Whyte vs Parker PPV numbers

[Manlikefemi]

Completely agree with this.
I do place a lot of blame on Hearn though, obviously Sky/Barney Francis pull the puppet strings but the way he blatantly lies and cons the public is disgraceful. I mean look at the whole AJ-Wilder situation, it’s just embarrassing.

I honestly wouldn’t be too upset with all these PPV’s if we got some good value fight nights in return. But all we get is this ”Next Gen” BS and low level, cheap ass, meaningless fights like Okollie-Chamberlain. Any revenue they generate from these PPV’s is not being invested back into the product and that’s unacceptable.

Yes he lies and manipulates but he can because the vast majority of these fans are thick. Just look at Eddie Hearn's twitter, it's full of them, these people have no lives. He can do it because he can get away with it.

Look how so many fans including on here talk about financials now and splits, what another man earns...Eddie Hearn was the main protagonist and has caused this from his IFL Videos

Sky are a buisness, they are not going to give you good fights, while knowing they can sling it onto PPV and make profit from it...Trust me, Joshua is keeping Matchroom running and keeping Sky intrested in Boxing, it will be dead in five years time

Think of this as everyone getting their piece of the pie. I laugh when Eddie keeps mentioning the 16 UK Shows available on DAZN, like Americans are going to be intrested in Okolie-Chamberlin 2... or Brook-Rabchenko cos that's the crap he will be serving us with next year too, until PPV Goes BUST

[nixxter]

You keep saying "I remember this" or "I saw that" without linking a damned thing.

For all I know, you could be pulling this from your arse.

There IS NO ADDITIONAL DAZN money for the fighters. DAZN is a subscriber service that already had a deal with Matchroom to show fights in certain countries. Nothing extra is forthcoming to Parker and Whyte from DAZN the same way nothing extra will be forthcoming to fighters who fight on US DAZN cards when they launch later this year. Eddie might pay them whatever is guaranteed out of the money he already has been budgeted yearly from DAZN or he may use the money generated by the PPVs themselves. But the fighters get no "upside" from DAZN money.

You are showing a basic misunderstanding of how things work here.

The following are a few articles outlining how PPV usually works.

https://www.*************.com/column...iew-deal-work/

http://www.secondsout.com/ringside/the-business-of-boxing/the-abcs-of-pay-per-view

This one shows that even at the height of his money generating powers, Floyd operated the same way when it came to the cable companies...though he did find other ways to enhance his income.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2192887-making-money-how-floyd-mayweather-produces-boxings-biggest-fights

Finally, you trying to say PPV works different in the UK is also you saying that, out of the goodness of their hearts UK cable companies take less than anywhere else because...well because you say so.

And, that dog don't hunt.

Don't tell me you are basing your 45% argument on that 7 year old BoxingIn$ider article... Everyone interested in the subject has read it and knows that's just the general framework. The actual percentages differ depending on the fighters, promoters, distributors.. it's all up for negotiation.

The Mayweather article that you linked to says:

"Mayweather takes 50 percent of all pay-per-view revenue on top of what he is guaranteed for each match. Showtime collects that money and takes its small percentage before sending the remainder to Mayweather. The distributors of the pay-per-view take the other half when people who bought the pay-per-view pay their cable bills."

Which is total generalization and is actually against your argument that the promoter/fighters share of the PPV revenue is 45%.

Here are a few articles that say the actual share is between 50% and 60%:

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/5/2...is-prize-fight

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/02/pricey-up-to-99-95-to-watch-mayweather-pacquiao-on-pay-per-view/

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/06/16/sports/sports-breaking/mayweather-mcgregor-2-fighters-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars/

Regarding the Haye-Valuev PPV, I've tried to find the interview with Haye but could not, it's from 8-9 years ago and the website might not even be online anymore. What I found though is this:

http://http://checkh00kboxing.com/in...3#post-2322843 (note: replace the 00 with oo)

"Hattons book has details. I have also read an interview with Dennis Hobson where he talks about it. I will try and find them. Was also an article in Boxing News a few years ago with Booth where he talked about the Haye v Valuev deal.

