BoxRec

Not long ago Eddie & sky agreed a contract extension and it was on the basis of 20 shows a year excluding the ppv shows. I'm pretty sure he's mentioned numerous times on ifl that ppv would never affect the 20 shows per year.

Now in this weeks Boxing news he says they're looking at 16 quality shows and trying to secure more international shows. This is obviously a business strategy to compete with allegedly / bt sport. I just feel we will have at least 6 ppv shows this year (Joshua x3, Bellew vs Haye, Brook vs Khan & Degale vs Smith), he has to stack these bills so he would clearly struggle to fill 20 dates. The way things are going we'll be lucky to get 10 matchroom British shows in 2018. We really are being taken for mugs and this is just going to get worse and worse as fighters are built into ppv fighters.

The last few years it seemed like 16 or 17 depending on if you count it as a calander year or the so called boxing season but sometimes I don't know what they class as shows in the dates alocated,take Monaco it wasn't in the UK but was promoted by Matchroom and had plenty of UK interest.We will have more then 10 UK shows more like the 16 or 17 we usually get.I think 20 is just the maximum of UK based shows bases on the old budget but 16 or 17 UK shows plus good international content featuring Britain will do.

Sky have two quality international shows coming up but like last year the UK shows won't be spread out two well so we might get 2 in the first 3 months of the year then it's more like 2 shows a month it's not consistent.

Matchroom did a far better job on the regular Sky shows last year than in 2015 imo

Its based on the successful WWE model - "free" regular shows to stir interest for the regular PPV events to milk the fans. That's what the whole thing is designed towards.

Call me naive but I'd be surprised if DeGale vs Smith went on PPV. Would completely contradict everything Eddie has said about DeGale not being a PPV fighter in the UK because of how he's fought in America for the last 2 years.

ElJefe wrote:Call me naive but I'd be surprised if DeGale vs Smith went on PPV. Would completely contradict everything Eddie has said about DeGale not being a PPV fighter in the UK because of how he's fought in America for the last 2 years.

When questioned he'd say
"Yes that's correct But Smith is"

JimJim2009 wrote:Its based on the successful WWE model - "free" regular shows to stir interest for the regular PPV events to milk the fans. That's what the whole thing is designed towards.

cool , good to hear the majority will be on free to air tv , how much is Sky sports subscription nowadays ?

The PPV thing is an insult and should only be reserved for mega fights .

Eddie has said himself recently that he is only interested in boxers who have the potential to be PPV level boxers.

The regular shows will therefore be padded with novices he is trying to build up or mid range boxers plodding along - your typical Paul Smith type 6 rounder against an overseas journeyman, keeping the Smith family happy just in case Calum becomes a big star.

broomy7s wrote:I just feel we will have at least 6 ppv shows this year (Joshua x3, Bellew vs Haye, Brook vs Khan & Degale vs Smith), he has to stack these bills so he would clearly struggle to fill 20 dates. The way things are going we'll be lucky to get 10 matchroom British shows in 2018.

I think your definitely on to something there. The obvious main problem is the mega-success of British boxers over the past 18-24 months.

Wasn't it something like 13 World Champions at the same time before Quigg vs Frampton?

And the trouble is, how do you tell a reigning World Champion (many of whom were undefeated - Frampton, Quigg, AJ, Liam Smith etc...) that they AREN'T PPV material?

It's a hard thing, particularly these days when every fighter wants to be a millionaire straightaway because they've seen the fortunes that Hatton, Froch & Haye made through the sport.

The ppv model really is the golden ticket, the subscription charges generates more monly than any other model.

Truth is I don't mind paging out 5/6 times a year IF Hearns is making a top-quality fight (like Khan vs Brook) and If he's enticing elite fighters like Gennady Golovkin & Wladimir Klitchsko over to our neck of the woods then I don't think we should be complaining too loudly.

If you don't want to pay for ppv then don't, that's your prerogative.

As boxing fans have had the p@*s ripped out of us by Sky and Hearn for the past few years. I can't stand that smug t*@t Hearn. As rancid capitalist exploiters everywhere are so fond of saying, "the market" is all about competition so I hope the BT/BN deal forces Hearn to get real and stop all this PPV nonsense for over hyped rubbish.

Won't be holding my breath though.

straali wrote:Hearn to get real and stop all this PPV nonsense for over hyped rubbish.

If you want to "get real" as you say - how would you propose making up the surplus money from the ppv numbers?

Surely you MUST have a way of maintaining the same amount of money coming in, so what's your plan?

If you don't have one, then there will be less money in boxing & you can't expect fighters to take challenging opponents for much less money, because they simply won't do it...

Crease wrote:

straali wrote:Hearn to get real and stop all this PPV nonsense for over hyped rubbish.

If you want to "get real" as you say - how would you propose making up the surplus money from the ppv numbers?

Surely you MUST have a way of maintaining the same amount of money coming in, so what's your plan?

If you don't have one, then there will be less money in boxing & you can't expect fighters to take challenging opponents for much less money, because they simply won't do it...

Ironically, before there was PPV all the top boxers fought each other.

bripez wrote:Ironically, before there was PPV all the top boxers fought each other.

Firstly, boxers were earning much less than what they are now. So to make any sort of considerable money they had to take a hard fight.

Secondly, your statement is a falsified generalisation.

So let's say before Sky Sports (circa early 90s)...
In the 80s there was a lot of fights that didn't happen:
Azumah Nelson never fought Eusebio Pedroza.

And many others, people could likely name 2 top 10 guys who never faced off, just as i have.

Crease wrote:

bripez wrote:Ironically, before there was PPV all the top boxers fought each other.

