Tweet
I don't think PPVs are going to be done yet. I mean the UFC definitely aren't ending PPVs anytime soon and you will still see them in boxing. How else is Spence vs Crawford going to happen if it isn't on PPV? Wilder vs Fury doesn't happen without PPV. Canelo leaving just opens up two PPV slots per year for other fighters.
-
-
Thats not an answer to the question though really especially using crawford vs spence.Originally posted by KTFOKING View Post
That fight does absolutely nothing on PPV right now. how are they going to build it to be a PPV fight ? what viable way can that fight be built right now to make that fight sell 4/500k PPV? There isnt one.
That means that any network wanting to guarantee against PPV buys for those two fighters will end up losing money, which they wont do just to make fans happy... which means that fight wont happen.
Take a streaming service however who charge a subscription fee for alot less per month and can offset costs against financials made in other territories and can offer a guarantee against subscriptions because they're less speculative and that fight has a higher chance of getting made.
Fury v Wilder doesnt happen with PPV? okay yeah.. but thats down to ****** demands. If rumours are to be believed then wilders guarantee is minimum 15 mill, what the **** has he done to generate that sort of guarantee when compared with previous purses, bogus filings or not?
The US PPV market is pure greed. Nobody in that industry following that model is working for your benefit as a fan.. at all. FACTComment
-
The Spence/Crawford fight has to be on PPV due to both being on different networks and being key figures to those particular networks. You think the PBC will be fine with sending Spence to ESPN after building him up for that fight and vice versa? Hence why PPV is the only way it can happen as both sides can come out satisfied.Originally posted by yammy25 View Post
And DAZN is going to be losing a WHOLE a lot of money. They aren't giving Canelo that big deal and giving Hearn/GBP that big of a budget because they expect to get their money back on subscribers as that won't happen. They just want to make a name for themselves and become a factor before they go after NFL and NBA rights. In the long run, boxing is going to be a very small factor of DAZN and kind of irrelevant as their success will be determined by the other rights they get or don't get.
As for the US market being full of greed? Sure, but what market is not? Not like the UK is a whole a lot better right now. I mean you guys have to pay for BT sports and SKY, while also having like 9-11 PPVs in 2018, while there only being two PPVs stateside. So is the prices a lot more for US PPVs? Yes, but in total both PPVs will come out to likely $155 bucks, while the UK PPVs will be potentially what $250-275 bucks?Comment
-
I couldn't agree more Robbie. I pay over 200.00 a month for cable, internet, and phone. I also subscribe to ESPN+ and DAZN. In a few hours I will be driving 150 miles to Boston to the TD Garden for tonight's fights and I already have tickets for the Lomo/Pedraza fight next month. Thankfully I can afford it. If you love boxing then 9.99 a month is peanuts.Originally posted by Robbie Barrett View PostComment
-
Why do people still have metered connections in 2018?Another potential problem not many are talking about relates to data usage. Some users could exceed their limit by streaming regularly on DAZN, which could cost them extra money.Comment
-
As far as paying for both Sky and BT goes.. youll find the majority of the UK audience pay for one or the other as both Sky and BT offer home phone, broadband and TV all into one.Originally posted by KTFOKING View Post
A UK customer will be with one provider for everything, and simply have a small package on top of that for the SKY and BT sport channels, which isnt a huge amount. I pay 90 a month for TV with Sky sports, BT Sports , 250mb broadband and unlimited home phone landline usage, thats roughly 118 dollars. sure i buy PPV
Below are the PPV fights from Sky box since the beginning of 2017. Theres 9... thats half of what you said.
BT Sports have njot yet put on a PPV show with fury / wilder being its first.
It doesnt matter what network Spence and Crawford are on.. it wouldnt matter if theyre on the same network. The fight doesnt generate any buys .. therefore no network can give them the purses they want by providing a guarantee against PPV buys.
The only people who could would be something like DAZN who would provide a guarantee against subscription figures, maybe even make a loss, but offset that using financials from their other territories.
If showtime boxing makes a loss out of its funding, it doesnt get offset by the entertainment sector giving them money to prop it back up again. DAZN would have expendable cash from other sources to alleviate whatever loss may potentially be made.
The spence crawford PPV is a pipedream unless they both settle for a lot less moneyComment
-
Showtime App is 8.99. On my directv its $12 and HBO $17. Now I get DAZN and ESPN+ for less than I paid for HBO. They both are great dealsOriginally posted by Butch.McRae View PostComment
-
They aren't going away. PBC is going to be doing them on average every other month. They are going to really rely on them. December is Wilder-Fury then Jan is Pacquiao-Broner plus there is talk of Spence-Garcia for February, Mayweather-Pacquiao2. They will probably have 6 ppvs next year.Originally posted by KTFOKING View Post
The big question is how many are SHO PPV and will any be FOX PPV?Comment
-
Can somebody tell me how do you recoup the $80 in revenue per buy/sub when one costs $90 and the other costs $10. And you're also losing out on international TV rights fees. How would Canelo and GGG make the same amount of money at $10 a sub that they did at $90 a buy?Comment
-
Who the hell watches full movies/fights on their phones using data instead of wifi???Originally posted by iamboxing View PostComment
Comment