It's a 50/50 split for the first set of buys and then their are tiers which favor the promoter. Haye & Hatton made so much from Sky because they were getting 70% after 500,000 and their PPVs with Valuev & Mayweather did 2/3x that."

So it's not even 60%, Haye & Hatton reportedly got 70%. You seriously think that Hearn, who has had an exclusive deal with Sky for over 5 years is getting just 45%?

You don't seem to understand that the UK PPV market is very different to the US PPV market. Sky is not only the content provider, they are also the internet/cable provider. There are economies of scale there plus they don't work with other promoters, they work exclusively with Matchroom.

Regarding DAZN, again I am not quite sure what is not clear to you. Most of the budget allocated per fight goes to the fighters. The guaranteed purses are just the minimum they get. The profit generated by the show, including all revenue sources (PPV, gate, DAZN, etc.), is shared between the fighters and Matchroom, whose cut is reportedly 20%.

[koolkc107]

Don't tell me you are basing your 45% argument on that 7 year old BoxingIn$ider article... Everyone interested in the subject has read it and knows that's just the general framework. The actual percentages differ depending on the fighters, promoters, distributors.. it's all up for negotiation.

The Mayweather article that you linked to says:

"Mayweather takes 50 percent of all pay-per-view revenue on top of what he is guaranteed for each match. Showtime collects that money and takes its small percentage before sending the remainder to Mayweather. The distributors of the pay-per-view take the other half when people who bought the pay-per-view pay their cable bills."

Which is total generalization and is actually against your argument that the promoter/fighters share of the PPV revenue is 45%.

Here are a few articles that say the actual share is between 50% and 60%:

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/5/2...is-prize-fight

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/02/pricey-up-to-99-95-to-watch-mayweather-pacquiao-on-pay-per-view/

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/06/16/sports/sports-breaking/mayweather-mcgregor-2-fighters-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars/

Regarding the Haye-Valuev PPV, I've tried to find the interview with Haye but could not, it's from 8-9 years ago and the website might not even be online anymore. What I found though is this:

http://http://checkh00kboxing.com/in...3#post-2322843 (note: replace the 00 with oo)

"Hattons book has details. I have also read an interview with Dennis Hobson where he talks about it. I will try and find them. Was also an article in Boxing News a few years ago with Booth where he talked about the Haye v Valuev deal.

It's a 50/50 split for the first set of buys and then their are tiers which favor the promoter. Haye & Hatton made so much from Sky because they were getting 70% after 500,000 and their PPVs with Valuev & Mayweather did 2/3x that."

So it's not even 60%, Haye & Hatton reportedly got 70%. You seriously think that Hearn, who has had an exclusive deal with Sky for over 5 years is getting just 45%?

You don't seem to understand that the UK PPV market is very different to the US PPV market. Sky is not only the content provider, they are also the internet/cable provider. There are economies of scale there plus they don't work with other promoters, they work exclusively with Matchroom.

Regarding DAZN, again I am not quite sure what is not clear to you. Most of the budget allocated per fight goes to the fighters. The guaranteed purses are just the minimum they get. The profit generated by the show, including all revenue sources (PPV, gate, DAZN, etc.), is shared between the fighters and Matchroom, whose cut is reportedly 20%.

No, I think you should post links that work.

Of the three that did, they all are consistent with exactly what I have been saying: the net to promoters is 45%.

I said the cable companies get 45%, the channel gets 10%, and the promoters get 45%.

Those articles you cited say the cable companies get "30 to 40 percent, the cable companies get "10 to 15 percent" and the promoters get what's left. Some do call that "50%" but, simple addition tells you 45% is quite possible.

And again, unless you are Mayweather and have that kind of clout, you aint getting no 50 or 70 percent.

