Why Are People So Opposed to PPVs?

I don’t really like PPV because it seems to be more unworthy fights moving to PPV these days. And also with how bent boxing is, often there’s some form of corruption like dodgy reffing/judging which ruins a card and leaves you at best with a bad taste in your mouth and at worst feeling robbed.

The main reason why boxing fans are opposed to PPV because it costs too much and secondly, many of the fights aren't even PPV worthy.

This is how fanboys think and talk. Guerrero, Maidana, Ortiz, were paper champs who went on to do absolutely nothing. And? Were they not champions? Make up your guys minds. At one minute you guys want fighters to fight for titles and unify, and the next minute you don't want that to happen. What is it? And Maidana retired right after Floyd, so what exactly was he supposed to do? In between those fights he fought Cotto, Canelo and Pacquiao. All fights for multiple titles. Were those guys "paper" champions as well?

They were champions period. Save me this "paper champion" crap. Well, their PPVs sure sold more than a few PPVs, eh? But I thought it was not about PPV buys? Why does spectacular event matter now? ​​​​​​ This is how fanboys think and talk. Guerrero, Maidana, Ortiz, were paper champs who went on to do absolutely nothing.

PPVs only make sense when it's part of a TV network subscription. For example, a basic Sky subscription gives you all the entertainment and news channels, so it makes sense to pay extra for a sporting PPV or box office film. But DAZN is not a TV network. It's a streaming service and you're paying monthly just for DAZN sport content, which is limited and just repeats. It's like signing up for Netflix but you have to pay extra for any movies they show that are made in 2021.

Question should be asked to those who feel the need to scream lowball for their favourite fighters and chant "they're risking their lives doe" when they themselves can't fork up $60 - $80 from their pockets to pay for the PPV. They're risking their lives? Yet you spend zero money for them and watch everything for free? What a joke.

How about when Sports Bars were allowed to show them? I mean let them pay something reasonable to the network and show the fights. Some of my best memories are going to Mexican Bars, seeing fights like Quartey and De La Hoya, and to sports bars to see Mike Tyson against Buster Douglas. That was mostly before my time but I would be down for that too

And if RJJ could sell on PPV, guess what? He would be on PPV! Guys like Mayweather and Pacquiao fought on HBO until they reached a certain level of stardom and than their fights started taking place on PPV. BHop could never sell so he hardly fought on PPV but did so against fighters like Taylor, DLH etc. Again, I fully get killing fights like Ruiz vs Arreola as they have no business being on PPV. But the market will correct itself with those fighters when the events don't do good numbers. The Charlo brothers PPV on paper was REALLY good, but they can't sell like that and were right back on SHO in their next fights. One thing is that the PPV split between the cable/satellite distributors has changed and the streaming buys rate is much better for promoters that they can put more fights on PPV now and break even. Half of Ruiz/Arreola buys were digital purchases and the promoters get around 80% of the revenues on them opposed to getting 55-60% on cable/satellite buys. Heck, back in the day it used to be an even 50/50 split and the promoters would then have to give 10% of that to the networks. Game has certainly changed, The words of promoters/networks about not using PPVs should mean nothing. It is just a marketing ploy to attract viewers/subscribers. Yes the market efficiency theory holds water here... Fighters that draw...sell. But market efficiency also generally determines that the best fighters, most well known, will get to sell the most (the Paul brothers and other such shenanigans are an exception). The problem becomes: Those are the fighters that have the potential to draw in the most fans from the next marketable segment of potential fans... With traditional network dynamics fighters may have not take much per an event, but it guaranteed them an audience, hence more events. It also had the effect of drawing in more fans. What we have now is obcene. It benefits AJ to lose to Usyk so he can have a second fight.... It is to his benefit to do so. That is ridiculous. The incentive for fighters has traditionally been to be exciting, and to WIN. Theoretically "boring" fighters of great skill could benefit because with more fans coming in would come more fans who could appreciate more nuanced skills... Boxing has become entertainment and little else. The whole ethic to fight to win, has been replaced with maintaining an unbeaten record and getting cash out fights later down the line.

Who is worth it? I mean I pay for almost all the PPVs, even Floyd vs Paul and Tyson vs RJJ. Certain fights are not happening unless it takes place on PPV and I'm fine with that. These guys partake in a brutal sport so they should be able to earn as much as possible. And the consumer should be able to determine which fights they want to pay for and which fights they don't want to pay for. Your ethical stance is laudable if not a bit misdirected. Fighters could easily have pay per vues that were priced to sell, if they would take a serious look at what the Paul brothers are doing. Your paying for the middle man and even with that said, with all other income streams fighters on that level would make millions. Here is an ethical proposition: Instead of hyping up price points on PPV's, make them inexspensive so all fighters could gain exposure from the top echelons of the sport... then prospects and those coming up would have some name recognition and could fight on events of their own. Boxing and all sports are an ethical dilemna but ask yourself as a man what you prefer in your life: To live it up and do what you want with your body, accepting a really blighted old age, or vice versa. Its ultimately a choice we make with our free will.

