Can boxing sustain 6 PPV cards a year?

[smoothsmg]

Why anyone would pay for Canelo vs Angulo is beyond me.

I'm not paying for PPV anymore. I'll stream it. It's only hurting the sport, making it more obscure then it already is being stuck on premium pay networks.

That is EASILY the best card. You get to see a Charlo, you get to see Santa Cruz, you get to see Figueroa, and I believe that oriental guy Figueroa fought will be fighting a prelim fight. If I am not playing poker, I will be buying this card. For sure.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

Why is PPV a bad thing~

It gives the consumer the ultimate choice you don't have to buy, you are paying for entertainment. Other mediums you have no say, they make fights they think you want to see (using the money gained from your eyeballs or subscription fee), with PPV they make fights they think people want but you can vote on the fight with your pocket book.


They also allow things to happen that would otherwise be impossible, or do you only want to see 4 fights a year on HBO and Showtime because their budget would get killed.

This is entirely incorrect. Showtime and HBO can afford a lot more than 4 fight cards, and in fact have been putting on 3-4 times that amount in a year. Networks do not like PPV.

Your explanation of giving the consumer the "ultimate choice/voting for what they want"... is laughable. The very basis of PPV is to charge more for something people WANT. Promoters dont just make a matchup and then wait and see if people buy. They put Tyson v Holyfield and FLoyd v Oscar because they know people WILL pay for it.

[hhs661]

I think Showtime can for now with Canelo and Floyd as long as both stay winning. Canelo seems to have the 2-3 fights a year plan going on so I think he'll bring in good numbers.

HBO, I'm not so sure about. Manny's last ppv I don't think did that well and JMM-Bradley was pretty low. I don't see Chavez Jr or even GGG bringing in big numbers anytime soon so who knows with them.

I don't mind the ppvs but I certainly wish more events wouldn't be priced at 70-80 bucks a pop

[smoothsmg]

To answer the original question, I think a few more PPVs per year will not be that bad considering boxing has probably averaged 2-3 over the past 4-5 years. All the headline fights are interesting matchups, and casuals atleast know the name of one of the headlining parties. I think ppvs will do pretty good this year.

[The Gambler1981]

This is entirely incorrect. Showtime and HBO can afford a lot more than 4 fight cards, and in fact have been putting on 3-4 times that amount in a year. Networks do not like PPV.

Your explanation of giving the consumer the "ultimate choice/voting for what they want"... is laughable. The very basis of PPV is to charge more for something people WANT. Promoters dont just make a matchup and then wait and see if people buy. They put Tyson v Holyfield and FLoyd v Oscar because they know people WILL pay for it.

HBO and Showtime have a budget so if all the biggest fights migrate down a level what happens to those budgets.

That drives capital and potential earnings out of the fight game, which makes boxing an even poorer investment than it already is.

PPV is either you want to see the fight or you don't, you can be a cheapskate and a thief if you desire, if people are buying and they are making money how is that a bad thing, free market capitalism baby.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

HBO and Showtime have a budget so if all the biggest fights migrate down a level what happens to those budgets.

That drives capital and potential earnings out of the fight game, which makes boxing an even poorer investment than it already is.

PPV is either you want to see the fight or you don't, you can be a cheapskate and a thief if you desire, if people are buying and they are making money how is that a bad thing, free market capitalism baby.

I suggest doing a bit more research on this before you discuss it.

HBO doesnt want to spend a chunk of its budget to produce a 24/7 series for a PPV that it will get very little miles out of.

If "the biggest fights migrate down a level"... then cards will get stacked. You have already seen GB start to do this.

Free market capitalism? wow you are reaching. The result is more watered down cards and less premuim matchups. Now how is that good for the sport?

People are not going to keep shelling out 60-75 dollars for multiple PPV. Take a guess at why Broner v Maidana was moved to regular Showtime at the end of last year.

[al-Xander]

Ross Greenburg, then president of HBO Sports, had said his piece regarding PPVs.

"I can't tell you that pay-per-view helps the sport because it doesn't. It hurts the sport because it narrows our audience, but it's a fact of life. Every time we try to make an HBO World Championship Boxing fight, we're up against mythical pay-per-view numbers. HBO doesn't make a lot of money from pay-per-view. There's usually a cap on what we can make. But the promoters and fighters insist on pay-per-view because that's where their greatest profits lie."

I'm a Showtime subscriber, for example. Guess whether I prefer regular fights or not.

[The Gambler1981]

I suggest doing a bit more research on this before you discuss it.

HBO doesnt want to spend a chunk of its budget to produce a 24/7 series for a PPV that it will get very little miles out of.

If "the biggest fights migrate down a level"... then cards will get stacked. You have already seen GB start to do this.

Free market capitalism? wow you are reaching. The result is more watered down cards and less premuim matchups. Now how is that good for the sport?

People are not going to keep shelling out 60-75 dollars for multiple PPV. Take a guess at why Broner v Maidana was moved to regular Showtime at the end of last year.

24/7 is cheap programming for HBO they love that ****~

No they don't there won't be money to make things happen, unless guys are willing to take huge paycuts

It is good for the sport because it brings in money and capital which makes it worthwhile for people with real money to back boxing because there is a dollar to be made, that trickles down the whole sport because people want that pot of gold. That pot of gold no longer exists makes boxing less worthwhile for everyone involved.

People will keep shelling out if they want to buy, if they start losing money they should change. They are doing just fine, just because you are a cheapskate doesn't mean they should change their model for you.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

24/7 is cheap programming for HBO they love that ****~

No they don't there won't be money to make things happen, unless guys are willing to take huge paycuts

It is good for the sport because it brings in money and capital which makes it worthwhile for people with real money to back boxing because there is a dollar to be made, that trickles down the whole sport because people want that pot of gold. That pot of gold no longer exists makes boxing less worthwhile for everyone involved.

People will keep shelling out if they want to buy, if they start losing money they should change. They are doing just fine, just because you are a cheapskate doesn't mean they should change their model for you.

The Fisher-Price explanation of boxing economy is adorable.

And how am I a cheapskate? Or are you just saying that because you can't maintain the discussion? You dont have to answer I already know.

[cupcrazy01]

It was only up until about 4 years ago that boxing had 12-13 PPVs a year, each year, for several years. HBO had basically one a month, and occasionally two in a month, while Showtime did 1-2 a year.

So, yes, it can.