Tweet
Originally posted by OnePunch
View Post
But they couldn't compete with HBO's budget. HBO could always outbid the networks for any fight they wanted. Mike Tyson, George Foreman, Evander Holyfield, Julio Cesar Chavez, Hector Camacho, Pernell Whitaker, etc. HBO had the big stars.
Leaving lower level fights for the networks. Eventually it wasn't worth it. As you personally know, there isn't a lot of money to be made in lower level fights. The networks were better off focusing on other sports.
For your position to be correct, the networks would have had to have lost interest in the big fights BEFORE HBO CAME ALONG. Leaving an opening for HBO to pay the same or less than was previously being paid for a product the networks didn't want anymore. But that's not what happened. HBO came in and outbid the networks for the big fights, driving up the price of big fights to the point where the networks couldn't afford big fights anymore. And when lower level fights proved to be unprofitable, they moved on.
Based on how things actually went down, your position makes absolutely no sense.
Think about it. HBO is content driven, so when they spend $50 million or whatever (they havent spent $100 million in a very long time), there is not a tangible return on that investment. Sure, it may retain some subscribers, but absent taking the time to interview every single subscriber, it is somewhat unknown how much boxing really means to their subscriber base.
But it's 2017 now. Boxing's main competitor is UFC and HBO's main competitor is Netflix. HBO has 130 million subscribers and there aren't 26 million people subscribing primarily for boxing. So the money is better spent elsewhere now. Including going after UFC when their deal is up with Fox.
HBO has steadily been reducing the budget over the past decade, and I suspect had they seen subscribers flee because of it, they would have reversed course 6 or 7 years ago. They didnt.
Garcia & Thurman made $2 million each. The fight peaked at over FIVE MILLION VIEWERS. It won the night in the 18-49 demo. It beat the NBA & NHL in overall viewership AND in the 18-49 demo. That is an event that makes sense on network TV right now.
But a decade ago, they would have made $4-5 million each in a big HBO fight. If HBO was still throwing around $6-7 million for that type of fight, the economics would not make sense for network TV.
As for broadcast tv, they really dont have to "spend money" the same way HBO does. If NBC or CBS thought they could generate $60 million in advertising sales on a $50 million outlay, they would greenlight it in about 10 seconds. But obviously they dont think they can. And I dont think it has anything at all to do with what HBO does, because if a broadcast network REALLY saw value in boxing, they could outspend HBO with EASE, because they would be making it back in ad sales, plus profit, whereas HBO is just throwing it in a black hole.
Ad sales can't compete with carriage fees for cable + ads or subscription fees for premium cable.
You're really just proving how little you know about any of this. It's embarrassing.
HBO can outspend for the NBA finals just as the Super Bowl would make more money on pay-per-view. But an organized sport with people looking out for the long term future of the sport want to reach the widest audience possible to maintain the largest presence in the culture possible.
But nobody in boxing has ever cared about what happens to the sport after they're gone, so they've gladly accepted maximum dollars today even if it kills the sport in the long run.
Al Haymon is the first guy willing to invest in the future of the sport. Moving things from PPV to Showtime and from HBO to network TV is a very expensive process in the short term, but it will grow the sport in the long run.
Over 5 million saw Thurman vs Garcia. How many saw Sadam Ali vs Jesse Vargas?
Comment