bye bye boxing on itv,speculation.

Cuban Lion · Post by **Cuban Lion** » 21 Jun 2006, 08:51

This is just speculation by me but..

ITV are going to cut the sports budget by 30million in 2007.
they have contracts for champions league,f1 etc but no boxing contract.
I can't see them saving 30m on any other sport so maybe boxing will go next year.

ITV had success with Calzaghe v Lacy but they have had numerous pullouts by fwanky's fighters and maybe he's burned his bridges at ITV now as well as Sky.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 21 Jun 2006, 09:26

Could happen I guess, this move to ITV has not been anything like the renaissance Allegedly predicted when he made the move from Sky. In fact it has been near farcical at times.

Where next, Sports Network shows on Bravo?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Jun 2006, 11:38

It is very unfortunate that Hatton jumped ship immediately after ITV began broadcasting, very bad indeed. Hatton has stated that he wasn't interested in the exposure it offered in a recent interview, and appears to be driven by the money that PPV can offer, rather than being a household name.

Calzaghe is injury prone, and whilst Khan is turning in good performances, he alone cannot keep boxing afloat on ITV. Skelton and Williams made for a good fight, but Williams v Audley must have left ITV with egg on their faces, and there haven't been that many other compelling bouts. I do hope that they persist with boxing, but you can see their rationale. Compared to the champions league, which is an entire tournament packed with expectation, and every game is between quality operators, boxing is a far more risky proposition.

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 21 Jun 2006, 11:49

jamesmcdonnell wrote:It is very unfortunate that Hatton jumped ship immediately after ITV began broadcasting...

Im not so sure that is correct.

Hatton was in bed with both Sky and Warren, when Sky kicked Warren out of bed - Hatton didnt jump ship at all (his contract with Warren had expired), instead he stayed snuggled-up to the source of much of his income, whilst the 'middle-man' was allowed to go off and self-implode on ITV's network.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Jun 2006, 11:52

Well, whatever, my point is it would have been great to see Hatton fighting on ITV.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Jun 2006, 12:22

I'm not so sure Hatton would have been better off financially on Sky than ITV. Think of the three highest earning British fighters (discounting Lewis) in recent times - Hamed, Benn and Eubank - all made a fortune (yes, even Hamed) on ITV.

Whether Hatton was out of contract or not, ITV certainly gave the impression that he would be shown on ITV - I don't think ITV thought he was out of contract (alledgely).

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 21 Jun 2006, 12:34

stujones wrote:I'm not so sure Hatton would have been better off financially on Sky than ITV. Think of the three highest earning British fighters (discounting Lewis) in recent times - Hamed, Benn and Eubank - all made a fortune (yes, even Hamed) on ITV.

Naseem Hamed did not make his fortune on ITV.

Benn and Eubank, did make rather decent money on ITV. However the money they made on ITV, againt that which Hamed made on SKY (in conjunction with HBO) is not comparible. Benn and Eubank made millions, Hamed made tens of millions.

You appear not to be acknowledging that in recent times a new phenomenon in British boxing has developed - Pay Per View. SKY have the ability (through PPV) to offer a fighter potentially a lot more money than ITV can, on the basis that SKY can offer a fighter a percentage of the PPV sales on top of a basic lump sum.

More viewers/'buys' to PPV means directly more revenue. However more viewers on terrestrial TV doesnt have the same effect. How is it that Fwank Warren persuaded the likes of Chris Eubank to leave Barry Hearn, and turn their backs on the vast exposure of ITV to come onto SKY? The answer is cash.

Eubank v Benn 2 earned each fighter approximately £1m on the ITV network. If that fight had of been on PPV, you could conservatively estimate that, that figure would have been doubled or tripled.

It is no coincidence that Hatton stayed with SKY.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Jun 2006, 12:46

Yes, I am aware of the PPV - but not aware of how much benefitial it has been in the back pocket of the promoter. Sure, the US boxers in which PPV has been a lot longer running have many a fighters has stated that you can often add a million on their existing purse the PPV, but not sure if it works the same way with Sky.

