Comments Thread For: Hearn Explains Why DAZN Venture Can't Be Compared To PBC

[lanker rom]

You think Shakur moves the needle? I doubt he's going anywhere anyway doe.

So what you are mainly saying is you think they need a name (or two or three) to help sell this deal better basically if I'm understanding you right?

How many fighters does top rank have because as of late it seems they've been getting other promoters involved more often.

Also I believe Espn and Bob has it in place to develop stars from top rank by having the same fighters fight regularly on the network that's why you always see loma and Stevenson?

[TheBigLug]

Thats an antiquated way of looking at it. Streaming is the future. Fox & CBS as we know them are already dead. They will be converting to streaming platforms or dying.

Exactly.

A lot of people here are old or stuck in the past.

The only way TV networks won't die is if they basically go down the same route as things like DAZN eventually.

[TheBigLug]

DAZN may do whatever they do in the 5 countries that they currently operate in, but you do have to understand that this seems to setup a DAZN vs Showtime/CBS situation, after CBS has already spent the better part of the last decade growing their boxing franchise (while also ignoring a Fox Sports deal).

$1b over 8 years isn't going to cut it, I don't think.

You're still missing the point, that $1b just for boxing, which is more of a niche sport compared to others. There's no way other networks are putting that much into boxing. Imagine what money they would be willing to put in to get the rights to more popular sports?

In Germany they already have some rights to Champions League games, taking some of them away from big TV networks there. Do you know how much it costs to get the rights to that?

The USA market is no different. Simply put, if you're willing to pay enough, you will get the rights to what you're bidding for. It will always go to the highest bidder, there's no sentiment involved, it's business. I don't think they're playing around. It seems they're willing to make serious investments for sports rights.

When BT Sports launched in the UK, although BT are a company, people said they would never compete with Sky for their sports content. Now they have the Champions League, a share of the Premier League etc.. simply because they were willing to pay what it costs to get them. That's all it takes.

[Rubber Ducky]

Without sponsorship and gate, that is 6.2 million subscribers needed.

32 fights by 125 mil, they need to make about 3.9 mil in advertisement + subscribers unless part of their deal is to keep some gate money.

6.2 mill subscriptions x $20 is 124 million

But that's spread out over 12 months. $20 x 12 months is 1 person paying $240 USD.

125 mill/240 = 520,833 subscriptions needed to break even each year.

Also when you consider ESPN+ are paying UFC 150 mill a year for their rights, it suggests the DAZN business model isn't so ludicrous.

There are many smaller OTT services like Sling TV and Direct TV that have over 1 mill subscribers. So it seems 520K subscribers for DAZN is doable as long as Hearn can secure some good boxers for his cards.

[IMDAZED]

It’s a two-year deal, not eight. There are options for the next six but the money sounds significantly smaller when you announce what it actually is. These two years are going to be very crucial.

[Ake-Dawg]

You think Shakur moves the needle? I doubt he's going anywhere anyway doe.

So what you are mainly saying is you think they need a name (or two or three) to help sell this deal better basically if I'm understanding you right?

No. I'm saying they need a name or three to ensure that the deal is whole sale better than their current pay for a network slot and sell commercial time business model.

[Scipio2009]

You're still missing the point, that $1b just for boxing, which is more of a niche sport compared to others. There's no way other networks are putting that much into boxing. Imagine what money they would be willing to put in to get the rights to more popular sports?

In Germany they already have some rights to Champions League games, taking some of them away from big TV networks there. Do you know how much it costs to get the rights to that?

The USA market is no different. Simply put, if you're willing to pay enough, you will get the rights to what you're bidding for. It will always go to the highest bidder, there's no sentiment involved, it's business. I don't think they're playing around. It seems they're willing to make serious investments for sports rights.

When BT Sports launched in the UK, although BT are a company, people said they would never compete with Sky for their sports content. Now they have the Champions League, a share of the Premier League etc.. simply because they were willing to pay what it costs to get them. That's all it takes.

DAZN has been in Germany for however long, are supposed to be flush with all this money, yet they can't get Bundesliga?

Beyond that, you're overstating BT Sports' position in a pretty silly way; they have Champions League, but Sky Sports was still able to purchase the top 4 of the 5 packages put up for auction of the Premier League because they had more money, lol.

DAZN isn't going to outbid FOX/CBS/NBC/ABC for any part of the NFL content package, isn't going to outbid TNT/ABC for the NBA package, isn't going to outbid CBS for SEC Football, or ABC for ACC/Big 10 Football, or outbid NBC for the rights to Notre Dame football.

Beyond that, we still have no idea what Fox Sports is set to do; after the initial UFC deal, Fox Sports is already on record as being willing to pay near $200m a year for less UFC content than before. Starpower is star power, but with PBC already showing that they can draw similar combat sports numbers to the UFC when measured up, there's nothing that should hinder them from putting up at least what the UFC got in their initial deal for PBC.

With Showtime/CBS committed to the sport, and Fox Sports needing the content for FS1, Haymon ends up with similar money on his side, without needing to build the reach of his platform from scratch.

[TheBigLug]

DAZN has been in Germany for however long, are supposed to be flush with all this money, yet they can't get Bundesliga?

Less than 2 years.

And as people have pointed out, you can't just buy the rights whenever, you have to wait until contracts expire and at least show interest about putting your name into the hat when it comes time to put bids in.

of course they're not going to completely take over, and i'm sure they're not expecting to destroy the competition. All they need is enough sports content for people to justify paying for it. Netflix doesn't have everything and a lot of it's content is available elsewhere but there's enough good content and it functions in a simple manner so that keep people paying for it. It's convenient.

That's what people aren't getting. it's not a black & white thing where DAZN get all the rights and destroy the competition, they just want a share of the pie, knowing that people will pay if it's good enough.

Personally if you ask me, i think $20 a month is a bit steep for a streaming service. That's more than Netflix or Spotify or Apple Music, which are loaded with popular content.

[lefthooklead]

You're still missing the point, that $1b just for boxing, which is more of a niche sport compared to others. There's no way other networks are putting that much into boxing. Imagine what money they would be willing to put in to get the rights to more popular sports?

In Germany they already have some rights to Champions League games, taking some of them away from big TV networks there. Do you know how much it costs to get the rights to that?

The USA market is no different. Simply put, if you're willing to pay enough, you will get the rights to what you're bidding for. It will always go to the highest bidder, there's no sentiment involved, it's business. I don't think they're playing around. It seems they're willing to make serious investments for sports rights.

When BT Sports launched in the UK, although BT are a company, people said they would never compete with Sky for their sports content. Now they have the Champions League, a share of the Premier League etc.. simply because they were willing to pay what it costs to get them. That's all it takes.

Finally, someone gets it. Big up Big Lug.

Trying to explain the context of the deal and how the business model works to some people is hard work.

[PensionKiller]

6.2 mill subscriptions x $20 is 124 million

But that's spread out over 12 months. $20 x 12 months is 1 person paying $240 USD.

125 mill/240 = 520,833 subscriptions needed to break even each year.

Also when you consider ESPN+ are paying UFC 150 mill a year for their rights, it suggests the DAZN business model isn't so ludicrous.

There are many smaller OTT services like Sling TV and Direct TV that have over 1 mill subscribers. So it seems 520K subscribers for DAZN is doable as long as Hearn can secure some good boxers for his cards.

Ah nice one. I messed up the maths there! LOL.

520k subscribers is definitely possible if the shows are good.