PPV - The history and how to draw the line?

[rhino222]

im not trying to start quoting historical dates of when PPV became 'fashionable' but i am sat here thinking that Calzaghe was a 'champion' for many fights/years without his mismatches being called a PPV, im sure Hatton too was a 'champ' without being PPV.

So...what gives the right for Cleverley to suddenly become a marquee fighter and be of PPV status, surely FW has lost his marbles this time.

PPV for haye....yes, PPV for Froch....yes, PPV for Khan.....not yet!!

Cleverley etc...... no effing way. we already pay subscriptions to sky sports, we should be more supported by the broadcaster and their supposed quality control.

[m1kee50]

IMO PPV should be for unification fights, or cards with more than one world title on them... European Champion (im not having this 'Interim' sh1t) which is the highest belt Cleverley has won in the ring, is not PPV IMO, nor is C'Wealth vs British title.

[rhino222]

i cant make my mind up in my head if PPV status should be for the title or the fighter(s) involved, im thinking the latter.

[Newport Daz]

I don't recall ever seeing Calzaghe on PPV. From Kostya onwards Hatton was on always on PPV. He really didn't fight anyone that "big" up to then.He was WBU champ, but you get one of those belts in poundstretcher. Afterwards some of his PPV fights were a joke. Carlos Massa was a joke for a PPV fight though SKY justified it as a unification. I think Hatton had certain purse expectations which could only be financed through PPV and was confident enough that his fanbase would pay it. I don't think you can blame a promoter for that.

People always blame the promoters, but if SKY are paying peanuts for boxing and there's no-one else showing boxing then unfortunanlty PPV is the way it has to be financed. Unless the boxers radically reduce their purse demands, the promoter will have to pay out of his own pocket. And not even allegedly could keep that going for long.

[rhino222]

I don't recall ever seeing Calzaghe on PPV. From Kostya onwards Hatton was on always on PPV. He really didn't fight anyone that "big" up to then.He was WBU champ, but you get one of those belts in poundstretcher. Afterwards some of his PPV fights were a joke. Carlos Massa was a joke for a PPV fight though SKY justified it as a unification. I think Hatton had certain purse expectations which could only be financed through PPV and was confident enough that his fanbase would pay it. I don't think you can blame a promoter for that.

People always blame the promoters, but if SKY are paying peanuts for boxing and there's no-one else showing boxing then unfortunanlty PPV is the way it has to be financed. Unless the boxers radically reduce their purse demands, the promoter will have to pay out of his own pocket. And not even allegedly could keep that going for long.

errrr...cleverley in nowhere near fighting anyone big!!

[boxbet]

no boxers on this card are PPV. Its up to the public to make a stand. Be strong and dont buy. catch the replay later. San webb recent uk title fight was good value hard boxing which satisfied me. Tonite we may not even see a knockdown, just the ref stopping too early, leaving us unsatisfied once again.

[rhino222]

i think the thing is, and what the promoters need to realise...is...if they showed the whole bill, live, without bloody adverts etc, then more people would buy the ppv...... i actually probably would, but not to see 2.5 fights with too many adverts and too much discussion.

some discussion is great, but not some idiots trying to pump up a product that is already past its sell by date, at least in supermarkets they give it a yellow sticker!!...and a reduction.

not sure how much a promoter pays for PPV platform? is is charged per session or per hour? ... anyone know?

[grannyman]

I don't recall ever seeing Calzaghe on PPV. From Kostya onwards Hatton was on always on PPV. He really didn't fight anyone that "big" up to then.He was WBU champ, but you get one of those belts in poundstretcher. Afterwards some of his PPV fights were a joke. Carlos Massa was a joke for a PPV fight though SKY justified it as a unification. I think Hatton had certain purse expectations which could only be financed through PPV and was confident enough that his fanbase would pay it. I don't think you can blame a promoter for that.

People always blame the promoters, but if SKY are paying peanuts for boxing and there's no-one else showing boxing then unfortunanlty PPV is the way it has to be financed. Unless the boxers radically reduce their purse demands, the promoter will have to pay out of his own pocket. And not even allegedly could keep that going for long.

After kostya, Hatton fought Castillo on Setanta.

[Croydon1]

There has to be a market for it which generates more money than regular Sky Sports its just simple economics....

Boxing is different to a lot of other mainstream sports where we can often wait months for a decent scrap to catch our attention so the tv bigwigs decide to fleece boxing fans knowing they are "thirsty", if you like.

I've done it myself in the past.... knowing there's a crap card coming up with 'some' interest, it's Saturday night, the beers are flowing, I've not seen much live boxing for weeks... so I buy it....

[Jeff Thomas]

If anyone PM's me I will happily share details where you can watch it for free! if this upsets anyone then ask yourself for the good of the sport, is ppv for a british title fight and as non-event a coronation one could ever see!

[kevinmalpas]

i dont really like the way FW seems to fleece the fans, im hearing rumours today about his promotional company, they may be good they may be bad.

