BoxRec

In regards to the Cleverly vs Bellew card, I was wondering, will SKY...

(A) Pay Matchroom a set amount (say £1mil to keep it simple) to be able to show it on their PPV channel, and then what ever they make in PPV sales over that £1mil is their profit? Matchroom on the other hand will then take that £1mil to pay their fighters, referees, ring girls, etc.

or

(B) Will Sky just give matchroom a percentage of the PPV sales, and then Matchroom use that to pay everyone?


If its (B) and the PPV bombs, Matchroom will be out of pocket! Alternatively, if its (A) and the PPV bombs, SKY will be out of pocket!

Any ideas???

I have no idea but regardless of whether it's A or B, even if the PPV bombs I very much doubt either Matchroom or Sky will be out of pocket. It's not like they're paying Mayweather's purse or anything, I suspect their costs won't actually be significantly higher than a standard Fight Night. They'd literally have to sell 0 PPVs to not at least break even imo.

Gate money and sponsorship receipts as well as the PPV income

Boxerbeetle wrote:I have no idea but regardless of whether it's A or B, even if the PPV bombs I very much doubt either Matchroom or Sky will be out of pocket. It's not like they're paying Mayweather's purse or anything, I suspect their costs won't actually be significantly higher than a standard Fight Night. They'd literally have to sell 0 PPVs to not at least break even imo.

Yeah, out of pocket may be a bit of an exageration and I too doubt either will lose profit...
But if its scenario (A) and SKY bought the PPV rights from Matchroom for £1mil, yet only make £0.5mil in PPV sales (approx 30,000 households) then surely they would be losing profit, even when you take into account other soucres of revenue (sponsorships, etc).

They're £16.95 down because I'm not having it; I hope the boxers get paid but the promotion loses money; Barney Francis also needs to put a bit of quality control in there.

palooka wrote:They're £16.95 down because I'm not having it; I hope the boxers get paid but the promotion loses money; Barney Francis also needs to put a bit of quality control in there.

I told SKY we are all using illegal streams and she said 'I don't blame you'

All this talk of it bombing is just that - talk.
It will do a minimum of 50k sales so do the maths.
For every boxing purist on here there are a couple of casual Lemins who will believe the hype.
Get over it we all know where the on off button is.

Parson Cross wrote:All this talk of it bombing is just that - talk.
It will do a minimum of 50k sales so do the maths.
For every boxing purist on here there are a couple of casual Lemins who will believe the hype.
Get over it we all know where the on off button is.

That's not really the poin though is it. The point is about the fact that now any half decent card will be on PPV when in reality it Box Office should only be reserved for the big big events. Greed has caught many a man and business out and eventually Sky will feel the kickback of its excessiveness as whole business. Gomez has put up a very informed and accurate post recently that demonstrates that their whole business model is under threat.

dbf wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:All this talk of it bombing is just that - talk.
It will do a minimum of 50k sales so do the maths.
For every boxing purist on here there are a couple of casual Lemins who will believe the hype.
Get over it we all know where the on off button is.

That's not really the poin though is it. The point is about the fact that now any half decent card will be on PPV when in reality it Box Office should only be reserved for the big big events. Greed has caught many a man and business out and eventually Sky will feel the kickback of its excessiveness as whole business. Gomez has put up a very informed and accurate post recently that demonstrates that their whole business model is under threat.

Exactly that. If I wasn't so wary about the precedent it would set I might have actually bought the card. This card needs to tank. It really does.

DMA1987 wrote:
Exactly that. If I wasn't so wary about the precedent it would set I might have actually bought the card. This card needs to tank. It really does.

Agreed. For some reason the song "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next" by the Manic Street Preachers comes to mind.

You have to appreciate that boxing on Sky is a minority sport.
I don't think they'd bat an eyelid if it bombed they have their business model and will stick with it.
I'll stick to my prediction that this won't bomb.
If it hadn't been for Barry's intervention then Sky would have pulled the plug on boxing for good when the contract was signed.
Let me make it clear

1/ I agree this is not a PPV event.
2/ I hate this monopoly that Sky have created.
3/ A PPV of this quality sets a dangerous precedent.

