BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 06:43 I’ll be surprised if it does more than 150K buys, not because Tank’s commercial popularity is on the decline, but mainly due to the fact there have been far too many PPV’s recently, which will inevitably cannibalise buy-rates.

Fight fans have limited funds, which means that the networks and promoters need to realise that they can’t keep broadcasting back-to-back PPV’s and expect consistently high figures.

maverick23 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 08:12

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 06:43 I’ll be surprised if it does more than 150K buys, not because Tank’s commercial popularity is on the decline, but mainly due to the fact there have been far too many PPV’s recently, which will inevitably cannibalise buy-rates.

Fight fans have limited funds, which means that the networks and promoters need to realise that they can’t keep broadcasting back-to-back PPV’s and expect consistently high figures.

Yep. Fully agree. Bob and Leonard Ellerbe keep peddling the message that PPVs in the US are a group of guys getting together to watch a big fight and I’m sure there is some of that but even still there will be a high % of PPV purchases by people who fund it themselves and the volume of PPVs isn’t sustainable.

I also think the expectation of what constitutes a PPV fighter have massively changed. Before this fight Tank did a couple of PPVs that had a reported c.200k buys and they peddle Tank as being a PPV star. The reality is that I would say that’s 500k people watching the fight at most so it’s crazy that they continue with that model.

Surely it’s better to take a less money short term to continue to build your name before jumping on PPV in a big fight and do a large amount of buys?!

Floyd had his first PPV headliner in his 34th fight against a popular Gatti and it was considered to be a soft PPV at something like 350k buys. He then went back on regular HBO before going back to PPV with a well known Judah and doing a similar amount. It was only really the De La Hoya fight that made Mayweather a genuine star fighter as his baseline PPV numbers tripled after that.

I just find it crazy that 200k buys is considered acceptable now.

maverick23 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 08:12

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 06:43 I’ll be surprised if it does more than 150K buys, not because Tank’s commercial popularity is on the decline, but mainly due to the fact there have been far too many PPV’s recently, which will inevitably cannibalise buy-rates.

Fight fans have limited funds, which means that the networks and promoters need to realise that they can’t keep broadcasting back-to-back PPV’s and expect consistently high figures.

Yep. Fully agree. Bob and Leonard Ellerbe keep peddling the message that PPVs in the US are a group of guys getting together to watch a big fight and I’m sure there is some of that but even still there will be a high % of PPV purchases by people who fund it themselves and the volume of PPVs isn’t sustainable.

I also think the expectation of what constitutes a PPV fighter have massively changed. Before this fight Tank did a couple of PPVs that had a reported c.200k buys and they peddle Tank as being a PPV star. The reality is that I would say that’s 500k people watching the fight at most so it’s crazy that they continue with that model.

Surely it’s better to take a less money short term to continue to build your name before jumping on PPV in a big fight and do a large amount of buys?!

Floyd had his first PPV headliner in his 34th fight against a popular Gatti and it was considered to be a soft PPV at something like 350k buys. He then went back on regular HBO before going back to PPV with a well known Judah and doing a similar amount. It was only really the De La Hoya fight that made Mayweather a genuine star fighter as his baseline PPV numbers tripled after that.

I just find it crazy that 200k buys is considered acceptable now.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 08:41

maverick23 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 08:12

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 06:43 I’ll be surprised if it does more than 150K buys, not because Tank’s commercial popularity is on the decline, but mainly due to the fact there have been far too many PPV’s recently, which will inevitably cannibalise buy-rates.

Fight fans have limited funds, which means that the networks and promoters need to realise that they can’t keep broadcasting back-to-back PPV’s and expect consistently high figures.

Yep. Fully agree. Bob and Leonard Ellerbe keep peddling the message that PPVs in the US are a group of guys getting together to watch a big fight and I’m sure there is some of that but even still there will be a high % of PPV purchases by people who fund it themselves and the volume of PPVs isn’t sustainable.

I also think the expectation of what constitutes a PPV fighter have massively changed. Before this fight Tank did a couple of PPVs that had a reported c.200k buys and they peddle Tank as being a PPV star. The reality is that I would say that’s 500k people watching the fight at most so it’s crazy that they continue with that model.

