Tweet
by Steve Kim | Jul 27, 2016
Much was made recently of the fight between Terence Crawford and Viktor Postol, a junior welterweight welterweight title unification bout that (at least, on paper, looked like an enticing match-up) took place last weekend at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, being a pay-per-view offering and not on HBO.
A bout that would, in years past, have been shown on the “World Championship Boxing” series instead cost boxing fans another $60 on their next cable bill.
The reason this pairing ended up on pay-per-view was very simple: In order for promoter Bob Arum to get Crawford three fights this year – instead of just two – he would have to risk his own money and stage a pay-per-view card. And HBO Sports’ current budget for boxing means, for the time being, their franchise fighters such as Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin, Andre Ward, Saul Alvarez and Crawford would need to fight at least once on pay-per-view and/or have a foreign fight (which comes at a reduced license fee to HBO).
While some will accuse Top Rank Promotions of greed, the reality is this was something born out of necessity and could be looked upon as an investment into its future.
There has been a lot of internet chatter and speculation about HBO’s budget regarding its boxing franchise. A time long ago during Seth Abraham’ heyday, the network regularly had over $100 million to spend on the sport as it became the dominant platform in the industry. In recent years, this number has shrunk substantially. For various reasons, this reduced number is now is of great debate and interest to many who follow the sport. Promoters and managers would like to know just how much money is available to them and fans would like to get an idea of what fights they can realistically expect.
But very few actually know the real number. More people might know the formula for Coca-Cola than the actual figure HBO Sports allocates for boxing. It’s clear however that the war chest is not nearly what it once was.
There is concern that the declining amount of money HBO Sports is getting is an indication that the network has one foot out the door, in terms of its commitment to the last and only live sport it televises. But according to a once well-placed source within the industry, “The whole budget crunch is very unusual and temporary and is a product of Rupert Murdoch’s hostile takeover attempt at Time Warner.”
The multi-billionaire media mogul has made advances with Time Warner (the parent company of HBO) in the past and always seems to be lurking.
“It is a one-time only adjustment which took place specifically because of Murdoch’s attempted takeover at Time Warner and Time Warner siphoned $100 million out of HBO to give to the movie studio Warner Brothers and to give some to the other ancillary ventures. It was about broadening the financial base of the comany to be sure that the stock price would hold up,” it was explained. So while it’s tightening its belt and cutting costs, HBO is also investing into its streaming service to try and bolster the value of its stock.
This was all done to resist a potential Murdoch takeover.
In other words HBO is robbing Peter to pay Paul, you could say. And part of that $100 million certainly came out of the HBO Sports budget. The belief is that once Murdoch is fully rebuffed, then, more or less, things will return to normal.
What’s taking place now isn’t the first time budgets were slashed at the network. During the Time Warner/AOL days, as its stock plummeted, HBO had to tighten the belt as the prime asset of Time Warner. In many respects, HBO is akin to the big-time college football program whose revenue has to fund the rest of the athletic department.
As it stands now, as HBO fills out its fall schedule, it has at least three more pay-per-view cards (Sept. 17 with Liam Smith-Saul Alvarez, Nov. 5 with the return of Manny Pacquiao and Nov. 19 when Sergey Kovalev takes on Andre Ward). You could assume that, with much more money to spend (like in the past) perhaps only Pacquiao – who still has a sizable guaranteed minimum – would be on pay-per-view.
Another source says the current head of HBO Sports, Peter Nelson, was saddled with toxic assets left to him by the departed Ken Hershman. It’s clear that Nelson has to be extra judicious in how he spends his network’s money, nowadays. In years past, HBO was the proverbial 800-pound gorilla but it didn’t have Al Haymon and Premier Boxing Champions to deal with – and it had much bigger wallet.
Arum told this reporter in the past that HBO executives told him boxing “was in their DNA.” Who know how true this, still is with the departure of Michael Lombardo, who was its President of Programming? Lombardo was said to be a major advocate of boxing, while others believe he wasn’t all that much of a sports fan. Regardless, as it currently stands, though it’s not the biggest platform in boxing (with CBS, NBC, ESPN and FOX entering into time-buys with Haymon last year), it is still the gold standard. On this network, you don’t just see the sport’s elite but its biggest stars.
The problem lies in that they’re seen less and less on the network and oftentimes against overmatched opposition. For years, boxing has relied on HBO to not only nurture but then showcase its biggest stars. But does HBO really need to rely on boxing as it once did?
As one person in the entertainment industry stated, “The HBO non-sports executives would like to tell you the reason people subscribe to HBO is because of shows like ‘Silicon Valley’ and ‘Girls’ – it’s not true. People subscribe for movies, as dated as that may seem. They subscribe for boxing and breakout programming like ‘Game of Thrones.'”
http://ucnlive.com/blame-rupert-murdoch/
Much was made recently of the fight between Terence Crawford and Viktor Postol, a junior welterweight welterweight title unification bout that (at least, on paper, looked like an enticing match-up) took place last weekend at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, being a pay-per-view offering and not on HBO.