I do believe that there are a few folks running around that can get those higher percentages for their fights.

Parker and Whyte aint among them tho, and that's who we are talking about here.

Reports say 1M pounds guaranteed each and part of the upside.

Part, not all. And others get paid out as well.

One more time about DAZN.

DAZN did not air this fight in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, or the US. This was not a fight DAZN "paid for", it was a fight DAZN got to air in certain countries as part of an ongoing deal with Matchroom.

There was no "extra DAZN money" for this fight.

[nixxter]

No, I think you should post links that work.

Of the three that did, they all are consistent with exactly what I have been saying: the net to promoters is 45%.

I said the cable companies get 45%, the channel gets 10%, and the promoters get 45%.

Those articles you cited say the cable companies get "30 to 40 percent, the cable companies get "10 to 15 percent" and the promoters get what's left. Some do call that "50%" but, simple addition tells you 45% is quite possible.

And again, unless you are Mayweather and have that kind of clout, you aint getting no 50 or 70 percent.

I do believe that there are a few folks running around that can get those higher percentages for their fights.

Parker and Whyte aint among them tho, and that's who we are talking about here.

Reports say 1M pounds guaranteed each and part of the upside.

Part, not all. And others get paid out as well.

One more time about DAZN.

DAZN did not air this fight in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, or the US. This was not a fight DAZN "paid for", it was a fight DAZN got to air in certain countries as part of an ongoing deal with Matchroom.

There was no "extra DAZN money" for this fight.

The fourth link works if you had checked the note (replacing the 00 with oo). Some boxing sites are censored here and the domains get replaced with *** (like your BoxinIn$ider link), so that's one way of posting a link to a censored site.

As for the other three links, what they say is this:
1) "Their revenue sources will be payperview of which they'll probably keep 50 to 60 percent of all the payperview revenue"
2) "Traditionally, promoters of the fight get 50 percent to 55 percent of the price for the pay-per-view, though that figure will be larger for this fight."
3) "The cable companies and satellite providers that distribute the fight get their share, typically 30 to 40 percent. Showtime will also take its cut, perhaps 10 to 15 percent. The remaining 50 percent of the pay-per-view revenue will go to the fighters, subject to the split they agreed upon."

So, the first article says the promoters/fighters get between 50% and 60%, the second 50%-55% and the third 45%-60%.

Whyte and Parker may be no stars but it is Matchroom who have an exclusive deal with Sky, which determines the cut the fighters get. Frank Warren has a similar deal with BT Sport and he reportedly gets 50% as well.

The guaranteed purses are just that, the minimum they get even if the event flops. Parker already got over 1M pounds vs Fury, he would not have taken this fight, which is bigger and much riskier, if he was not offered significantly more. Whyte and Parker get part of the upside and not all, because the fighters on the undercards get part of the upside too. For example, as I already mentioned, Hearn said Dave Allen made enough to buy a new house.

About DAZN again, the Whyte-Parker fight as well as Joshua's last two fights vs Parker & Takam were streamed on DAZN Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and Canada, and these fights are separate from the $1 billion deal Hearn has with DAZN. Nobody is talking about "extra" or "upside" DAZN money. There is a certain budget for each fight shown on the service, we don't know how that budget is determined, but most of it goes to the fighters. It's just another revenue source and of course needs to be added to the pot that is shared between the fighters.

Anyway, this is getting too boring to discuss now.

[BattlingNelson]

I'd much rather watch talented guys that no one has heard of yet than overhyped HWs who showed they have no chance at giving us anything more than sloppy brawls.
You can feel differently, that's fine. I'm not threatened by anyone's personal taste. I'm just really surprised at the things the British public is willing to pay for, esp considering how frugal they tend to be. I hope the promoters don't screw it up and continue to maintain the success they're having over there. It's good for the sport, even if I don't personally like their product.

Please don't tell me you think Wilder is talented....