Surely it’s better to take a less money short term to continue to build your name before jumping on PPV in a big fight and do a large amount of buys?!

Floyd had his first PPV headliner in his 34th fight against a popular Gatti and it was considered to be a soft PPV at something like 350k buys. He then went back on regular HBO before going back to PPV with a well known Judah and doing a similar amount. It was only really the De La Hoya fight that made Mayweather a genuine star fighter as his baseline PPV numbers tripled after that.

I just find it crazy that 200k buys is considered acceptable now.

All the networks appear to be performing cost-cutting exercises.

Fox are dropping some of their sports and allowing their broadcast rights to expire without renewing them. They’ll probably stop working with the PBC from 2023.

Showtime appear to insist on fights being funded by PPV’s, rather than through advertising revenue.

ESPN are allowing their big names to appear on rival networks (using the purse bid process to avoid breaking contracts). They’re also allowing some of their stars to leave their stable, without even attempting to negotiate new deals.

DAZN recently increased their subscription fees in the US and UK, as well as dropping various sports and also renegotiating the terms of their existing broadcast deals. They released Canelo and also other fighters, such as GGG, had to renegotiate their deals. Eddie Hearn also conceded that DAZN are considering introducing PPV’s.

Sky Sports allowed Matchroom to go to DAZN, because they didn’t have the funds to pay for fights.

Fighters are inactive, either because the money isn’t there, or due to there being fewer events staged nowadays (i.e. limited opportunities to engage in bouts).

There’s also a lot of uncertainty as to whether events can even be staged, due to COVID travel restrictions or social distancing, which results in financial risk (i.e. the costs of cancelling events, logistics fees, smaller gate receipts, costs of training camps that need to be abandoned etc.).

The situation is a mess at the moment, resulting in fight fans having to fork out on PPV’s to watch mediocre (or even lacklustre) shows.

maverick23 wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 18:02 A couple of people reporting the show achieved less than 100k buys. Hopefully that turns out to be correct.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 06:30 50k buys

It basically 'tanked'..

That's why they haven't announced it..

Too many PPV's this year, or mainly this past few months.

Doesn't matter if you price it at $40 or $75..

It's still paying extra.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 06:56

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 06:30 50k buys

It basically 'tanked'..

That's why they haven't announced it..

Too many PPV's this year, or mainly this past few months.

Doesn't matter if you price it at $40 or $75..

It's still paying extra.

You’re right, the PPV buy-rate is appalling.

However, it was priced at $74.99 and the combined total guaranteed purse pot for the entire event (all ten bouts) was $1,850,350 (based on Dan Rafael’s figures).

So the event generated $3.75m in revenue, with the purses costing £1.85m.

Of course, there are gate receipts, advertising revenue and other expenses to consider, but I’d confidently claim the event at least broke even… and might have generated a very small profit.

The problem all boxing content providers face (i.e. PBC, Top Rank & Matchroom), is that they’re duty-bound to keep their fighters busy, even if their broadcast partners refuse to fund bouts.

And if PPV’s is the only way they can do that, then we’re likely to see a lot more PPV during 2022.

Boxing is in a really bad place right now.

Broadcasters are performing cost-cutting exercises and fans have limited funds, but fighters still need to be kept busy somehow.

This leads to a constant downward spiral, meaning that boxing is a sport only wealthy people can legally follow, making it increasingly less popular.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 13:30

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 06:56

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 06:30 50k buys

It basically 'tanked'..

That's why they haven't announced it..

Too many PPV's this year, or mainly this past few months.

Doesn't matter if you price it at $40 or $75..

It's still paying extra.

You’re right, the PPV buy-rate is appalling.

However, it was priced at $74.99 and the combined total guaranteed purse pot for the entire event (all ten bouts) was $1,850,350 (based on Dan Rafael’s figures).

So the event generated $3.75m in revenue, with the purses costing £1.85m.

Of course, there are gate receipts, advertising revenue and other expenses to consider, but I’d confidently claim the event at least broke even… and might have generated a very small profit.

The problem all boxing content providers face (i.e. PBC, Top Rank & Matchroom), is that they’re duty-bound to keep their fighters busy, even if their broadcast partners refuse to fund bouts.