Firstly, boxers were earning much less than what they are now. So to make any sort of considerable money they had to take a hard fight.

Secondly, your statement is a falsified generalisation.

So let's say before Sky Sports (circa early 90s)...
In the 80s there was a lot of fights that didn't happen:
Azumah Nelson never fought Eusebio Pedroza.

And many others, people could likely name 2 top 10 guys who never faced off, just as i have.

Righty ho Eddie

bripez wrote:Eddie has said himself recently that he is only interested in boxers who have the potential to be PPV level boxers.

The regular shows will therefore be padded with novices he is trying to build up or mid range boxers plodding along - your typical Paul Smith type 6 rounder against an overseas journeyman, keeping the Smith family happy just in case Calum becomes a big star.

What a stupid way to look at things! Who'd have thought when Hatton was making his 123rd defence of his WBU raffle title he'd have become the phenomenon he did? Yeah he was popular but he ended up off the chart!

Crease wrote:

bripez wrote:Ironically, before there was PPV all the top boxers fought each other.

Firstly, boxers were earning much less than what they are now. So to make any sort of considerable money they had to take a hard fight.

Secondly, your statement is a falsified generalisation.

So let's say before Sky Sports (circa early 90s)...
In the 80s there was a lot of fights that didn't happen:
Azumah Nelson never fought Eusebio Pedroza.

And many others, people could likely name 2 top 10 guys who never faced off, just as i have.

PPV was needed for Eubanks and Benn to rematch in a unification ..... Oh wait

Naandrew wrote:PPV was needed for Eubanks and Benn to rematch in a unification.....

Both fighters were given £1 million each & to raise that kind of cash, Don King had to be brokered in to the deal.

ElJefe wrote:Call me naive but I'd be surprised if DeGale vs Smith went on PPV. Would completely contradict everything Eddie has said about DeGale not being a PPV fighter in the UK because of how he's fought in America for the last 2 years.

Yeah Eddie has never contradicted himself before

Crease wrote:

Naandrew wrote:PPV was needed for Eubanks and Benn to rematch in a unification.....

Both fighters were given £1 million each & to raise that kind of cash, Don King had to be brokered in to the deal.

Could do with someone like Don King now. Yes he was a BAD MAN but he made fights with Arum when they hated each other he probably would have made Manny v Floyd a lot sooner.

Crease wrote:

Naandrew wrote:PPV was needed for Eubanks and Benn to rematch in a unification.....

Both fighters were given £1 million each & to raise that kind of cash, Don King had to be brokered in to the deal.

And king got the winner,king thought he had the two fighters after the fight till barry hearn told him to do one cause it was a draw meaning the contract was void haha clever man mr hearn snr

broomy7s wrote:Not long ago Eddie & sky agreed a contract extension and it was on the basis of 20 shows a year excluding the ppv shows. I'm pretty sure he's mentioned numerous times on ifl that ppv would never affect the 20 shows per year.

Now in this weeks Boxing news he says they're looking at 16 quality shows and trying to secure more international shows. This is obviously a business strategy to compete with allegedly / bt sport. I just feel we will have at least 6 ppv shows this year (Joshua x3, Bellew vs Haye, Brook vs Khan & Degale vs Smith), he has to stack these bills so he would clearly struggle to fill 20 dates. The way things are going we'll be lucky to get 10 matchroom British shows in 2018. We really are being taken for mugs and this is just going to get worse and worse as fighters are built into ppv fighters.

Would have been 6 if Eubanks had fought GGG and Hearn got the Brook Vargas fight done.

JimJim2009 wrote:Its based on the successful WWE model - "free" regular shows to stir interest for the regular PPV events to milk the fans. That's what the whole thing is designed towards.

I see your point and I agree.

But with WWE being pre determined you are guaranteed action and will be invested in many matches on the card if you are a fan. That's not always the case with boxing. Mayweather Pacquaio no one gave a 5h!t about the undercard and the main event was poor ( many expected it not to be good). Same goes over here with Quigg Frampton the main event didn't deliver as a fight and the undercard was poor.

Crease wrote:

bripez wrote:Ironically, before there was PPV all the top boxers fought each other.

Firstly, boxers were earning much less than what they are now. So to make any sort of considerable money they had to take a hard fight.

Secondly, your statement is a falsified generalisation.

So let's say before Sky Sports (circa early 90s)...
In the 80s there was a lot of fights that didn't happen:
Azumah Nelson never fought Eusebio Pedroza.

And many others, people could likely name 2 top 10 guys who never faced off, just as i have.

Ok, so what you are saying is that since PPV all the top boxers fight each other and they get top money?

Good job we don't live in America where they have lots more PPV fights & they cost a lot more money!!

straali wrote:As boxing fans have had the p@*s ripped out of us by Sky and Hearn for the past few years. I can't stand that smug t*@t Hearn. As rancid capitalist exploiters everywhere are so fond of saying, "the market" is all about competition so I hope the BT/BN deal forces Hearn to get real and stop all this PPV nonsense for over hyped rubbish.

Won't be holding my breath though.

I actually think Hearn's PPV cards are pretty good in comparison with some fairly recent Box Office stuff. Don't forget Warren put Audley v Rogan, backed with Khan v Fagan, on a PPV platform, on the same night that Froch v Pascal was on ITV for free! Khan Prescott was PPV for god's sake.

Ultimately he had a go at milking a prospect like Khan who just wasn't big enough to do it, hence a rip off. You can like or loathe him but Joshua is a massive deal at present and will sell. There are more ways than just PPV of ripping boxing fans off as well by the way. Look at the astronomical ticket prices for the ultimately doomed Wlad Fury rematch.