[Jeff Thomas]

i dont really like the way FW seems to fleece the fans, im hearing rumours today about his promotional company, they may be good they may be bad.

intriguing - go on kevin....

[funso banjo baby]

all arguments seem to overlook the whole Sky thing itself ..not just their PPV

the moment things went to sky that was the end of the sport and the beginning of global brandilism.

[Jeff Thomas]

all arguments seem to overlook the whole Sky thing itself ..not just their PPV

the moment things went to sky that was the end of the sport and the beginning of global brandilism.

Yep overlooked is that you already pay to view, the pay per view channel, twice!

[funso banjo baby]

we had top draw fights and fighters live on terrestrial throuout the week in the 80's. why were people suckered so easily by the parasitic promoters moan that only big bills can be provided by PPV revenue???? utter bullsh*t

Sky killed Boxing ! it was as predictable as the national lottery (which funnily enough reared its ugly head at the same time)..... we lose !!!!

[Jeff Thomas]

The way forward is free boxing - it's available

[broomy7s]

I am fuming £15 and sky can't even show highlights of the undercard. They said there was a strong undercard yet Gavin & Saunders fights were always going to be walkovers. Cook & Smith are decent names and Skeete & Cox are promising prospects yet they didn't even show highlights.

[boxbet]

they make enough money from the gate, let alone sponsers and tv revenue. and sky subs. PPV is just Bullshit rip off. fornicate U PPV .

[ourkid1984]

In some ways I see us Brits as quite lucky because we get the big US PPV's normally for no extra cost or on channels like Premier which offer a whole month for £6.99.

Yes going on shows 'back in the day' nights like Cleverlly and Groves vs Degale wouldn't be on PPV but then saying that we didn't have as many opportunities to watch boxing on tv and I certainly don't remember as many big US fights on tv for little or no extra cost.

Like I mentioned last week it's not so much the PPV payers that we should feel for it's the people who pay top money (into the hundreds of £'s) to watch a show sometimes weeks before the whole card has been announced only to find that for their hundreds of £'s they will only get to see 1 50/50 fight.

My own view is that I'd far prefer to have a choice to pay PPV for something like last Saturday and get the biggest fights for little or no extra cost than the other way round.

[rhino222]

how much does a pub pay for PPV?

how much does a promoter pay for the PPV platform?

[JamesH]

how much does a pub pay for PPV?

how much does a promoter pay for the PPV platform?

The landlord of my local wouldn't get last weeks show in as the previous boxing PPV he bought in had cost him £150 and apparently did nothing to increase trade.

[mahatma]

ive ranted about this for ages biggest bug bear for me is that i pay sky 20 0dd quid for the variety 6 pack of channels on top of this i pay 22 i think for the whole sky sports package totalling close to 500 as well as the obligatory bbc tv licence.in the states you dont pay high monthly fees but pay for the event as and when it happens, which is fairer if your going to have to pay- our tv entertainment charges are among the highest in the world!
i coughed when it was ppv for tyson holyfield-lewis holyfield thought it was a liberty - they couldnt do it with football i.e show you stoke against wigan but then charge you for man utd v liverpool.
Now ppv becomes the norm subscribers see 4 fights when why couldnt they watch the whole card- dont pay for it clear and simple - whats next mitchell -murray ppv?

[stujones]

im not trying to start quoting historical dates of when PPV became 'fashionable' but i am sat here thinking that Calzaghe was a 'champion' for many fights/years without his mismatches being called a PPV, im sure Hatton too was a 'champ' without being PPV.

So...what gives the right for Cleverley to suddenly become a marquee fighter and be of PPV status, surely FW has lost his marbles this time.

PPV for haye....yes, PPV for Froch....yes, PPV for Khan.....not yet!!

Cleverley etc...... no effing way. we already pay subscriptions to sky sports, we should be more supported by the broadcaster and their supposed quality control.

A good post, Calzaghe not only had Mismatches on non PPV - but also some decent matches (on paper) - Lacy (completely Free), Kessler (Setanta package but not PPV), Hopkins (as Kessler), Brewer (Sky), Mitchel (Sky) etc.

One thing I do disagree with you is on the apparent status of Khan and Froch? Khan has a bigger profile than Froch far far far more well known. On THIS side of the atlantic not even Froch's future opponents (unless its Hopkins) is well known enough for him to have a PPV. Who has heard of Andre Ward in the UK? His fights in the main have been on primetime and most recently at an odd time, with little publicity, on Sunday - delayed. A problem with Khan being a PPV fighter is his opponents, with the possibly exception of Judah, are not well known enough to command a PPV - but I feel this problem still is the case for Carl.... and Carl is less known than Khan.

Problem with both of them, most of their opponents are well known in the states, and therefore could command a potential PPV audience there. That would mean though the fight being in the states, which Sky would have a problem with.

Personally I hope neither are on PPV.