the DAZN announcement was a disappointment, and puts them in the same "bait and switch" category that I put PBC in for their years of "but but but it free doe" nonsense, only to turn around and put every other fight on PPV But for me the bigger issue is what PPV has become. It used to be the platform for mega fights. BIG event type fights. Tyson, Mayweather, etc etc. Now it just seems to be the platform for any fight that the networks wont pay enough money to make. We used to be able to watch Roy Jones, Barrara, Lennox, Gatti, Holyfield, etc on HBO. And now we get hit with a PPV to watch Charlo or Crawford fight a slob. Should we really be paying more money (adjusted for inflation) for Tank vs Rolly than we paid for Tyson-Lewis? And if RJJ could sell on PPV, guess what? He would be on PPV! Guys like Mayweather and Pacquiao fought on HBO until they reached a certain level of stardom and than their fights started taking place on PPV. BHop could never sell so he hardly fought on PPV but did so against fighters like Taylor, DLH etc. Again, I fully get killing fights like Ruiz vs Arreola as they have no business being on PPV. But the market will correct itself with those fighters when the events don't do good numbers. The Charlo brothers PPV on paper was REALLY good, but they can't sell like that and were right back on SHO in their next fights. One thing is that the PPV split between the cable/satellite distributors has changed and the streaming buys rate is much better for promoters that they can put more fights on PPV now and break even. Half of Ruiz/Arreola buys were digital purchases and the promoters get around 80% of the revenues on them opposed to getting 55-60% on cable/satellite buys. Heck, back in the day it used to be an even 50/50 split and the promoters would then have to give 10% of that to the networks. Game has certainly changed, The words of promoters/networks about not using PPVs should mean nothing. It is just a marketing ploy to attract viewers/subscribers.

I think the biggest issue is PPV should be reserved for the biggest and best fights. Not just above average fights. I wouldn’t have much issue with the US model, I’d have bought Fury-Wilder 3, I’d buy Canelo-Plant, I’d buy Crawford-Porter. There are some disgraceful PPV cards though, Tank-Romero for example. The UK model is an absolute disgrace though. Guys like Chisora, Whyte headlining multiple PPV’s is completely unjustifiable. Boxing networks in the UK are just take, take, take. They NEVER re-invest back into the sport. But has it always been reserved for the biggest and best fights? When fighters get to a certain level, their fights get on PPV. But does that necessarily mean it is for the biggest and best fights? Were some of Floyd's and Pacquiao's fights the biggest and best that took place on PPV? Understood, on paper Tank vs Rolly is not a PPV match up. Why is it on PPV though? Because Tank is able to draw well and sell well enough to have his fights on PPV. I get why certain fights such as Chisora vs Parker get killed because those don't even feature one top level fighter. But if Chisora would tank as the headliner, they would take him off of PPV, right? Remember how Arum was initially talking about Porter only getting 1-2M to fight Crawford? The fight would never happen if that was all he was going to get. But now he has a guarantee of 4M and the only way this fight could happen is if it takes place on PPV...And I know you said you would have no problem purchasing it. Ruiz vs Arreola had NO business being on PPV and I fully agree there. But because the fight did not do good numbers, I'm sure Ruiz will be right back on FOX or SHO unless he is fighting a big name. I don't have a problem with certain fighters getting the chance to sell on PPV. Let the consumers determine if you are PPV worthy or not.

Fighters have become as greedy as fk. Making every fight on PPV is the result. Like Showtime Espinoza said, "Pay Per View is a tool..." - Espinoza Espinoza: PPV Is A Useful Tool, But It Should Be Used Sparingly

the DAZN announcement was a disappointment, and puts them in the same "bait and switch" category that I put PBC in for their years of "but but but it free doe" nonsense, only to turn around and put every other fight on PPV But for me the bigger issue is what PPV has become. It used to be the platform for mega fights. BIG event type fights. Tyson, Mayweather, etc etc. Now it just seems to be the platform for any fight that the networks wont pay enough money to make. We used to be able to watch Roy Jones, Barrara, Lennox, Gatti, Holyfield, etc on HBO. And now we get hit with a PPV to watch Charlo or Crawford fight a slob. Should we really be paying more money (adjusted for inflation) for Tank vs Rolly than we paid for Tyson-Lewis?