And if PPV’s is the only way they can do that, then we’re likely to see a lot more PPV during 2022.

Boxing is in a really bad place right now.

Broadcasters are performing cost-cutting exercises and fans have limited funds, but fighters still need to be kept busy somehow.

This leads to a constant downward spiral, meaning that boxing is a sport only wealthy people can legally follow, making it increasingly less popular.

Does the $74.99 include tax in the US? Or would customers have to pay tax on top of that?

It’s highly unlikely it would have broke even at 50,000 buys even with the gate and sponsorship. It costs a lot of money to market a PPV and there’s a cost to all of the airtime that Showtime would have dedicated to it.

I’ve bought airtime in the past in the States and it’s damn expensive - particularly compared to what we pay in the U.K.

Ellerbe and Espinoza have already come out and said the reports of it doing less than 100k buys are inaccurate and that digital buys were a little less than that. I wouldn’t expect to hear anything else from them but when they talk digital buys they’ll be including buys in places like the U.K. where it was £9 exc tax. It was hosted on Fite TV who would likely take at least a 35% cut too.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 13:57 pbc! pbc! pbc!

winning even with 50k ppvs

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 13:56

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 13:30

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 06:56
You’re right, the PPV buy-rate is appalling.

However, it was priced at $74.99 and the combined total guaranteed purse pot for the entire event (all ten bouts) was $1,850,350 (based on Dan Rafael’s figures).

So the event generated $3.75m in revenue, with the purses costing £1.85m.

Of course, there are gate receipts, advertising revenue and other expenses to consider, but I’d confidently claim the event at least broke even… and might have generated a very small profit.

The problem all boxing content providers face (i.e. PBC, Top Rank & Matchroom), is that they’re duty-bound to keep their fighters busy, even if their broadcast partners refuse to fund bouts.

And if PPV’s is the only way they can do that, then we’re likely to see a lot more PPV during 2022.

Boxing is in a really bad place right now.

Broadcasters are performing cost-cutting exercises and fans have limited funds, but fighters still need to be kept busy somehow.

This leads to a constant downward spiral, meaning that boxing is a sport only wealthy people can legally follow, making it increasingly less popular.

Does the $74.99 include tax in the US? Or would customers have to pay tax on top of that?

It’s highly unlikely it would have broke even at 50,000 buys even with the gate and sponsorship. It costs a lot of money to market a PPV and there’s a cost to all of the airtime that Showtime would have dedicated to it.

I’ve bought airtime in the past in the States and it’s damn expensive - particularly compared to what we pay in the U.K.

Ellerbe and Espinoza have already come out and said the reports of it doing less than 100k buys are inaccurate and that digital buys were a little less than that. I wouldn’t expect to hear anything else from them but when they talk digital buys they’ll be including buys in places like the U.K. where it was £9 exc tax. It was hosted on Fite TV who would likely take at least a 35% cut too.

There's no denying that the PPV buy-rate for Davis-Cruz is embarrassingly low.

However, the combined total guaranteed purse pot for the entire event was relatively tiny.

Put it this way, I reckon (based on calculating the net result of PPV revenue minus the combined total guaranteed purse pot), that Davis-Cruz probably did better (in terms of profitability) than Crawford-Porter.

The Davis-Cruz event generated $3.75m in PPV revenue, but the combined total purses (for the entire fight card) only amounted to $1.85m.

ESPN reported that the total guaranteed purse pot for the Crawford-Porter main event was $10m. And unlike Davis-Cruz, we don’t have the purses for the undercard.

The Crawford-Porter PPV was priced at $70 and allegedly achieved 135K buys, which meant it only generated $9.45m in revenue.

Turnover is vanity – profit is sanity, which means that Davis-Cruz definitely did much better than Crawford-Porter.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:05From a profitability point of view for the networks and promoters, yes - the Tank PPV made less of a loss than the Porter/Crawford PPV.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:05If the rumoured numbers are to be believed though the Crawford PpV sold far better even if that PPV sales were still really poor.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:13

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:05From a profitability point of view for the networks and promoters, yes - the Tank PPV made less of a loss than the Porter/Crawford PPV.

I don't think Davis-Cruz made a loss, but if they did, it was negligible.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:05If the rumoured numbers are to be believed though the Crawford PpV sold far better even if that PPV sales were still really poor.

