Return of PPV?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/9821166/Carl-Froch-super-middleweight-rematch-with-Mikkel-Kessler-expected-to-be-pay-per-view-says-Eddie-Hearn.html

On my phone so can't copy and paste the article but Eddie Hearn has said Froch-Kessler will be on PPV. Disappointing for the fans, of course, but I suppose we all knew this would happen at some point.

Your thoughts?

I really hope that that isn't the case it's an opportunity to bring a lot of new fans to the sport as its a fight that I just can't see failing to live up to the hype

Would be very brave for sky given past failings but if the fights gets a strong undercard then its not impossible to believe as Froch has a big fmabase and sky will hype it through the roof

Obviously its bad for the fans but good for the fighters (and promoters) purse

Sky ppv over primetime, boxnation etc any day!

Reading about it in the paper over Primetime....

I would consider buying it if it was in sky ppv. These other tin pot channels will most certainly not be getting my money.

No real surprise. Said at the time Sky dumping PPV was no fan friendly act of altruism it was because they did not have anyone who could carry a PPV card anymore. Was always going to come back as soon as a fight justified it. Had Khan not got splattered and ended up in with Mayweather there was not a cat in hells chance it would have been on anything other than PPV

Agreed, not a surprise but disappointing. I think they have jumped too early and should have waited for the Froch's fight after this. This would be of course be a gamble on Froch winning, so too risky for Sky to pass on.

bhb001 wrote:Agreed, not a surprise but disappointing. I think they have jumped too early and should have waited for the Froch's fight after this. This would be of course be a gamble on Froch winning, so too risky for Sky to pass on.

There is the rub. Froch v Kessler is as close as you get in boxing to a 'guaranteed' good fight. Of course, no such thing exists but the evidence suggests that these two are a relatively safe bet. Their styles mesh nicely, they are both very durable, always in good shape and both will take a couple of shots to land one of their own. What can go wrong.....

It is an easy decision for Sky to stick it on PPV. Waiting for the next fight doesn't really make much sense to me. As you said, bhb, he may not even beat Kessler, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the following fight will feature a marquee opponent.

Adam Smith is not stupid, he has to strike while the irons hot with Froch.

The existence of primetime proves there is a market for ppv boxing. I didn't think froch would have done enough with Joe public to figure in sky's plans for a relaunch. I figured he was a kangaroo testicle or prancing on ice episode away from being popular enough for sky ppv.
Mr haye will be back next I suppose. For the abuse he got for turning out the lights in sky's ppv office, I seen it as a good thing, but maybe that's because I'm a tight wad.

Tend to agree Tina, like you say no guarantee he beats Kessler but even if he does where does he go then, A Bute rematch is a tough sell given the outcome of the first and that only leaves Ward, was that competive enough to sell a rematch on PPV. I personally have my doubts.

I don’t think its doing boxing or sky any favours in the long run. The Bute fight being at a reasonable hour and on regular sky did wonders. Id say that fight brought in loads of new fans and generated interest. Another great fight with Kessler would do the same. I really wish boxing would get rid of this ppv culture.

manos de piedra wrote:I don’t think its doing boxing or sky any favours in the long run. The Bute fight being at a reasonable hour and on regular sky did wonders. Id say that fight brought in loads of new fans and generated interest. Another great fight with Kessler would do the same. I really wish boxing would get rid of this ppv culture.

I agree with the sentiment, manos and I have faith that Adam Smith, as a fan, would rather have it on the regular Sky channel. But, I also appreciate that he didn't get where he got by being sentimental. There is a cold hard business decision being taken, and his hand is probably being forced from above. I can't imagine there are many people above Smith's head who give a hoot about boxing really. Too much pain for not all that much gain.

I would be very surprised if the top brass at Sky care about a long term plan for restoring the health of the sport. Not as long as they have F1 and footy on their ledger. They can milk those cash cows for all they are worth for a steady income. Boxing is just a quick cash option for them. It is not a great decision for the sport, but for Sky, I can see the merits pretty clearly.

Really hope it isn't on PPV, although I always wondered how long it would be before Sky went back to that particular avenue.

manos de piedra wrote:I don’t think its doing boxing or sky any favours in the long run. The Bute fight being at a reasonable hour and on regular sky did wonders. Id say that fight brought in loads of new fans and generated interest. Another great fight with Kessler would do the same. I really wish boxing would get rid of this ppv culture.

I think the talent pool exacerbates the problem. back when you could put on stacked cards - only the bigger fights got ppv now anything thats above average is seized with both hands.

Id be interested to see what Sky base their decision on. Having a fight on ppv I always associate as the bulk of the profits go towards the fighters/promoters in question as opposed to the networks. I remember reading that if a HBO ppv is £50 then only about 10% of that goes to the network. Sky can safely assume that holding the fight on ppv will cut viewership by probably about 50% (probably more) at least compared to what it would be on regular sky. So they are losing tons of extra viewers, advertising and marketing opportunities and shrinking their fanbase. Is it really in Skys interests to have it on ppv? I though they would be interested in attracting as high a viewership as possible for their own ratings and also then selling advertisement slots at a far higher price.