So anytime a fight gets announced on PPV, instantly boxing fans come in and complain. But why? PPVs have been going on for decades and there is a reason why they have been taking place. I can see the argument of the prices being too expensive, but there are other ways to watch the fights if you cannot afford to pay for them or just don't want to pay for them. The PPV market will dictate which fighters stay on PPV and those that have to go back to network TV. Just a few days ago it came out that DAZN was possibly going to start putting on PPVs in the UK and fans started to completely flip out. Sure I get that it goes completely against what Hearn initially said but that man does a million interviews a day and often times makes a fool of himself. Nothing new there....However, it was a pipedream to not think eventually PPVs would be needed for DAZN. ESPN is putting on their first non-Fury PPV in a few years but do you think they did not want to put on PPVs during that time? No, they just did not have any fight they could put on PPV. Now they will put Crawford/Porter on PPV and if Lopez/Lomachenko II gets made next year, guess what? That's heading to PPV as well. And then we know PBC puts on one damn near every month. But you saw them put Charlo's on PPV and because the card did not do good numbers, they returned to SHO. Andy Ruiz did similar numbers and guess what? Unless he is fighting a big name, he's likely right back on FOX or SHO himself. Even Canelo with DAZN, they started allowing people to purchase it on PPV. You cannot sustain a good business just relying on subscribers when boxing is your main sport. PPVs have been prevalent in the past, present and will be in the future as well. If you don't like it, then just don't purchase it and wait to watch the fight the following week or find a stream. I think the biggest issue is PPV should be reserved for the biggest and best fights. Not just above average fights. I wouldn’t have much issue with the US model, I’d have bought Fury-Wilder 3, I’d buy Canelo-Plant, I’d buy Crawford-Porter. There are some disgraceful PPV cards though, Tank-Romero for example. The UK model is an absolute disgrace though. Guys like Chisora, Whyte headlining multiple PPV’s is completely unjustifiable. Boxing networks in the UK are just take, take, take. They NEVER re-invest back into the sport.

WHO in your estimation is "Worth it" to pay almost 100 bucks to watch? What fighter has clawed his way up, fighting the best, at prime, and now is facing a similar fighter for some undisputed title that makes the fighter an instant hero? last fighter that I can remember doing so is Lewis. Lewis fought guys the public wanted... even when it meant not fighting the stupid mandatory EDIT: Im using the heavyweight division as an example. Some of Ward's fights, Canelo, etc might be an exception to this rule. Klitsko fought mandatories who were IMO tomatoe cans most of the time. Certainly not worth a lot of money. For example, lewis deciding to fight Grant instead of Ruiz.. Grant was considered dangerous while Ruiz... well need I say more? Who is worth it? I mean I pay for almost all the PPVs, even Floyd vs Paul and Tyson vs RJJ. Certain fights are not happening unless it takes place on PPV and I'm fine with that. These guys partake in a brutal sport so they should be able to earn as much as possible. And the consumer should be able to determine which fights they want to pay for and which fights they don't want to pay for.

For the same reason they don't pay for music, movies, television, etc. It's easy to find for free and rarely will they ever face consequences for it. They'll justify it 100 different ways. The price is too high. They need to offer a digital option. The product isn't worth paying for (but is worth stealing apparently). Even if it was the greatest card of all time, cost $1, and was available on every conceivable platform the same people would still steal it all the same.

streams are pretty reliable these days, that is all i care about. i did like when they used to do the fights in the theaters. seen like 2 or 3 of floyds fights at the theater, that was pretty cool How about when Sports Bars were allowed to show them? I mean let them pay something reasonable to the network and show the fights. Some of my best memories are going to Mexican Bars, seeing fights like Quartey and De La Hoya, and to sports bars to see Mike Tyson against Buster Douglas.

Well for me personally it's because when I was younger these fights used to be on terrestrial TV and free to watch. All you needed back then was a TV licence or run the risk of getting caught without one. Football was the same. We had matches on BBC 1 and ITV, no need to pay a fortune to Sky or another TV service every month, it was free to watch. I don't pay to watch TV as a matter of principle, I watch streams illegally instead. I wouldn't mind paying for a monthly subscription if Sky or any other company would let me watch any match I want no matter what time or day it was on. But they don't. So they can all go and **** themselves lol Dude... they are shooting these waves all around us... If we happen to catch them on a reciever, well... too bad! lol. I agree.

That's a different argument, I'm just talking about PPVs in general. Like you have a choice not to purchase them and eventually the fighters that can't sell get off PPV. WHO in your estimation is "Worth it" to pay almost 100 bucks to watch? What fighter has clawed his way up, fighting the best, at prime, and now is facing a similar fighter for some undisputed title that makes the fighter an instant hero? last fighter that I can remember doing so is Lewis. Lewis fought guys the public wanted... even when it meant not fighting the stupid mandatory EDIT: Im using the heavyweight division as an example. Some of Ward's fights, Canelo, etc might be an exception to this rule. Klitsko fought mandatories who were IMO tomatoe cans most of the time. Certainly not worth a lot of money. For example, lewis deciding to fight Grant instead of Ruiz.. Grant was considered dangerous while Ruiz... well need I say more?

Well for me personally it's because when I was younger these fights used to be on terrestrial TV and free to watch. All you needed back then was a TV licence or run the risk of getting caught without one. Football was the same. We had matches on BBC 1 and ITV, no need to pay a fortune to Sky or another TV service every month, it was free to watch. I don't pay to watch TV as a matter of principle, I watch streams illegally instead. I wouldn't mind paying for a monthly subscription if Sky or any other company would let me watch any match I want no matter what time or day it was on. But they don't. So they can all go and fuck themselves lol