However the reality is that it's happening and I think we have to be careful what we wish for because I just wonder what Sky's attitude will be to boxing in general at contract renewal if shows start to bomb.
I get the impression that people think Sky will say sorry we won't do it again etc etc.

Parson Cross wrote:You have to appreciate that boxing on Sky is a minority sport.
I don't think they'd bat an eyelid if it bombed they have their business model and will stick with it.
I'll stick to my prediction that this won't bomb.
If it hadn't been for Barry's intervention then Sky would have pulled the plug on boxing for good when the contract was signed.
Let me make it clear

1/ I agree this is not a PPV event.
2/ I hate this monopoly that Sky have created.
3/ A PPV of this quality sets a dangerous precedent.

However the reality is that it's happening and I think we have to be careful what we wish for because I just wonder what Sky's attitude will be to boxing in general at contract renewal if shows start to bomb.
I get the impression that people think Sky will say sorry we won't do it again etc etc.

To be honest, I'd be delighted if Sky waved goodbye to boxing forever - I could finally cancel my Sports subscription without hesitation.

Parson Cross wrote:However the reality is that it's happening and I think we have to be careful what we wish for because I just wonder what Sky's attitude will be to boxing in general at contract renewal if shows start to bomb.

The price we have to pay morally for putting up with this and saying 'well its better than nothing' is honestly not worth it, at least not for me anyway. I'd rather SKY make no money and pull out of boxing than be gouged because I want to watch a niche sport. I'd be happy for SKY to pull out of boxing all together if this is the road they are going to go down. Maybe BT will step in and pick up the slack or more people will buy BN and they can start putting together more shows. Its gotta be better than paying £17 for two British fighters to go at it on top of the Sports package I was already paying for. Personally, I'm done with SKY, ill dip into the PPV events when its something big, but I cancelled my sports subscription off the back of this event.

The ticket prices are a lot more expensive that normal, they will have done £2million on the gate alone, plus sponsorships etc. The purses for the event wont be more than that. They are already in profit before a PPV is sold I would wager

jackukmma wrote:The ticket prices are a lot more expensive that normal, they will have done £2million on the gate alone, plus sponsorships etc. The purses for the event wont be more than that. They are already in profit before a PPV is sold I would wager

Plus if SKY has already bought the PPV rights from Matchroom (no one is yet to answer my orginal question by the way) then Matchroom are laughing, at least in the short term...

If, however, the PPV bombs then SKY wont be buying anymore PPV (boxing) events off Matchroom in the near future and may even be tempted to reduce what they pay Matchroom for the subscription shows!

SKY might just think... 'how many people actually subscribe to SKY Sports for the boxing? Well judging by the last PPV sales, not many. Lets reduce what we pay them, or perhaps cancel boxing alltogether, I doubt we will lose many viewers and boxing just isnt worth the cost'.

Boxing is not a small time sport otherwise the Froch Wembley bill wouldn't been so popular but fans are fed up with being dished up with Pentacostal Title fights on a Saturday night with the home fighter 1/100 on favourite. Put a well matched 2 or 3 fights on for a proper title or eliminators and there are still plenty of viewers.

What is on the PPV card is typical of what we see, big names matched against no hopers, should have been DeGale v Groves II as both on the bill and 4 or 5 fights of that calibre would have been worth paying for

Parson Cross wrote:You have to appreciate that boxing on Sky is a minority sport.
I don't think they'd bat an eyelid if it bombed they have their business model and will stick with it.
I'll stick to my prediction that this won't bomb.
If it hadn't been for Barry's intervention then Sky would have pulled the plug on boxing for good when the contract was signed.
Let me make it clear

1/ I agree this is not a PPV event.
2/ I hate this monopoly that Sky have created.
3/ A PPV of this quality sets a dangerous precedent.