I also remember reading an article about HBOs boxing programme where HBO were saying that ppv didn’t actually benefit them all that much and it was really being driven by promoters who want to sell their commodities at the highest possible price.

manos de piedra wrote:

I also remember reading an article about HBOs boxing programme where HBO were saying that ppv didn’t actually benefit them all that much and it was really being driven by promoters who want to sell their commodities at the highest possible price.

That's an interesting post, manos and I really don't know or understand the economics behind Sky's decision. To my rather Luddite way of thinking, there must be some front end benefit to them PPV'ing it or they simply wouldn't even consider it. We obviously don't have access to the details, but maybe Sky take much more than 10%? Different networks, different policy maybe.

In terms of shrinking their fanbase, again, I am not all that sure they care. If they were that bothered by retaining and growing viewership for future advertising income, then yes, I agree that they would/should put it on the regular channel but I think they view it as a niche sport now. Trim all the fat away, cut costs massively and then just try and get the genuinely good fights/fighters on contracts that are greatly reduced terms, PPV or not.

In terms of the section of your post I have quoted, then I think that would probably be an old article or certainly one written by someone talking up their own book, so to speak? Maybe a few years back I can see the argument behind this, but times have changed and certainly at Sky following the last couple of David Haye PPV's. Sky hold pretty much all the cards, simply because their attitude to boxing has changed dramatically. Is Eddie Hearn really going to start dictating terms to Sky over his stable? I don't think so. He has the golden contract compared to the other promoters, and I imagine Sky would tell him to sling his hook if he started playing hardball. If Sky didn't want Froch v Kessler II on PPV, they wouldn't put it on there, irrespective of what price Hearn wants to sell his commodities at.

So long as Sky have rights to footy and F1 and all the associated gazillions of pounds that those particular sports bring them, then boxing is going to have to put up with being a very poor and very distant relation. I don't wish to sound too miserable and downbeat about it, and I would delighted to be proved wrong, but I think we will look back on the last 2 decades of Sky coverage as the glory years of televised boxing. I don't think the network really care and the fault lies with the sport. Sure, economic factors have played a big part in Sky's programming, but if boxing could have got it act together and provided sustained value for money then maybe it wouldn't be scratching around for crumbs from the sporting table.

Im not sure whether Froch has some kind of contract with Sky, but I would guess the main reason they would be holding it on ppv would simply be to avoid a rival company showing it instead (primetime eg).

When Sky had Haye and Khan on ppv the feeling that I was getting from various articles written were that the whole ppv thing wasnt being worth their while. They tried putting Khan on regular Sky (Sky 3 I think) for his fight with McCloskey which was no way worthy of ppv and that caused problems and behind the scenes I think that they began to feel Haye was mugging them off a bit so they said unless he fought a Klitschko after the Harrsion fight they were not going to put it on ppv.

Im not an expert at all in how everything balances out and comes together behind the scenes of these networks but from what Ive read it seems its not particularly in a networks interest to have ppv and that the vast majority of the additional ppv revenue goes to the fighters/promoters whereas the networks tend to lose out on a huge amount of tv ratings that they would have otherwise got.

I think Sky would have benfitted far more overall from having Froch/Bute on regular Sky than on ppv although obviously Froch would not have earned nearly as much. When you consider the multi millions someone like Haye bagged on his heavyweight ppv career, Froch has only made a fraction of that fighting far harder opponents. Maybe he feels he needs to cash in now with his career in its advanced stages.

manos de piedra wrote:the main reason they would be holding it on ppv would simply be to avoid a rival company showing it instead (primetime eg).

Yeah good point manos. I didn't think of that.

I agree your point about Froch cashing in as well, and who can blame him. There must a sense of bitterness about how much Haye has earned compared to Froch's long slog to this level. Heavyweights will always sell tickets but you have to feel for Froch having fought a much better standard of opposition. I am sure he has earned a decent wage and I think he has invested a sizable chunk of it, but I don't begrudge him cashing in now. He has earned the right.

I wouldn’t begrudge Froch making money. And I agree its really disproportionate when you think his earnings are probably only 20% of what Haye has earned for a longer, harder career. Its understandable that someone in Frochs position can get a bit edgy in rekation to the likes of Khan and Haye who are far wealthier and have generally enjoyed a higher profile. But in general I really hate ppv and think its very bad for the sport. In Germany the model seems far more fan friendly as boxing is shown free to air, even the biggest names. The Klitschkos don’t earn anything like Mayweather but they still bank a few million per fight which I think is still plenty and also encourages them to fight with a bit more regularity. Earning 30million a fight as Mayweather does I think is just too much and unhealthy for the sport I general.

Earning 30million a fight as Mayweather does I think is just too much and unhealthy for the sport I general.

