Why Are People So Opposed to PPVs?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

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.

[OnePunch]

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?

[rickJen]

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

[KTFOKING]

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.

[KTFOKING]

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.

[billeau2]

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.

[Santa_]

That extra 80 bucks on their cable bill. Especially if the fight turned out to be a dud.

I think more people would buy if it was charged the night of..

[billeau2]

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.

[elfag]

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

[rickJen]

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.