A bout that would, in years past, have been shown on the “World Championship Boxing” series instead cost boxing fans another $60 on their next cable bill.
The reason this pairing ended up on pay-per-view was very simple: In order for promoter Bob Arum to get Crawford three fights this year – instead of just two – he would have to risk his own money and stage a pay-per-view card. And HBO Sports’ current budget for boxing means, for the time being, their franchise fighters such as Sergey Kovalev, Gennady Golovkin, Andre Ward, Saul Alvarez and Crawford would need to fight at least once on pay-per-view and/or have a foreign fight (which comes at a reduced license fee to HBO).
While some will accuse Top Rank Promotions of greed, the reality is this was something born out of necessity and could be looked upon as an investment into its future.
There has been a lot of internet chatter and speculation about HBO’s budget regarding its boxing franchise. A time long ago during Seth Abraham’ heyday, the network regularly had over $100 million to spend on the sport as it became the dominant platform in the industry. In recent years, this number has shrunk substantially. For various reasons, this reduced number is now is of great debate and interest to many who follow the sport. Promoters and managers would like to know just how much money is available to them and fans would like to get an idea of what fights they can realistically expect.
But very few actually know the real number. More people might know the formula for Coca-Cola than the actual figure HBO Sports allocates for boxing. It’s clear however that the war chest is not nearly what it once was.
There is concern that the declining amount of money HBO Sports is getting is an indication that the network has one foot out the door, in terms of its commitment to the last and only live sport it televises. But according to a once well-placed source within the industry, “The whole budget crunch is very unusual and temporary and is a product of Rupert Murdoch’s hostile takeover attempt at Time Warner.”
The multi-billionaire media mogul has made advances with Time Warner (the parent company of HBO) in the past and always seems to be lurking.
“It is a one-time only adjustment which took place specifically because of Murdoch’s attempted takeover at Time Warner and Time Warner siphoned $100 million out of HBO to give to the movie studio Warner Brothers and to give some to the other ancillary ventures. It was about broadening the financial base of the comany to be sure that the stock price would hold up,” it was explained. So while it’s tightening its belt and cutting costs, HBO is also investing into its streaming service to try and bolster the value of its stock.
This was all done to resist a potential Murdoch takeover.
In other words HBO is robbing Peter to pay Paul, you could say. And part of that $100 million certainly came out of the HBO Sports budget. The belief is that once Murdoch is fully rebuffed, then, more or less, things will return to normal.
What’s taking place now isn’t the first time budgets were slashed at the network. During the Time Warner/AOL days, as its stock plummeted, HBO had to tighten the belt as the prime asset of Time Warner. In many respects, HBO is akin to the big-time college football program whose revenue has to fund the rest of the athletic department.
As it stands now, as HBO fills out its fall schedule, it has at least three more pay-per-view cards (Sept. 17 with Liam Smith-Saul Alvarez, Nov. 5 with the return of Manny Pacquiao and Nov. 19 when Sergey Kovalev takes on Andre Ward). You could assume that, with much more money to spend (like in the past) perhaps only Pacquiao – who still has a sizable guaranteed minimum – would be on pay-per-view.
Another source says the current head of HBO Sports, Peter Nelson, was saddled with toxic assets left to him by the departed Ken Hershman. It’s clear that Nelson has to be extra judicious in how he spends his network’s money, nowadays. In years past, HBO was the proverbial 800-pound gorilla but it didn’t have Al Haymon and Premier Boxing Champions to deal with – and it had much bigger wallet.
Arum told this reporter in the past that HBO executives told him boxing “was in their DNA.” Who know how true this, still is with the departure of Michael Lombardo, who was its President of Programming? Lombardo was said to be a major advocate of boxing, while others believe he wasn’t all that much of a sports fan. Regardless, as it currently stands, though it’s not the biggest platform in boxing (with CBS, NBC, ESPN and FOX entering into time-buys with Haymon last year), it is still the gold standard. On this network, you don’t just see the sport’s elite but its biggest stars.
The problem lies in that they’re seen less and less on the network and oftentimes against overmatched opposition. For years, boxing has relied on HBO to not only nurture but then showcase its biggest stars. But does HBO really need to rely on boxing as it once did?
As one person in the entertainment industry stated, “The HBO non-sports executives would like to tell you the reason people subscribe to HBO is because of shows like ‘Silicon Valley’ and ‘Girls’ – it’s not true. People subscribe for movies, as dated as that may seem. They subscribe for boxing and breakout programming like ‘Game of Thrones.'”
http://ucnlive.com/blame-rupert-murdoch/
Comment