I agree, let's march over there with flaming torches in hand, drag him out of his luxury apartment and distribute his wealth to the needy...no, wait a minute, I forgot Maywaether was a street kid whose job was to take as much from "the Man" as possible as it was simply an inextricable part of his DNA.

Anyway, can't say I'm pleased or even surprised that this fight is PPV. At the risk of being repetitive, don't these people understand that one PPV fight would buy nappies and baby milk and blah blah blah.......

manos de piedra wrote:But in general I really hate ppv and think its very bad for the sport.

I do agree, and I am not trying to come across as a fan of the principle, I just understand Sky's point of view, assuming of course it is worth their while financially, which as you've alluded to, is not all that clear. Assuming they have looked closely at the economics and the value of keeping Froch out of the clutches of Primetime and the like, then perhaps Smith has little choice in the matter. It may well be a bitter pill to swallow for the fans but a worthwhile exercise for the network.

The issue we have is guys like Floyd, as you pointed out, are earning $30 million so only 'need' to fight once a year, guys like the Klitschko's are earning comfortably but still fighting relatively regularly and then a sliding scale downwards from guys like Froch and other world champions to guys jobbing up and down the country for peanuts. PPV only really benefits the guys at the very top of the foodchain and I am guessing in the current austere climate, the networks (Sky perhaps) who have the power to call the shots.

Sounds like a lot of this may be to do with the fact that Froch has maybe two fights left in him and will want to make as much cash as possible before he finally retires (don't blame him, I'd do the same).

Depending on the deal he gets, maybe Froch makes as much money from a reduced figures PPV fight as he would on a free-to-air fight...so why should he care?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The issue we have is guys like Floyd, as you pointed out, are earning $30 million so only 'need' to fight once a year,

The other issue is at their rarified air there is no particular need to take the fights the fans want to see because once you are at such a level you are pretty much guaranteed 1 million buys irrespective of opponent. You can bet your bottom dollar if him and Manny had been faced with the choice of you can get £5m for Cotto or £50m for each other the fight would have been signed in a heartbeat.

It is a horrible system om so many levels and grossly unfair on the majority of participants. I am always reluctant to penalise people for being high achievers and making it to the pinnacle of their sport but the disparity is way too much in boxing. To the huge detriment of the sport.

When you think of wendyball players who earn obscenely big salaries, at least they have to play and meet the best teams as part of a regular season. They get paid handsomely but routinely test themselves against the best of their peers. Boxing can't even claim that. Floyd can sit around earning the sort of cash that even the heavyweight champion of the world can only dream of and only get in the ring once a year.

It is a vicious circle, the sport is at fault for not providing value for money, but the TV networks are having PPV fights which mean the very best guys can avoid each other and still make stacks of money. One thing feeds into the other and the fan loses out.

He's over rating Froch's appeal!!!........Let's be honest he's only just started to become a tad exciting....In a Michael Nunn-esque kind of way..

Only real Boxing fans know Kessler....

Can understand the transcending Hatton getting numbers but not this bland individual..

Won't be buying...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's be honest he's only just started to become a tad exciting

I always find it strange when people start with 'lets be honest'. Does that mean you're not always honest in every other situation, Beefcake?

Anyway, Froch the fighter has been exciting for a while. Pascal was a great fight, Kessler I was a barnstormer, Jermain Taylor had the ultimate exciting ending, Bute was an electric night for him. You're being overly harsh their, old boy.

I like the German system I must say. I think its healthy for boxing. No ppv. Boxing free to air, interest in the sport is high, attendances at shows are high and the sport seems to be growing there. The money isnt the phenomenal Mayweather sums but the top fighters still earn well and even journeymen seem to make a decent enough wage over there.

Contrast this to the U.S nowadays where interest seems to be waning severelly. Amateurs appear in disarray, many of their top fighters like Bradley and Ward struggle to sell small arenas, ppv canibalising the sport and fans expected to fork out ppv on an monthly basis to follow some of the bigger fights. It just doesnt seem healthy at all.

As Tina has alluded to the business model is all out of whack at the minute. You see guys like Mayweather and Manny fighting once a year, rarely against the fighters we would like to see them against and still making $30m a fight, whereas take a guy like Jamie Moore, always good to watch, fought to a decent enough level and involved in at least two or three domestic classics and you’d have to guess if he got out of the game with his mortgage paid off he will have done well out of the game.

Compare that to football and even the lowest level of premiership footballer or decent championship player should be able to earn enough never to work again. Just doesn’t seem a particularly equitable split and you have to question how this will encourage youngsters to take up the sport, given the uncertainty and lack of financial security at all but the most rarified level.

"Old boy".............How quaint!!

He might be a tad more exciting now as I alluded to....Nunn stopped Kalambay and Roldan.....

However unlike Hatton he lacks charisma and the ability to garner widespread interest....

I don't find him interesting or that impressive but then again I'm used to fillet steak being American..