? They make YOU pay subscriptions and then pay again for PPV.

So they pay well, make themselves a nice profit, all at our expense, yeah thanks alot.

If these fighters fought on terrestial TV, for example, they would probably make a bit less purse wise, but can you imagine if these UK fighters were houesehold names, as terrestial TV would make them, they could earn alot more via other avenues.

Swings and roundabouts but I dont believe, for one second SKY is 'doing Boxing a favour'.

Boxing will always be here, it needs exposure but these greedy prats sacrifice that for no other reason than maximising their profits.

Terrestrial TV won't pay for boxing any time soon. And any other channel-say Eurosport or Premier won't pay the amounts promoters are used to, so they will throw a paddy, the decent domestic boxers will move to the states or the continent where they can make more money, and you are left with the odd small hall show on telly, and the rest of it hidden from view. It's a bit of a melodramatic way of looking at it, but far from beyond the realms of possibility.

Let them move to America and fight there then; boxing fans with more sense than money will still watch them for free on a stream

Sorry to sound flippant but there comes a point when you start to think the piss is being taken. A McDonalds cheeseburger is okay for a quid, but if they charged a tenner you'd walk away. Boxing fans cough up enough to watch good shows on Sky sports, and we even pay extra for special events like the top pound for pound fighters facing each other, but the promoters are attempting to lower the threshold, and its not for the good of the sport, it is to make more profit. But they can't say that, so it is dressed up as as something like "this fight can only be made if its PPV" And as long as you're stupid enough not to compare a British title fight in 2011 with the multimillion dollar superfights of old, you might fall for it.

Degale vs Groves on PPV is the thin edge of the wedge - if they can make money on PPV from this, it will open the door to more shows like it, ie, the fans will have to pay more in future to see quality match ups.

Believe it or not, there have been quality match ups since the sport began.

Like, I agree with you 'n all, but it's just the way the sport is unfortunately. I think it is ridiculous that on top of paying however much per month that Sky expect more for 'big' fights. In every other sport, once a deal is made between promoter/organising body and television station, that is it. You get however many matches you pay for and everybody is happy. But not in boxing, and it is a combination of promoters (frank jizzes himself at the mere thought of PPV), fighters (who, perhaps fairly want to make as much money as possible), and Sky, who presumably view it as any amount of people paying £15 is better than none.

You can boycott these fights all you want, until somebody else comes along with the money to fund these fights then things won't change. And that ain't happening any time soon unfortunantly.

Oh, and I'm not buying this PPV by the way.

[NazNaci1]

Some will pay the pathetic PPV fee's, which is doing damage in itself, but thats upto them. SKY is definately not doing us, the fans, any favours, its not doing Boxing any favours. Its about money.

Thats why some of us will watch it, for free on some internet Streams.

In time, more and more will do the same, watch it for free via Streams, SKY will lose money and kick Boxing into touch. Our fighters will move to Germany, America or wherever. They'll get paid well and we still watch it for free, as it should be.

Blood sucking promoters are 'gently' moved on.

Terrestial TV will pick it up again, in the future, all the fighters begin to fight on ITV or BBC again, make good money, make more money via TV appearances, sponsorships etc....and we get a new generation of fight fans, of which, in turn, will lead to new Boxing superstars....

Welcome back, Boxing!