Promoters aren’t charities.

Revenue doesn’t matter to them if they fail to break even.

If a promoter incurs a loss, they have to dip into their own pockets to address the financial shortfall.

Put it this way, if I sold a pen for $5, but it only cost me $2, then this was a much better business transaction than selling a house for $300K that cost me $400K.

For sure, Crawford-Porter outsold Davis-Cruz, but the former was the “house”, with the latter being the “pen”.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:24

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:13

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:05From a profitability point of view for the networks and promoters, yes - the Tank PPV made less of a loss than the Porter/Crawford PPV.

I don't think Davis-Cruz made a loss, but if they did, it was negligible.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:05If the rumoured numbers are to be believed though the Crawford PpV sold far better even if that PPV sales were still really poor.

Promoters aren’t charities.

Revenue doesn’t matter to them if they fail to break even.

If a promoter incurs a loss, they have to dip into their own pockets to address the financial shortfall.

Put it this way, if I sold a pen for $5, but it only cost me $2, then this was a much better business transaction than selling a house for $300K that cost me $400K.

For sure, Crawford-Porter outsold Davis-Cruz, but the former was the “house”, with the latter being the “pen”.

Thanks for the business lesson. Fortunately for me I’m a financial director of a TV company so understand that a $3 profit is better than a $100k loss.

Why are you comparing the 2 PPVs? PBC/Espinoza aren’t going to come out and saying ‘Yes we only sold 50,000 PPVs but our net loss was less than the ESPN PPV’.

Re: your comment on it being a negligible loss that won’t be the case for Showtime. They’d have lost out on several million dollars in advertising because they dedicated that airtime to pushing a flop PPV. They would have also advertised elsewhere which isn’t cheap in today’s market.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:46

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:24

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:13
I don't think Davis-Cruz made a loss, but if they did, it was negligible.

Promoters aren’t charities.

Revenue doesn’t matter to them if they fail to break even.

If a promoter incurs a loss, they have to dip into their own pockets to address the financial shortfall.

Put it this way, if I sold a pen for $5, but it only cost me $2, then this was a much better business transaction than selling a house for $300K that cost me $400K.

For sure, Crawford-Porter outsold Davis-Cruz, but the former was the “house”, with the latter being the “pen”.

Thanks for the business lesson. Fortunately for me I’m a financial director of a TV company so understand that a $3 profit is better than a $100k loss.

Why are you comparing the 2 PPVs? PBC/Espinoza aren’t going to come out and saying ‘Yes we only sold 50,000 PPVs but our net loss was less than the ESPN PPV’.

Re: your comment on it being a negligible loss that won’t be the case for Showtime. They’d have lost out on several million dollars in advertising because they dedicated that airtime to pushing a flop PPV. They would have also advertised elsewhere which isn’t cheap in today’s market.

I’m a long-time follower of PPV buy rates and purses.

So I’m aware of the margins.

How many PPV events can you list where the total combined guaranteed purse pot for the entire card was less than half the PPV revenue?

You prematurely assumed Davis-Cruz incurred a loss without even checking the purses.

Your job title means nothing in this debate.

The numbers are what they are.

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:50

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:46

maverick23 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 14:24

Thanks for the business lesson. Fortunately for me I’m a financial director of a TV company so understand that a $3 profit is better than a $100k loss.

Why are you comparing the 2 PPVs? PBC/Espinoza aren’t going to come out and saying ‘Yes we only sold 50,000 PPVs but our net loss was less than the ESPN PPV’.

Re: your comment on it being a negligible loss that won’t be the case for Showtime. They’d have lost out on several million dollars in advertising because they dedicated that airtime to pushing a flop PPV. They would have also advertised elsewhere which isn’t cheap in today’s market.

I’m a long-time follower of PPV buy rates and purses.

So I’m aware of the margins.

How many PPV events can you list where the total combined guaranteed purse pot for the entire card was less than half the PPV revenue?

You prematurely assumed Davis-Cruz incurred a loss without even checking the purses.

Your job title means nothing in this debate.

The numbers are what they are.

I knew the reported purses before I said what I did. I also know how much it costs to advertise on TV in the US.