However the reality is that it's happening and I think we have to be careful what we wish for because I just wonder what Sky's attitude will be to boxing in general at contract renewal if shows start to bomb.
I get the impression that people think Sky will say sorry we won't do it again etc etc.

It definitely won't bomb, they'll make good money off it, they don't need that many people to buy it to bring a lot of money in. What they should be concerned about is the long term impact. People won't keep paying for shite like this, eventually they'll wise up and keep their money in their pockets.

Tony
The Froch Groves scenario was a freak.
The way it panned out - no hoper nearly pulls it off - controversial stoppage - Carl being an arse afterwards etc etc.
You couldn't have written it.
There were thousands upon thousands who bought into that who knew fornicate all about boxing and will probably never attend again.

Parson Cross wrote:Tony
The Froch Groves scenario was a freak.
The way it panned out - no hoper nearly pulls it off - controversial stoppage - Carl being an arse afterwards etc etc.
You couldn't have written it.
There were thousands upon thousands who bought into that who knew eff all about boxing and will probably never attend again.

But it was seen as a proper fight, one that millions bought into. How many are buying into the Bellew v Cleverley hype ? I very much doubt Groves sees himself as a no hoper either

I would love to know more about the commercials as I dint have enough info to truly weigh it up. Is there any data available on past PPvs?

Who is most reliant on the PPV buys; Sky, the fighters, or the promoter? Who makes the decision? (Obviously economics are a big part of that but who ultimately makes the decision.)

I realise evry contract is different, but I would be good to have more clarity.

If a PPV card makes a loss, who ultimately suffers the most?

I'm assuming that the PPV buys are very related to fighters purses, so ultimately they take the hit. But I don't really know....

Any PPV experts here?

Parson Cross wrote:Tony
The Froch Groves scenario was a freak.
The way it panned out - no hoper nearly pulls it off - controversial stoppage - Carl being an arse afterwards etc etc.
You couldn't have written it.
There were thousands upon thousands who bought into that who knew eff all about boxing and will probably never attend again.

I think anyone that watches boxing closely would of been able to see that Groves's wasnt a no hoper going into that fight. I fancied Froch to win but i didnt think it would be a cake walk by any stretch.

tony1234 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Tony
The Froch Groves scenario was a freak.
The way it panned out - no hoper nearly pulls it off - controversial stoppage - Carl being an arse afterwards etc etc.
You couldn't have written it.
There were thousands upon thousands who bought into that who knew eff all about boxing and will probably never attend again.

But it was seen as a proper fight, one that millions bought into. How many are buying into the Bellew v Cleverley hype ? I very much doubt Groves sees himself as a no hoper either

Was in the pub on the weekend for the Newcastle match with a mate of mine who has a casual interest in boxing & will happily order/watch big fights (Froch/Groves, Haye/Chisora, Tyson Fury, even Stuey Hall seeing as we're in the NE) when an advert for Clev/Bellew came on the TV. I asked him if he'd be ordering it & he replied that he didn't even know who Tony Bellew was! That seriously surprised me but it just goes to show how farcical it is that this fight is a PPV - outside of Liverpool, he's not known outside the boxing bubble.

SMALL AXE1 wrote:

palooka wrote:They're £16.95 down because I'm not having it; I hope the boxers get paid but the promotion loses money; Barney Francis also needs to put a bit of quality control in there.

I told SKY we are all using illegal streams and she said 'I don't blame you'

Just a bit of advice. She isn't SKY, she just works there. OK.

Tomasino wrote:

SMALL AXE1 wrote:

palooka wrote:They're £16.95 down because I'm not having it; I hope the boxers get paid but the promotion loses money; Barney Francis also needs to put a bit of quality control in there.

I told SKY we are all using illegal streams and she said 'I don't blame you'

Just a bit of advice. She isn't SKY, she just works there. OK.

Here's a question: why did Sky stop doing PPV after the Haye v Harrison debacle? I suspect the decision was driven by credibility issues rather than financial. That being the case, it's odd that they would go down the PPV route for a domestic card that would typically be on Fight Night.