Perhaps it does, but I've not heard a boxer say so.

Yes, Eubank and Benn were only given 1 million pounds a piece (Eubank less actually) but that was 13 years ago - the financial market has changed and it will be interesting to see what money Joe Calzaghe is earning now.

Hamed was earning big money prior to the sky switch, might not have been the mega money he was earning now - but it was big for a non world champion. The spring ITV gave him was undoubteldy played a role in his later career did.

All I know if the allegedly often blamed the money sky were giving to boxing (especially when it moved to friday night) that effected him not getting the superstars here for Joe and Ricky. He thought the money he was getting on ITV was significantly more, and therefore he should get the bigger fights. I don't know how true that is.

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 21 Jun 2006, 12:56

stujones wrote:Yes, I am aware of the PPV - but not aware of how much benefitial it has been in the back pocket of the promoter. Sure, the US boxers in which PPV has been a lot longer running have many a fighters has stated that you can often add a million on their existing purse the PPV, but not sure if it works the same way with Sky.

Perhaps it does, but I've not heard a boxer say so.

Yeah, to be fair there is a difference between the way PPV is used over here to the way it is in the States. Over here it is used a lot more sparingly particularly when it is sold on the back of a domestic fighter, in recent years its only really be used with Naz and Hatton (ie genuine world stars).

For the many domestic fighters PPV wont affect them or be part of any of their contracts, but for Hatton it will make him some proper cash (as it did for Naz) and will be integral to his contract with SKY.

s9s · Post by **s9s** » 21 Jun 2006, 13:05

The ave Joe in my place of work knows more of Ricky Hatton than Joe Calzaghe. In fact Joes fight with Lacy did not even get mentioned around the office at all. Simple fact is, fighters like Benn, Eubank, Hamed, we grew up with these fighters on terristrial tv from the beginnings of there careers, they had great domestic bust ups, whereas with Joe, terristrial exposure is not really going to change things, as he has been thrust into the publics eye as a world champ, when most of the ave joe knows nothing about his past.

PPL at my work still talk abiut Bruno, Benn, Eubanks, Hamed and Lewis, but not of Joe, and apart from Khan, know nothing of the domestic scene.
Warren also throwing us cheap world title fights instead of potentially great British title fights is not holding any water as well I sense.

Plus ITV coverage and promotion of these fights are woeful.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 21 Jun 2006, 14:20

I am pretty sure Eubank got £10 million over 10 fights so £1 million a fight.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 21 Jun 2006, 19:22

stujones wrote:I'm not so sure Hatton would have been better off financially on Sky than ITV. Think of the three highest earning British fighters (discounting Lewis) in recent times - Hamed, Benn and Eubank - all made a fortune (yes, even Hamed) on ITV.

Whether Hatton was out of contract or not, ITV certainly gave the impression that he would be shown on ITV - I don't think ITV thought he was out of contract (alledgely).

I can see why you can discount Lewis.

Being a HW and a British one winning the world title, it didn't affect him because HW's are more popular. Well when he was around anyway.

I hate PPV and the poor figures they get shows it. People much prefer it on terrestrial as you get millions ratr than a couple hundred thousand watching then.

Eubank v Benn 2 earned each fighter approximately £1m on the ITV network. If that fight had of been on PPV, you could conservatively estimate that, that figure would have been doubled or tripled.

It is no coincidence that Hatton stayed with SKY.

Were not America though so I doubt it would be doubled or tripled. Maybe a little more money but not too much. We seem to not be as keen on it as America.

Still though I'm suprised at their PPV figures as they have a population of over 260 million for ffs, yet their figures are usually 3 hundred thousand odd on average!

I agree with James, Hatton didn't seem to have a problem doing commentry for them then suddenly fucked them off!

Plus he was already being well paid by Warren so I don't get how he said Warren couldn't fork up the money, he's not a HW.